HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 08-83 HOTEL DENSITIES 1983 ORDINANCE NO. 355
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT,
REGARDING HOTEL DENSITIES AND HEIGHTS.
CASE NO. ZOA 08-83
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 8th
day of December, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a zoning ordinance
text amendment relating to hotel densities and height restrictions and draft Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact.
1. .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 903, has recommended
approval;
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a significant adverse impact and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance text
amendment:
1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance.
2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general
plan.
3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
considerations of the council in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend a zoning ordinance text amendment, as
provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A".
3. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the Palm Desert
Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the
City of Palm Desert, and shall certify to the passage of adoption of this
ordinance, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 22nd day of December, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: JACKSON, KELLY, PULUQI, SNYDER
NOES: WILSON
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
WALTER H. SNYDER, C17fdirman
ATTEST:
EACH DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE y
ATTACHED,ISCERTIFIEDTOBEAFULL,TRUE ANC
i CORRECT COPY OFTHEORIGINALON FILE AND ON
RECORD IN M3Y OFFICE.
SHEILA R. G IGAN, : Clerk /- /�4V
City of Palm Desert, Cafifornia Dated:
/lr SHEILA R. GI I City let
City of Pa is
By:
ORDINANCE NO. 355
EXHIBIT "A"
C-1 ZONE; Section 25.28.030 is hereby recommended for amendment as follows:
25.28.030 Conditional uses. The following uses shall be permitted subject to a
conditional use permit:
A. Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as the conditional
uses;
B. Automobile service stations, as specified in Section 25.56.330;
C. Amusement and recreation establishments including but not limited to
theater and amusements arcades.
1. All businesses presently having five or more mechanical or electronic
games shall either apply for a conditional use within six months of
the date of the ordinance codified in this subsection, or reduce the
number of said games to four.
2. If the applicant is refused a conditional use permit, the individual
shall reduce the number of said games to four within sixty days of
denial of permit request.
D. Grocery stores;
E. Hospital;
F. Hotels, Aet exeeediag twenty-€edF kmAs per aeFef
G. Liquor stores;
H. Mortuary; 1
I. Public utility installation; and
J. Restaurants, except for drive-in or drive-through.
C-1 ZONE; Section 25.28.030 is hereby recommended for amendment as follows:
25.28.070 Building height. The maximum building height shall be two ste4es eF
thirty feet, WhkheveF is Mess.
PC ZONE; Section 25.30.240 is hereby recommended for amendment as follows:
25.30.240 Resort center development standards. The resort center concept is
established to provide for the development of low-rise bungalow scale hotel,
entertainment, and restaurant facilities with related commercial uses particularly for
that area along Highway 111, westerly of the Palm Valley Channel. A development in the
PC (4) zone district shall conform to the following development standards:
A. The minimum site size shall be four acres.
B. The front yard setback shall be thirty feet.
C. The rear yard setback shall be twenty feet.
D. The side yard setback shall be fifteen feet.
E. The maximum building height shall be thirty-five feet; within one hundred
feet of single-family residential zoned property, the height limit shall
remain thirty feet.
F. For hotels, a minimum of forty percent of the site area shall be developed
as usable landscaped open space and outdoor living and recreation area with
an adequate irrigation system.
G. For other uses, a minimum of twenty percent of the total site shall be in
landscaping.
L
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 15, 1983
C. Case No�08-83INITIATED BY CITY OF PALM DESERT
Proposed amendment for modification to Municipal Code,
,
Sections 25.28.030, 25.28.070 and 25.30.240 relating to
hotel density and height restrictions in the C-1 (General
Commercial) and PC-4 (Resort Center) zones, and a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
pertains thereto.
Mr. Joy stated that this proposal was before the commission due to recent
proposals submitted to the city. The amendment would revise two standards:
Density--deleting reference to a room density per acre in the C-1 and PC (4) zone;
and, Height--deleting reference to number of stories with a limit of 30 feet. Staff
also recommended an additional section be added to address fire sprinkler system
installation, if commission felt it necessary.
Commissioner Erwood asked for a clarification of the density amendment. Mr. Joy
replied that it would be determined how many rooms could be created while
meeting the required height and parking standards.
Commissioner Richards noted that an issue in the past was commercial density
versus resort commercial density. Mr. Diaz explained that in the resort
commercial zone the code density is waivable, whereas in the general commercial
areas they are not.
Chairman Wood was not clear as on the fire sprinkler system condition. Staff
explained that with this amendment a hotel could be built to three stories.
Because of the height, it was recommended as a precaution to include installation
of fire sprinklers.
Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in
FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Eric Vogt, fire marshal, felt that it was a good idea to require fire sprinklers.
He explained that there is currently an ordinance being proposed for adoption that
would make it mandatory for any buildings exceeding two stories to include
sprinkler systems.
Commissioner Richards asked what the cost would be. Mr. Vogt estimated a cost
of 4% to $1 per square foot.
Mr. Diaz noted that since an ordinance would be adopted in the near future relating
to the fire sprinkler requirements and the item could be conditioned at time of
precise plan hearing, he recommended that this additional revision not be included.
Commission concurred.
Commissioner Richards believed the hotel height was a problem in the past and
asked Mr. Diaz if this would be received well by council and the public. Mr. Diaz
replied that there seemed to be more receptivity and noted that each development
would be required to go through a public hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 903, recommending approval to the city
council of ZOA 08-83. Carried unanimously 4-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
A. Case No. PMW 02-83 - Valley Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Profit Sharing
Plan, Valley Clinical Laboratories Medical Group, Inc., Pension Trust, Valley
Clinical Laboratories Medical Group, Inc., Profit Sharing Trust, El Paseo
Properties, A General Partnership, c/o Best, Best and Krieger, Applicants
-3-
CITY COUNCIL ITEM
DECEMBER 8, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTIONS
25.28.030, 25.28.1070 and. 25.30.240, RELATING TO HOTEL DENSITY AND HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A IT
PERTAINS THERETO, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT. CASE NO. ZOA 08-83.�
Rec: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. , to second reading.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the municipal code, Sections
25.28.030, 25.28.070 and 25.30.240 relating to hotel densitv an
height restrictions in the C-1 (general commercial) and PC-4
center) zones, and a Negative Declaration of Environmenta t
as it pertains thereto.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 08-83
DATE: December 8, 1983
CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No.
D. Planning Commission Minutes Involving Case No. ZOA 08-83
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 903.
F. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated November 15, 1983.
G. Related Maps and/or Exhibits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. , to second reading.
B. DISCUSSION:
The C-1 zone height limit is 30 feet or two stories, whichever is less. The
amendment would delete the two story limitation but retain the 30 foot height
limitation.
In the C-1 and PC (4) zones maximum density limitations for hotels are 24 and 30
units per acre, respectively. The amendment would remove density regulations in
these zones for hotels.
During the public hearing before the planning commission, no one spoke either in
opposition or in favor to the amendment.
There was discussion at the hearing concerning fire sprinkler installation for three
story buildings with the commission concurring that the matter be dealt with at the
time an ordinance relating to this matter is before the city council.
The proposed amendment was recommended for approval 4-0 with Commissioner
Downs absent.
/pa
't
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 903
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TEXT, REGARDING HOTEL DENSITIES AND HEIGHTS.
CASE NO. ZOA 08-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 15th day of November, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a zoning
ordinance text amendment relating to hotel densities and height restrictions and draft
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a significant adverse impact and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance text
amendment:
1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance.
2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general
plan.
3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
considerations of the commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend a zoning ordinance text amendment, as
provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of November, 1983, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CRITES, ERWOOD, RICHARDS, WOOD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: DOWNS
ABSTAIN: NONE
RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/Ir
1 �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 903
EXHIBIT "A"
C-1 ZONE; Section 25.28.030 is hereby recommended for amendment as follows:
25.28.030 Conditional uses. The following uses shall be permitted subject to a
conditional use permit:
A. Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as the conditional
uses;
B. Automobile service stations, as specified in Section 25.56.330;
C. Amusement and recreation establishments including but not limited to
theater and amusements arcades.
1. All businesses presently having five or more mechanical or electronic
games shall either apply for a conditional use within six months of
the date of the ordinance codified in this subsection, or reduce the
number of said games to four.
2. If the applicant is refused a conditional use permit, the individual
shall reduce the number of said games to four within sixty days of
denial of permit request.
D. Grocery stores;
E. Hospital;
F. Hotels, net exeeedtag twenty-€eHF darts peF a6Fef
G. Liquor stores;
H. Mortuary;
1. Public utility installation; and
J. Restaurants, except for drive-in or drive-through.
C-1 ZONE; Section 25.28.030 is hereby recommended for amendment as follows:
25.28.070 Building height. The maximum building height shall be twe steFies eF
thirty feet, wbiEheveF 4s Mess.
PC ZONE; Section 25.30.240 is hereby recommended for amendment as follows:
25.30.240 Resort center development standards. The resort center concept is
established to provide for the development of low-rise bungalow scale hotel,
entertainment, and restaurant facilities with related commercial uses particularly for
that area along Highway 111, westerly of the Palm Valley Channel. A development in the
PC (4) zone district shall conform to the following development standards:
A. The minimum site size shall be four acres.
B. The front yard setback shall be thirty feet.
C. The rear yard setback shall be twenty feet.
D. The side yard setback shall be fifteen feet.
E. The maximum building height shall be thirty feet; within one hundred feet
of single-family residential zoned property, the height limit shall remain
thirty feet.
F. For hotels, a minimum of forty percent of the site area shall be developed
as usable landscaped open space and outdoor living and recreation area with
an adequate irrigation system.
G. For other uses, a minimum of twenty percent of the total site shall be in
landscaping.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010„ 2015. 5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
LEGAL NOTICE
LOA 08-83
I am a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the
County aforesaid: I am over the
age of eighteen years and not CITY OFPAL DESERT
a party to or interested in the LEGAL NOTICE
ZOA 0&83
above entitled matter• I am the NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIV-
EN that a public hearing will
principal clerk of the printer be held before the Palm De-
sort Planning Commission to
of THE DESERT POST*
consider dera a request byCITY
f
OF PALM DESERT for ap-
a newspaper of general c.ircula— proval of an amendment to
bons printed and published weekly Municipal code, sections
20 hotel
and ty and h relating
N to hotel density and height re- {
in the city of Riverside* County strlctions in the C-1 (General
Commerclolh and PC-4 (Re-
of Riversides and which newspaper �>oridenter) zoV f En Nog• j
ative Declorotl of Environ-
has been adjudged a newspaper of Imental,lmPoct its prainso
general circulation by the thereto.
Said public hearth*111'lfe
Superior Court of the County of ;tleltl on TuestloY;December 8,
held, in the 'Dece irgtly,
conference room at the Palm
Riversides State of California* Desert Civic Center, 73,510
under date of October 5s 19649 ��c°ifonia,at wnach time
Case number 83658. that the sons are Invited and
notices be heard.of which the annexed is RAMON A. DIAZ
a printed copys has been published C,,v tarf Palm Desert,
in each regular and entire issue California PDP11/25
of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates to-wit:
11/25 * 1983
I Certify (or declare) under
penalty of perjury that the
foregoing .is true and correct.
Dated November 259 1983
at Riversides
/ California /
CITY OF PALM DESERT
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: November 15, 1983
CASE NO: ZOA 08-83
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Modification to Municipal Code, Sections 25.28.030, 25.28.070, and
25.30.240 relating to hotel density and height restrictions in the C-1
(General Commercial) and PC-4 (Resort Center) zones, and a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
INITIATED BY:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
L GENERAL:
This amendment concerns two items that pertain to hotel construction in Palm
Desert--Density and Height restrictions. This amendment would delete reference
to a room density per acre in the C-1 and PC (4) zones. The height restrictions
would be changed in the C-1 zone to delete any reference to number of stories and
just limit height to 30 feet. These items will be dealt with separately with a final
analysis of how the two proposed amendments relate to each other and impacts
that may occur from the changes.
U. DISCUSSION OF DENSITY STANDARDS:
The following are the permitted hotel densities in each zone district that permits
hotel development:
PR (Planned Residential) - 18 units or rooms per acre
R-3 (Residential Multiple Family) - 18 per acre
C-1 (General Commercial) - 24 per acre
PC (1) (Specialty Commercial Center) - Not Specified
PC (2) (District Commercial Center) - Not Specified
PC (4) (Resort Center) - 30 (May be modified) per acre
The guidelines which affect hotel locations in the PC (1) and PC (2) zones are
minimum site sizes of four and five acres respectively. Affecting the density in
the 2 zones are height restrictions of two stories or 25 feet in the PC (1) and 30
feet with no reference to number of stories in the PC (2). These regulate densities
somewhat and illustrate the flexibility available in these planned commercial
zones. It is interesting to note that a maximum density of 30 units an acre is
applied to the PC (4) zone but this maximum guideline can and was waived on the
Stein-Brief Resort approved in November of 1980.
The conventionally zoned land (R-3 and C-1) sets maximum limitations on density,
as previously mentioned, that cannot be waived. The C-1 zone is generally
considered to be the core commercial area of the city with all property in this zone
fronting onto an arterial street. Therefore, traffic generation does not impact
residential property to any great extent. The R-3 zoning is a multi-family
residential zone and is generally located adjacent to R-1 zoning where limited
development will be enforced as a part of any conditional use permit.
Among the various impacts that changes in density may facilitate, the greatest is
traffic generation. Visual impacts would not be regulated by density requirements
but by building height restrictions and maximum building coverage. Where no
maximum building coverage is set forth, the only requirement is to meet parking
space and setback requirements.
Based on the previous discussions of density standards, staff proposes to amend
density requirements or guidelines for hotels in the C-1 and PC (4) zones by
allowing the developer to determine the density of the hotel by meeting the
-1-
Staff Report ZOA 08-83
November 15, 1983
development standards for the zone district. In the PC (4) and C-1 zones this will
not have any adverse impacts due to the zone's proximity to arterial streets. In the
R-3 and PR zones increasing hotel density above 18 units per acre may channel
additional traffic onto residential streets at peak intervals and will create
undesirable traffic situations.
III. DISCUSSION OF HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS:
The following are the current height restrictions for zone districts that permit
hotel development.
PR - 30 feet and two stories
R-3 - 30 feet and two stories
C-1 - 30 feet and two stories
PC (1) - 25 feet and two stories
PC (2) - 30 feet, no reference to number of stories
PC (4) - 35 feet, no reference to number of stories
A recent code amendment (November '81) increased the maximum building height
to 35 feet in the PC (4) zone. This standard was modified further so that the 35
foot section of the building cannot be located closer than 100 feet to residential
zoned property. This height was necessary in order for the Granada Royale
Hometel to be economically feasible for the developer.
The amendment that staff is proposing would be to allow in the C-1 zone 30 feet
with no reference to a number of stories. Any new construction would still be
subject to precise plan of design or conditional use permit processes to determine
site plan and preliminary elevations acceptability. This would involve public
hearings and give adjacent property owners a chance to voice their concerns over a
proposal. Any increase in parking demand would still need to be met along with
any additional development standards.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
Although there was a great deal of discussion of hotel developments and the
benefits the city would realize from such developments during general plan
hearings, there has not been any significant amount of hotel development in either
the PC (4) or C-1 zones, where it was anticipated that it would occur. Based on
proposals submitted to the environmental services department, staff feels that
these amendments will attract more hotel construction and not have adverse
impacts on the city.
The amendments in the C-1 zone should particularly benefit both future developers
and the city. Future developers will benefit from the flexibility gained that is
presently only available in planned residential or planned commercial zoning. The
city will benefit by luring tourists into the heart of the city where they will be
more likely to shop or go out to eat compared to locating at entryways to the city
where the tourist may decide to spend money at an equi-distant restaurant or retail
store that is in a neighboring city.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The director of environmental services has determined the proposed amendment
will not adversely affect the environment and in order to comply with CEQA
requirements a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact shall be approved
along with the proposed amendment.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff feels this amendment is acceptable and desirable. It will provide flexibility
for development while architectural review will continue to insure quality
-2-
Staff Report ZOA 08-83
November 15, 1983
development. Therefore, staff recommends:
A. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending
approval of ZOA 08-83.
"A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, recommending approval to the
City Council of an amendment to the zoning ordinance text
regarding hotel densities and commercial height
restrictions."
VD. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
Prepared by N
Reviewed and Approved b
Ar
-3-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT,
REGARDING HOTEL DENSITIES AND HEIGHTS.
CASE NO. ZOA 08-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 15th day of November, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a zoning
ordinance text amendment relating to hotel densities and height restrictions and draft
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a significant adverse impact and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance text
amendment:
1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance.
2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general
plan.
3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
considerations of the commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend a zoning ordinance text amendment, as
provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of November, 1983, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/lr
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
C-1 ZONE; Section 25.28.030 is hereby recommended for amendment as follows:
25.28.030 Conditional uses. The following uses shall be permitted subject to a
conditional use permit:
A. Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as the conditional
uses;
B. Automobile service stations, as specified in Section 25.56.330;
C. Amusement and recreation establishments including but not limited to
theater and amusements arcades.
1. All businesses presently having five or more mechanical or electronic
games shall either apply for a conditional use within six months of
the date of the ordinance codified in this subsection, or reduce the
number of said games to four.
2. If the applicant is refused a conditional use permit, the individual
shall reduce the number of said games to four within sixty days of
denial of permit request.
D. Grocery stores;
E. Hospital;
F. Hotels, net exeeediRg Sweaty-four baits peF aeFet
G. Liquor stores;
H. Mortuary;
I. Public utility installation; and
J. Restaurants, except for drive-in or drive-through.
C-1 ZONE; Section 25.28.030 is hereby recommended for amendment as follows:
25.28.070 Building height. The maximum building height shall be two sfeFies eF
thirty feet, whieheveF is less.
PC ZONE; Section 25.30.240 is hereby recommended for amendment as follows:
25.30.240 Resort center development standards. The resort center concept is
established to provide for the development of low-rise bungalow scale hotel,
entertainment, and restaurant facilities with related commercial uses particularly for that
area along Highway 111, westerly of the Palm Valley Channel. A development in the PC
(4) zone district shall conform to the following development standards:
A. The minimum site size shall be four acres.
B. The front yard setback shall be thirty feet.
C. The rear yard setback shall be twenty feet.
D. The side yard setback shall be fifteen feet.
E. The maximum building height shall be thirty feet; within one hundred feet
of single-family residential zoned property, the height limit shall remain
thirty feet.
F. For hotels, a minimum of forty percent of the site area shall be developed
as usable landscaped open space and outdoor living and recreation area with
an adequate irrigation system.
G. For other uses, a minimum of twenty percent of the total site shall be in
landscaping.
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative
Code.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: ZOA 08-83
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Modification to Municipal Code, Sections
25.28.030, 25.28.070, and 25.30.240 relating to
hotel density and height restrictions in the C-1
(General Commercial) and PC-4 (Resort Center)
zones.
The director of the department of environmental services, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
� .4g /� y �
AMON A. DIAZ D E
DIRECTOR OF ENVI 0NMENTAL SERVICES
Ar
"•-� C ZOA O$-83
CASE NO.
EX7IR0N2=TAL SERVICES DEPT.
INITIAL STUDY
ZNVIROYyfENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall farm the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers , possible mitigation
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) .
Yes Maybe No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Oisruptions, displacements, compaction, or V
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief \
features?
d. The destruction, covering., or modification V of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils; either on or off the site? _
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
2.
Yes Maybe No
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a-. Changes. in currents, `or the course or
1 direction of water• movements?
"` . b. Changes in-absorpt3bh rates , drainage
patterns, or the rate and- amount of
surface water runoff?
C. Alterations to the course or fl ow of
flood waters?
d. Alteration of.the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
e. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
f. Reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of plants
occluding trees, shrubs , grass , and
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plants? 1114
C. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? Nl
5. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds ,
land animals including reptiles , or
insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? _
d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat?
3.
Yes tAXbe No
6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural i
resource? <,
7. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re-
quire the.deselopment of new sources of
energy?
8. Risk of Upset: Does the proposal involve a
risk of an explosion or the release of :
hazardous sub s-tances . (including, but not limited
to, pesticides , oil , chemicals , or radiation) in
the event of an accident or upset conditions?
9. Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in •tahe value of property and
improvements endangered by flooding? _
b. A change in the value of property and
impro'rements exposed to geologic hazards
beyond accepted community risk standards?
10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing
noise levels to the point at which accepted
community noise and vibration levels are
exceeded?
11. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the
a t-1 eration of the present developed or
planned land use of an area?
12. Open SOdce. Will the proposal lead to a
decrease in the -amount of designated open
space?
13. Population. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteraticn or the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of the City? _ V
b. Change in the population distribution by ,
age, income, religion, racial , or ethnic r"
group, occupational class , household type? _ - V
f
4.
Yes Mavbe No
14. Emola ent. Will the proposal result in
additions new long-term jobs provided, or a
change in the number and per cent employed, \ '
unemployed, and underemployed? v
15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: r
a. Change in number and per cent of housing
units by type (price or rent range,
zoning category, owner-occupied and rental ,
etc. ) relative to demand or to number of
families in various income classes in .the City? _ 4
b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a
demand for additional housing?
16. Trans ortation/Circulation. Will the proposal
resu t in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? V
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or \
demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, \
bicyclists, or pedestrians? V
17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or resu t in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools? V
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities , including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
s.
Yes Maybe No
18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal
result in a net change in government fiscal
flow (revenues less operating expenditures \
and annualized capital expenditures)? v
19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications system?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
b. A change in the level of community health
care provided? V
21 . Social Services . Will the proposal result in
_ an increased demand for provision of general \
social services? V
22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in:
a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view \ 1
open to the public? V
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness, \
and uniqueness? V
23. Light and Glara. Will the proposal produce
ne:v light or glare?
24. Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal
result'in an alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site, structure,
object, or building? �I
6.
Yes Maybe No
25. Mandatory Findinqs of Sianificance:
a. Does the project have the potential tolegrade
the quality of the environment or to curtail
the diversity in the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental .goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource
is relatively small , but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects \
on human beings , either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study Prepared 8y:
��.IAlrlbtlf G1'xiJi`��(L
�oJ `8iJ�183
I
C/
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
i (2010 , 2015 .5 CCP)
4
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
LEGAL NOTICE
LOA 08-83
I am d citizen of the United
States and a resident of the
County aforesaid ; 1 am over the
age of eighteen years, and not
a party to or interested in the CITY OF PALM DESIER
above entitled matter. I am the LE ZAOP�310E
principal clerk of the printer EN NOTICE
pIublie hearringGwill
of THE DESERT POSTE sser PannlingeCo�mmission�to
consider a request by the
a newspaper of general circula— CITY OF PALM DESERT for
appLion, printed and published weekly MMuun°ciooi an
enSectionss
in i h e city of Riverside , County 25.28.030, 25.28.070 and25.30.240 relating 10 Well den-
sity and height restrictions in
of Riverside, and which newspaper the CA (General Commercial)
has been adjudged a newspaper of ions,and (Resort ive Decla
general circulation by the pact of Envoi2 therete,intalo.
Im-
pact ID it pertains thereto.
ng will be
Superior Court of the County of held on November 15, 1983, at
RiverSidet State of California , 2:00 p.m.in the administrativeconference room, of the new
under date of October 59 19649 I„Igl Drive, Palms Desertt.. Cali. 1
fornia, at which time and
Case number 83658 ; that the place all interested persons
f are Invited to attend and be
notice, of which the annexed is heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ
a printed copy, has been published Secretary
m rt
in each regular and entire issue Planing Commission
of said newspaper and not in any PDP-1028
supplement thereof on the following
dates , 'to—wit :
10J28 11983
i
I Certify (or declare) under
penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated October 28t 1983
at Riverside, California
CITY OF PALM DESERT /
October 21, 1983
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
ZOA 08-83
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of
an amendment to Municipal Code, Sections 25.28.030, 25.28.070, and 25.30.240 relating to
hotel density and height restrictions in the C-1 (General Commercial) and PC-4 (Resort
Center) zones, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
SAID public hearing will be held on November 15, 1983, at 2:00 p.m. in the administrative
conference room of the new Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Desert Post
f0-28-83
1
'J
City of Palm Desert
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: COMMERCIAL HEIGHT LIMITS
DATE: MARCH 16, 1982
As a result of a staff report given during the Council study session of February 19,
1982, many questions arose relating to city height limits within its commercial area.
Present Regulations
Section 25.28.070 establishes the height limitations in the General Commercial
Zone:
"The maximum building height shall be two stories or
thirty feet, whichever is less" (Ord. 95 51 (part),
1975: Exhibit A 325.16-5.05)"
Section 25.30.250 (e) established the height limits for the Specialty Commercial
Zone:
"The maximum height for all buildings shall be twenty-
five feet or two stories, whichever is less."
Section 25.30.240 (f) established the height limits within the Resort Commercial
zone (PC-4):
"The maximum height shall be thirty-five feet"
This limit was established by the passage of Ordinance 279 on December 17, 1981. Prior
to this, the height limitation within the Resort Commercial governed by Section 25.30.240
(f) was
"The maximum height shall be thirty feet"
The Regional Commercial (PC-3) zones height limit is set forth in Section
25.30.230 (d):
"The maximum building height shall be thirty-five feet"
Prior to 1979 the height limit was thirty feet.
The District Commercial (PC-2) zone height limit is set forth in Section 25.30.220
(e):
"The maximum building height shall be thirty feet"
COMMERCIAL HEIGHT LIMITS
It is significant to note that in the case of the Resort, Regional and District
Commercial zones, a limit on the number of stories was never enacted. In all other zones
a story limit was specifically mentioned. Because all development standards were
adopted as part of the original zoning it must be assumed that there was no desire to limit
the number of stories within those zones.
Subsequently, on November 5, 1980, a hotel project was approved at the southwest
corner of Painters Path and Avenue 44, containing three stories within the then
established 30 foot height limit. Within the Planned Commercial zones the Commission is
empowered to waive any development standards:
"Section 25.30.260 Exceptions. The standards outlined in
Sections 25.30.220 through 25.30.250 shall be required unless
modified by the approved development plan (Ord. 95 31
(part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.18-6)."
The provision was used to permit the Stein-Brief Hotel proposed to develop at a
density above 30 units per acre.
No such waiver provision is contained within the General Commercial zone. The
issues presently before the Council are:
1. Should the General Commercial height limit be changed to permit three story
.construction within 30 feet, similar to the PC-2, PC-3, and PC-4 zones prior to
revisions.
2. Should the density for hotel developments be increased.
The purpose of this report was to clarify the questions relating to height limits in
Commercial areas, raised by the staff presentation of February 19, 1982.
RAMON A. DIAZ
/lr
City of Palm Desert
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: HOTEL DENSITY
DATE: MARCH 16, 1982
Owners of The Adobe and Biltmore have approached the department wishing to build
additions to their facilities. These hotels are located in the R-3 and C-1 zones
respectively. In both cases and on other occasions the department has been told that
present density limitations make expansion economically unfeasible.
Existing codes limit the hotel density as follows:
1. R-3 zone - Eighteen units per acre
2. Planned Residential Zone - Eighteen units per acre
3. General Commercial Zone - Twenty-four units per acre
4. Resort Commercial Zone - Thirty units per acre
5. Specialty Center - No limitation specified
Hotels are the only commercial use which the City regulates by density. Other
commercial uses are limited solely by development standard calculations (i.e., height,
parking, ground coverage, etc.). The question which must be addressed is "if Palm
Desert's present density limitations discourage hotel development, should they be
altered?"
In analyzing this question staff believes that the R-3 and Planned Residential zones should
be evaluated separately; and will be in this report.
Commercial Zones:
The distinction between the height limitations of the different commercial zones has been
discussed in the staff report on commercial heights. This section will deal solely with
density distinctions.
It should be noted that within the Planned Commercial Zones density limitations may and
have been increased during the development plan process (i.e., Stein-Brief Painter's Path -
Hwy 111). This is not the case within the General Commercial zone.
"Are the density limitations placed within Palm Desert's code of
predominant or equal importance as its other development standards?"
This is the question which must be answered initially. If the answer is affirmative, then
all discussion can stop, a maximum density established for the Specialty Center Zone.
-1-
If the answer to the above question is "no, development standards are the most important
concern" then discussion should center on the issue of density and whether it should be
limited at all; the corollary question then becomes "can present development standards
and review process assure the quality and type of development we wish for Palm Desert?"
In answering the last question staff feels it can be answered positively. While each one of
us might for a particular reason dislike something about a specific development, there is
no question that overall developments constructed since incorporation have been of a
general high quality.
This, staff would submit, is evidence that the City standards and process can assure
quality development. the issue is not whether a development should have been built; but
if built is it of a quality reflective of Palm Desert.
The policy set forth during extensive discussion which took place related .to the Resort
Commercial zoning and land use designation during the General Plan hearings was that
Palm Desert needs and should encourage hotel development. But just as clear is the fact
that since the City's incorporation not one new hotel has been constructed, nor has there
been any extensive renovation or expansion of existing hotels in any zone.
At this time it appears that Granada Royale will be built, the special circumstances
concerning that property and personalities involved cannot be applied to other vacant
hotel sites and existing hotel facilities. If indeed the demand and need for hotel rooms
are as high as indicated during the General Plan hearings and nothing has happened, one
must ask, Why? One reason may be the density limitation.
Needless to say the above relates directly to the height/story issue by permitting an
additional story in height, more hotel units can be developed on a given parcel.
R-3 and Planned Residential Zones:
In terms of the R-3 and PR zones, staff as stated during various study sessions has mis-
givings about permitting hotels within the R-3 zone even with a conditional use permit.
(Please refer to Section I, The R-3 Hotels and What Else? zoning ordinance classification
report, page 1.) Staff's concern is based on the compatibility of a hotel with adjacent
permanent residential uses. Staff is further concerned that within the R-3 zone no
minimum lot sizes are required for hotels. While this also holds true for the General
Commercial Zone, however, the existing location of this zone prevents undue impacts
into permanent residential areas.
Staff is equally concerned with the permitting of hotels within the Planned Residential
Zones for the same reasons. Within the PR zones, however, impacts can be mitigated
because of minimum site sizes and the general location of the zone.
Council and Commission may wish to consider deregulation of the hotel density standards
within the commercial districts and planned residential zones and establishment of a hotel
overlay zone for R-3 and PR areas with definitive criteria established within the overlay
regulations.
The overlay would establish criteria such as minimum site sizes, proximity to major
throughfares and surrounding land uses.
RAMON A. DIAZ
/lr -2-
Z
O
2Irl -
i
0
t °
.:, -.. .J
5 MON71
. '� COUese f
1
I - I I -
7<
I G
I I I
I ,
I ,
- I - 2 R
1- # ,i, �
,,, M?
"viq CL 11-1 ' ")
I - I . ' 'I I ._: S�
C,_ ;, ,�f� �`,_7 , ..
11
I , -
I ,
I I - I I I _ w: , ' ' I 11 I 1, .-T -
.1 I 1 I I - _11 i 4 1 . :_ ', I 1- 11 11 I -
1, I I _ Z , I I '' I O ,_ 2
I - z D
� og z
...; , �
( ,. ' _ , .:
. U
A Og 4AMD4
►!
-. 4 P CASTELLANAS
_ _ _
_ __ I-' '
" I
1.
3 1.
I
1 Q ,
1 (� ,.
FLEETWOOD'CIR♦ ♦ ♦ ♦_. I • _
,,
c ®>
I P.R.-7, S.P. _
� � ► t - .-7, S.P.PR
1 ._�1 41•
C-1 ` ` >-
1
" t PARK VIEW DR �
- ,1 ` imill R
♦ ♦PARK�1/IEW�DR ♦ �_ M• , R.,. P• z
O.P. w P.R.-7, '>a.R.vista S.P. 0�Q 92000 o _
Z S.P. W;R O., CIRCLE ��'�a0 O� -� a
f SI H.P.R. C-1 CHOLLA Q a ,q: � MIMOSP ' a
- _ P.C,-(/3, S.P. DR % U a Q MONTE �� e- O
I ; it 1 ) R-1 �� f- VISTA onin
I Z a - R-1 1200fl o;
- z P.R.-7
- __ CACTUS = U � O VISTA' ARBOLEDA AVE _
9
k DR R-1' v=i ai O m AZUL o o AL
11 o �. a P.R.-22 � c n z o a
A BRUSHWOOD X N
Z DR - � 0 >BONITA> _ R-1 12000 a— N
1 C-1 -i P.C.-(3) S.P. R 1 * P.R.-7 � R 1 ° GLORIANA DR U , n . a -
r
1 �
m MANZANITA ,LL 12000 z v
/ / / / ..
.. esi e
I - i N P.C.-(4) O.P., S.P. S.P. } o R-1 12000 c O.P. - - i i e
i S.I. DR `i S.P. a - O.P -
_ 1 �_, FRED WARING DRo.C.,
_ _ _ - Q.P. O.P.
O.S. 5.1. S.P. O.P.
R-2(7?
P.C.-(3)
O.S.
P.C.-(3), S.P. or R-1 sANTA Ros
IY
d ti I
w R-1 Q.P.3 s �. P.G.-(3), ° SONORA DR R-2(7) (1 ` `.
a O.S. S.P. R-1 0� SAN NICHO
1I 3
# 0�555aGy "�► ��� Q P Q _SIERRA VISTA PT R-! R`2(7)
I "� —
w Gam° O� -1 k LL' _ R-1 O.P. CATALINA
P.C v� 1%
1 Uj TAMPICO DR R-2(7)
_(3) R-1 Q.P.
P.C.- 3 P.C.-(3), S.P.Z R-1 GUADALUPE
( ) X SO
1 LU O.P. R-2(7) - �' 4. w o O `n R-1 s v
V HAHN RD RANCHO GRANDE > v O O R-1 R-1 R-1 9
.°� R-! NSA. R-1, N, CP wQ. F
S.O.
S.O: R-2//5 R-2(5) Z Q Q 14000 O EL CORTEZ WAY EL CORr Z yy R"1 W
1 �y ' W , r NO 1 ) ° ROYAL PALM DR z a ttQ �P :� Q� R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 L°y0 0
1-1 '� v� �0 � z 0 w a U� R-2(5)z 0 w R-2(5) R-2(5) z,� � � � �- �� �. 9/- pc ``� s�
1 yj� ,Qy ~ P.Cr(3), S.P. m q a co a a vai a w a w N O.P. 2 PLAv _ �� J�v DE ANZA WAY DE ANzq WqY y� R`PJrc
P.C.-(3)
- R-1._, . R-1 R-1 R-1 M a' v/c��c O.S. P _ !A
1 _- 'AN w . ..� �r� ` -. _- � ; _ (1j a ' SAN SAN SAN 3 :-1� � R vX/ Py g J � Q 2 R 1 �ti 0
- -- _ -- -
— - ` O Q� a R- -3 0.S. 4% �' w �'i -7
O.P Q 2 = -� O R- SAN > 9 L_ O.S. v� SHOPPINGTOWN W } _j �P�� R-1_ R-1 y� R-12 R-1 a 9y .4 ��P
I 1 y O.$: .Oq Z ANTONIO --SAN GORGONIO WAY BENITO a Q.P. co 1400fl 14000 G� r„ R-1 ,, R-1 y R-1 o R-1
MARINO SANYMA RINO O a
N a 9 13000 �" 130fl0 �` 13000 0
�jVT _ CLEMENTE M g R-3a =' U a R-3 R-1 z a CIR R-1 m 9L y 7Z
FiQ" . A D R m R
1! S ,' - O C-1 _crR :_R-1 cIR :cIR v LESSANDRO R _ O:P. `� O.P.
R-3(4) u -3(4) -3 4) m R-3(4) �R-3(4) 0 P
I ,o w R 1 R 3(4) R-3(4) R-3(4) R-3(4) O.P. O.P.I
�ry ' - ALLEY Z w G-1 C-1 ALESSANDRO DR (4) ALESSANDRO DR ALESSANDRO DR
%1 C-1,
m sa P.C. _. _S.P. C-!, S.P. C-1, S.P. (n<'a C-1, S.P. C-!, S.P C-1, S.P. C-1,S.P. C-1, S.P. < C-1, S.P.
C-1, S.P. C"1, S•P• C'1,S•P• PALM DESERT DR N
•" �G� N�� R S.P.
STATE Hw�/ 111 PALM DESERT DR N PALM DESERT DR N
m ,( ■t STATE HWY 111
3 =- P.R.-6 PALM,DESERT)DR S - -, PALM DESERT DR S PALM DESERT DR S PALM DESERT DR S
11 r -. P.C.-(3), S.P.' a C-1, S.P. ��40 C-1, S.P.
3
1 Q P.C.-(3), S.P. C-1, S.P. - C-1, S.P. C-1, S.P. C-1, S.P. -C-1, S.P. C-1, S.P. ALLEY QP C-1, S.P. R-3(4)
EL CAMINO
r 1 IR
O - - -_ w EL PAS�O } z R-3 R-�oN`P�z�
O.S. EL PASEO_ EL PASEO w Q Y W a > R-1 sG Pe P.
t 1 p C-1 C-1 ,? C-1, S.P. 'a z C-1 �� C-1 a z J-1 P C-1 a s GARDEN 9 Z� R-3 3 R-3
P.R.-6 0 �, z o R-3 20000 3 a � O - SAC
-o ° R-3(4) -V � m ° 4 LARREA ST - o� ,P < z (3) R-J
i z _ . : � p\ w Q C.1 a .� Q R-1 y �,- ti 0
x _ a z w CT R-3 3 � v
3 o TUMe ` z R-3(4) co R-3(4) C-1 O.P. R-1 's
H.P.R., Dlt (1 R-3(4) o P.R.-16 - 3 <: g R-313000(3) JP O sQ � R.3 % R-3 3 DRIFTWOOD
R-3 4 Q�
O
_ SHADOW MOUNTAIN DR O
Ar Al SHADOW MOUNTAIN DR � R-3(3) R-3(3) R-1 Cr.
1= -\ '+Oj,,Q� � R-313000(3) R-313000(3) R-313000(3) ac CANDLEWOOD ST CANDLEWOOD ST z
oa R-1 HpyA ST o o R-112000 R-112000 R-1 O P R-3(3) O
3 PITH : 4' 0 -S:S R-112000 SHADOW R-3(3) R-1 R-1 R-1 �.,
1 V P.R.-6 p Gj., 00 O JOSHUA TREE ST JOSHUA TREE ST LA/r R-1
_ R-1 P/T -� N O R-! CLUQg F°'p R-1w CHICORY ST CHICORY ST Z
i rA�csr gygy `` � ,. o cIRcLF a a WASHINGTON > V
1 z BEAv� R-1 q S o R-120000 R-1 16000 0� CHAR TER R-1 a R-1 R-1
H.P.R. D cn -Pf IQ l Ci � 4 ti o N w
''m R-1 2 Q 1% 00 JUNIPER ST JUNIPER ST w N Q PAROSELLA PAROSELLA ST W
I o `�G > SCHOOL
HEDGER°G''ST v�s� Q� y � a ST = a W
p Q� % P.R.-7 7I AND z n z R-1 R-1 10 pMo
m m o ` R-1 20000 R-!`20000 A , ' � Z PARK ZvEPPERGRASS1 = PEPPERGRASS ST VE
R-1 Z R' �'
4 / _ Q ��' P.R.-6 Q
r /I h PINYON ST PINYON ST 0 c O , P R-1 a ST a a W
P.R. cE J? o _
1 o R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1
F CAHUILLA HILLS PARK O.S.
10000 10000 R-1
7� Cr p +� $ a' pJ R-! 20000 R-1'20000 R-3/4 FAIRWAY DR
VISTA GRF �� O R-1
EL RO GREENE - ENE Q� IRONWOOD ST IRONWOOD ST 3 _ R-3(4) R-1 10000 Cr R-1 1000fl 10000
♦.,. s z _ _ _ D O MONTE WAY , e.y _ -�
---- - Q z R 2 8000. ►- TRL
_ _-._ _____- .. ♦ R WAY 0 /� _ P _ OLD PROSPECTOR
-- F ... _ p - R 2 8000(4) R 2
1 -- _ P,R. D T.`�� P LN -o _ P.R.-7 coep o� o oo-T o QO R-120fl00 - ? �1sTH FAIR O.S. R 1
I O.$. H , 7o Cr ZQ 8000
y . CHELSEA CIR ° N V T 4 w S.P. S.P. SHADOW
>>p a R-1 10000 R-1 10000 R-
- m L 4 4 �: ti (� p0 03� O R r p�G' P c- ESTATES U
1 y -4 cy Q ' Q O FIDDLENECK LN O.S. �� S N CYPRESS COVERED WAGON TRL 150�
AGUA RD T N Q�� ,� o 000 o R. MOUNTAIN 100 6 a I ,
O.S. H.P.R., D °�° 0 9 Yu�T A AP ° R-120000 Z Q O.S. «�o Goc,�Op ' S, m
4 -o t R O A L N - •
P� scP P.R.-6 °® Nm� 28c �R RESORT PE cR-1 10000 ♦_ ♦ : ._�
m 7 ,jv o Cv tl g I r .
1 �' � 600 \�E �Q o�"' Lk ��S Cq� R-1 ?0000 S.P.
, x A
O. H.P.R. D ° \s(P ��S G( O R-Z, w CL �N\TE STO�,� SETTING SUN TR= I
1� -)
�P R-1 a Q R ° 4 ..♦.
- - _ _ _ �`° P.R.-7 Js S.P. FSFR� ?oDao o } O.S. O.S. / v - -
__.
1- GP: � R-120000 4(/ a
O.S. H.P.R. D c� R-2, _R-1 4 z �Y� a R-1 10000, S.P. �
R-2 8000 4
� ,nsl F h S.P. 200001 'Q - O R-GRAPEVI NE ST W
O.S. vP _GRAPEVINE ST
CITRUS CT AMIR DR MARRAKESH DR '
1 P.R.-7
a• R-1 15000 R-1 15000 P.R.-3°4
0.$. 0.$. D 0.$. D �` `o R-140000 `r4SBAH DR
o R-112000
1 - P R.-18 ` WILLOW ST h� '�, WILLOW ST R-1 12000 WILLOW ST Z P.R.-3 ? :_4
o a c O
O.S. O.S., D O.S., D P.FaL�EY AZ -.- R-1-12000- R-1 12000 R-1 12000 _;� ��M_V4x0 CIR U
1 a BURSERA WAY a F� a ':O
_ H.P.R., .J a• BURSERA WAY � > MEHA M
D o a o 00_ R-1 12000 R-1 12000 R-112000 X RA cIR =
O.S. H.P.R., D o
I- " iu Q TAMARISK ST 2 ROD TAMARISK ST Y
w � �O� q- P.Rr7LAVER ..� MAIABATA DR GHQ- . <
, coo Q • R-1 12000 ZO° R-1 12000 Qv ALICE S.P. LN - z - a Q- SH P.R.-3 a
1 HOMM w P.R.-18 a3 o MARBLE R-1'120Q0 i- o COUNTRY
- O.$. H,P.R., D FRAN K FELTR <to
' ADAMS RAV JAC DON K LA SON LN DON W GOLDFLOWERST MIN2gC v _ Q
,FAKAEHRD Ir O AASHER PANCHO SEGURA DEEP BUDGE W ° �' CLUB oR /
� p ALLEY, �, KRAMER LN LN LN CANYON R-112000 WAY a
H.P.R., D TH LN TENNIS BILL P.R.-7, a w _
W p VSHRD O? _ `; ROY TILDEN S.P. SALT CEDAR ST _ � . QO to <
4 2 `R-J8 � TONY EMERSON KEN HELENCLUB LN Q� R-119t10n a A o) d
P•R•-7, TRA NERT LN ROSEWALL MOODY q`L� DESERT'HOLLY ST ,� 6 aP
O.S. H.P.R., D V S.P. LN LN U� 99 w 0 a 0 = ABDEL�, � �� _1J
FRANK FELTROP CIR S a a y r,P �` )`
1 R-1 a g o rn o nz-i� Joy �w,v °" w co O s' Q
� R-1, S.P. R-1 10000
H.P.R. o M p a a O a o CIR 3
AMBROSIA ST AMBER ST AMBER ST v�cZ �! J< O m z w N m Q
( STONE EAGLE D >.co) w r z°r-� o ��' r!m R-1 �2000 'n a� ° °° J
R-1 W t -R-1 10000
SC uX. cLIFFRo u, z R4 10000 -ter-Co a o
1 1fl00fl CO) ° __ GRASS a ar`� U _ DESERT ROSE DR- �� P.R.-3 n �PgP( °� °4► O
i �Jy DEER GRASS DR _: �: DEEP\RF! Q000R...._ D`�;10 R-1 120Q0 - W� AVENUE— i ; ti o `C
I 1 ;` Q P 0 V R-1 10000 Q R-1 10000 � cap _ _ _ =_ AMIR DR '9 MARRAKESH DR O.$.nO 1
I O.S. C v CALCIANDRA ST CALLIANDRA ST
t O•$• AAYSTAC%NATURAL AREA O C �YSTAC%NATURAL AREA O.S. _ O.S. HAYSTAC%NATURAL AIeE� O.S. I
` O.S. R-1 HAYSTACK RD HAYSTACK RD HAYSTACK RD -
L CHAPELNI I-L RD 1fl000 R-1 10000 R-1 10000 R-1 10000 R-1 10000
1 ° Z , R-! 10000 R-1 10000 R-1 10000 TRL «
R-1 S.P. R-113000 R-1 R-110000 p0 R-1 SPUR
li'oAFI CCOR`S w ' - SOMERA RD .- SOMERA RD 4356fl SIESTA TRL z_ QO SILVER DESERT SAGE fT
1. �' a S.P. R-1 IRONWOOD z z ���� 0 9'P �___: -SAQUARO C
' �9� 10000, R-1 10000 R-110000 SUNNY . , o -.
v R-1 13flflfl PARK R.1TRL � R-1 1Q000 00' Q�SJ Q& L�S� a 3�E MIRAGE CT
F S.P. SKYWARD WAY SKYWARD WAY w SUN LN, 2 1 P �'P� RG O ���
s'O o R-1 R-1 10000 R-! 10000 R-1 10000 4356fl �� �pG*Po ���c` -�'-'
�Q R-1 10000 �� C ti y �. iMANZANITA CT
10000, R-1 13000 R-1-10000 w S X, �, , ,0 5 —OCOTILLO C
1 o -113000 R-! l3000 L ° SILVER MOON TRL ey N , r F.p off' :'
iu S.P.$P BEL AIR RD_ _BEL AIR RD _ R-1 10000 G° �Gy' �, VISTA DEL SOLI
1 R_1 U 5J� 0, ."J " 't1�,P SMOKETREE CT
�� ?300Q R-113000 R-1 l3000 Iz R-1 10000 R-1 10000 LITTLE BEND TRL .40-, y c pG..R-6 PINON CT 1
H.P,R, DI 1 -1 QKAVANAUGH 5p, t�`," r
_ _ _ . __ ... ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ _ ♦ ♦ CT
__ ______ .__.._-- __ ,. _ ♦'` ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ S.P. - HOMESTEAD RD LOMA-VISTA LN _ R-1 10000` P c� -
_ n. N. _ _ ._ � -. , -. O - R 2 8000 8
P.R.-3
P.R.-3 3 w .
STONE EAGLEO H. . ., N O, R-1 10000 R-1 1000fl J MIRASOL � BUCKBOARD TRL BUCKBOARD TRL OASIS CT
,Q O ° 'b, O JOSHUA I
1- ¢ � 4: DESERT 0 DAVIS RD Q 0 Q+,- CT 3 o 'T P.R.-7 «!
H.P.R. �r- - Leo c,3 VIEW ° R-1 w z z Q, O w R-1 10000 R-1 10000 °;_--� P, D
H P R. D STONE'EAG . °o -� z a o v m {
I I
1 , Q�' �� � Q' DR o CLAY CT r,GA �C/R N m a BROKEN ARROW TRL BROKENARROW TRL o m o «
.1 ,�p�o,NER DR o R-1 12000 _0 (0 N00 ITA:� W << �� o f
1 `oo L - s XZ k 4I. NDOWN LN o ow CIR wr`� ° '� D R-1 1000fl Q-� R-1 10000 ' <ao O
_ OASIS TRL - - OASIS TRL i �;�a H
,\ ,4 , P.R. B Q. ,, c o o� W r; P.R.-,, - er P.R.-3 SQJ P.R.-7 ``' `�
I Noa ys o °s h o� R-1 120flfl N o m cx z jD x W
`,F. C� �° y O rr " w 9 �i SEGURA R-12000fl �Q- FEATHER TRL
1 Jp� Fy '�' tiF y�, SUN VALLEY LN � t;n." ALAN v GRASS CT CT m 5��J R-1 10000 w
ROCKY TRL w P�RIM DR n� F` o V ^ a D; Q~ CIR M RIq Q Q -,11 N .p�
►-}a JAD Q N R-1 12000 0 ^��HTERR a• �y0 ry P.R.-7 AGAVE LN O Pc'Q' :1 I ,
a z Q,� 1 p;P 9�TRC RIDGECR WHITE DR . P Q�? q W.IR S 00 a Q. V FO
w a V,- - " ;O.S.CANYON LN ftrLN 4' R-1 THEODORA LN Q O x►-j p y ►T �` P.R.-7 < � �
Co`~' 1 s ? P.R.-8 0 4 `''12000 5 W� R-l.12000 R-! 10000 Q�� w o .R.-.c+�°o �. � �'' N 4
> �<� O _° ., $ 1 Off► AVE °R
_ _ - _ QUAIL TRr _ , � T',R� ° °> MESA VIEW DR Q MESA V/ ( �.
G .►c. -
11, E TRL-•6 3°Q R-1 12000, 'n o W o 4* P fit. °XT_ LN 1� 1
, 0 SOMM R OQ 3 GREENBRIAR LN co } a 1 NG P.R.-7 A /Q 6 °� n, 4 . P, D
sET pR N c.P R-1 1200fl t- ° -1 °n X R-1 R- 0%0 �F q `o 0 0 �� ' Q - �
P.R.-8 �, R_ �� 'Po�o y ,r
__ _ _- 4 t>r cc o , 12000 .� o
.V, I H.P.R., D H.P. , ,� '�•p°ti : o� >12QQ0° 12000 o °o Fc o, "' '
y� MERRY DES SAGE��L9C 5� �� SPYGLASS LN ° ° r_ O� C�9c� ��FtT Cq
I-
FO 1.: VALE WAY FLOWE T F OWER .�.NO<< GQ-,.t� - 3 - w o 'P/r0 gFt\ZO`C//,+ OG Vy DE R°F
° DR R �G o R 11200fl W o cT c,P F P.R.-7 "V tir
___ O ENCELIA WAY _ - -9 � LN �� j0 AKE VI s > QUAIL o V 'A .o. 'P «
o ti� 1 y; oEs" o moo\- `' rq �' P.R.-7 �° % OG � <
HOLLOW DR V_ 0 _
O VALLEY PL0WE T '�OOO SQVA/L P.R.-T MOON _ >!- WOLFBERRY P 00 ! Op\EA a
U _ 4 CREST LN DR R ; VMM/T RIDGE � Q p` CT O N., y ° w THE RESERVE
�O _ °��,r�N 1£ oESE DR LN P.R.-7 0 -R-1- _ s, 00 p ,� GEL1A? P(
-MARY JANE G $ H.P.R., D H.PR., D pL RT Q in O EN _j I
cT °WER � 40 # . a Y sGGti Z 12000 �o�N �F,p ° -o� z°
�z
Y 1; BLUERIDGE DR > GPe�yC d0 w w o �1,�'�'6 A P��� PR..7 n�0 r x Z P.R.-7
� w CT ST STD GQ` - 3 3 °U + it _ 9.1 ° TAILLN O DESERT BLOO
0 ___ _ ARBUR R - i O FOX Q 1
w MESA TRL
_. CHUCKAWALLA WAY INDIAN HILLS WAY yti - Hq _ .p LN
0 __ -tO N DR O,p 5 DOS CARRIAGE TRL O,` `p.\\' 4° P.R.-7
° P.R.-7 X P.R.-7 F P.R. �,Q IRONWOOD , �, -
z; SGP 9N - in z -7 FF 41 O Q -p -1�, 1
_ Z H.P.R., D 10 9 ; P.R.-7 - P.R.-7 °R COUNTRY CLUB �_
-_ _ - 01;._• �_ - IT _ Z P.R.-7 a `�
z INDIAN < CALLE m /RO P.R.-7 - O y
a; W - ° SIERRA DE LA SILLA R-1 20000 NTR 0
a1: - SPRINGS o=VIEW P.R.-7 � z FOR <N
11
_ _ AERIE Rp ♦ ♦..._ ♦� P.Rr7 CANYON _ w _ 1R PRr7, D
.
CRO$BYiN cn O
p ,; QQ�� R-3 p,FALLS CRESTR-120000 o W h o NTRFF M
O.S. P.R.-7 ��� z of oR P.R.-7
.j� HEATHER CT O PRr7 sgi UASMINE -
- ; - -_Y 43560(9);; oP P.R.-7 z R-1 � ,A, zi o
w _ - 1 S.P. .y R-120000 a v- � R-1 qp/ Qp\NCIgHgA a PI
_- - -. R-1-M P 20000 Y P.R.-7
P.R. H. .R. m U. 20000 P.Rr7 os� � Q
_ ...
b� S P�S1 1
: ' ^ P.R.-5 c��P.R.-5 ``2 0� €
- __ - CHOLLA WAY- DESERT FERN LN - - -
1 ,e - c� P.R.-7 1
n Y _ � P.R.-7
W Q�RusTlc� R° Qo ,A- J� o P.R.-5 P.R. 1
sC
__ x s ���' Q-o. a�Q� h� o P.R.-5 ��5 s°Gti P.R.-5 �FNl re__ o tti ��� �o �° , , F A .p r O.S., D P.R.-7 c_ 1 l Q z 9
. = �° F , K a .�P iti%n, P.R.-5 P.R.-5 R. O.S., D P.Rr7, D III
Y J SILVER s 96 C y GP�,o P:R.-5 Q
JAGUAR WAY .� SPUR .P 440 M Q N
: p Q F Q � MO" . �
z _ Z J o RsA o ar - P.R. G I
l
°} o a r c� ° `,pm o i P.R.-S -1, D P.R. ?Tq, Q'
a s L_� c� .- Q k >'POQ a P.R. -H•v/
Q:3 _j Z z o m o o u, P.R. .1, D -DR C3
m _
- _ ° Yo ° cNOL�LN a P R-5 (PNP _1� D : .. H,P.R. D V:
1
co
H.P.R., DCE
: 1-, YUCCA LN TILLpCN U DQ. .� tl.
. -11 � � _ .-
1
Wr
- - ` , .. � _ .,.,. __ r-�-_-�.. .. ..�..r. w. . Y
� ,,�.r�...�.,.� _tee}.,-:_,_. ,�.n._�. .��.z... �>-s..��.,._ ,�,.>.�..�-. ....�_.� � ..�__�.r:_ -�_�, _�.. METATE PL GPI ��.. .�_,. �� _ _ _ --, _.,_ '��
1 H.P.R., D
1 P.C.D., D o, P.R.-5 P.R.-5 H.P,R., D - - -- r#T`
___ _ ___ _ ____ P.R. 5
•
,.
�� P.C.D., D O.S. �Ge �o o r ems'
V
ti 0 m -I-
p,L:PL� 0 Q O G �p _ �GZi 4- 11 9" E
T ;
' M G
�1\�� ��O 9i� ��- NPVIK OFtN\r1G '�I�.TCOV Z�
l �� P.R. 5 °F _ __,a\D°� M DovE a i,, oti _ �
1 V?IT ON
in
P.C.D., D _ �
Q
r F1s _
i a ;1- P.Rr5 -_- ' r
J
__ P R.,
�_. ANYONS A ,. Legend
ko _ �, ° P.C.D.,
�,
_ - =, ��c AVTFM,o ��,Q� D - - AT BIGHORN
. 4.
I- n
1
. 0.
P.GD:, D �V, m _. o �'`�Q �� H.P.R., D WINING
cn11
, Q ., �
r �i Z _ N P5
o R-1-M - Conventional Single Family
1. T NETASpR ' P�,�J, /
.
R-1 - Residential Single Family
�REc'�
1 /r/` wr -` R-2 - Residential Single Family
0"
BIGHORN P.C.D., D cr _
•9
1 P.C.D., D _ o'ti a 4 R-3 - Residential Multiple Family
c z
k/Vq DR P.R.-5 P.R., L p a - : R-E - Residential Estate
1 � o�- O.S.`" P.R.-5 ��HACNF 1:(
. n
1 ARE
q< _.., n . ., .��s —_z��£._�x � .:.��-._�.F.: �.�a_�F,��vx_._ F__�.,-��_.��_: P Public Institution
�. .1. ,: .
aUUWA� Vy _ °RWFT
j" 1
''.- __
1
O.S. - Open Space
1 . Q P.C.D., D �,�'�
a` ZJ
_ C-1 - General Commercial
I /yq V a 1= ' ���0
ti P.R.- �.� ,I
�_
�EKls,o� `3's P.C.D., D ' it
P.C.D., D -0 121 # . O.P. - Office Professional
�� 11
rF� w r ' °�, !. S.I. - Service Industrial
1
`r = f
/s� T �= H.P.R, D a P.R. - Planned Residential
1 TEKIS C
a r b, ' �
H.P.R. - Hillside Planned Residential
�£
£.L
�1 , -
P.C. - Planned Commercial
1
1 P.C.D. - Planned Community Development
a 1 h� CITY BOUNDARY
o Q 1t
�/ � h
P.C.D., D P.C.D., D Cr y 1 SANTA ROSA AND
1 1 SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS
:, NATIONAL MONUMENT
1+ t
VISITOR CENTER
r O.S., D P.C.
1 N
i /
` PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL '" 1
t w E
I _- . _____ __ __ -
5
O.S.
O.S.
0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400
- Feet
O.S. O.S. Map Updated July 25, 2008
Parcel Data From Riverside County
O.S.