Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNTRY CLUB DRIVE/WASHINGTON STREET C/Z 90-11 FILE 1 1990 i I I, 410 _ �t— •� rT�itfl ifiTflfiilf7>r . Ai 'il`- •a i� I' 1._ ' , I�/1. :, , 4 � ) q�� p.� rv....wa.w,uww , ��,ii• OOOSt I S•�• •�•tSi'M1lS f:J. t�iu.•nJln^li_iii_ nn 1111�i11W ' ti .�:. � I� 3VIIIU OUJU Vf1161U00 � , J Apo I. ,.�e.V.... L�..• .... .I.. •'. ' � w 9 w A3TAOP3A;tl w w i i I S C' O :•C %% I 5 � it .. N L � I -I I:.s✓r��'.1�11�� i.l :I n 3 O Ut13vn bn5n ' 1 -IT Ili='-'_..:I,,•'� .Ilr:�/ I k . "l'` I ll � 6I I q ! ji i;y?. :Jr:::.�: o:•.pl �I 1,T.- I . I III 1IIIjI ajlilllllll rl . _. I'..;. 1 't,., L".�.�I� I II 1 ii--�1,-_• '1 -.r..�. .'...�. _,�. _ 3VIFlU c7N111AV? 03t11 II-OE S\� .00 92S.7 TA3230 MJA9 9O YTIO j1:��QJGo `(TBO /��� o A NJ I � t V R G x £ ! C • 5 I�pI� 10 33. i`jf o V' o n 2 I y 5 I G o I ii o � a N � f — S � afCl\O�n 9�9 pp1 _ 1 , "r I I I ' I Y+ s . t l \ I 1 �.. �,• I •----- \�tt'� ♦ pry\. �; I � ._ i -1 : i <.�1`��� ; t.�ll !;L.IF „{'3's'j ti•; Yt � [ ..I '; t i ' _ irrru�_uriiiNenliT - - r a.� I!• rtl ° 't.•""��' COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE . 4 E L•li1Q .� t .. y w ' ESOR i.ER'' w At 0 0 cl �. Nr, I�!Iytlfi� I- ' ' 42nd AVENUE f. 11 I 1 r:il.;�iiy. ��I Yw_rrz_..�,) -. • � I III ,y�'i' •,I -I I,N I; r I f �il"I � h h r' l i tit nn ,lilr•. • '111�1 . 1 .._... -_-_ -- -.— - i--�_u- I=°u_;y'-�--11J1 II�iT lhllhl ; l l f i 11 ? / � . Iq , � 'fi ii �it.c)(.=.,;:c �i"`= : �"I(t9 � ;; a .:. ,• � I,; :, ..� � ::,.fill:• :.-I -_ �i'_�?' ^'tl .::':F,jI�T-�'I� �,- .. _rr: r75rf ::q..:: I �� 9 �II II I• ... .- FRED WAHING DRIVE •._:_�___________:___-.._______._, �.:.1 __._I_. CITY OF PALM DESERT Cass No. ca 90-11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. C51 � g � p E � (�-rl 0 � � "T B ate WeNrreLLe COIMfnY4N I P.GIII '!`L.�Ji; ��d'I E� ,1�•� r I--1[d-odr,�� ,r.,i' ) - - �y'(/ 1 r.n a = SM I � R a ''-.��r .:)aatroe l,�)I• �,�'.�•�� \ ^ rnP once '+•:+ N J t 1"_ —'I—A�_R A '�nc �- •. L A 4 r i, coUltrnYCLUe + .� '_,-.w V f7J P:� r hvA.-s ,..� 1 - rA e J 1 eA. y ) iw.� i"„E:b'.r• J NkmoTT "BUT 1" PG � � I n I rts l �'v- w }� :• '} :ate PA e 1 b tl PA-4 PA.-a Ea. 1 tr it r• - y■ E a.E 1 iEr, ' :it 7� rA:e I .. V• 11 cu my Ctc •11 r ( r .1 r to 1 1 ourrnr 41n at. , 1 .1 F „� r ae%c anrn veo f Idr�41 Ili 1 1 s.tl -�. 1 A _ 1 p s. • .�.. - � f�i � I �.' �1 �t 1 1 � _ 1 ll ! rr .n.r. / n I M .` ' 0.6y�.. n r il., �� )� l lT •t �_, r v L '�� i ...1 j1 tY 1 q' 1 . Oey. i 41 Ir r.n r -r - _ . rA. a r .... f —{ , rf li,r • t m' a �yr '�I•�- 'ii 1� qm) m^[ P (� II �u I 1 �snnunn rA.-. _ 4 IItI.P P 1 ...... • - I� 1 1 1 � � 1 - ,e_ -CITY OF'PALf$ DESERT ZONING MAP 1 I� 4 ,I PR- PALM VALLEY IN i REGENCY 1 Ul PALMS •�• c JIITfiY C DRIVEI.aJmm I RESORTER '- 2 I � F V J 4;U4 17 'A - IN Ll�w � 10 i ! ...._...<.ass»n-............-=4,, 42r.d AVENUE_.__.-.__.�� �� 11 I� I A RING DRIVE I�p CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No._ cZz 90-11 PLANNING COMMISSI 1i RESOLUTION NO . � s ngtn� n n n 9 W, . �, � I� M n pa HimkZ( I � � I E •t E ® �:, Sp LC 1 2 tl 0 I IIe9Rl rn 13]Jvd 891E Q s:E_ 4t S U p LS VS S/0J 111 Wd ] _ 1 141 9 1 / q• / r, v i@@a y Lk tv4 ° o° F1 T oe - , Y --- ,. —y-- `.r—ter.---- - - I / x/ xri'a ,,.jam,--", �GT���' ' l {. I �• � .''j''._,__9e ::iI � zI W . i °I�': , , I / � V. �b S44S2 ON 1JYl:1 3M1IlkJ.N31. ES 1 _ L.. at ;m .T. • .f.N. 1� �� _ � Q S ti H U W )— � W rn O N CJ lfl Z C�1 .r 0� r=: 0 x M J CZ) co Q U 6 ti a � w w a n L R a o ¢ o � 0 Z 143M WTOd JO AW 0 INN 1313WM3A309INfM*M LL 0661 g 1o0 V n 3AI303H l'1 N c Y YA Cl co V a } - r 0. ¢ ci N C.7 z cc < Y_ W a m z .¢ o� tj�I V CD W S'�■T C� G1 U VJ 1' J F N J 0 ¢ M 0. w N w n o O � a a > o I�ti Z 3 o w C� o V � N snz Paz fllppM t4� ACC a 4 @W 3ZHUIX CeNC C+ J �ruug Y DWI w z z d z J Le g � J d F d JC N g O n V 7- CD wL'J /> n o n W 4, C U O Y- � 0 J O N d 0 U N W O IQ u f > O a w z W N o� W U OW C{ C �V` J O r 41-11V .1 CNJ � \ "�\\ � ƒ ���} IL ir `� � ® � \ �\�\K is z 0 4 � j LLi z @ w G. cv UO CD D ar, c A) @W�M IN 3 830 IWSaUakV LL i66t L l'o z ir • rc 0 w �- 10. CIC 0 01 - a, CJ v`w O� e H Wx 0LJ 0`W IN J Z W (r0W of: 0`OUJ �yH rJ Of- a:CJO •- W0`H 00 F . z ¢¢Z o OH 300_ 0 C-M W F-i- ^' a waw > 3Z3W0: ZD CJOJ w u 7L_Q Cl O Wff) 4 M ro_i w W U m ^v ^ N V Z Z O N G O J J w O p h CC LL CD CO J C i O 6 � w h w a � a a � K o a = 00 w p 1E3S30"A JO kw J113WMAN jwwwonm ALWO009 LJ � 0666 t 100 l� . � $ ! Ln \ cz, / Sy m 2 ye b ! m 2 % < &� g, m / -pis ƒ . CD � \ 3 � \ \ IM` \ \ cr ° \( \ :zs �\ / \� « t§B§ a.Cr )2 0{(§ OU * t LO P" o N P" diw O iC $ '� .• L'iL iC W JW -1- u v W W xr 1A = Q+ OH . a L Cl !L o d '-ate IT _ UlISJ Wr. UIH if 41 rli 14 Kt ?W ^o o3 W CG o d C!1.���IJ J: u IL' 4L i1. L7 of Ln ...f Jri3 J J lJ o� Li [✓ 7_ T ` i'J J CJ G W i o CL O J �- G C 6 z 7- uJ X O NCB = G J V0 CL G a "o Fy 1p co w N O I J a a w �T w z_ ¢ 3 o W 6 LL O N n i' i N 4J rn U) 0)a 2 W aC � hY av CJ 41� s 's < O p N n 2 0 J U O LL J Q U H o � W W u O 1] Q a o v � Z O 0 W 183530 W3tld 30 AW 0 1tl3131tlYA0 3NMOBA30 AUNWW00 0661 T 100 O3A13038 1� • 1 .,..,..., Z" LO l �z N fnn3 1t1 f�� cr-� woo �bd V _ cr. �v -J fl ir 1 b cr Z U- N WaY b w t x ce o ZZ�LJ o w r Q LL �W {� U cca woocr- w f� ¢ y W a p 0 G a o ¢ p Z 69 w LL O to N n C f Cie W, `` LL ....: [V W � Il/�4 5 N °'s%�.ob ti V — O f� Q _ JP� nP W U — W n � w co w J CO LIJ O N CO LO O N UJ �� Q = W U X (n ¢ N 6 O O O LL l0 E p J Q U U W U) W a 0 a > o ¢ n� 2 � 3 o w � o n� N V n \\\ ` LO \ \ C\i� <\� ' `:\ ~ ecL \« mw . % § y /w $ a e< Utz fr'Q f ct ±/ - °/ $ % . c . \��\ \ \ § . § $ @j = « fo ® 3 ( 3 \ \ \ / \ } K/zq \�� »SB§ b003 alp& LO.i f.> �. �y., - - Q `• �' � - Y 0.� Vse7 I O N ri - n CA Q_ O O_ a� z � a +:u U V 0 Z W ' O J N W 1.0 6 O W O N � oz p Q V W O J N �1( W g J U') 0 0 ® a � z o LL J �e Q V w V1 w O E J Q a ui 0 z a w LL O N n Cv r' — j. = 1 = � o _ O 4 Q z - c� a — + W U N ^ o n z W O ^a J N W Vi a O W C:� C J U O J G o £ err U' Z D: O a U a 2 U�acr Y I••ti Z �W_l a�: � �_1 a Rr 0 LL C? o Op � O n IN3RlHMQ aa 3Waod]A]a 40 km ./� 0661 1 100 4 rn - Ro ig - Jp $ o N_ U — G co N d' Ln z. w p n, N W o (D O N lC U Ix1 G 0 ¢ VJ (J M J 2 NLn co < LLO VJ i Md LL V W W p � 3WILYd301N3Wd0I3AN,WINIMW07 a Q 0661 9 100 3AI3336 O 3 o LL K� o n ��- ob 2/� YI�IYYIIYIYIi t CV f} 1 \ \ as g a CD N _ N _ G1 kj — 0-' U E � r N cY CD c1 Q V CJ c N CD O G 1 g p U to Fi O p, m !D U< (V f_l CD p � 4 6 O J D F 6 W N W ' D d D Z 3 O W LL O N A q Lo N 0 0 � lox Le J. l �1 io ��;�1 �` CVjh. tit.• 11 � u a Q =g mInm � CJIX o 01 xut•• a W u: :J ce 9 g 'V = O Pi ti S O a U a a U i � aa a 0 0 CO J N p s a W N C E J Q a of C x C W LL O lJ A 1 � L J C'J - N C W LC 2 W N m lrl O vi K M o Ln e n x _C7 ` Y H UJ lu G t4 W c� cS co U S C 7 Z od ¢ U 0 � O v) o o Or Z w l ,t H .� u i - o ., C�- ¢ N 6 H 0 (Nd' lP0. W KLn _I Q CJ ZD \OH L) 0 M: N r a w u 0 � SQ/VV aN U) a m i O 3 an IN z mmuare>o"'w 3kv bl {5�0 Allwarm 0 0661 1�0 � 0 3/113�3Zi �w� n _ Q J . Iit �Z�CC ��OOyw� Z 'G2SI�i 0r GG ,fL :..Lo i-� CV r^ ZIS W bd c ' N g J 0 W4 o. M O N Lr) S +-� W Y W U Q H U W Q ax Q U X m •--1 W O n J (n W y m O Q 2 o C f� z NQ O �� O O d' Jl J O C4 F- U l0 .-1 X y 1E Fit 2 2 r U W ° w SA 3 z ' Mvo OZ Oz a CD 3 n z FLdo a to ti o tel 6 115 t CD a = C� 3 vIv o w LL G� o t� w W C w �q W M p vrd rri �N[`6 15 W y-W W ONO� S ]SaLLp . j w arms � N •M � 7 6 u i m � J N y La u� O z z o o m0N o J 20V Q {� U �] H G W W a � � Q a d$30 M yd o ¢ Q lN3Ndp73A) lU < 1 loo r ►t� 1\ 1 v C� 4 Jl� Q ram° a O w A Y M ((� N U1 J 'c7 W C Y Xi N 1+ �11 O � o LLo z U N O � J U H 6 w N W J its 6 � _Z C W 6 LL e N n r...r.♦trr.rt i LO Z44f pA,,,, N o ! j IQ O — 4 O O � > O — t • L w v >,U 4 w u � ro N S G � •� O 0 ix � O e � . O 5 c 0 O LL !� uW~ � � W W O QO J � 6 O O W 2 ¢ 3 G W ! LL O A �. . d J- r. a'�, ' _ r as i CM ua uvtz �= rx a z ma f!' H�ci3- I ti❑ m ❑� ' w w z C •� 1 f' „Y x r r,- u V) N o � ? N N O W Z i. O0 Q ! L Z tarJ y .� K O O Z N LL J Q a w w o O Li > o ¢ o � m Z � 3 a w C� o nm V nj3MVaa 1M1MMA13M kUNARY103 66l Z 100 �(� Q3AI3038 tn N 7l 1 LL A*, IlixZ MILVI Cr; 1-40gG- rl a_ w ,.0 z Z .. M \ U C T n N o L'J N C'•1 .'O O Cj LO d G to 2t Q LLJ •y is' q� O FJaN > ryl J U w w 0 f J Q G W 1 ¢ 0 ® Z Q W ¢ LL O N A ,1/1� .rrrrlrr r_r1 iY::1 T cn LO t N R tax 'deb k , of W 4 aw ut pqAx VA b d C7 0 t`LO ul a MW in u q`/ J n Y' U• fwLU in ¢ zw U ul � r' X01s 2 p 2 N J p N4104 i W 0 Ctrs 4 U r W W O J Q W 7_ ¢ O 1 Y ¢ W 6 LL O N A c LO CV "Af 4 l y `� � file o - H 3 ou a r7 H t� d a z H ^ z 1 r- o w w LU LL p CO W Q N -J n V O X J w N N 'LLO € w .O 0.' D J a p N co s p � to 0. (^ 0. a w - o o � Z O3 VX0130 ARM 0 STOW 0661 r � CV all o - Q N w7 K � H U Q Jil�//J H 2 ,-L H N Cn p N W ¢ M H N p' O g b af a J N ¢ co a ¢ w ti w a � O G a o ¢ o � _Z ¢ 3 o w LL 00 N �Y r s • e 1 apt � a P' _ s aig Sa8 (y (V G 6 — 4: N_ O U ' 2 W I— L GL v L Z W U C V7 O r W N CD f a n z �A W N J O U] M fi J a U o �y W a 0 O 4 a d�Ilq pp� z �;�yra� � Q i � L� 0 0 o3no3�3� � W C:fa ® h r In ItH O- N N H � p z a x a p U � x LU H a O GC x z w C7 H H < C7 �L p LU ri Gh ;E LL W W N J N CO a CC U �O C C M 6 6 � W N O f J I 6 W O 2 O W 6 LL O A U'3CNQ ZV - ` . Ag / � { &ax : §?�2\ u 2 \ \ - u / uox | c=e ` rr cc 1 ;\ ƒ�{ 3 � � ........... IIA A IN C,4 Ka JYo W � a o uj Tc7 1:4 jr Mv qa w cc U. q I '3 o< .. ... / 4 � ' .0 _ Q ow trim I. NFx. . TY 13 �Lyi GJ •LAi7 IY24- w }�xZ oHN zus a ax "rite N r a U W a r •• r 'Y X +' W O w r UJ N l I J r m 0 0 � a n s m J ¢ NUL1a 0 CL J a U 2 u W N Ld a � a o 0 z �D 2 3N3530 w1Vd 10 AM 0 3 0 066 1 Loo o3AI333d N 4 91 .7' r rya .f OIX ow COX ow c� j 04jci 7 KY�t- �vYr�3Pt1YI�j/ +r�r _ �ojw oZ � o x xr+z `" Sn, U1+rIW C? N P� S q K w 6 a ) J 2 (n o w w a o p Z O OC \D J :J U C1 q W N O 7 J t 1 W a 3 W 6 u e N 1�n` • CV }Z�f I T� ` f w 4 i0 U N L_ Cv G Ol C r - J U N jA�A N V' VJ ([) f1 d O LL J C� U a � w w a � � a f� W W3�MVd3030�dJ0 L'C � ���Ti'VO'WM"MDI o ¢ o° Z 0661 100 O o 3^�3� w O .•......•. rr rrYrrl rrerr LO CIQ .1 11 3) crj W y� 4 _ •x u r,: a Qpry.�.Q COC i— a� LL w ko � VJ L'] Cl. f J Q a ui 0 Z a o w f(7U� o V � V7 ♦J o sS`' ' �� „) M S N `c CJ � 4 o r+ o � z O N r J U a W N W a � a 1aM la ix7wybMnQ AWRlIIXN07 0 a 66L Z 100 O o � o 3AI333?! n 4 Y tY11fIIII� S_ LC) CV ti 2v Jp�g� �p }Q�Q yWJp�fJ/ W �Oy20 Q Q� — OQ r� `VI Q „b N Q_ ¢ Q N 4 r1 J N to Z) Ld W Q ❑ � J Q a z ❑ w C� o m N r � ® \ \ 13 La \ y�\ \ COX / ^ rx L. ; . � 0 «§ mac§ —� � (LL _\ � ` E « 2 Lj CD # � z \\\ � � \ . / y } 7 } . � ! . (� � g.. .. ..... or _A OW Aa w -� - O7x W W W OJE 3 Ln O:hO cG OC9 00 a.. a N rdZ ZNZ Q Q`m cdc J 0 01= WQF 9 1 u :> ¢ Z O W a 3 W °z m It W Q C7OZSJ L LU IOLLO J u in Z: 0 G ¢ 0 0'07 w v J -jn o c O O;NQ1 NAY_ C N NAJ N CD C ti rn O g O. Q N G M J U � w rn w a � LYa INWd d0AAU 3W190d3a IW3Wd(IAA3U AIINII1W108 0661 9 i 100 a 0 33A13036 w ¢ LL O �/ A •J�.vr.rrr r'i "•p i� LO N CD O.y Y o L LV L a Q o N H Q (V 6 4 F o ¢ W W \n � O � Q a o ¢ a = � 3 o w LL C� o n ,�I1� .I 11♦ 4: (V O _ 6 } 1 u OW N CG H m o o O`O_ G CO W 0 q 7 NZ ZCJUI u W N F I H w -jo Z M0.OZ DMZ omm N1 OF1OO u Q R G - ¢ZCn W Lu : r-DNW o ¢ O:U�C9<L ❑ COOOZ z rnW. r•+¢ O o w wnw r f-Q cn ca o is w �wdiow ( lop ►`� taa:341 .rrrrrr•.. •;r . LO n N Ir i jl1 E a fu - P. a, cola taw m taw 0 U rr amr. " � Q Ki � a .p s_ zci J ' } Lj m -1 o :> Q I,Q n Z L'J a� N 7= 1 J G C } O K ; N W LL W W 0 J Q a w 2 G 3 G W 6 LL O N n N kl;i RT �bd n ^ b \ \ O N - m U z W a J z Qfos F- M In O G W W n W O Z A O ¢ < vcom W 3> N LL u5N MLo W G 1 Stp m J W i J �a�� J w . �r� Q ?± _. 61 LS O W 6 LL 1 � O 1 C] (L � W O O J CL T Q ..r rrrerrrrr L ' •� N � i P is ) i fi \j O g�bd n _ 6 ko 0 � KQ• V �l/ �1 U Q\ � 7 � S z � O Gl W g LL j U CJ N 4J 103tO � r 6 w W O f Q a W piK� G V O z 3 o w LL O N .. L1 :4J 0 ti ON w N � O U m c m w W — r► o w U = 5 < 0 - w Ira w vJ F- r.J L1 0 (n 0 oz n M w g N m ¢ CN � cn n Z N < In w 0 coD3 s LL QD J U r a � w rn w a � O � a a o ¢ 0 2 Ca 3 0 383S30 Ward A urn w MWI&Oa N3Aaoiu N AllNWWW . LL C O 0661 i 130 3AI3336 1� LA h1 ev - c � w`1 V1 oS ' p <C J O 7 Q Q' 7_ W Q O CD S } � �J J ry N O. J � --I W O m N Z M 2 Q Z VJ WO3 O N r M W iy VJ 3 N Z ui J [ , U W N W a � W � a a o ¢ 0 C 0 i 3 0 0 w C'y o n `7 CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANsmnorn LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. RE¢]FST: Consideration of a request to prezone the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a negative declaration of environmental impact thereto. M q H pertaining o no G3 0 .4 r n ro •3 NG� --1MP1 .0 III. APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT +Q H v' 0 H N O 73-510 Fred Waring Drive H �+ vd m o Palm Desert, CA 92260 0 2 O o IV. CASE NO.: C/z 90-11 7 I cis V. DATE: October 25, 1990 1 CD VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation ACC{ 0 t B. Discussion V x H C. Draft Ordinance No. 619 r V M O D. Planning Cammission Minutes involving Case No. C/Z 90-11 C E. Planning Catmission Resolution No. 1472 n F. Planning Ca[missicn Staff Report dated September 4, 1990 r G. Related maps and/or exhibits n --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: o I r �• I I Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 619 to second reA e 2 B. DISCUSSION: The city has been looking at annexation in the eastern sphere area for a � several years. City council will recall recently processing the prezoning of the Sunrise Indian Ridge development property. That area is before I,AFOO at this time. 0 C. BACKGROUND* / Concurrent with the Cit y proceeding with this prezoning, we received an Q application from Equity Directions requesting prezoung to O.P. (office professional) and SI (service industrial) of the 118 acre site at the n 1 northeast corner of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive. The two applications were consolidated into one case for presentation to h planning crnmissicn. J r TRANS=AL LE= CASE ND. C/Z 90-11 0C MER 25, 1990 Equity Directions had been processed through the County and had Prepared an Fhvircry ental Immmpact Report on their proposed land use change from residential to industrial (M). At a series of public hearings held by the County, substantial opposition was encountered. Prior to obtaining a final decision from the County, the applicant withdrew that request and filed a different application with the city for 84.5 acres of S.I. and 33.5 acres of O.P. Staff reviewed the E.I.R. prepared by Tan Dodson and Associates as well as the County Planning staff report of January 17, 1990 and concurred with the findings of these documents that the site was inappropriate as residential. Additionally, city staff felt the request to create 33.5 acres of Office Professional (O.P. ) around the perimeter of the site would provide the city with extra insurance that a compatible project would result (i.e. city O.P. standards limit building height of two- story to a maximum of 25 feet while requiring 65 feet of setback). With this information, as well as the recently adopted North Sphere Specific Plan, staff set the matter for hearing. At the planning commission hearing of September 4, 1990 staff presented a proposal to prezone Avondale, Palm Valley, Regency Palms and Regency Estates PR-5. All these existing developments would be consistent with the provisions of the PR-5 zone. Staff proposed the 118 acre Equity Directions site be a mix of O.P. on the street perimeter and S.I. on the interior and that the area to the east be S.I. also. This proposal was consistent with the application received from Equity Directions as well as the recently approved North Sphere Specific Plan which had multi designated the corner site O.P.; S.I.; and R-1. The area to the east had been designated S.I. This proposed prezcning was not received with open arms at the public hearing before planning commission. Essentially there were two issues: i) The existing developed sites should more closely relate to the actual developments, i.e. Avondale and Palm Valley should be PR-3 and Regency Palms and Regency Estates should be R-1 12,000. ii) The 118 acre vacant site at the northeast comer of Oasis Club and Country Club should also be residential single family R-1, 12,000. These were the feelings of the area residents who spoke at the public hearing. Planning commission, while listening to the residents, chose to direct staff to prezcne the area using the city zones which most closely mirrored the existing county zoning. This results in Avondale and Palm Valley being PR-3; Regency Palms and Estates and 118 acre Equity Directions site being R-1 12,000, the 33 acres east of Equity ty Directions S.I. and 22 acres at the corner of Washington Street being PC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial). 2 CLERK OF THE BOARD {r�. o � II _ '} Nesoeamretiorutxcoatmminatan ( � ° �UW I) o)C� � �n15 FlWoorP.R.C.21152 SU RVI 510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 99S BO SEP2 1990 �Ep 2 1990 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 C �a a epul Sep rolo®ru'1 �dF Cou of mmii�QAW LERMd M� d B CITY OF PALM DESERT XD LEGAL NOTICE NOV 21 1990 CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 tOMMIM0111 IF? QWTMITMFM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request to prezone the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street to the existing city limit shown below for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a negative declaration of environmental impact pertaining thereto. ;" 'Ton 33 QI • Il �l1E F fv� r ns, 000,12.R-1 �• '�i J� � ... S.I. •� factI_._,_--- •u,t,.,,,n,,,,,,:„ . •... '�` - � COUu rRY CLUB URIVE 7 UHE IAJYII P:O.REQ70 10 ' w 2 y 02nE Q AVENUE �Trrl E UE O ' Tr SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 25, 1990. at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert 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. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the elate of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the Hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court., you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice , or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to, the Public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk September 28, 1990 City of Palm Desert, California ! 1 ORDINAL NO. 619 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMEMING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING THE PROPERTY NORTH OF CUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO THE RAILWAY AND WEST OF WASHINGI'ON STREET TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.461.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit 'B' . SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Envirornnental Impact, Exhibit 'A' attached hereto, is hereby certified. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (3) days after its adoption or upon annexation of the area to the city whichever occurs later. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 8th day of November, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON, CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California SS/db CITY CODTICIL OdmJ1wAm N0. 619 ERED:I3IT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NSGATIM DEC ARATIM CASE NO.: CZ 90-11 APPLICANT/PR0,7F]LT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJFILT DESSCRIPTION/LO=ON: Prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of WasI *;tcn Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the erniromneant. 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. September 18, 1990 RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF OJ44JNITY DEVELOPMENT SRS/db 7 V •ICJ , .ram-i m 'I�� �, ��•"n. R71` 12�000 \s �U I k. t COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE / HE w aESA' 'I otA I� _ •ir{`.u. ••�.t - - w P.D)R E190 R LE R11 w a w `' p �I : w , �/ i1�7 42nd AVENUE O ; n'ii;N•r'.1 _ �1I1I�I � ,I I / �/'I� �.It li it • �_ 11r.. NIII,..M ,II I 1 ..-•- ---- <::=-.'f Lyt� 1' .c ' --"'�- FRED WARING DRIVE •__ ..•.•..•.•.•.I•_•.. •. �le:i _..J.'_3f__C) t 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT Case }fr�No. c/z 90--i1 CITY COUNCIL q OO LJ ! OO LJ LJ ORDINANCE NO. 619 Date November R- logn TRANSMrrM r.ErrER CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 OC,RC13Ex 25, 1990 Staff has no concern regarding the first issue (i.e. Avondale and Palm Valley (PR-3) and Regency Palms and Regency Estates (R-1, 12,000). Staff does have serious concerns about prezonisng the 118 acre site R-1 12,000. As is discussed more fully in the planning oannissicn report (copy attached), the north sphere plan established a 2,000 foot buffer area from the railroad and freeway where residential development was not to be errnuraged., This was to protect residents from the noise produced fran the freeway and railroad as well as the vibration and odors produced by the railroad. Considering that the county is considering opening Eagle Mountain as a garbage dump site for Southern California, it may be expected that in addition to diesel odors, garbage odors may be next unless all the trash is carried in sealed containers. A traffic study completed on behalf of Equity Directions confirmed that traffic volume on Country Club Drive is high. Traffic volumes of this level can result in significant levels of noise as well as pollution. Part of the east half of Section 1 is presently under development as a business/industrial park. To place residential homes imrediately adjacent to those existing tall, structures with windows on the second floor is not something that this city does or would encourage. Also, staff feels that Oasis Club Drive, a 100 foot wide right-of-way, future four lane street, provides a more appropriate break to transition the land use from residential to S.I. and O.P. and Neighborhood Commercial. D. CURRENT STATUS: In the period since the September 4, 1990 hearing at planning commission, Equity Directions has been meeting with area residents to attempt to come to a meeting of the mires. Apparently, some of the residents have indicated a cautious acceptance to a proposal to place a perimeter strip, some 450+ feet wida, of residential (R-1 - 8,000) lots along Country Club Drive except for the easterly 770 feet which would be office professional. The remaining northerly portion of the property would be S.I. with access only onto Oasis Club Drive except for 2 lots adjacent to Oasis Club Drive, which would be O.P. While staff can see some merit in this revised proposal for the 118 acre site, we have serious concerns whether the residential lots could comply with the city's noise ordinance and ,just how expensive it would be to mitigate the noise to an acceptable level. While we recognize that Regency Palms has hares this close to Country Club, only four hones back directly onto Country Club while in these two schemes a high percentage of the total number of lots back directly onto Country Club Drive. 3 TRANSMrrrAL LETTER CASE NO. C/z 90-11 OC1[BER 25, 1990 It is our understanding tram conversations with Equity Directicns that they would still much prefer the O.P./S.i. proposal but in an effort to reduce opposition they could agree to a multi-zoned site - S.I., O.P. and R1-8000. They are willing to accept City Council's decision whether it be O.P. and S.I. or S.I., O.P. and R1-8000. E. OVERALL 024CLUSION• Staff feels strongly that the city should not be associated with residential development on the Equity Direction vacant property, considering the long term impacts that the site will face. This conclusion was supported by county staff in their January 17, 1990 staff report on EIR No. 305, page 7, where they conclude "Alternative W (residential) is an infeasible alternative for the entire site". Staff is confident that the Equity Directions property if zoned for S.I. and O.P. uses could be developed in a manner sensitive to the residential cartnnlity to the west and south. The higher level of traffic mitigation that this site would provide would allow the city to be involved in the traffic solution for the area. If this 118 acre site must remain residential, then it is staff s reoamwidaticn that the prezoiing apply only to the properly west of the center line of Oasis Club Drive. The 118 acre site would then not be annexed to the city at this time. Residential development on the site would than be handled by the County and the County would then be responsible for obtaining adequate lag term mitigation for all the impacts this site faces. City staff discussed with LUM staff the feasibility of separating this annexation into two LAF O applications and it was indicated that that would not pose a processing problem. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: i SS/db 4 ORDIIexx ND. 619 AN (ORDINANCE OF THE CITY Ci(NCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING; ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING THE PROPERTY NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO THE RAILWAY AND WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.461.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit 'B' . SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Envircrmentai Impact, Exhibit 'A' attached hereto, is hereby certified. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (3) days after its adoption or upon annexation of the area to the city whichever occurs later. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City OCK=il this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD A. (RITES, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California SS/db CITY COUNCIL CRDINANCE NO. 619 EDIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATMCK CASE ND.: CZ 90-11 APPLICANr/PFDJB R SPC SOR: City of Palm Desert PRWELV I TRIN/lDCUION: Prezcning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will riot have a significant effect on the envircnment. 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 pobentially significant effects, may also be found attached. Septed)er 18, 1990 RANM A. DIAZ DATE DZRECIOR OF OCDMAdITY DEVELO MEET SRS/db iPPA I 1 I I I I I is tj 12000 w.w.rwo.wn...aw '�-Q::1ti1; \_ '� ., •,_ rj':. . � ,' ; ,ll •' m''''1'`' I I ... _{ ;�• O.P. $.�. rrr•b•. c.a.' P,C.2 -- nnm iiiiiiiinr5iiiii,�lXI IAYlL•i� .._,', COUNIHY f 'I �'— .Y�.-- _l I.._.F.... �i CLUB DRIVE U l..1�HEw4ApE4/ •/! I - ; . ...........cc m rov'a`� (' 42nd AVENUE tl i lilt- FREE) I ( III E .... ��(; ;1. •�FN}L WANING DRIV ' -"' ''' ` •� .rI CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. C/Z 90-11 CITY COUNCIL - p' h G)n nl � 0v Man ORDINANCE NO. �/�1W � o OCT 13 Date MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING ,MMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 Mr. Diaz indicated that because of staff workload, the case should be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, continuing PP 89-5 to November 20, 1990. Carried 4-0. D. Case No. C/Z 90-11 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of the prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city and a negative declaration of environmental impact thereto. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many feet away from the railroad the office professional use would be and Mr. Smith replied it was 800 square feet south of the first street. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification regarding the fly-over concept and traffic impacts by Mr. Safavian of the public works department. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. GORDON E. PAULUS, 44-419 Sorrento Court, representing Equity Directions, informed commission that this pertained to their item which was next on the agenda. He noted that in the North Sphere Plan it was recommended that a 2,000 square foot buffer be provided because of vibrations, smells, etc. He stated that if the office professional/service industrial zoning were approved, the city standards would be much more restrictive than those in Riverside County. He indicated that the applicant will comply with the city standards and with mitigation factors and felt the project would be a good neighbor. He informed commission that they sent out many notifications and had meetings in the late spring/early summer and invited members of homeowners associations to 8 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 come and review their proposal. He indicated that they had met with Palm Desert Resort' s association officers cers and with Sunrise Company, who was in ao the project. He indicated that possible tenants would be restaurants, a financial institution, church, and day care, which would be beneficial to the area. and He reiterated that it would be a high-quality pro with landscaping and setbacks being iprov was an appropriate already approved next to the county uses, eet project. He felt that the eventual is in that area.ok traffic Mr. Interchange would help reduce Paulus told commission that Mr. Dennis French and Mr. Rick Jacobs were also present. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. MR. EDDY BUSH, Vice President and Treasurer of the Tandika Corporation, of which Avondale Golf Club was a major asset, indicated that he has a small piece of property and on the north nd it He ewasoinformke by to have a small residential project. Riverside County Planning prior toartment that annexation, if he did not have final approvalhe could forced to start completely from scratch within the city of Palm Desert. Mr. Diaz informed Mr. Bush that if a subdivision was approved by the county the city would accept it, and the city policy has been to accept county approvals and abide by those conditions of approval for as long as the development approval was valid. He also suggested that Mr. Bush apply to the city, although he would not be able to start construction until the annexation was complete. He ed several developments where this procedure had been done• examples of Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, 74-399 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, informed commission that he was representing the homeowners at Palm Desert Resorter, which has approximately 1000 units. He felt that while he felt the change was eactually wa request s for a change of zone, he plan, which was presently a change to the g residential, not office professional or service 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING jMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 industrial. He stated that the residents in Palm Desert Resorter bought property under the assumption that the property would remain residential. He indicated that it was designated through hearings on the north sphere as R-1; and was now beomg proposed as a dual designation of O.P. /S. I. He noted that the zoning and general plan must be consistent and indicated that the change of zone and general plan amendment were being done in one action by the prezoning arrangement and felt the commission was making a choice between the R-1 dual designation by the adoption of the change of zone to an O.P./S. I. zone. He also indicated that this was the fifth time they had been before a public agency opposing this development. They appeared four times before the Riverside County Planning Commission, who was going to deny Equity Direction's plan, but it was thereafter withdrawn before it went to the Board of Supervisors. He stated that there were hundreds of people present at those meetings. He requested that after conducting the public hearing the matter be continued to a date in October to allow a more representative number of the opposition to be present. He felt the issue of traffic was a major concern. He indicated that there seemed to be one consistency in the different traffic studies and that was the doubling of traffic that would occur for uses other than residential. He noted that there was residential there now with the Regency Estates. He felt that residential development could successfully occur in the buffer zone and felt that the developer of Regency Estates was proving that point. Mr. Guralnick felt the scenic corridor on Country Club was nice until getting to the existing Equity Directions development, which was adjacent to the property in question. He indicated that when Equity Directions received approval of their 40 foot buildings, it was their "pride and joy" . He also did not feel that a negative declaration was appropriate for this type of action. He suggested that the general plan be left as residential and the annexation go through, then let them come in for the change of zone and general plan amendment and not part of the annexation process. He felt the development should stand on its own with an environmental impact study. MR. DOUGLAS E. MILLER, past president of the Regency Palms Homeowners Association and appointed by the Regency Palm Homeowners director and residents to act on their 10 MINUTES . PALM DESERT PLANNING AMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 behalf. He asked if commission had a copy of the letter that was delivered; Chairperson Whitlock confirmed that they did and he requested permission to read the letter to the audience which was unanimously opposed to any pre- annexation zoning and requested a denial or continuance to the 16th or 23rd day of October (see attached Exhibit A) . He indicated that the board members of their association had heard nothing from Mr. Paulus regarding the Equity Directions proposal. He indicated that the proposal was denied twice by the Board of Supervisors per the Palm Desert Resorter and Regency Palms and he did not want to be part of Palm Desert if the property zoning was going to be changed. He felt the matter should be continued or denied. MRS. MARY STROSNYDER, 41-793 Preston Trail, a permanent resident in Palm Desert Resort County Club. She indicated that the Palm Desert Resort Homeowners Association has an over 960 family membership and they were vehemently opposed to the proposed project. She noted that there were only about 90 residents at home during this time of the year. When they purchased their homes they were assured that the tract in question would remain zoned for residential. She expressed concern regarding traffic, the environmental impact of traffic, noise, truck traffic with the service industrial, and any restaurants or day care facilities. She felt the property values would devaluate and the quality of the residential life would be incompatible. She asked that commission continue this case to allow appropriate membership representation to be present. MR. PETER SOLOMON, 76-857 Abby Court in Regency Palms. He indicated that he and his family were the developers of Regency Palms and Regency Estates. He noted that in the staff presentation the existing buildings by Equity Directions were described as "big, boxy and bulky" to describe the two 40 foot buildings along Country Club Drive. He reminded staff and commission that the developer who approved and advocated these existing buildings were the same applicant. He felt that ultimately what was built was what the developer wanted to be built and disagreed with Mr. Paulus blaming the county for their standards. As a developer of Regency Estates he was opposed to the proposed project. He indicated they were extremely sensitive to the time and 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING MMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 value of the present homeowners and future homeowners property. He could see no compelling reason for a zone change and felt there were plenty of other places for office professional/service industrial development and the proposal would impact negatively on the Country Club corridor. He noted that Bermuda Dunes just east of Washington was an ideal place for this type of development, as well as the Palm Desert industrial area or in the large, vacant north sphere area. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification as to the location of Regency Palms and the location of the railroad and potential adverse impact. Mr. Solomon noted that Palm Valley developed right up to the railroad tracks and they also had homes in close proximity in Regency Palms, but indicated that the 30 homes in that last phase sold out in under two months. Mr. Solomon informed commission that he lives in the last phase of Regency Palms and while the trains could be heard, after a couple of days he did not notice them anymore. He felt there was such a big demand for housing in that corridor that they bought that additional property to develop as residential. MS. MARY KING, 77-027 Preston Trail in Palm Desert Resort, and a member of the board of the homeowners association. She stated that they were opposed to the project and she lived directly across the street and bought the property knowing that it would be residential. MS. ADELAINE DOMICO, 77-055 Preston Trail in Palm Desert Resort, expressed appreciation that the commission allowed anyone to voice their opinion. She indicated that they were from Ohio and were "snowbirds" for about eight years before deciding to move and buying property in Palm Desert Resort. She knew about the residential zoning and was opposed to any zone change. She did not want to see the Country Club atmosphere damaged. MR. BRUCE LEGOWITZ, in Regency Palms, looked at the proposed zoning before purchasing property. He was concerned about traffic and was opposed to the development and the potential negative impact. MR. FRANK GONZALES, in Palm Desert Resort Country Club, appealed to the commission for a continuance to allow other residents to be present. 12 MINUTES . PALM DESERT PLANNING IMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 MR. DAVID NICHOLSON, in Regency Palms, felt the issue was the request for the prezoning. He indicated that they cut their vacation short so they could be present for this public hearing. He suggested a park as a transitional use between the residential and commercial area. He did not see a problem with the annexation to Palm Desert but was opposed to the prezoning. MS. JEANNIE ROSE STEIGER, broker/owner of Crestview Realty in Palm Desert, informed commission that she had purchased and sold many homes in Regency Palms and felt that changing the residential zoning would devaluate the homes in the area. MR. JAMES STROSNYDER, 41-793 Preston Trail, indicated that he and his wife selected that area because of the scenic value of Country Club Drive and found out the zoning and owner and information on the proposed Sunterra development, and the land opposite their gate was zoned residential and would remain so. He based his decision to buy on this information. He felt the project would make it impossible for the existing homeowners because of the traffic. He indicated that the Riverside County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors voted against the change of zone. MS. VELMA DICKENSON, 41-969 Preston Trail, speaking for her husband also, stated that they purchased their home approximately three years ago and were told that the property across the street was zoned residential and they fought and won with the county to keep it that way. She requested a continuance to a later date. MR. BRUCE WILEY, 76-771 Queen's Court in Regency Palms, expressed concern regarding the outcome of the prezoning annexation and the affect on his property. He also expressed concern regarding the traffic and road conditions. He felt these issues should be addressed and was concerned about the short time for the meeting notice. MR. SOLOMON'S son, 76-857 Abbey Court, addressed the commission expressing concern regarding traffic, especially trucks going by when he's out riding his bike. He was concerned about children playing around the edge 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING AMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 of the curbs/gutters at the bus stop and the danger to them when trucks pass by. He felt it would be harder to get out of Regency if more traffic were added. Chairperson Whitlock asked staff for rebuttal and clarification on the possibility suggested by Mr. Guralnick of this project coming in on its own, and addressing the traffic issues. Mr. Smith informed commission that there was a video tape of the area if commission wished to view it. He also noted that letters had been received in opposition from Carey Wicke, Susie Solomon, Michelle DeSilva, Cammie Merkin, Linda and Paul Fulterton, Keith Robinette, Buck and Donna Pruett, Mr. and Mrs. John Mann and they attached names of nine others, Barbara and David Nicolson, Mr. and Mrs. Bird, Bruce and Helen Wylie, Marjorie Coons, and Paula and Dorian Freeman. He also received ten letter in support from Robert Eschelle, Michael Smith, Jack Corkill, Cynthia Ewing, Robert Simms, Brad Nestie and others. Mr. Smith noted that many residents spoke about the scenic corridor and he found the 14 course wall on a five foot slope by Mr. Solomon at Country Club and Oasis Club Drive very objectional. He also indicated that the landscape strip along the west side of the Resorter did not have any plants and was dirt from Country Club to 42nd Avenue. He hoped that if the area was annexed into the city, a better job would be done and felt strongly that residential did not belong on the property in question and in the report it was staff's recommendation that if the property had to be developed residential because of the neighborhood concern, the county should do it because of the long-term implications from noise and the potential Eagle Mountain dumpsite and the railroad transporting the trash. He noted that the residents north of Preston Trail were notified because they were within the 300 feet. Mr. Smith deferred the traffic issues to Mr. Safavian. Commissioner Erwood asked if the two issues could be separated and if they were, the city should not annex this area into Palm Desert because the service industrial area would have protected the area against noise and smell from the trains. Staff concurred. Mr. Diaz explained that when the north sphere plan was done, the county rezoned the triangular portion of Washington and Country Club to service industrial. The county also approved the existing two 40 foot buildings and a grading plan on Oasis Club Drive which put the street three to four feet above the property to the west, as well as 14 MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNIN4 .OMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 the railroad to the north and the county was in the process of approving a measure to increase the railroad traffic. He could not recommend R-1 zoning in that area; addressing Mr. Guralnick's points, he indicated that the area was dual designated and they were not amending the General Plan or Specific Plan and the city has development standards that are more stringent than the county. He indicated that the grading in Whitehawk and Regency Estates would not have been approved in Palm Desert, nor the Resorter landscaping along Oasis Club Drive. He expressed confidence in the city's development standards and any project built there would go through public hearing and landscaping would be put in and maintained. Mr. Safavian explained that staff requested a traffic study be done as though no previous study had been completed because the one done for the county was not as comprehensive as Palm Desert wanted. He felt it addressed the traffic concerns and took into consideration future traffic demands. He explained the proposed changes and diversions for traffic to the area. Commissioner Jonathan asked that if the zoning could be left PR-5 and the property annexed into Palm Desert, then the applicant could come in later with a zoning request and Mr. Smith replied that PR-5 was not an appropriate zoning for the site from staff' s view point. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and informed commission that per advice from the city attorney, she would be abstaining. Commissioner Erwood concurred with the concept of taking the annexation issue separate from the zone change, especially a zone change that seems to be incompatible with adjacent properties. He also noted that an applicant, by timing and continuances, can wear down the opposition. He felt it was appropriate to look at the existing buildings done by an applicant and could not see a compelling reason for a zone change. He noted the success of the other residential developments in the area and felt the matter should be separated. Commissioner Downs concurred. Commission determined that staff should prepare a resolution recommending approval to city council of the annexation, for adoption at the next meeting, and reflecting the current county zoning. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING AMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, instructing staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval to city council annexation of the area and reflecting county zoning. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained) . E. Case No. PM 25270 - EQUITY DIRECTIONS, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a tentative parcel map for a 75 lot service industrial/office professional subdivision on a 118 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Oasis Club Drive. Mr. Gordon Paulus informed commission that the application was being withdrawn. Action• No action was needed. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for determination of use for indoor batting cage/miniature golf course in the service industrial zone - STEVEN SPRINGER, Applicant. Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, determining by minute motion that recreation facilities are a potential conditional use within the S.I. zone. Carried 4- 0. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS None. 16 I PLAkWG COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1472 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF THE RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY. CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of September, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in. this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 90-11 Exhibit "B" on file in the department of 1 PLANNING COMMISSION R ILUTION NO. 1472 community development are hereby recommended to the city council for approval . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of September, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, ERWOOD, JONATHAN, AND WHITLOCK NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: RICHARDS CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. 1472 EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 90-11 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, 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. September 18, 1990 RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SRS/tm 3 1 fo -1 12,00 7 - t �I COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 1. lTHELI711 i4j. ` y �. .� �,4 w P:D}R£84RLER.' w I 1 ¢ .......... F- i o j w z l ; ii w t �:i �- - 42nd AVENUE d ' 3 I. r. � � �N�� �'ll > ee1:1 i 3 T•ri:_z;�11� •�J —_`.rrll tm .._...., I -;.r�.y'_,.. ;:'•::_` fi'llaTll11il'I ----- ��. Ste• if � .. �R,.rll�;__��:u..:�c:_r:'"�:'� .f.5� ^ijiii l� 1_ i�' l_ _ I in ., FREE) WARING DRIVE - _ -� �^ CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. Ciz 90-11 PLANNING COMMISSION �JO� @RESOLUTION NO. o Date OF Rf-CEIVE® NC7i'ICE of DEPETdINA11,0N 010356 MAR 2 8 1991 Negative Declaratim WMMONOY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT T0: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary of Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St., Rm. 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92502 FROM: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the public resources code. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Title/Ccmwn Name: Case No. CZ 90-11 Prezoning area north of Country Club Drive Date of Project Approval: November 8, 1990 State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted): N/A Contact Person: Stephen Smith Project Location: Area north of Country Club Drive, east to Washington Street Project Description: Prezoning East Sphere Area This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project ( )will, (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An environmental impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the environmental impact report may be examined at the above city hall address. X A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures ( ) were, (X) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for this project. COUNTY CLERIC COUWVCL NK o a ��Eaan Ip Fre*PP►.Rc.a$Is7 ►OSIED nigr%ture Title FFB 4 1991 FEB 6 WI ME. LY MAR 2 7 POT Date Received for Filing Coun a b&CLER � CeYfor �� / er M—c�E,nWatonf r.s (Please return date-stamped copy in the en d en IA V /(-]� , �!i• . ... FAO 12000 a...nw.mn,. v �"Q 7!il Cf' .:� �.t-'ilia :, I R 5• !lj�EJ `� �' I it nmci"� l'tl I'��"'i•,�.`;:_:�"t�i..: l + 1 P. S.I. •2 I. � '—� __ ` _ ,. i�I�iii_iiiiiiii Y_i�ii{ii�jAll�� P•C• �//) GOUNIRV CLUB DRIVE 1 I.. 5..73HE L•r1IQE��:'. I ti. ;� �•; is . •O.1 �I . _...:. __. ..,.. .... ._. P:O,RESORLER.. w E..EE ....... . ' �/7 �P •• i I I I ,O m z �-;; p, P• P' ''is I i 2 °: ' J N S 0 lu _ 4211d AVENUE O ' •' ;' .11 jl�jl I I l' i'r' •;��. ��ij-'s i llie - 11IiI� i %%_-. lil fl TjT� jI li II ±F. FRED WWAARINGDRIVE }±" �r;.,.,.i .v,wi_.i� l 1 � is�1+.1:.1 �'Y^�L I CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. C/z 90-11 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. � �[EMIN7 p Date I ! I 1 I ti L V 1, elf y 1� !_a. -..EI 114-1 12.00 c nm 5.�. r.:c:_1��,,'; ; P.C.2� r ' _ Irrrrfr _rr uuiVly T— COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 1 aD e�; .i - .. .,' o R.Q}RE$0 R TER,: W W cc f ❑ ., . z y//��f `t y j i•O m O I � iI W yg Q ��, 1� Irk I `a-•'I �- 42nd AVENUEjil D 3� ,� n',r�ill I I, • f / ��� �` �F i-;;ilj °�;`-; _:•'�_, i—='y' I )1 �117 Jill l a ED YJARING DRIVE ,....•.. .�.�..•..•:•.��, •:'�• ....:i, —3�._ "i. ^T- CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. C/z 90-11 PLANNING COMMISSION � � RESOLUTION NO. Date u� B NOTICE OF DEPII44LNATION Negative Declaration TO: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary of Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St. , Rm. 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92502 FROM: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in om pliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the public resources code. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Title/Cm mn Name: Case No. CZ 90-11 Prezoning area north of Country Club Drive Date of Project Approval: November 8, 1990 State Clearinghouse NLmlber (if submitted): N/A Contact Person: Stephen Smith Project Location: Area north of Country Club Drive, east to Washington Street Project Description: Prezoning East Sphere Area This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project ( )will, (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An environmental impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the environmental impact report may be examined at the above city hall address. X A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures ( ) were, (X) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for this project. i tore Title Date Received for Filing (Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope) w a RECEIVED EQUITY OCT 15 1990 DIRECTIONS D EVE L®]�l�i[]ENT, INC• d7Y WYMUNC"OE PAW RMENE OOUd NT DE October 11, 1990 195-90RJ Mr. Ramon A. Diaz Secretary Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Diaz: Enclosed please find an article, which I came across in a local newspaper, on noise pollution and its effect on a residential area. In this case it is airport noise but can you imagine what an increase in traffic along the railroad tracks would do in regards to an increase in noise pollution. Sincerely, E.D. DEV NT, INC. char Jacobs Senio Vice Pre 'de RJ:msa cc:Steve Smith/ASL 5100 Birch Street • Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 752-7891 FAX (714) 752-7898 Airport NoiseeStrikes Wrong norca Land-use: Homeowners say Orange Cotlnty's refusal to.biiy them out r{ makes it impossible for them to move elsewhere. By JIM NEWTON t+}' I ISKS S I A rI' WRIJER SANTA ANA HEIGHTS— When Mariann Towersey came to this agricultural strip near New- Y'^ port Beach 10 years ago, she and her husband knew there was going y t to be noise from nearby John Wayne Airport. But in those days, Towersey recalls, flights were fewer and farther between, and the commo- tion seemed tolerable. Things today are different. Last ''i week,as Towersey described half a �' t F� decade of battles that she has waged with the county, flights KEN IIIVIILY / Ius AngeluTftnrs departed every few minutes, fore- Pie se seeAAIRPORT,AEE Mariann Towersey says noise from airport makes her home unliv-ab1e._`_ eA 21•` MONDAY,OCTOBER g, 1990 iOC A�= ORT: Noisy Planes '•` - COSTA / JOHN JO i' WAVNE n*w" MESA 0� 5 Anger Nearby Residents AIRPORT ConNoued from Al realignment. Thg report adds that .r;.ing her first to shout and then wait it is "not possible to put a time Per aigc «.Wlefltl3; burning with anger, until estimate on the implementation." os j Sly ,.�11 es passed. Mathews, ,citing litigation that T Jy = tiI bw do you like that?" she the Towerseys have brought g i�lmrd, glaring daggers at one of against the county, declined to tr (fending Alaska Airlines jet as it comment on the specifics of their :#',vOdwned all conversation. "What case. we supposed to do about that?" Meantime, Towersey says she's �'; Towersey is one of a dozen or so left in a home that becomes in- 0e. i�4ei&h'hors strung along Birch creasingly unlivable as the airport " � NOISE ,Street,a two road just beyond becomes increasingly successful• ;aowr '`- a AREA #,the end of the airport runway,who The airport added several flights a caobs R; 4 want county officials to buy them day to its expanded operations last \; ^ •e.out. So far, however, the county Monday. ! ,1:has been unwilling to meet their When their kitchen trash com- NEWPORT :Y.rl We're trapped here," said rest- pactore. recently broke, the Tower- eacKegi o BEACH ,i,a seys left it unrepalred. Why im- �+�1aCJ tfa Fred Peterson, a business prove a home that the family only ' idt at Newport-Mesa AltStifa hopes to leave?Towersey asked. Las Angela rmcs , (ive Education Center. 'The coon- "This has just gotten us so de- i f ty s willing to pay me $363,000 for pressed,"she said. "And the worst the ones behind it.What do you do *!'this place.I can't buy anything like of it is that we can't appeal to our when your representative is the ;;this in Orange County far that elected officials because they're one torturing you?" ;mount of money, so I have to sit t here." es<�only to 'have escrow fall .: thr$ugh. Several doors up thestreet,a neighbor living near a new it t'shot that the county has failed r: cphstpuction site echoed those , to recognize noise as a problem. complaints, pointing as he did to- ' After a long review of the land-use ward the growling heavy machin- ` for the area in the early 1980s, the cry a few feet away. county determined that the area ,^.4 You think the airplanes are around Birch Street would be more I : ,lodd," he said. "Try living next to appropriate for offices than homes. those.". h The land was rezoned, and the The neighbors blame the delays transition took hold. and frustrations squarely on Coun- - . By most measures, it has been a ty Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, rousing success. New offices are saying he pursued the airport ex- springing up along the street, and pansion with a vengeance and ,j construction is booming. County : igri6re.d the plight he was creating Planners envision a vibrant office hl for big-constituents living In its 4 park within a few years, one that day k1 works in.tandem with the expand- ed airport and its new oplwrtuni- .�-tt`iroog}t, and he hasn't done a ties for business. 1�hirlg;'Towersey said, as a neigh- r� L"l•'really think the economic '. ded In engine that is driving that area is "� agreement. "We r. romised that no one here �14 the airport;' said Tom Mathews, :•:Yid` iuffer, and ,I blame him ate ;eounty director of planning. %,,Wha't,you see out there is reallyaid last week that he was �plbgt4ive." hear of his constituents' * But:that's not a view that's ,�66 lets but added that he's d shared an Birch Street:.a dvIli ble to help if they want his t JT'i his neighbors, Peterson's " dip 6h:"I think you know that my oop-tMng are limited.He can't sell his .M>:always open; he said. "I'd a4ousa to another homeoWnee be- ; , to hear their complaints." catL4 the area is zoned for office HcT+m'ptexek But his property is too Mp ' entail tb hold an entire office build- ;,,t` . of the.area residents did • Qut, }laving taken advan- sq•he's had trouble finding a ! a county purchase assur- eloper willing to clitnpjete a gram years ago. But even the land. the process was infuriat- on said he's d kit ed Into' t3 Tfg a`fidleft them battered. r r ons for the Projiecty five ' as incredibly frustrating," Mullan, who once lived d the corner from the We can't appeal to ` ,P'Ve�seys. "I feel sorry for the ,+ lE who are left. They're get- � seoU►elected officials Ling the shaft l� 0 W ." they're the ones �.: "TIiB Towerseys agree. Their ,v � house lies in the area that the behind it.; T'' c as identified for a reconfi- :,� ' MARIANNTOWERSEY fitly Birch Street, and a new y, arterial street project would run Resident 4 �tltrt�c Il across the Towerseys' i property, so no developer is likely I-MhiL I the county still has not fultdc the road project,so officials say they are not prepared to buy out be Towerseys,at least not yet. s Ali ,t dves the family without any F^ kely:buyer, and they remain iA stuck for the indefinite future. "At this time . . . no particular a 'date As been established for Im- 'plementation of the[street project[ improvements,"according to a sta- ,~ f'eport written this week on haGis known as the Mesa/Birch Cuff SHIM r {,,�,,P. 0�. V�p,7/ Ims n�a — - — - — - - -- —- — - 714-5T8-4= FROM MX 7U-678•7318 SUBJECT Q(� f G O 0 L 4 O -11 l i. /-�2-1 Q DATE �' ouj4 P1 f-- /Praol)I-^,n 5iT rTQ AT -n--loo F-,4J i6L-D/ -P* M PtI A1Tc- Sst A ME r N F-ML t PPI-10-011 "C4tN)X/& Mr- pPDpoT�'CD �/�OJFCT� �D /v�G,A� 1/E ��cLl����• SIGNED _ -- TO Mr. Cliff Shinn L _ Y DATE August 31, 1990 Enclosed please find a copy of the_pl.arrning r<omjssion. staff, report- dated September 4, 1990 and the corresponding_agenda._ Ramon A. Diaz, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission SIGNED- —�� ---- RECIPIENT: DETACH AND RETURN THIS COPY TO SENDER 1(I5901) a(12 08 24 90 P PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P) Proof of Publicanon of: This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp CITY OF PALM DESERT RECEIVE Casc No. CIZ 90-11 '90 SEP 10 PM 1 55 CITY CLERKS "ICE CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C!Z WI S E p 3 1990 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearingwill be held before the Palm Desert Planing Commission to COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARIMENi consider a request to prezone the property north of Country CITY�qF PALM OESERI Club Drive,west of Washington Street to the existing city limit shown below for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a negative declaration of wevifonmentai impact pertaining thereto. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,September 4, 1990,at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Han,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert, California,atwhich Time and place all Interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all Items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing.Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for.revlew In the department of community developmerht/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. antl 4.30 p.m. Monday through Friday.If you challenge the proposed actions In court,you may be limited to relsing only those Issues you or STATE OF CALIFORNIA, someone else raised at the public hearing described in this County of Riverside,I am a citi- notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the zen of the United States and a re- planning commission(or city council)at,or prior to, ore public hearing. sident of the County aforesaid;I RAMON A. DIA2, Secretary am over the age of eighteen years, Palm Desert Planning Commission and not a party to or interested in (PUB. D.P. AUG. 24. 1990) - the above-entitledmatter.I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Desert Post,a newspaper of gen- _ ._ cral circulation,printed and pub- "' fished bi-weekly in the City of Palm Desert County of Riverside, and which newspaper has been ,,. . •I adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court —j—�—— - of the County of Riverside, State of California, under the date of 10/5, 1964,Case Number 83658; that the notice, of which the an- nexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regu- lar and entire issue of said news- paper and not in any supplement ----`- - �- ' -- --- - thereof on the following date,to- wit: 8/24 all in the year 1990. 1 certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that die foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Desert California, this 24th day of August, 1990 (Signed) 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: September 21 , 1990 CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: C/Z 90--11 The Planni.no Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of September 18, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF C/Z 90-11 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1472. CARRIED 4-0-1 (COMMISSIONER RICHARDS ABSTAINED) . Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 1.5) days of the date of the decision. F:AM N A. DIA7_, _ ARY PALM DESERT' PLANNI COMMISSION RAD/4.rrj cc: Coachella Valley Water, District Public Works Department Bui.ldi.nu & Safety Department Fire Marshal PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1472 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE_ DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF THE RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY . CASE NO. C/Z 90- 11. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of September, 19.90, hold a duly noticed public: hearing to consider recommending to the city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and prezzoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act , Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to Justify their actions, as described below: 1 . The proposed land uses are consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 90-11 Exhibit "B"• on file in the department of 1 r � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1472 community development are hereby recommended to the city council for approval . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1Sth day of September, 1994, by the falli.)wing vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, ERWOOD, JONATHAN, AND WHITLOCK NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: R'ICHARDS 4 �� pp '(iP'(/�� CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST' 407fg- 4�cr ry SRS/tm 2 1 � PLANNING COMMISSIO._ RESOLUTION NO. 1472 EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15i)83, of the California A din inistrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 90-11 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washinaton Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city. "fhe Director of the Department of Community Development , 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. • September 18 1990 RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUN TY DEVELOPMENT SRS/tm J CHEW off N10 a o o 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: September 6, 1990 City of Palm Desert Re: C/Z. 90-11_ C.- The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of September 4, 1990, PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MINUTE MOTION, INSTRUCTED STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL ANNEXATION OF THE AREA NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF THE RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT, REFLECTING EXISTING COUNTY ZONING. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. R M A N A. DIAZ S C , RY II PALM DESERT PLANNINB' COMMISSION RAD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal SUNUSE COMPANY i31L �C� September 18, 1990 rP 1 8 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY t'!P PALM DESERT Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: CZ 90-11 - Preannexation Zoning of Area North of Country Club Drive, West of Washington Street and South of the Railroad Right-of-Way Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: Sunrise Company owns a parcel of land (approximately 3 acres) located northerly of Frank Sinatra Drive, easterly of E1 Dorado Drive, and southwesterly of the Railroad Right-of-Way (north of Palm Valley Country Club) . We would like to construct a facility on this site for laundry, rental guest services, and other country club related purposes. This facility would be used exclusively for our country club and rental operations. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission zone this parcel of land appropriately in order to permit the use described above. It is our understanding from Planning Department Staff that either the proposed PR zoning or SI (Service Industrial) zoning would support this use. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, BUNRISE COMP Allan Levin Vice President, Engineering AL/sl cc: P. K. Smith, Jr. - Executive Vice President, Sunrise Company Steve Smith - Planning Department, City of Palm Desert pvccannex.mem 42-600 Cook Street, Suite 200, Palm Desert, California 92260, Telephone (619) 568-2828 Builder of Arnesirn"s Finest Country Club Co,.nn,Wties �r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF THE RAILWAY RIGHT- OF-WAY TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY. CASE NO. C/Z 5/G-11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of September, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the e-xisting city limit for the purpose of facilitating anne�:ation of the area to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 0-29, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Flan. 2. The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare, NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are . true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the 'Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 90-11 E:.:hibit "B" on file in the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. department of community development are hereby recommended to the city council for approval . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of September, 15:j90, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ Secretary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 150c:3, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z ` 0-11 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, 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. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SRS/tm I _J I � � I \\�\ jh�X�•�yl� ) 1 1� � i � I I -y •`� ;� fir_ i 'r _ irrr+r.�u.niiilriJST ►I P•C•2jII/��ii/jj/" COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE fHE k v�p P. ,_„• x w R.DJRE 614TER w yp Jj -1,. w N 1 42nd AVENUE U ' 3' rr — I .Mt�. � I I 1 a - `�:1!: -.A.t,'„N� I. • � i /`%'l/! ' � I I ° cat �-- Ij�—� 1❑�ltt iI 1 � � ~ � III II P _I ( � I ;.>';'ll ./,...i IF;�• � ` `;>-y,�:, !I'�,.1.,°71 :I nr,'�LI•h.PP .I I I I I . i ?:':� �y�' � I c., �._ .•�/-�.•i J)]�I-::I,�!.�I FRED WARING DRIVE v�v � .,••.:<irr•:c::::::':r:._� ^T CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. O/z eo-„ PLANNING COMMISSION a o RESOLUTION NO. Chang) c� o9 Zms "K H 0 op 1�'r B Date MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 Chairperson Whitlock indicated that the commission would listen to the advice from the city attorney. Dr. Shah asked that the continuance be to the next meeting, because the project had already been held _.rp for 15 months. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Mr. Diaz indicated that because of staff workload, the case should be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood , continuing PP 89 to November 20, 1990. Carried 4- 0, D. Case N6: C/Z 90-11 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of the pre<oning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city and a negative declaration of environmental impact thereto. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended in favor of the proposal . Commissioner Jonathan asked how many feet away from the railroad the office professional use would be and Mr. Smith replied it was 800 square feet south of the first street. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification regarding the fly-over concept and traffic impacts by Mr. Safavian of the public works department. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. GORDON E. PAULUS, 44-419 Sorrento Court , representing Equity Directions, informed commission that this pertained to their item which was next on the agenda. He noted that in the North Sphere Plan it was 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 recommended that a. 2, 000 square foot buffer be provided because of vibrations, smells, etc. He stated that if the office professional /service industrial zoning were approved, the city standards would be much more restrictive than those in Riverside County. He indicated that the applicant will comply with the city standards and with mitigation factors and felt the project would be a good neighbor. He informed commission that they sent out many notifications and had meetings in the late spring/early summer and invited members of homeowners associations to come and review their proposal . He indicated that they had met with Palm Desert Resort`s association officers and with Sunrise Company, who was in favor of the project. He indicated that possible tenants would be restaurants, a financial institution, church, and day care, which would be beneficial to the area. He reiterated that it world be a high--quality project and with landscaping and setbacks being provided next to the already approved county uses, this was an appropriate project. He felt that the eventual Cook: Street Interchange would help reduce traffic in that area. Mr. Paulus told commission that Mr. Dennis French and Mr. Rick: Jacobs were also present. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak: in FAVOR of the proposal . MR. EDDY BUSH, Vice President and Treasurer of the Tandika Corporation, of which Avondale Golf Club was a major asset, indicated that he has a small piece of property and on the north end of it they would like to have a small residential project . He was informed by Riverside County Planning Department that if he did not have final approval prior to annexation, he could be forced to start completely from scratch within the city of Palm Desert. Mr. Diaz informed Mr. Bush that if a subdivision was approved by the county the city would accept it, and the city policy has been to accept county approvals and abide by those conditions of approval for as long as the development approval was valid. He also suggested that Mr. Bush apply to the city, although he would not be able to start construction until the annexation was complete. He named 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 several examples of developments where this procedure had been done. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, 74-399 Highway Ill in Palm Desert, informed commission that he was representing the homeowners at Palm Desert Resorter, which has approximately 1000 units. He felt that while the request was for a change of zone, he felt the change was actually a change to the general plan, which was presently residential , not office professional or service industrial . He stated that the residents in Palm Desert Resorter bought property under the assumption that the property would remain residential . He .indicated that it was designated through hearings on the north sphere as R-1 ; and was now beomg proposed as a dual designation of O. P. /S. I . He noted that the zoning and general plan must be consistent and indicated that the change of zone and general plan amendment were being done in one action by the prezoning arrangement and felt the commission was making a choice between the R71 dual designation by the adoption of the change of zone to an O. F'. /S. I . zone. He also indicated that this was the fifth time they had been before a public agency opposing this development. They appeared four times before the Riverside County Planning Commission, who was going to deny Equity Direction"s plan, but it was thereafter withdrawn before it went to the Board of Supervisors. He stated that there were hundreds of people present at those meetings. He requested that after conducting the public hearing the matter be continued to a date in October to allow a more representative number of the opposition to be present. He felt the issue of traffic_ was a major concern. He indicated that there seemed to be one consistency in the different traffic studies and that was the doubling of traffic that would occur for uses other than residential . He noted that there was residential there now with the Regency Estates. He felt that residential development could successfully occur in the buffer zone and felt that the developer of Regency Estates was proving that point . Mr. Guralnick felt the scenic corridor on Country Club was nice until getting to the existing Equity Directions development , 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 which was adjacent to the property in question . He indicated that when Equity Directions received approval of their 40 foot buildings, it was their "pride and joy" . He also did not feel that a negative declaration was appropriate for this type of action . He suggested that the general plan be left as residential and the annexation go through , then let them come in for the change of zone and general plan amendment and not part of the annenation process. He felt the development should stand on its own with an environmental impact study. MR. DOUGLAS E. MILLER, past president of the Regency Palms Homeowners Association and appointed by the Regency Palm Homeowners director and residents to act on their behalf. He asked if commission had a copy of the letter that was delivered; Chairperson Whitlock: confirmed that they did and he requested permission to read the letter to the audience which was unanimously opposed to any pre-annexation zoning and requested a denial or Continuance to the 16th or 2Srd day of October (see attached Exhibit A) . He indicated that the board members of their association had heard nothing from Mr. Paulus regarding the Equity Directions proposal . He indicated that the proposal was denied twice by the Board of Supervisors per the Palm Desert Resorter and Regency Palms and he did not want to be part of Palm Desert if the property zoning was going to be changed. He felt the matter should be continued or denied. MRS. MARY STROSNYDER, 41-793 Preston Trail , a permanent resident in Palm Desert Resort County Club. She indicated that the Palm Desert Resort Homeowners Association has an over 960 family membership and they were vehemently opposed to the proposed project. She noted that there were only about 90 residents at home during this time of the year. When they purchased their homes they were assured that the tract in question would remain zoned for residential . She expressed concern regarding traffic, the environmental impact of traffic, noise, truck traffic with the service industrial , and any restaurants or day care facilities. She felt the property values would devaluate and the quality of the residential life would be incompatible. She asked that commission continue 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 this case to allow appropriate membership representation to be present. MR. PETER SOLOMON, 76-857 Abby Court in Regency Palms. He indicated that he and his family were the developers of Regency Palms and Regency Estates. He noted that in the staff presentation the existing buildings by Equity Directions were described as "big, boxy and bulky" to describe the two 40 foot buildings along Country Club Drive. He reminded staff and commission that the developer who approved and advocated these existing buildings were the same applicant . He felt that ultimately what was built was what the developer wanted to be built and disagreed with Mr. Paulus blaming the county for their standards. As a developer of Regency Estates he was opposed to the proposed project. He indicated they were extremely sensitive to the time and value of the present homeowners and future homeowners property. He could see no compelling reason for a zone change and felt there were plenty of other places for office professional /service industrial development and the proposal would impact negatively on the Country Club corridor. He noted that Bermuda Dunes just east of Washington was an ideal place for this type of development, as well as the Palm Desert industrial area or in the large, vacant north sphere area. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification as to the location of Regency Palms and the location of the railroad and potential adverse impact. Mr. Solomon noted that Palm Malley developed right up to the railroad tracks and they also had homes in close proximity in Regency Palms, but indicated that the 0 homes in that last phase sold out in under two months. Mr. Solomon informed commission that he lives in the last phase of Regency Palms and while the trains could be heard, after a couple of days he did not notice them anymore. He felt there was such a big demand for housing_ in that corridor that they bought that additional property to develop as res idential . MS. MARY KING, 77-027 Preston Trail in Palm Desert Resort, and a member- of the board of the homeowners association. She stated that they were opposed to the project and she lived directly across the street and bought the property , knowing that it would be residential . 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 MS. ADELAINE DOMICO, 77-05' Freston Trail in Palm Desert Resort , e?::pressed .appreciation that the cCM[Tiiss:i.on allowed anyone to voice their opinion. She indicated that they were from Ohio and were snowbirds" 4-or about. _ai.gh t. years before deciding to move and buy 'i nc, property in Palm Desert Resort . She knew abo_i,:: the i-p.-.'identia1. zoning and was opposed to any zone cl-Iange. She did not want to see the Country Club- tmo<..3plierr damaged. i":R. BRUCE LEGOWITZ, in Regency Palms, looked at the proposed zoning before purchasing property. He was concerned about traffic and was opposed to the development and the potential negative impact . MR. FRANt:. GONZAI-ES, in Palm Desert Resort Country Club , appealed to the commission for a continuance to allow Other residents to be present. MR. DAVID NICHOI...SON, in Regency Palms, felt the issue YJaS the request for the prezoning. He indicated that they !_ut their vacation ,hort so they could be present for this public hearing. He suggested a park as a transitional use between the residential and commercial area. He did not see a problem with the annexation to Palm Desert but was opposed to the prezoning. MS. JEANNIE ROSE STEIGER, broker/owner of Crestview Realty in Palm Desert , informed commission that she had purchased and sold many homes in Regency Palms and felt that changing the residential zoning would devaluate the homes in the area. MR. JAMES STROSNYDER, 41 -7'73 Freston Trail , indicated that he and his wife selected that area because of the scenic value of Country Club Drive and found out the zoning and owner and information on the proposed Sunterra development, and the land opposite their gate was zoned residential and would remain so. He based his decision to buy on this information. He felt the project would make it impossible for the e?:isting homeowners because Of the traffic. He indicated that the Riverside County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors voted against the change of zone. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 ME. 'VELMA DICKENSON., 41-? 9 Preston Trail , speaking for her husband also, stated that they purchased their home approximately three years ago and were told that the property across the street was zoned residential and they fought and won with the county to keep it that way. She requested a continuance to a later date. MR. BRUCE WILEY , 76-771 Glueew s Court in Regency Palms, expressed concern regarding the outcome of the prezoning annexation and the affect on his property. He also expressed concern regarding the traffic and road conditions. He felt these issues should be addressed and was concerned about the short time for the meeting notice. 1R. SOLOMON' S son, 7=:-857 Abbey Court , addressed the commission expressing concern regarding traffic , especially trucks going by when he's out riding his bike. He was concerned about children playing around the edge of the curbs/gutters at the bus stop and the danger to them when trucks pass by. He felt it would be harder to get out of Regency if more traffic were added . Chairperson Whitlock: asked staff for rebuttal and clarification on the possibility suggested by Mr. Guralnic4 of this project coming in on its own , and addressing the traffic issues. Mr. Smith informed commission that there was a video tape of the area if commission wished to view it . He also noted that letters had been received in opposition from Carey Wick:e, Susie Solomon, Michelle DeSilva, Cammie Merk:in, Linda and Paul Fulterton, Keith Robinette, Buck: and Donna Pruett , Mr. and Mrs. John Mann and they attached names of nine others, Barbara and David Nicolson, Mr. and Mrs. Bird , Bruce and Helen Wylie, Marjorie Coons, and Paula and Dorian Freeman. He also received ten letter in support from Robert Eschelle, Michael Smith, Jack: Cork ill , Cynthia Ewing, Robert Simms, Brad Nestie and others. Mr. Smith noted that many residents spoke about the scenic corridor and he found the 14 course wall on a five foot slope by Mr. Solomon at Country Club and Oasis Club Drive very objectional . He also indicated that the landscape strip along the west side of the Resorter did not have any plants and was dirt from Country Club to 42nd Avenue. He hoped that if the area was 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 arne> ed into the city, a better job would be done and felt strongly that residential did not belong on the property in question and in the report it was st.aff's recommendation that if the property had to be developed residential because of the neighborhood concern, the county should do it because of the long-term implications from noise and the potential Eagle Mountain dumpsite and the railroad transporting the trash. He noted that the residents north of Preston Trail were notified because they were within the 300 feet. Mr. Smith deferred the traffic issues to Mr. Safavian. Commissioner Erwood asked if the two issues could be separated and if they were, the city should not annex::: this area into Palm Desert because the service industrial area would have protected the area against noise and smell from the trains. Staff concurred. Mr. Diaz explained that when the north sphere plan was done, the county rezoned the triangular portion of Washington and Country Club to service industrial . The county also approved the existing two 40 foot buildings and a grading plan on Oasis Club Drive which put the street three to four feet above the property to the West , as well as the railroad to the north and the county was in the process of approving a measure to increase the railroad traffic. He could not recommend R-1 zoning in that area.; addressing Mr. Guralnick"s points, he indicated that the area was dual designated and they were not amending the General. Plan or Specific Plan and the city has development standards that are more stringent than the county. He indicated that the grading in Whitehawk and Regency Estates would not have been approved in Palm Desert, nor the Resorter landscaping along Oasis Club Drive. He expressed confidence in the city"s development standards and any project built there would go through public hearing and landscaping would be put in and maintained. Mr. Safavian explained that staff requested a traffic study be done as though no previous study had been completed because the one done for the county was not as comprehensive as Palm Desert wanted. He felt it addressed the traffic concerns and took: into consideration future traffic demands. He explained the proposed changes and diversions for traffic to the area. Commissioner Jonathan asked that if the zoning could be left PR and the property annexed into Palm Desert, then the applicant could come in later with a zoning request and Mr. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 Smith replied that PR was not an appropriate zoning for the site from staffs view point. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and informed commission that per advice from the city attorney, she would be abstaining. Commissioner Erwood concurred with the concept of taking the annexation issue separate from the zone change, especially a zone change that seems to be incompatible with adjacent properties. He also noted that an applicant , by timing and continuances, can wear down the opposition. He felt it was appropriate to look at the existing buildings done by an applicant and could not see a compelling reason for a zone change. He noted the success of the other residential developments in the area and felt the matter should be separated . Commissioner Downs concurred. Commission determined that staff should prepare a resolution recommending approval to city council of the annexation, for adoption at the next meeting, and reflecting the current county zoning. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, instructing staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval to city council annexation of the area and reflecting county zoning. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock: abstained ) . E. Case No. PM 25270 - EQUITY DIRECTIONS, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a tentative parcel map for a 75 lot service industrial./office professional subdivision on a 118 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Oasis Club Drive. Mr'. Gordon Paulus informed commission that the application was being withdrawn . Act_i_o_n: No action was needed. 1 i, CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 4, 1990 CASE NO: C/Z 90-11 REQUEST: Approval of the pre<-zoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city and a negative declaration of environmental impact pertaining thereto. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I . BACKGROUND: For quite some time the city has received various requests to annex the subject area since it was added to the sphere of influence several years ago.- During the recent north sphere study and general plan work the area west of Oasis Club Drive was designated low density residential (5 dwelling units/acre) while the area east of Oasis Club Drive ( was designated basically service industrial (S. I . ) . Portions of the property north and east of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive were multi- designated R-1 , S. I . , and O.P. This prezoning then will implement the recently adopted general plan land use plan. A. ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE: North: Railroad South: PR-5, C/Z 1619, R-2 5000, R-3/Vacant (Sunrise) , Resorter, Whitehawk, vacant East: CT/Vacant West: PR-3.5/Desert Falls B. GENERAL PLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESCRIPTION: Low density residential, five dwelling units per acre ( i.e. Avondale, Palm Valley, Regency Palms, Regency Estates) . Equity Directions and others (east 1/2 of section 1 south of railroad ) service industrial . II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION= A. RESIDENTIAL .PORTION FROM DESERT FALLS EAST BOUNDARY TO OASIS . CLUB DRIVE. STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 The request is to prezone these properties PR-5 (planned residential five dwelling units per acre) . This zoning will becomie effective upon annexation of the property to the city. This zoning will be consistent with the general plan and north sphere specific plan and will be consistent with the approved residential projects. In addition, the city has agreed that for a period of five years building permit fees charged these developments which were previously approved under the county will not pay the higher city building fees even though they will be in the city. Fees will match those payable in the county at the time of permit issuance. B. SERVICE INDUSTRIAL (S. I. ) EAST HALF OF SECTION 1 , NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB TO WASHINGTON. The westerly portion of this area is presently under development as an industrial/business park while the east end of the area at Washington Street is vacant. It is proposed to prezone this east half of section 1 S. I . (service industrial ) . C. NORTHEAST CORNER OF OASIS CLUB DRIVE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, O.P. , AND SERVICE INDUSTRIAL, S. I . This site is vacant property bounded by Country Club Drive on the south and Oasis Club Drive an the west. The developers of this site on behalf of the owner have requested that the front row of lots along Country Club and north along Oasis Club Drive a distance of 1512 feet be prezoned office professional (O. P. ) and the remainder of the 118 acre site service industrial (S. I . ) . DISCUSSION: The only area of contention appears to be the prezoning of the 119 acre site at the northeast corner of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive. This property was before county planning and the Board of Supervisors numerous times for a general plan amendment. Apparently neighborhood opposition was significant and the matter was never concluded. Apparently, the issue came down to the traffic impacts the proposal would have on existing streets, particularly the Washington Street/Country Club intersection and the entrance to the Resorter. 2 STAFF REPORT C/Z '30-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 Staff supports the requested prezoning to O. P. and S. I. for a variety of reasons. The north sphere plan establishes a 2, 0 )(-) foot buffer area from the railroad and freeway where residential development was not to be encouraged. This was to protect residents from the noise produced from the freeway and railroad as well as the vibration and odors produced by the railroad. Considering that the county is presently considering opening Eagle Mountain as a garbage dump site for Southern California it may be expected that in addition to diesel odors garbage odors may be next unless all the trash is carried in sealed containers. Part of the east half of section 1 is presently under development as a business/industrial park. To place residential homes immediately adjacent to those existing tall , bulky, massive structures with windows on the second floor is not something that this city does or would require. If the O.F. zoning is approved as proposed then the city can assure concerned residents that the city will be more sensitive to building design, size, location, height, bulkiness and massiveness than the county has shown up until now. The O.P. zone standards allow a maximum 25 foot height with a minimum setback of 65 feet. In addition, through a pre-annexation agreement the perimeter wall will be required to be located at least 32 feet back from the Country Club. and Oasis Club Drives curbs. Appropriate landscape treatment will occupy the 32 feet of setback as well as a meandering 8 foot wide sidewalk. Staff can assure concerned residents that if the area is annexed to the city and zoned O.P. we will not: 1 . Allow a 10 foot wide dirt strip as presently exists along the east side of Oasis Club Drive adjacent to the Resorter for a distance of one mile. 2. Require or permit an 18 course high ( 14 feet ) block wall on top of a 5 foot high slope located 12 feet back from the street as exists at the northwest corner of . Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive at Regency Estates. 3. Require or permit a 6 foot high wall , elevated 2 feet above the curb with a setback of 12 feet from curb and use half (61 ) of the setback for a meandering sidewalk 3 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 leaving only a landscape strip a maximum G feet wide wall as occurs across the Whitehawk frontage. 4. Occupancy of a business center without installation of walls and landscaping to screen parking lots from view from public streets as has occurred in the existing Equity Directions center. As we will undoubtedly hear from area residents and as the current traffic report confirms, traffic volumes in this portion of Country Club Drive are high. Traffic volumes of this level can result in significant levels of. pollution as well as noise. One way to mitigate this noise is to install 14 foot high noise barrier walls. We would not encourage this along a scenic corridor. One last reason for having the Equity Direction site O. P. and S. I. is that Oasis Club Drive is a 100 foot wide right- of-way which continues north westerly and will ultimately connect with Frank Sinatra Drive and thereby provide access to the Cook Street interchange with I-10. This route will , in the future, carry significant volumes of traffic. This makes it the appropriate break to provide the land use chance from residential to S. I. and U. P. To change the land use at this location is far more appropriate than the present point where rear or side yards of single family homes would have to back up to 40 foot high buildings and/or parking lots. CONCLUSION OF LAND USE DISCUSSION: The use of this 118 acre site for residential development is inappropriate for a variety of reasons. The property can and will be developed for O. P. and S. I. uses in a manner compatible with the best existing development in the area if it is annexed to the city. If the area is not annexed to the city then any future development proposals will be reviewed by the county. TRAFFIC: Traffic in the area of the prezoning is a problem at this time due to a variety of reasons. Completion of various road segments ( i . e. Oasis Club Drive to Frank. Sinatra, 42nd Avenue to Hovley, Cook Street interchange to I-10, Mid Valley Parkway, Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore) as well as 4 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 road improvements associated with future developments in the prezone area will improve the traffic situation. This conclusion is supported by a recently completed traffic study done in conjunction with TPM 25270, the 118 acre site at the northeast corner of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive. While a residential development on this 118 acre site could result in "slightly less" air quality and traffic impacts than a service industrial/office professional land use designation, it is felt that considering all other factors the slight reduction will be more than offset by the mitigation measures that will be imposed on TPM 2527o through a preanner:ation agreement. In other words, the higher land use designation will result in a higher level of necessary mitigations above the residential level . These various mitigations are outlined more fully in the ASL Traffic Impact Analysis. OVERALL CONCLUSION: Staff feels strongly that the city should not be associated with residential development on the Equity Direction vacant property, considering the long term impacts that the site will face. This conclusion was supported by county staff in their 1-17-90 staff report on EIR No. 305, page 7, where they conclude "Alternative 'H' (residential ) is an infeasible alternative for the entire site. ,. If it must be developed as residential, then let the county approve the application. Staff is confident that the vacant Equity Directions property can be zoned for S. I . and O.P. and be developed in a manner sensitive to the residential community to the west and south. The higher level of traffic mitigation that this site could provide will allow the city to be involved in the traffic solution for the area. If the area is not annexed then the city will have little, if any, involvement in solving the existing traffic problem. This will be left to the county to solve. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW= The proposed prezoning was considered and reviewed as a part of the north sphere specific plan which was recently completed. In 5 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 addition, further environmental review will be conducted when a specific project ( i . e. precise plan and tentative map ) is submitted. A nFaative declaration of environmental impact is enclosed for adoption/certification. IV. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL': The proposed prezoning which will become effective upon anne ::ation of the property to the city will be consistent with the adopted specific plan. The types of uses e-xisting in the PR zone are consistent with those presently e::isting in the area. The proposed service industrial/office professional zonings will result in an upgrade from the exA sting business park. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to city council approval of C/Z -0-11 . VI. ATTACHMENTS: r). Draft resolution. H. Legal notice. C. CEO.A documentation. Li. Comments from city departments and other agencies. E. Plans and exhibits. Prepared by / Y;?MZa..- Reviewed and Approved by SF:S!tm Fs PLANh.,4G COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF THE RAILWAY RiGHT- OF-WAY TO THE EXISTING CITY , LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE _ CITY. CASE NO. C/Z 90- 11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California. did on the 4th day of September, 1990, hold a duly noticed Public hearing to consider recommending to the city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental .Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89. " In that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony.and arguments. , if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard. said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their actions , as described below: 1 . The proposed prezoning to PR-5. Service Industrial , and Office Professional is consistent with the adopted North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed land use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 3 . The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 90-9 Exhibit "B" on file in the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO& department of community development are hereby recommended to the city council for approval . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission. held on this 4th day of September, 1990, by the following vote. to wit : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083 , of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 90- I1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive. west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, 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. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SRS/tm 3 ;I , „ 17 PR- r AN PALM VALLEY ' I IREGENCY PALMS �� _ r�JNTrY C DRIVE LAKES' I „ w W � RESORIER , c c i o I r �N F a W I W U .�---- 42rd AVENUE O I � I2 N� �NINQ DRIVE �^ CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. c z 90-11 PLANNING COMMISSION C[�afi RESOLUTION NO. gc� o Date INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) 1. . EARTH a. Much of the area affected by the pre'<oning is already developed. Development of vacant parcels will result in gradina to a ma.::imum depth of five feet. Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures. The area is relatively flat so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions. b. As part of the normal grading activity on new projects soil will be moved, displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place on the site. C. The area is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better direction. d . 'The area does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed by UBC requirements to insure that buildings are 'constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. 2. AIR a. Much of the area is already developed. During construction on remaining vacant parcels, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading I INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. DecaL.ise the area is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a 19:=:5 draft environmental impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park: View Drive Land Use Study. Completed development of the area will result in less dust leaving the area then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. b . The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. C . Development of this area will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified land uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. b. The vacant areas, when developed, will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however, the landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material . The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a controlled manner. C. See b. CVWD is developing a drainage channel across the north limit of this area. d. There is no ground water present on the site. e. See d. f. While any development or vacant land results in the use, of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies; the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. 2 I INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 h. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the undeveloped portion of the area contains weeds and sagebrush. The projects when completed will introduce a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be introduced to the site will , however, be material previously used in the desert. b . The site does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. C . It is e:>::tremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. S. ANIMAL LIFE a-c. The area has been identified as being habitat area for the fringe toed lizard. Prior to development on vacant land a fee of $600 per acre must be paid to the nature conservancy far acquisition on a permanent habitat area north of I-10. Other than the fringe toed lizard no other endangered species will be impacted by development of vacant land in this area. d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable habitat for wildlife. I. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. b. All material resources used on the site are renewable. 7. a & b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since the new projects will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature. S. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials. INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 9. a. As discussed earlier the project will have a positive impact in terms of drainage impacts an adjacent properties. b. Properties in the area are not subject to unusual geologic hazards. The project will not effect that hazard. 10. NOISE Construction on vacant land will create temporary noise impacts. MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. 11 . LAND USE The prezoning will not alter the present developed and proposed land use in the area. The prezoning is consistent with the approved general plan of the area. 12. OPEN SPACE None of the area in question is designated as open space; its development therefore will not result in a reduction in the amount of designated open space. 1_ . POPULATION a. 'The prezoning is a prelude to future annexation of the area to the city and, therefore, will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city, s population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 14. EMPLOYMENT Development of vacant property will create new jobs, however, the prezoning will not provide new jabs; in terms of the value as a whole in and of itself it is minor. However, when the cumulative effects of area development is analyzed the impact on employment is significant. Most of the jobs created, however, will be filled by residents of the area or those who have come to the Coachella Valley for other reasons. 4 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 1.5. HOUSING a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region . This is based on the conclusions reached in items 1:3 and 14. In addition this is currently being projected some 8, 000 unsold housing units in the valley; in addition to the number of rental units being developed , in the City of Palm Desert along. b. None - covered in item 15 a. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. All of the proposed land uses were considered during the review of the north sphere specific plan. It was intended that for any land uses above residential a detailed traffic study would be required to show how the higher land use would impact traffic. ASL has conducted an in-depth analysis specifically regarding the proposed land use an the 118 acre site at the northeast corner of Country Club and Oasis Club Drive. The conclusion is that given the higher level of land use a higher level of mitigation can be required which when combined with various other traffic improvements throughout the area will have a positive impact an the existing traffic situation. b. Development of vacant land will create a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied on the sites. C. E,%cept for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. d . Principal access to the area will be from Country Club Drive, E1 Dorado and Frank Sinatra Drive. e. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth by the traffic analysis referred to in item 16 (a) should positively affect the existing traffic situation. 5 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 17. PUBLIC SERVICE a. The fire department indicates that when this area is annexed to the city it may create a need to add a paramedic squad to e;<:istino crew at Portola and Country Club Drive. If so, it will be funded from the special fire tax payable by each property. b-f. None. The vacant properties serve no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated the area for development. Infrastructure improvements ( i . e. storm channel , streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. 1: . PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE Annexation of the area will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the City of Palm Desert. A fiscal impact analysis is. being prepared pursuant to LAFCO requirements which will determine the net fiscal impact to the city. If the fiscal impact of annexation is negative, it is unlikely that the city will proceed with the annexation. ).,P. UTILITIES All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the vacant areas. The prezoning and ultimate annexation will not alter utility providers. 20. HUMAN HEALTH The uses permitted in the proposed zonings will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 6 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 21 . SIJC_[AL_SERVICES The uses permitted in the proposed zonings will not increase the demand for general social services above the level , if the area is reviewed in the county. 22. AESTHETIr3 a. Much of the area is developed. Development on vacant sites will be required to meet city standards, if annexed. Care will be tat::en to protect any scenic vistas or- views. b. The vacant sites and some developed properties in their present condition may be termed as aesthetically offensive. The prezoning and annexation to the city will mean that all new projects must meet city standards and must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission. C. For reasons stated in items 22 a and b. I-IGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced when vacant sites are developed but the projects will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition the requirement for a engineered lighting plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled. 24. There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical significance of this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. 25. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. SRS/tm 7 I r`M11C1N-%=TTAL SERVICES DEPT . I 1TIAL STUDY =T71R04TjtEYTAL EVALUATIOIi CZZCXLIST VOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIA0I-(MENTAL 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 overcovering of the sail ? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, coveringt or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Z. 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 temoerature , or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ Zr , 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-absorption rates , drainage Patterns, or the rate and- amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the Course or flow of \/ — flood waters? d. Alteration of .tie 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 in aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? 1. Plant Life. will- tie proposal result in: a. Change in tie diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees , shrubs , grass , and C-Zps )? _ b. Reduction of _the numbers of any unique , rare, or enaangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area. or in a barrier to the normal replenishment- of existing species? S. Animal. life. ''dill the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numotrs 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. Ceterioration to existing wildlife habitat r Yes Mavbe Nc 6. Natural Resources . Will tMe proposal result in: a. Increase in -!he rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? 7 . Eneray. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ b. Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re- Quire the.deaelopment of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of f Upset. . Does the proposal involve a risk or an explosion or the release of , hazardous substances ( including, but not limited to, pesticides ,' oil , chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9. EE^anom_ic_Loss. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? _ b. A change in the value of property and impro•ier.;ents exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted Community risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted co=unity noise and vibration levels are \ , exceeded? LX ii. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the a t�T eration of the present developed or — planned land use of an area? 12. Ooen SOace. Will the proposal lead to a sease in the amount of designated open space? 13 . Peculation. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn or the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human Population of the City? n b. Change in the population distribution by ave . income , religion, racial , or ethnic group , occupational class , household type? J� a Yes Mavbe Na 14. Emolovment. Will the proposal result in aad�t na7 new long-tarn jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? IS. Nou_c. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? _ b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal resu t in. a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? 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 mcvVent of people and/or goods? — — e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , \ bicyclists, or pedestrians? 011 . Public Ser,ices. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. fire protection? b. Police protection? — ✓ c. schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? . e. Maintenance of public facilities , including — roads? f. Other governmental services? — / Yes Maybe yo 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities.. . Will the proposal result in a a need for new systems , or alterations to the following utilities : .dk 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: -4— a. The creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? _ 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? _ �( 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: ' a. Obstruction of any scenic vista, or view, open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive — — site open to public view? C. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness , — — and uniqueness? 23. Licht and Glara. Will the proposal produce ne.14 igT gnt or glare? 24 . Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal resu tin an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure , object, or building? I 6. Yes Maybe 4o 25 . Mandatory Findincs of Stoni"icance. a. Oces the project have the potential to degrade 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. Oaes the project have impacts which are indi - vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact an 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. Ooes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: Douglas E. Miller Construction Consultant i' v 39-640 Regency Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 UG 2 9 1990 (619) 345-9586 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT an X PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert C/O Raymond A. Diaz, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Dr.. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject; Prezone Case No. C/Z 90-11 (Equity Directions) Dear Mr. R.A. Diaz, I received a copy of -your notice of Prezone Case No. C/Z 90-11e (Equity Directions) Tues. Aug. 28, 1990. You state that a meeting will be held Sept. 4, 1990 at 7 P.M. , in the council chamber, at the Palm Desert City Hall. My name is Douglas "E" Miller, I am past President & Board Member of the Regency Palms H.O.A. , & represent 110 Homeowners. The Homeowners (110) were unanimously in opposition to the Zone Change requested by Equity Directions. As you know the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, & the Riverside Planning Commission have unanimously rejected this request TWICE. Now Equity Directions is coming in the back door & you are open- . ing that door. The Homeowners of Regency Palms are unanimously against any pre-annexation disscussion, because of the above, & we will. appose any attempt by the City of Palm Desert to, Annex Regency Palms into the City of Palm Desert. As the Elected Director & Representive of the Regency Palms H.O.A., I.am requesting that you either cancel, or re-schelude the 90-F1 too at least the 16 or 23 day of Oct dvise,._ & thank-'you." '. INcYy —idq. i w. ��S C elyr r , s Douglas "E" Miller . cc; PALM Desert Resort H.OA. . Whitehawk H.O.A. ..: Peter Solomon - Palm Desert .City .Manager Mr.. Altman Customer Relations • Quality Assurance Job Management August 20, 1990 � •� Mr. Ramon Diaz, Secret AUG 2 4 1990 Palm Desert Planning Co��Roo 73510 Fred Waring Drive CLry.`LE rALAI DE NfPgRiMEN1 Palm Desert, CA. 92260 DE Re :Equity Directions C se No. TT 25270 Dear Sir: I would like to register my oppositio o the zoning change on the property located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Oasis Club Drive. Equity Directions is clearly attempting to' circumvent the desires of the Riverside County Planning Commission and the hundreds of property owners in the immediate area. They have already gone through the application process with the county. Having been denied their request, they are bringing their problem into the City of Palm Desert sphere of influence. Equity Directions has submitted 'a "plan" . Lets- cross reference the word plan:contrivance, ruse, trick, dodge, and scheme. All less than complimentary terms, although in this case, applicable. Country Club Drive is one of only four available East/';Vest routes innthe area. In the past three years we have seen the addition of traffic signals on Country Club at Washington, Palm Valley, Cook, and the Marriot. Will Oasis Club Drive and Resorter Boulevard be next? I have no quarel with the need for these signals from a safety stand- point. I am concerned, however, that the addition of 75 industrial lots will have a significant negative impact on the traffic patern on Country Club Drive. Let's get back to the word .plan. What august body sat in judgement on the "plan" for the business park still under construction on Country Club-west of Washington? This conglomeration of rhymeless buildings is a perfect example of poor planning. "Wait 'till it's finished" . . . "It's still undef construction" , you say. Take a ride on Cook! Turn left or right on any street between Country Club and Fred `flari.ng and see another prime example. My neighbors and I hope you will not make the same mistake again. Sincerelv, r Chuck .Sing �x 77027 Preston Trail Palm Desert, CA. 92260 345-1608 PETER SOLOMON & moo. 53-800 Polk St. P.O. Box 241 Thermal, CA 92274 (619) 398-6175 SCla V L% AUG 2 3 1990 August 21 , 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C1iY °F PALM DESERT Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260 Ref : Legal Notice, Case No. C/Z 90-11 , Pre-Zone Request , Equity Directions Dear Commissioners , I have just this date received the above referenced City of Palm Desert' s Legal Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, September 4, 1990. For the following below listed reasons,. I hereby request that this hearing be rescheduled for a month, or at least , for 2 weeks . 1 . Although the Notice was dated August 13 , I - and I believe other recipients - did not receive it until August 21 . This does not afford us enough opportunity to prepare for such an important meeting. 2 . For almost 8 months I have been in contact with both City Manager Altman and Planning Director Diaz, expressing my concern and opposition to such a re-zoning. To allow only a 14 day notice to prepare does a disservice to the zone change opponents. 3. September 4 is one day after Labor Day. This holiday is historically one in which_ many Desert residents leave the Valley for a vacation or long weekend. Moreover, an added reason to extend "away" time for many residents is the fact that this year Desert Sands schools will not open until the 10th-of September. Therefore, many directly affected property owners- will not be available to attend this important meeting, if held on: September 4. 4. In many conversations with both City Manager Altman and Planning Director Diaz, I have been told that the City Administration supports and endorses a Pre-Annexation Agreement with Equity Directions which includes a change of zone from residential to Industrial/Service. on separate occasions Mr. Diaz has noted that the City needs and welcomes the additional tax base such a zone change would bring to the City treasury. It is Mr. Diaz who has scheduled this Hearing for a date which lends itself to an accommodation of the Equity Directions spokesman at the expense of those of us who live in the annexation area and who may choose to oppose such a zone change. 5 . This zone change has been extremely controversial for well over a year at the County level . Both the Riverside County Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted against the change of zone in favor of maintaining a residential flavor to the Country Club Drive area. It should be noted that at each of the hearings before the East Area Planning Commission, at least 100 opponents appeared to express their opinions. Both Mr. Altman and Mr. Diaz are aware of this fact. Inherent in the very controversial nature of this Pre-zone request, I strongly believe that the points made note of above be taken under submission and my request for a two week to one month delay be positively acted upon. Each resident of the area under consideration for annexation has an interest in maintaining his or her existing property value and the beauty and integrity of the Country Club Drive area. Respectfully Submitted, Pe Solomon PS/lp cc: Regency Palms Homeowners Association Palm Desert Resort Homeowners Association Whitehawk Homeowners Association MzMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 7UI Last 28th Suite 212, Lung Reach, CA 90806 `i 7 31 3) 426-6951 (714)x97-4822 lc Avenue.Suilc 2118, Huntington Beach.CA 42617 OSCAR 1j% SS;fAVDLE.,M.D t , 'LIEN B. BF.RN5IEIN. M.U. RAY MOND W. KELSO. JR.. M.D. IEFFREY S. RIKER. JG 7 GURL`O �1ECICF.RCING. M.D. JAARiS D. WALLACE, AID. - BRYNA KANE, M.D. JAMESGLEN F. LI LLACE, 1 OLVEL&tALRI OLNkvc W. SONNF.. M.D. SIEFFIFN BROWN. M.D. GAMES R. LICIR. UIRIV I L`t .A OtA*.kJORY L. STRAYER, M.D. LARRY A. DRUM, M.D. fOIIN F CRONIN, M.D. MARK C. ASBILL. M.D. ALLEN S. WARNER. M.D. (AAW Y.HAMASAKL M.D_ BRUCE VAN NATTA. M.D. .- S �. qD J` r QCLLLtit ��� �G�'u-bt i t L s t Q u am a C► avx cltutw/t1 ,etit. �1�4C-LLCM,. GIC��bW1- cLLti � �'GEO S-(�LiCLI,'LCcI ff-vje j -Ye i tke 'w- Ac -e.Lt,te �LtGto G�J-C�6y'}iltil -�itill�lU" ��e t 3 Y' b6 r S•F. Ilkal.r& �Zm Ilk [7 . rk T Coll W ' c.3cl A w if Larry Heiserman 16601 Malcolm Lane RECEIVED Yorba Linda , Ca . 92686 OCT 15 1990 ovWMW K?Mmwr CM Of P"owl 10-10-90 • RECE '90 OCT 15 1: 2 cii 6 ; . Palm Desert City &d I $ l 73-510 Fred Wa_ing Dr . Palm Desert , Ca . 92260 As we are unable to attend the Pulbic Hearing regarding the annexation of the Equity Directions ' property and . its possible zoning as office professional/ service , we would like hereby to oppose this proposal . Si 4Rcerelu , Larrj ei erm:� homeowners in the Palm Desert Country Club and Resort , 41633 Palmetto Ln, Palm Desert I 1 I October 12, 1990 CE1'. •�QL ill 2 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive CITY i • Palm Desert, CA 92260 1 oppose the Equity Directions Development for zone change to the office professional/service industrial . It will bring down the value of our Palm Desert Resorter property and down grade the area It is the responsibility of the City Council to keep the property values from not decreasing and because a developer wants to develop it for his own personal gain. You are not recognizing the needs of the homeowners who have purchased for property values to increase not decrease. I have owned mine for 4 years and I thoroughly enjoy my place. My vote is "NO' Sincerely, / wef/e l < Mary R /Caro RECEIVE" 15759 �indskog Dr. Whittier, CA 90603 OCT 15 15::) �IFIEIOPMflIf OFtMIu I� un a rur usn 2030 Vine St. Hollywood , Ca 90068 10/11/90 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca 92260 Gentlemen& I wish to go on record as OPPOSING a rezoning of the land across from the Palm Desert Resort Country Club. Sincerely, Quindina C. Giuliani OCT 15 1990 unit 18-5 40425 Pebble Beach Circle �... rm p{([IOPMtM11NY�1Y�M1 RECEIVED OCTOBER 12 , 1990 OCT 15 1990 PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE itt .E� , i0M1M1Mctta`:uM�"r'"""W PALM DESERT, CA 92260 J , RE: APPLICATION OF EQUITY DIRE '�'i MitiEVELOPMENT FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CI� NGE. GENTLEMEN: I AM WRITING IN REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION OF EQUITY DIRECTIONS DEVELOPMENT FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE ON A 118 ACRE PARCEL ACROSS FROM THE ENTRANCE TO PALM DESERT RESORT. AS A HOMEOWNER AT PALM DESERT RESORT I AM OPPOSED TO THIS ZONE CHANGE AND WOULD LIKE TO URGE THE COUNCIL TO VOTE NO ON THIS PROPOSAL. THE AREA IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND TO THE WEST HAS SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS EITHER EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION. I FEEL THE PARCEL SHOULD REMAIN RESIDENTIAL. THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION WOULD SERIOUSLY IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE 118 ACRES. AS IT STANDS NOW, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN IT IS VERY DIFFICULT IF NOT DANGEROUS TO EXIT PALM DESERT RESORT ONTO COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. THE INCREASED TRAFFIC FROM NOT ONLY PASSENGER CARS BUT DELIVERY TRUCKS AND OTHER LARGE TRACTOR TRAILER VEHICLES THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD CREATE, WILL MAKE IT EVEN MORE HAZARDOUS. AS THERE ARE ALREADY SEVERAL EXISTING, AND A LARGE PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WHICH BACK UP TO THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAIL LINE, I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE RAILROAD TRACKS POSE A PROBLEM TO THIS PARCEL BEING DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. I URGE THE COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST THE DEVELOPERS REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE. SHOULD YOU WISH TO CONTACT ME, YOU CAN REACH ME AT THE ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER BELOW. SINCERELY, ?JERR7L. HELTON 77-431 SAWGRASS PALM DESERT , CA 92660 619-345-2734 714-994-0703 October 11, 1990 RECEIVED OCT 15 1990 Palm Desert City Council coMxuMORELOFMINT WARRAW 73-510 Fred Waring Drive 01YOf?QYOMAI Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Application of Equity Directions Developement for Annexation and Zone Change Gentlemen: Please be advised that I am a homeowner in the Palm Desert Resort Association and I am writing to you in connection with the request of the above developer for annexation and zone. change. As I am sure you are aware, our development is directly across the street and south of the proposed 118 acre office/industrial park. I want to inform you that I am OPPOSED to this zone change and I feel that it should be developed as a residential parcel of land. It is my understanding that a primary reason that the developer does not want to develop this parcel of land as residential is that it backs up to the Southern Pacific Rail Line. However, immediately ad- jacent to the west of this parcel there is presently under construction a single family home development with rather large residences in ex- cess of 2000 square feet. Immediately adjacent to the west of the project currently under construction is an existing residential home development and to the west of them is the Paul Valley Country Club which also backs up to the Southern Pacific Rail Line. It is my feeling that to develon this land as a 118 acre combination office/industrial park will seriously degrade the quality of life in this surrounding area. There will be increased traffic, noise, air pollution and noise pollution. Additionally, it can be difficult at times to exit from our development on to Country Club Drive and oc- casionally, somewhat dangerous. If this type of proposed development is allowed, there will be a substantial increase in the volume of not only passenger cars, but delivery trucks and other large tractor/trailer vehicles. I urge you to vote against this proposed development. Should any of you have any questions or wish to contact me, I may be reached at the address and telephone numbers below. i Sincerely^ Gerald I . Stern 40719 La Costa Circle East Palm Desert, CA 619-345-9202 213-864-2738 y� 1.)1;j 2 c, GLcf;i .. October 12, 1990 RECEIVEI OCT 15 1990 CMVUN��� Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Annexation of Equity Directions Development property - 118 acres - across from Palm Desert Country Club, Country Club Drive, Palm Desert Gentlemen: This letter represents my opposition to the possible change in zone of the above-captioned property to Office Professional/service industrial.use. I am an owner of a condominium at Palm Desert Resort Country Club and I definitely feel that a development comprised of offices and industrial buildings would adversely affect the market value of my property. I strongly urge you NOT to approve the annexation of this property. Very truly yours, S. M. Weiskopf 41860 Jupiter Hills Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 i Pa I ff) IJt'Jt'1'I: Ul ty COLA llC 11 2, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ct1 RECEIVED Palm Lieset"t., (:a . 1>:9«5it OCT 15 1990 Dear Sirs : or�wavw OF NS�ff Concerning the anne-xation of the Equity Direction Property, and its- possible zoning as an office professional/service industrial , wo-- - strongly recommend the zoning not be changed. We bought property on- the basis that the area was zoned as residential . A To change the zoning would cause encroachment of commercial .. development and effectively Lower property values Also 117a woLdWA" cause an increase of t�affiE' r<=' ' y We sincerely ' recommend that you give this change your careful study and vote against this:; change of zone . Robert L . Day M . D . Lorene May Day 41827 Preston Trail 41627 Freston Trail Palm Desert, Ca . 92260 Palm Desert, Ca .92260 ,j „c.11 '. October 12, 1990 C • Palm Desert City Council: This letter is an expression of our concerns about the annexation of the Equity Directions Development and the possible change of zoning to office, professional/service, industrial. We would appreciate your recognition of our concerns. As homeowners, we certainly have no problem when the city wishes to increase its tax base, however, the proposed change of zoning we diametrically oppose. Thank you in advance for your consideration. �'rI.000 LCA”. p Mell and Sarah KiilpArick 40256 Baltusrol Circle Palm Desert, CA 92660 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RECEIVED OCT 15 1990 f;rCFljl CL OCT Is GOL ha ,vlo-, ILI RECEIVED OCT 15 1990 OU Syr t IOWTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GTV',f F" DESERT 41 i i v - ' - - - --- -----—- ---- ----------------- --'----------------------------------- SEP-04-1990 1e:04 FROM Fr4UITY DIRECTIONS INC TO I0 EDDIPALMDESERT P.01 --+�•••+rr�+b•.� �P � 1990 ........ 7 " COMMUNIEY DEVELUPMENI.DEPARIMEHI SU.iVZISE CI(if 0 PALM DUERI COMPANY April 27 , 1989 Mr . Rick Jacobs Equity Directions, Inc. 5100 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Rick: We have reviewed your plans for Country Club Business Park West at Country Club Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue. As you may know .we own the 640 acre parcel .at the southwest corner of this intersection. We think your .plans are exceptional and will be an asset to the surrounding neighborhood:: We very much favor your development and authorize you to include our thoughts at governmental hearing processes. -Good Luck. If we can assist. you, please let me know. Sincerely, I , J ek M, Conlon President JMC:mm fAR'd 4/27/89 ----- - Met 1./ L cP a 1990 UNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPAF PRESLEY of SOUTHERN CALIFORIVj� C l fT PA NI DUERI MENi L.C. "I""AWofte 1.Jl. Vefdwn April 12, 1989 .Mr. Richard Jacobs. Equity Directions, inc. 9100 Birch Street 'Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear ,Hr. Jacobs: I an in receipt ot .your plans, dated March lot 19a9, for country Club West Business Park located on the north side of our Palm Desert Resort community. We appreciate having the opportunity to review your plans and feel - the development will be a posiAive project for the area. i Our concern would be whether the uses shown will . blend properly with the residential environment. As I . understand it, you are submitting your plans to the Palm Desert Resorter Homeowners Association for their review and co"ents prior to proceeding with the project. l Thank you for -making us aware of your plans. Since . IN Al arts , Jr. LCA/= Enclosure i I � ;dIN00M..�•.MIN 1,,mM.IY�N YW N'I�NMN� r '# r P 4 1990 CDMMUNIry DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST CIR OP PALM DESERT Q� Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object it properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. Name Address L p z 1990 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST tIMMMUMry �yFlOPMENI DEPMIMENt GIF :i MLM OE9[RI C�() Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th V Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. (Jly I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the tt Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. Name n Address F r f P 4 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELDPMENI DEARIMENI COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST CITY':P PALM DESERT Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if pro erly landscaped along Country Cliub Drive. aine S , Address �� �� T� . 9 aD, SEP c 199Q EOMMON ry DEVEIOPMENI OEPMITMENi COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST CIEY', PALM DESERT ( Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object it properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. Name 42L�na �ootl s�r2«'[ FALL pr-re/tty, cla Address S E P 4 1990 COMMUNITY OLVELOPMENI DEPARTMENT COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST Oft PF PALM DESERT fVf Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. 'Name Aadress v tqz COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST P 19% COWppM OEVElOPMfTMENT CITY'Pf.PAW VWRT ( Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS \ / PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. (X� I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the /1 Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. Ct1.�LC�naq �-�� �l.Q dreg f / E P a 1990 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WESfp'""'Ty DEVELOPMENT DEPARIMENT CITY X PALM DESERT (!�) Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. Name �Z-72 5� e-ef& r�s 48 g Z 260 A dyes WSW .' ° 4 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARIMENI COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST CITY PF PALM DESERT jX) Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. (� I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not ebj;ct if properly iandscapsd along Country Club Drive. Name T Addfess -' 1990 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WES'IF "OlOr DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY'PE PALM DESERT Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do no eut if pr dscaped along Country 1 rive. 4104 Name dw A dress sip y 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR{M041 CITY 4 PALM DESERT September 04, 1990 Palm Desert Planning Commission c/o Raymond A. Diaz 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 RE: Case # C/Z 90-11 Dear Commissioner, My wife and I as homeowners in Regency Palms object strenuously to th above matter! The following are some questions and objections we have. 1. Why the zone change in Avondale, Palm Valley, Regency Palms, and Regency Estates? 2. We wish a vote by the people on the matters not what appears as "railroading" the case through. 3. Why the divide and the conquer approach? As I was told one area across the street has been approved without any notice to us. 4. Both County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors unanimousl have rejected what is before you. 5. Timing appears unreasonable if the constituent are to be properly notified and have input prior to you making you decisions. Sincerely, -27�21 Bruce & Helen Wylie Home owners J � AcT Clz � 2 r CoSI -/ �(. �•� �t a M ► ( t SS a SEP 4 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARIVENS _ C Tom( t� ��1L►-t �eSti✓ ✓t- T . ... CIFV -f PALM.DESM- . . _ . .. _ -t3 ` 510 2zg W r�2�.►�� .. � Z `Tt3t vL) giff rvv � � �(k � tvat2ouS ( y.-- "A _ A � tJ� )(-I-, 1 I tJ AS �lzv�o S L> i( 1 TZt� MA121 ►� G o � �{ C � E2� E IQ F 0 i ,F t C K) C 9 /��'�� US W t l L '� jZA S I ✓�C LEI t� r F EC;-r �Cc.T '' II __�Y mac- Y ��c i i � -�fi-{ S l �1\�o v(.Y N h f, Q r ,J C, P:D c c t�4 U (D C t G' J T i r L4 S r-o LZ yt E. iS TJ IF2c.Tu 2 ►.� Imo, ,� tt n A y , �.�,9 t� -0� rz 2E kl k S i n 11%RTA o 7 r Ss u . U cc N�4Ctj �1�t'.)t v0 I; - - o SEP 41990 COANUI41TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARIwENt- 73 CITY PALM DESERT 11 -44 JAv 66 'J4.) a r 1i it E P 4 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DRARTMENI CIEY PF PALM DESERT September :, 19)0 Ramon A. Diaz, Secretary Palm Desert Plan-Eing Coim. d'ssion City of Paln Desert 73-5iD Frel ;taring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Diaz: As-an-owner of a Regency Palms home I am against C2-90-11 because: I havenYt had sufficient time to consider what benefits would be derived from the annexation of this area by the City of Palm Desert or e-IYat ramiLtication the PR-5 zone change would mean in regard to the covenants, con- - K ditions an3 restrictions on my, property. PleTs$e consider more public input before voting for Case No. C/Z 90-1LW Sincerely yours, iVsrs� �?SfX� Ma>r�or4e coons 7 --,Aanor Lane Pa '�wortq CA 92260 .:per too 11 1;9'P 4 1990 EOMMUNIry OEVEEOPMENI OEPARIMENI August 30, 1990 nn X PAEM OESERF Mr. Ray Diaz Secretary Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Diaz and Planning Commission Members: Our home is located at: 76-820 Castle Court, Palm Desert, which is located in the Regency Palms Development on Country Club Drive. We understand that this is part of the area under consideration for Annexation. We want to go on record in opposition to any Industrial Park zoning on Country Club Drive. Already there is way too much truck traffic in the area and an additional business park would only add to the mess. We have two young children and we want Country Club Drive to remain residential in nature. Sincerely, Barbara and David Nicolson 76820 Castle Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 aw AWE s 1930 . OftftIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OR X PALM DESERT August 30, 1990 Planning Commision City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert Ca 92260 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that as homeowners of Regency Palms we are against the rezoning and annexation of any properties of the city of Palm Desert located on County Club Dr. Moreover, we feel that the lack of notification in a timely manner was an injustice to the homeowners of Regency Palms as it did not give proper opportunity for the homeowners to assess the situation. Sincerely, Suzi Solomon Michelle DeSilva Cami Myrkin / ` U 76-8O1 Lancelot Court Palm Desert Ca r / 1 / if % > Linda Fullarton Paul Fullarton 76-761 Lancelot Court Palm Desert Ca " �MMIY OEYELOPMENE WOTM T Cin *. PALM DMAT August 30, 1990 Planning Commision City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert Ca 92260 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that as homeowners of Regency Palms we are against the rezoning and annexation of any properties of the city of Palm Desert ` located on County Club Dr. Moreover, we feel that the lack of notification in a timely manner was an injustice to the homeowners of Regency Palms as it did not give proper opportunity for the homeowners to assess the situation. Sincerely, Suzi Solomon Michelle DeSilva Cami MyrkinL�(✓ 76-801 Lancelot Court Palm Desert Ca L�61t \Linda Fullarton Paul Fullarton 76-761 Lancelot Court Palm Desert Ca R U.& 31)1990 � CUM!ApnllY ii'vEcd:mia LC?�RIMLHI "i7 :; PALM DESERT l �..oli✓..,zL�zcx-� /,'�.wr� � �u-� ,u2ic�.s,7�, �i`211 / ,� e August 20 , 1990 City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260 '90 flUr, 2L P19 2 18 Dear sirs : Cii Y CLER;(5 We are writing to you in regard to your Legal Notice dated August 17,1990, also identified as CASE NO. TT 25270. We are owners of a condominium at the Palm Desert Resort Country Club, located directly across Country Club Drive from the tract for which EQUITY DIRECTIONS is seeking a zoning change from larger-lot residential to commercial and industrial , or as described in your letter , service industrial/office professional. Our property is identified as Lot 8 MB 119/085 TR 13145-8 on the Riverside County Tax Bill. The street address is 77-171 Preston Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260. We are strongly opposed to this request for zoning change. EQUITY DIRECTIONS has already been turned down by the County of Riverside for a similar zone change request. We opposed that request, too . When we bought our property , we expected that surrounding development would be of residential/recreational type. So far, the development abutting our property location has been just that. I believe that this zone change would lessen the value of my property. My wife and I are retired and would suffer greatly from any reduction in our assets. We urge you to agree with the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and deny this request by EQUITY DIRECTIONS. Yours truly, �( Keith L. Robinett Phyllis C. Robinett 77-171 Preston Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 i August 20, 1990 u1JV Mr. Ramon Diaz , Secretir, AUG 241990 Palm Desert Planning Co +s��y 73510 Fred Waring Drive CI(N AF€PAPiM DESERTOLARIMENI Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Re :E uit Directions C se ;No. TT 2 2 0q Y5 7Dear Sir: I would like to register my oositio to the zoning change on the property located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Oasis Club Drive. Equity Directions is clearly attempting to circumvent the desires of the Riverside County Planning Commission and the hundreds of property owners in the immediate area. They have already gone through the application process with the county. Having been denied their request, they are bringing their problem into the City of Palm Desert sphere of influence. Equity Directions has submitted 'a "plan" . Lets cross reference the word plan:contrivance , ruse , trick, dodge, and scheme. All less than complimentary terms, although in this case , applicable. Country Club Drive is one of only four available East/West routes inYTthe area. In the past three ,years we have seen the addition of traffic signals on Country Club at Washington, Palm Valley, Cook, and the Marriot. Will Oasis Club Drive and Resorter Boulevard be next? I have no quarel with the need for these signals from a safety stand- point. I am concerned, however, that the addition of 75 industrial lots will have a _significant negative impact on the traffic patern on Country Club Drive. Let's get back to the word plan. What august body sat in judgement on the "plan" for the business park still under construction on Country Club-west of Washington? This conglomeration of rhymeless buildings is .a perfect example of poor planning. " Wait ' till it 's finished" . . "It ' s still under construction" , ,you say. Take a ride on Cook.' Turn left or right on any street between Country Club and Fred Waring and see another prime example. My neighbors and I hope ,you will not make the same mistake again. Sincerels� Chuck King 7 77027 Preston Trail Palm Desert, CA. 92260 345-1608 PETER SOLOMON & Go. 53-800 Polk St. P.O. Box 241 Thermal, CA 92274 (619) 398-6175 a;C1�4 0V 1� AUG 2 3 1990 August 21 , 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPARIMENI CITY VF PALM OESERF Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260 Ref : Legal Notice , Case No. C/Z 90-11 , Pre-Zone Request , Equity Directions Dear Commissioners , I have just this date received the above referenced City of Palm Desert ' s Legal Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, September 4 , 1990. For the following below listed reasons , I hereby request that this hearing be rescheduled for a month, or at least , for 2 weeks . 1 . Although the Notice was dated August 13 , I - and I believe other recipients - did not receive it until August 21 . This does not afford us enough opportunity g g PP Y to prepare for such an important meeting. 2 . For almost 8 months I have been in contact with both City Manager Altman and Planning Director Diaz , expressing my concern and opposition to such a re-zoning. To allow only a 14 day notice to prepare does a disservice to the zone change opponents . 3 . September 4 is one day after Labor Day. This holiday is historically one in which many Desert residents leave the Valley for a vacation or long weekend. Moreover , an added reason to extend "away" time for many residents is the fact that this year Desert Sands schools will not open until the 10th of September. Therefore , many directly affected property owners will not be available to attend this important meeting, if held on September 4 . 4 . In many conversations with both City Manager Altman and Planning Director Diaz , I have been told that the City Administration supports and endorses a Pre-Annexation Agreement with Equity Directions which includes a change of zone from residential to Industrial/Service . On separate occasions Mr. Diaz has noted that the City needs and welcomes the additional tax base such a zone change would bring to the City treasury. It is Mr. Diaz who has scheduled this Hearing for a date which lends itself to an accommodation of the Equity Directions spokesman at the expense of those of us who live in the annexation area and who may choose to oppose such a zone change. 5. This zone change has been extremely controversial for well over a year at the County level . Both the Riverside County Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted against the change of zone in favor of maintaining a residential flavor to the Country Club Drive area. It should be noted that at each of the hearings before the East Area Planning Commission, at least 100 opponents appeared to express their opinions . Both Mr. Altman and Mr. Diaz are aware of this fact . Inherent in the very controversial nature of this Pre—zone request , I strongly believe that the points made note of above be taken under submission and my request for a two week to one month delay be positively acted upon. Each resident of the area under consideration for annexation has an interest in maintaining his or her existing property value and the beauty and integrity of the Country Club Drive area . Respectfully Submitted, PeSolomon L PS/lp cc: Regency Palms Homeowners Association Palm Desert Resort Homeowners Association Whitehawk Homeowners Association MEMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 701 kit t 2RIh 1 iilr 212, 1,mg Ilv.idt, CA '111H11b 03) 426-6951 (71a)R'179X22 der A(v�enue.Suite 2UR. Hunfinalon l3cach.CA 43e-07 � OSCAR LF. SI IADLF,�M.D. 3 ` ,��U'HEN�. VIiRN.S'LGIN, M.D. RAYMOND W. KELSO, JR., P•LD, JEFFREY B. RIKER, . CORL'Yt4AECKMIJN<;. M.D. RR1NA KANE;, M.D. JAntr;S D. WALI.ACr:, M.D.�ELJW110 DF.N!��lC W. SONNE, M.D. ST'EI'I IFN BROWN, M.D. GLENN F. LI%& t 5lil DL l PALM DL'0k;ORY L. SIRAYER, M.D. LARRY A. DRUM. M.D. _. JAMES R. LICHT, M.LW`J V JOHN F. CRONIN, M.D. MARK C. ASDILL, M.D. ALLEN S. WARNER, M.D. CRAIG Y.IIANIASAKI.M.U. BRUCE VAN NAIIA. M.D. , 50 ow�-� 2D QCltiv�t w G'► �-��� s s 6 u cam., Paul U bLtCL'ti'L�tQ�t tiU� L�i,C �� a c A Jco�ti P ilQ L tQ VLF C-tz C���(U ti C���) - 6 OlM 0 Ll '--L(4-C �L 1 sc Gv� vo . Q- 1,9 k Q- 3 Y �br S. auLL-Lo �R. S E P 18 1990 (��(n�f7� CIA44wtry OEVItOPMENf DIAARiMENI SU `SSE GWIP"PAIM DUERI COMPANY September 18 , 1990 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: CZ 90-11 - Preannexation Zoning of Area North of Country Club Drive, West of Washington Street and South of the Railroad Right-of-Way Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: Sunrise Company owns a parcel of land (approximately 3 acres) located northerly of Frank Sinatra Drive, easterly of El Dorado Drive, and southwesterly of the Railroad Right-of-Way (north of Palm Valley Country Club) . We would like to construct a facility on this site for laundry, rental guest services, and other country club related purposes. This facility would be used exclusively for our country club and rental operations. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission zone this parcel of land appropriately in order to permit the use described above. It is our understanding from Planning Department Staff that either the proposed PR zoning or SI (Service Industrial) zoning would support this use. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Allan Levin Vice President, Engineering AL/sl cc: P. K. Smith, Jr. - Executive Vice President, Sunrise Company Steve Smith - Planning Department, City of Palm Desert pvccannex.mem 42-600 Cook Street, Suite 200, Palm Desert, California 92260, Telephone (619) 568-2828 builder of America's Finest Country Club Communities RCV B'r:XEROX TELECOPIER. 7010 ; 10-25-90 8:36AII ; 619345,17764 6193417098;0 2 OCT - 25 - 90 THU £ 38 NUE VO EFJ.G I NEE I NG P . 02 RECEIVED OCT 2 5 1990 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST wmmm"a "1 uTM¢xr I am. unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. _ �4-4NE. 1Ir S PLEASE PRINT SIGNATURE )06 ADDRESS +•`' " ROBERT JACOBSON - P.O. BOX 5739 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92 4$ qO), E r Q. .DX-:7S r, Gam. Yt Z �Js DCvitJ,E.GS of yi9sG �,e,�sToN /e 9i,� i� D®��S/T/Oti TO 7WAe `iLa.OA'/ OUs� ,�.0 T,�,Y DTJ CII//�tJ T•�/ G'.G/�� . Dr• G�e`i�.E.ec/A-G D.�Y.�.Gd•�/I.E.U? /�Sucf/ C,COS,� >/e.0X//7/TY �67 � gUG�D.EU.EdJ US C!J/Tiy ,e-AEi T Wd RT 190 0 . U3A13 it October 16 , 1990 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: ZONING CHANGE ON 118 ACRES ACROSS COUNTRY CLUB DR. FROM PALM DESERT RESORT. Gentlemen: I am writing this letter on behalf of my wife and I to protest the proposed zoning change mentioned above (from residential to office, professional/service industrial) . We strongly object to this change because when we purchased our property in the Palm Desert Resort we were assured that said property would be residential . We feel that, not only will a change in zoning affect the value of our property, but also will be detrimental to the beauty of Country Club Drive. Thank you for your consideration on this request. Sincerel John Mann Lovie E. Mann 41995 Preston Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 JWM/pt Harold E. Parr 77-265 Olympic Way Palm Desert, CA 92,2'bb1I' ' 1't) October 15 , 1990 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE : Public Hearing Equity Directions Development Please be advised that I oppose the annexation of the Equity Directions Development property and the possible zoning as office professional /service industrial . As a homeowner in the Palm Desert Resorter Association , I urge defeat of this appeal for a zoning change for the 118 acres so that the area may remain strictly residential . Very ,truly yours , Harold E. Harr mk P, ,i i� / /tea: Flo / �.,i EQUITY DIRECTIONS , INC. AGENDA PACKET October 22 , 1990 SEC710t4 r , Lrrr . � �.4TE lC/ ��lq Ll CIrY 21 P j� - r,r; 18 Honorable Mayor Buford A. Crites City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Honorable Mayor Buford A. Crites: Zone Change C/Z 90-11 in conjunction with the Annexation, will be before you at your meeting on Thursday, October 25, 1990. The Zone Change was prepared in accordance with Staff's recommendations and Staff recommended approval of same to the Planning Commission, but the commission in the presence of opposition from non-City homeowners voted to recommend disapproval of the Zone Change. Since the Planning Commission action the developer, EQUITY DIRECTIONS, INC. , has met with the homeowners and their representatives several times and has prepared an alternate proposal responsive to the expressed "other" faction of the homeowners's concerns, i.e. development of a residential buffer opposite their development along Country Club Drive. EQUITY DIRECTIONS, INC. is prepared to go forth with either the STAFF RECOMMENDED: Office/Service-Light Industrial proposal or the ALTERNATE: Residential/Office/Service-Light Industrial proposal . It appears the homeowners may not be able to come to consensus on a single design because of internal disagreement and may as a body, therefore, attempt to argue for NO DECISION. The requested Zoning, one alternative or the other, is essential to the plans of the developer, EQUITY DIRECTIONS, INC. , and essential to its participation in the Annexation. Therefore, EQUITY DIRECTIONS , INC. . strongly requests you, the City Council , review the facts and the alternatives and approve one or the other Zoning package. NO DECISION IS A VOTE TO LEAVE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY ZONED "R-1, 12 , 000" WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT CORRECT NOR ACCEPTABLE. 77564 Country Club Drive • Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 36043001 • FAX (619) 360-0290 Honorable Mayor Buford A. Crites City of Palm Desert October 22 , 1990 Page 2 GOOD PLANNING dictates approval of the STAFF RECOMMENDED proposal with careful attention to the Landscape/Architectural treatment along Country Club Drive. Given a voice, EQUITY DIRECTIONS, INC. supports this approach over a "Residential buffer" approach. Sincerely, EQUITY DIRECTIONS, INC. ennis French President DF/cf cc: Ray Diaz Steve Smith `rx , �.�..v'�`fd3pr � r�•�tr(��ilp5+�-,. ! r �` :. ��-(O J � � � �/� r Ah -r` 14 3 Xi 301aa0 SM18310 A110 Zs; T Wd hZ 130 06. 03AI30AU 92 2 �o d� ,,72 L i t HUSH PUPPIES® SHOE STORES 3275 SM Cedar Hills Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005 C= U.J J C Q7 J cSVv.A� P�N- wL s Q o �� CV a��o t a EQUITY DIRECTIONS INC* AGENDA PACKET SECTION October 22 , 1990 00 ZZ MEETING DATE u ��51 `)� C! r Po y 18 Honorable Mayor and City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: Enclosed please find signatures of persons in support of Equity Directions' proposed 118 acre project in Palm Desert. We would appreciate these signatures be included in the Thursday night City Council meeting on October 25th. Thank you for your courtesy. Sincerely, EQUITY DIRECTIONS, INC. Cindy Fry Secretary to Dennis French cf/ 77564 Country Club Drive • Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 360.8001 FAX (619) 360-0290 1 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST ((� I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country b Drive. PLEASE PRINT — `SIGNATURE 7y 76-7 A DRESS „ Uc. No. C2019OUS LM Boom Custom Aire Ar CWWMWWr•moot M" Com nwCum i N�r G Wen" Enord kuwbm lwk Bft Lod ee(619) 741.9S71CMa+ P.O. Sox 2791 74797 1eN Dr. Palm WWt. CA 92261 Polm Oman. CA 922W t l COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST ( I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. (x) I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. /cAy��r� C• /� � i�! FIMi�`c SSAcci 9��5 PLEASE PRINT C SIGNATURE ,?F92 f' ft -? f• ADDRESS Y t II COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST ( I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do bject if properl landscaped along Country Club D n !7 9CO3Q`O,e4�`F PRINT �42�v4�7- SIGNATURE R a � �� COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. PLEASE PRINT SIGNATURE 10 2-3 W AfRESS 4 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST ( ) I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. /h i iCGrZc PLEASE PRINT SIGNATURE .?g'41 v e44— Stile ADDRESS l COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST ( ) I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. �fe 4f c PLEASE P IG TURE r�7/w ADDRESS I 4 r COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST ( ) I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. PLEAS PRINT � 1 SIGN TURE ADDRESS —' J 1 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST (� I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission /\ Meeting but would like to acknowledVe my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. (lY I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the " I Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. PLEASE PRINT GNATURE 3 P � yzzs ADDRESS � t COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST ( ' ) I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. / ( '!J PLEASE PRINT -- iS19NATURE ADDRESS ' COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST j I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. Son" HL- - Z)nu)gL, K. & L-Lel-14 PLEASE PRINT SIGNATURE ADDRD l 1 II COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. 'To Pr, �C3�2Aa,9 s PLEASE PRINT Y Z � % � SIGNATURE ADDRESS COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST (. ) I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the PreliminaryPlans from Equity Directions Development q Y P and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. PLEASE PRINT IGNATURE ADDRESS 11, COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST ( ) I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. j I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. -SiTPRINTi�i,,�o PLEA SIGNATURE f/' 'SS /Vl ons2o�— TNT in c n� 9� 2�J AD RESS COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST (� I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. Mc� cap i-6v 71eaC� PLEASE NATURE ^ 7,_ 6t6 TAM�IGG PAuft ocs&el °12�1ifl ADDRESS c i COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST ( I am unable to attend the October 25th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. I have reviewed the proposed zone change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. 7- -A'0naZal',5, F 7)AVi D.70A,/ SE PRINT IGNATURE ADDRESS jees J. SQ merry L. dance 40-922 inteduchen Lane paLm desert, caU f osnia 92260 E1VEu 90 OC vJI Pal 1 c�i r cis ara October 15, 1990 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear City Council Members; As homeowners at Palm Desert Resort Country Club, we wish to state our opposition to any change in zone of the 118 acres across from the entry to our country club. One of the reasons we invested in property at Palm Desert Resort was for the open and uncommercial surroundings. Had we been content with office professional/service industrial, we would have invested in Palm Springs for considerably less money. Sincerely, LO ames J. Dana Mary.K. ana B. N. Arnds III 40-316 Bay Hill Way Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (818) 790-6221 RECEI!/:= '90 OC i 17 Pn 1 October 13, 1990 CITY CLERKS Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca 92260 RE: COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #159 (Equity Directions Development of 118 acres) Dear Council Persons: This is to express my opposition to a land use change from Residential to Manufacturing for the 118 acre tract on the northside of Country Club Drive across from the Palm Desert Resort Country Club. I strongly urge a "NOS' vote on this. The initial petition was denied by the Riverside County Planning Commission on January 17, 1990. PLEASE DO NOT PERMIT a violation of our present environment with increased traffic, noise and industrial pollution. When we purchased our home in this area, we were assured by Riverside County that this would remain residential. PLEASE CONSIDER OUR FUTURE, AND THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN IN YOUR DECISION. LET US PRESERVE COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AS A SCENIC CORRIDOR. Yours truly, ti I October 12, 1990 i�CEiVE 00 001" 17 PM 1 3 C;T'i CLERK 1 . : Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Gentlemen: Reference is made to the Public Hearing con- cerning the 118 acres directly across from the Palm Desert Resort & CC on Country Club Drive, Palm Desert. We are vigorously opposed to Commercial Zoning of the above property d-ie to increased traffic con- gestion as well as environmental problems caused by commercial development in an area zoned for Residential. Thank you, Joanne Gottesman Charles E. Gottesman 40865 Sea Island Dr . Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 .�x 1t�VE1V�� V October 15, 1990 40469 Preston Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 As a resident of Palm Desert Resort Country Club I am concerned about the zoning of Equity Directions ' property located at the corner of Oasis and Country Club. If this property is zoned as office professional/service industrial, I feel it will contribute to an already existing traffic problem of access to Country Club. In addition, I fear it may adversely affect our property values. Thank you for your consideration. IVIM. Nan Knauss 'a Berl L MCCUMSOY 10036 Cozycroft Ave. Chatsworth, CA 91311 818 341-8917 . �_ RECEIVEC '90 OCT 17'P(�� CITY CLER -LrfiC �� sort L MCCUMMY 10036 CW=ff Ave. Chatsworth, CA 91311 818 341-8917 L i I AGENDA PACKETS j I ..... 'JN � " �— Ju GATE �C--- ���—� October 17 , 1990 RECEI`: . .' 190 OCT 22 Pn 1 43 CITY CLERKS Palm Desert City Council 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , California 92260 Dear Council Members : We are writing to express our concern over the request of Equity Directions Property for annexation. As Owners in Palm Desert Resort and Country Club it is disappointing to see the amount of commercial development along Country Club Drive. Don' t let this beautiful street be further marred by additional commercial and warehouse type facilities. Very truly yo r� lbert F. Rub 1 Margaret R. Rubel All Dear Palm Desert Citv Council : �90 �C� 22 e�,l,v� 160ct90 As a property owner in the Palm Dtfv*; e'esort Country Club, I would like to make known my position on the annexation of the Equity Directions' property. I oppose the zoning of this property for office professional/service industrial . I will be unable to attend the public hearing and wish to make my opinion known. incere , Ja s E. Senec . , Jr. , M. D. . F. A.C. S. 12904 Fiddle Creek Lane Town & Country. Missouri 63131 tr0 J a -- n N, T — rn October 19 , 1990 , RECEIVE. '90 OCT 22 Pn 1 43 Palm Desert City Council CITY CLERKS (;.-- 75-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Dear Sirs; As a property owner in Palm Desert I wish to voice my opposition to the zoning of the property across from the Palm Desert Resorter Country Club. I don' t need to tell you that Palm Desert is one of the more beautiful resort areas in the desert. Let' s keep it that way! Allowing professional service industrial zoning is the first step toward ruining the community we love. I emplore you vote no! Sincerely, Gera Linehan James A. Strosnider, Sr. Palm Desert Resort & Country Club 41-793 Preston Trail RECEIRWrn Desert,, California 92260 '90 OCT 22 pl, 2 32 aa7� /j CITY CLt�i1(. � - `17C, dF Gnu " zlll�,-�74 "eel, 11 11 I ��R�dEi�OE� - -- OCT 16 1990 Q "` cj CL- Y g�a�v U 'J O _ f RECEIVED OCT 16 1990 CDMMONNY MMELOPMENI DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT RECEIVED William P. Eaton A90 OCT 16 Pn 12 Eileen M. Eaton 41939 Preston Trai1CITY CLERKS i,r FjVE Palm Desert , Ca . 92260 October 12 , 1990 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , Ca. 92260 Sirs : This is to register our complete oppsition to any rezoning of the 118 acre property located across from the entrance to Palm Desert Resort on Country Club Drive . It is our understanding , that a request by Equity Directions to have this property rezoned , has already been denied by Riverside County . Now, they are appealing to you . We hope , that in your deliberations , you will ask yourselves why the health, safety and property values of several thousand citizens should be jeopardized in order to further the business intrests of a few . Please vote NO. Sincerely , William P. Eaton Eileen M. Eaton RECEIVED r '90 OCT 11 P� } "riC"t October 12 , 1990 CITY CLERKS u; Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring drive Palm Desert, Ca 92260 Subject : Proposed zoning change of Equity Directions 118 acre parcel located on the north side of Country Club Drive directly across the street from the Palm Desert Resort and Country club Gentlemen: As owners of a condominium within the Palm Desert Resort and Country Club we are unalterably opposed to any change in the zoning of subject property. We bought our condominium three years ago with the clear understanding that the parcel in question would always remain residential. We believe the proposed zoning change to office professional/service industrial is entirely out of character with the atmosphere of Country Club Drive . We feel that the existing commercial/industrial buildings on the east end of the drive near Washington serve to devalue our property and we are disappointed that they were allowed. The proposed zoning change would result in increased traffic on Country Club Drive (already too heavy) , more trucks, more noise, more night light and in general an atmosphere at odds with our (and our neighbors) perception of quality residential living. We hope you will honor the wishes of the hundreds of home. owners in the Palm Desert Resort ) who share our feelings. Sinc Deane C. and Mariana W. Porter 41943 Preston Trail Palm Desert, Ca 92260 Phone: ( 619 ) 345-5294 W RECEIVED_ -- ,I cl'If cal% F icL -9az6o- - - -- -- --=- qo - -------=— -- — — e_ October 12, 1990 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ;.CE1V':D TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: Annexation of the Equity' Directions '- Property Country Club Drive Palm Desert, CA Since I will be on a trip back East at the time the PUBLIC HEARING on October 25, 1990 will take place re: Annexation of the Equity Directions ' Property and its possible zoning as office professional/service industrial, I do .want you to know I am opposed to the change in zoning of the subject property. I am a property owner at 41-650 Kansas St. at Palm Desert Resort, which is directly across the street from the proposed development. I would certainly hope that the property across the street from us would be used as a private development of homes or condos such as ours and that other types of offices or business be built down in the Washington Street/Country Club Drive areas. I appreciate your .. accepting my written objection to this possible zoning and hope we can keep our neighborhood in conformance. Thank you very much. Sincerely, KAY FRAME it (Y Exec five and Teckincal lRec1'mi1e?5, Inc. ENGINEERS - ADMINISTRATIVE - SALARIED PERSONNEL 7112 SOUTH HARVARD AVE. - SUITE I �7,1`LEIVED lOS ANG CALIFORNIA Phone 753-4096 IQO 0C / � Q �CII i ( LL:R J J- 4-ow doe � rW� . r CITY CLERKS i .. .. . ..__ .. R } 4 i 1 r Y j c 4 a � r i iq 3 1)1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAAIMENI CITY:F PALM DESERT Y PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF THE RAILWAY RIGHT- OF-WAY TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY . CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of September, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. The proposed , land uses are consistent with the goals and objectives of .the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City .of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are . true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. .2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 90-11 Exhibit "B" on file in the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. department of , community development are hereby recommended to the city council for approval . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 13th day of September, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm / 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A^ Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE Na: . C/Z 90-11 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city, limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, 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. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SRS/tm 3 1 i a• v la�>� ;jam•,_ , i;..,;, ti' 10 000 0 R-1; 1 ,2 1 — S.I. P.C-2. ' . . _ inrir' wnnY�i T " I f ,"�"/1 jllf'%f `I� " '���•� 1. � i COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE o� � .. .•:.,� "� > P.07REBORTER w I 2 .......... m.` O 1111 �ynnyff11 �..�: 42ntl AVENUE . -;7 't ii t 1� p �I_I.�II I flea°i ti. °< 5. :: rinmlJl��iI .I I :r.. y 1. . ��,:•;;,. .`,._ -!ji:i;:i!I .{��^'—� -.. %.��� :Nc =1111f1)i�j�ljllTi II•�I'7'r„ '1�Ijj IT RE[E F�' , FIN FRED WAKING DRIVE �11r___�' !' , _' !` ll� i.i,j �' 9 ...... .. — -.- 1 ^T CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. ca eo-11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ' o Date [EHn U 9--07 EQUITY 09=4vt so DIRECTIONS SEP 101990 DEVELOPMENT, I1�` C. �MMUnGTMOF PALM EDESERT ARTMENI September 5, 1990 140-90DDF Mr. Raymond A. Diaz Director of Community Development CITY OF P 1 1 Ad, DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE_ PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL Dear Ray: The purpose of this letter is to request an appeal of the pre-annexation zoning resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on September 4, 1990. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Warm regards, EQUITY,) DIRECTIONS DEVELOPMENT, INC. L e 's D. French President DDF:msa 5100 Birch Street • Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 752-7891 FAX (714) 752-7898 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 .r September 21 , 1990 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C/Z 90-I1 NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request to prezone the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street to the existing city limit shown below for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a negative declaration of environmental impact pertaining thereto. P October 5 9 0 t 7600 .m. in SAID public hearing will b_ held on Thursday, Uctob_ Z. , 1 9 a p the Council Chamber . at the Palm Desert 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. Written comments concerning all Items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8-00 a.m. and . 4:30 p.m. Monday through .Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be 'limited to raising on)y those i sues you or someone else raised at the puplio hearing ejeserlbed In thla notlee, or in ' wrltten eiellver*ej to the Manning womiWon (or City i;oUne) I ) at, or prior too the i?Vbi iC hP.4rins, PUBLISH: Desert. Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk September 28, 1990 City of Palm Desert, California SEP-19-1990 12:20 FROM EQUITY DIRECTIONS INC TO EDDIPRLMDESERT P.01 EQUITY �F P 1 9 1990 DIRECTIONSV CpMMUNiry pEVEIOPMENi pEPARiMENi DEV,II'iLOPlU'YENT, INC, q '`^F PAIM DfSFRi September 19, 1990 171-90RJ Mr. Ramon A. Diaz Secretary Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fled Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: PARCEL MAP #25270 Dear Mr. Diaz: We are in receipt of your letter, dated September 6, 19900 in which the application was withdrawn on the above-referenoed parcel map. No action by the planning commission was needed. We are hereby requesting an appeal to the above action and are hereby notifying the Director of Community Development the request for appeal. I appreciate your immediate response on this matter. Sincerely, EQUITY O LO , INC. Jacobs Seaio Vice Pres. t RJ:msa cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshall 5100 Birch Street 9 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 757-7891 FAX (714) 752-7898 RECOVER UP 9 0 (K4MV off NAM o 0 0 n 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: September 6, 1990 Equity Directions Development 5100 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: PM 2527o The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of September 4, 1.990. The application was withdrawn by the applicant's representative at the meeting. No action by the planning commission was needed_ Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development , City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. wo f RAM �LIAz' AFY PALM DESERT PLANNI COMMISSION RAD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 4, 1 5)0 CASE NO: C/Z 9o-11 REQUEST: Approval of the prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city and a negative declaration of environmental impact pertaining thereto. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I . BACKGROUND: For quite some time the city has received various requests to annex the subject area since it was added to the sphere of influence several years ago. During the recent north sphere study and general plan work the area west. of Oasis Club Drive was designated low density residential (5 dwelling units/acre) while the area east of Oasis Club Drive ` was designated basically service industrial. (S. I . ) . Portions of the property north and east of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive were multi- designated R-1 , S. I . , and O.P. This prezoning then will implement the recently adopted general plan land use plan. A. ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE: North: Railroad South: PR-S, C/Z 1619, R-Z 8000, R-3/Vacant (Sunrise) , Resorter, Whitehawk, vacant East.: CT/Vacant West: PR-3.5/Desert Falls B. GENERAL FLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESCRIPTION: Low density residential, five dwelling units per acre ( i . e. Avondale, Palm Valley, Regency Palms, Regency Estates) . Equity Directions and others (east 1/2 of section 1 south of railroad ) service industrial . II . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. RESIDENTIAL PORTION FROM DESERT FALLS EAST BOUNDARY TO OASIS CLUB DRIVE. STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 The request is to prezone these properties PR-5 (planned residential five dwelling units per acre) . This zoning will become effective upon annexation of the property to the city. This zoning will be consistent with the general plan and north sphere specific plan and will be consistent with the approved residential projects. In addition, the city has agreed that for a period of five years building permit fees charged these developments which were previously approved under the county will not pay the higher city building fees even though they will be in the city. Fees will match those payable in the county at the time of permit issuance. B. SERVICE INDUSTRIAL (S. I. ) EAST HALF OF SECTION 1 , NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB TO WASHINGTON. The westerly portion of this area is presently under development as an industrial/business park while the east end of the area at Washington Street is vacant. It is proposed to prezone this east half of section 1 S. I . (service industrial ) . C. NORTHEAST CORNER OF OASIS CLUB DRIVE ANII COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, O. P. , AND SERVICE INDUSTRIAL, S. I . This site is vacant property bounded by Country Club Drive on the south and Oasis Club Drive on the west. The developers of this site on behalf of the owner have requested that the front row of lots along Country Club and north along Oasis Club Drive a distance of 1.512 feet be prezoned office professional (O. P. ) and the remainder of the 11.8 acre site service industrial (S. I . ) . DISCUSSION: The only area of contention appears to be the prezoning of the 118' acre site at the northeast corner of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive. This property was before county planning and the Board of Supervisors numerous times for a general plan amendment. Apparently neighborhood opposition was significant and the matter was never concluded. Apparently, the issue came down to the traffic impacts the proposal would have on existing streets, particularly the Washington Street/Country Club intersection and the entrance to the Resorter. STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 Staff supports the requested prezoning to O. P. and S. I . for a variety of reasons. The north sphere plan establishes a 2, 000 foot buffer area from the railroad and freeway where residential development was not to be encouraged. This was to protect residents from the noise produced from the freeway and railroad as well as the vibration and odors produced by the railroad. Considering that the county is presently considering opening Eagle Mountain as a garbage dump site for Southern California it may be expected that in addition to diesel odors garbage odors may be next unless all the trash is carried in sealed containers. Part of the east half of section 1 is presently under development as a business/industrial park. To place residential homes immediately adjacent to those existing tall. , bulky, massive structures with windows on the second floor is not something that this city does or would require. If the O. P. zoning is approved as proposed then the city can assure concerned residents that the city will be more sensitive to building design, size, location, height, bulkiness and massiveness than the county has shown up until now. The O.P. zone standards allow a maximum 25 foot height with a minimum setback of /5 feet . In addition, through a pre-annexation agreement the perimeter wall will be required to be located at least 32 feet back from the Country Club and Oasis Club Drives curbs. Appropriate landscape treatment will occupy the 32 feet of setback as well as a meandering 8 foot wide sidewalk. Staff can assure concerned residents that if the area is anne::;ed to the city and zoned O. P. we will not: 1 . Allow a 10 foot wide dirt strip as presently exists along the east side of Oasis Club Drive adjacent to the Resorter for a distance of one mile. 2. Require or permit an 18 course high ( 14 feet ) block wall on top of a 5 foot high slope located 12 feet back from the street as exists at the northwest corner of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive at Regency Estates. 3. Require or permit a L• foot high wall , elevated 2 feet above the curb with a setback: of 12 feet from curb and use half (G' ) of the setback for a meandering sidewalk 3 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 leaving only a landscape strip a Maximum G feet wide wall as occurs across the Whitehawk frontage. 4. Occupancy of a business center without installation of walls and landscaping to screen parking lots from view from public streets as has occurred in the existing Equity Directions center. As we will undoubtedly hear from area residents and as the current traffic report confirms, traffic volumes in this portion of Country Club Drive are high. Traffic volumes of this level can result in significant levels of pollution as well as noise. One way to mitigate this noise is to install 14 foot high noise barrier walls. We would not encourage this along a scenic. corridor. One last reason for having the Equity Direction site O. P. and S. I. is that Oasis Club Drive is a 100 foot wide right- of-way which continues north westerly and will ultimately connect with Fran[:: Sinatra Drive and thereby provide access to the Coo[:: Street interchange with 1-10. This route will , in the future, carry significant volumes of traffic. This makes it the appropriate break: to provide the land use change from residential to S. I . and O. P. To change the land use at this location is far more appropriate than the present point where rear or side yards of single family homes would have to back up to 40 foot high buildings and/or parking lots. CONCLUSION OF LAND USE DISCUSSION, The use of this 118 acre site for residential development is inappropriate for a variety of reasons. The property can and will be developed for O. P. and S. T . uses in a manner compatible with the best existing development in the area if it is annexed to the city. If the area is not annexed to the city then any future development proposals will be reviewed by the county. TRAFFIC: Traffic in the area of the prezoning is a problem at this time due to a variety of reasons. Completion of various road segments ( i . e. Oasis Club Drive to Fran[% Sinatra, 42nd Avenue to Hovley, Cook Street interchange to I-10, Mid Valley Parkway, Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore) as well as 4 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 road improvements associated with future developments in the prezone area will improve the traffic situation. This conclusion is supported by a recently completed traffic study done in conjunction with TPM 25270, the 118 acre site at the northeast corner of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive. While a residential development on this 118 acre site could result in "slightly less" air quality and traffic impacts than a service industrial/office professional land use designation, it is felt that considering all other factors the slight reduction will be more than offset by the mitigation measures that will be imposed on TPM 25270 through a preannexati.on agreement. In other words, the higher land use designation will result in a higher level of necessary mitigations above the residential level . These various mitigations are outlined more fully in the ASL Traffic Impact Analysis. OVERALL CONCLUSION: Staff feels strongly that the city should not be associated with residential development on the Equity Direction vacant property, considering the long terra impacts that the site will face. This conclusion was supported by county staff in their 1-17-90 staff report. on EIR No. 305, page 7, where they conclude "Alternative 'B' (residential ) is an infeasible alternative for the entire site. " If it must be developed as residential , then let the county approve the application. Staff is confident that the vacant. Equity Directions property can be zoned for S. I . and O. P. and be developed in a manner sensitive to the residential community to the west and south. The higher level of traffic mitigation that this site could provide will allow the city to be involved in the traffic solution for the area. If the area is not annexed then the city will have little, if any, involvement in solving the existing traffic problem. This will be left to the county to solve. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed prezoning was considered and reviewed as a part of the north sphere specific plan which was recently completed. In 5 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 addition, further environmental review will be conducted when a specific project ( i . e. precise plan and tentative map ) is submitted. A negative declaration of environmental impact is enclosed for adoption/certification. IV. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: The proposed prezoning which will become effective upon annexation of the property to the city will be consistent with the adopted specific plan. The types of uses existing in the PR zone are consistent with those presently existing in the area. The proposed service industrial/office professional zonings will result in an upgrade from the existing business park. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to city council approval of C/Z 90-11 . VI . ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft. resolution. P. Legal notice. C. CEGA documentation. D. Comments from city departments and other agencies. E. Plans and exhibits. Prepared by-'�`/J�—' — Reviewed and Approved by ______ SRS/tm 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF THE RAILWAY RIGHT- OF-WAY TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY. CASE NO. C/Z 90- 11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of September, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments , if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their actions , as described below: 1 . The proposed prezoning to PR-59 Service Industrial , and Office Professional is consistent with the adopted North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed land use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 3 . The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 90-9 Exhibit "B" on file in the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, department of community development are hereby recommended to the city council for approval . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of September, 1990, by the following vote, to wit : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083 , of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 90- 11 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, 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. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SRS/tm 3 i PR- PALM VALLEY i •• REGENCY _ . . _ PALMS A ,• 'C NTi;Y C DRIVEOP �a.t.�(�{,6. i I LAKES I RESORTER m O I m U �N G �N F- I 0 LL1 LLJ F- I 42r.d AVEIJUE � _ Z u * y IQ I IF 1 11 A ING DRIVE ��—� Td•S," ^T^ CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. z 9o-n PLANNING COMMISSION Chang) 0 oV Mo , Q RESOLUTION NO. � [EKHO o Ocir ®1 Date INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) I . EARTH a. Much of the area affected by the prezoning is already developed. Development of vacant parcels will result in grading to a maximum depth of five feet. Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures. The area is relatively flat so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions. b. As part of the normal grading activity on new projects soil will be moved, displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place on the site. C . The area is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better direction. d. 'The area does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed by UPC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. ?. AIR a. Much of the area is already developed. During construction on remaining vacant parcels, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Because the area is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a 1985 draft environmental impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park. View Drive Land Use Study. Completed development of the area will result in less dust leaving the area then currently occurs with the site 's vacant condition. b. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. C. Development of this area will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified land uses. 3. WATER; a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. b. The vacant areas, when developed, will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however, the landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material . The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a controlled manner. C. See b. CVWD is developing a drainage channel across the north limit of this area. d. There is no ground water present on the site. I e. See d. f. While any development or vacant land results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for• public. water supplies; the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water• District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 4. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the undeveloped portion of the area contains weeds and sagebrush. The projects when completed will introduce a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be introduced to the site will, however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The site does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. C. It is e.<:tremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural. production in the area. 5. ANIMAL LIFE a-c. The area has been identified as being habitat area for the fringe toed lizard. Prior to development on vacant land a fee of $600 per acre must be paid to the nature conservancy for acquisition on a permanent habitat area north of I-10. Other than the fringe toed lizard no other endangered species will be impacted by development of vacant land in this area. d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable habitat for wildlife. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. b. All material resources used on the site are renewable. 7. a & b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since the new projects will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature. S. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials. INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 40-11 9. a. As discussed earlier the project will have a positive impact in terms of drainage impacts on adjacent properties. b. Properties in the area are not subject to unusual geologic hazards. The project will not effect that hazard. Ir). NOISE Construction on vacant land will create temporary noise impacts. MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. 11 . LAND USE The prezoning will not alter the present developed and proposed land use in the area. The prezoning is consistent with the approved general plan of the area. 12. OPEN SPACE None of the area in question is designated as open space; its development therefore will not result in a reduction in the amount of designated open space. 13. POPULATION a. The prezoning is a prelude to future annexation of the area to the city and, therefore, will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 1.4. EMPLOYMENT Development of vacant property will create new jobs, however, the prezoning will not provide new jobs; in terms of the value as a whole in and of itself it is minor. However, when the cumulative effects of area development is analyzed the impact on employment is significant. Most of the jobs created, however, will be filled by residents of the area or those who have come to the Coachella Valley for other reasons. 4 i INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 15. HOUSING a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in items 1:3 and 14. In addition this is currently being projected someL, 003 unsold housing units in the valley-, in addition to the number of rental units being developed, in the City of Palm Desert along. b. None - covered in item 15 a. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. All of the proposed land uses were considered during the review of the north sphere specific plan. It was intended that for any land uses above residential a detailed traffic study would be required to show how the higher land use would impact traffic. ASL has conducted an in-depth analysis specifically regarding the proposed land use on the 118 acre site at the northeast corner of Country Club and Oasis Club Drive. The conclusion is that given the higher level of land use a higher level of mitigation can be required which when combined with various other traFfic improvements throughout the area will have a positive impact on the existing traffic situation. b. Development of vacant land will create a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied on the sites. C. E.,.:cept for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on e::<:isting transportation systems. d. Principal access to the area will be from Country Club Drive, El Dorado and Frank Sinatra Drive. e. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth by the traffic analysis referred to in item 16 (a) should positively affect the existing traffic situation. INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 17. PUBLIC SERVICE a. The fire department indicates that when this area is annexed to the city it may create a need to add a paramedic squad to existing crew at Portola and Country Club Drive. If so, it will be funded from the special fire tax payable by each property. b-f. None. The vacant properties serve no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated the area for development. Infrastructure improvements ( i . e. storm channel , streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land, 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE Annexation of the area will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the City of Palm Desert. A fiscal impact analysis is being prepared pursuant, to L.AFCO requirements which will determine the net fiscal impact to the city. If the fiscal impact of annexation is negative, it is unliF:ely that the city will proceed with the annexation. 1:7. UTILITIES All. utilities have indicated an ability to serve the vacant areas. The prezoning and ultimate annexation will not alter utility providers. 20. HUMAN HEALTH The uses permitted in the proposed zonings will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 6 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 21 . SOCIAL SERVICES The uses permitted in the proposed zonings will not increase the demand for general social services above the level, if the area is reviewed in the county. 22. AESTHETICS a. Much of the area is developed. Development on vacant sites will be required to meet city standards, if annexed. Care will be taken to protect any scenic vistas or views. b. The vacant sites and some developed properties in their present condition may be termed as aesthetically offensive. The prezoning and annexation to the city will mean that all new projects must meet city standards and must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission. C . For reasons stated in items 22 a and b. 23. LIGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced when vacant sites are developed but the projects will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition the requirement for a engineered lighting plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled. 2A . There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical significance of this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. 25. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. SRS/tm 7 L� =MIR0tT.1 iTTAL SERVICES DEPT . I14ITIAL STUDY =TVIRCINIFENTAL EVALUATI011 C=CKLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers , possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Oisruptions , displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the sail ? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief — — features? d. The destruction, coveringt or modification 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? In . The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture , or temperature , or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? _ ; . Zt Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a_ Changes . in currents , •or the course or direction of water movements? b. Changes in-absorption rates , drainage patterns, or the rate and- amount of — — surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow 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 Vie proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees , shrubs , grass , and cr3ps )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare, — or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 'S. Animal. life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species , or any species of animals (birds , land an — — land animals ls 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 to a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d . Ceteriaration to existing wildlife habit2177 -- i Yes Maybe No 6. Natural Resources . Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural resources ? b. repletion of any non-renewable natural resource? X1 7 . Enemy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. remand upon existing sources of energy, or re- '4 quire the.dezelapment of new sources of — — energy? — 8. Risk o�oset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of , hazardous substances ( including, but not limited the pesticides , oil , chemicals , or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? L—n1 9. E^anomie Loss . Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and beyondeacces exposed to geologic hazards / beyond accepted cor:runity risk standards ? 10. Noise . Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted exceeded? noise and vibration levels are exceeded? 1i . Land use. Will the proposal result in the a t�d of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Coen Soace. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the amount of designated open — space? 13. Pcoulation . Will the proposal result in: a . Alteraticn or the locstion, distribution , density , or growth rote of the human Population of the Cite? b. Change in the population distribution by aye , income , religion , racial , or ethnic — — group , occupational class , househr,id type? 4. Yes Maybe No 14. Employment . Will the proposal result in addi�ti—onT new long-tarn jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed , unemployed, and underemployed? 15 . Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? _ b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16 . Transoortation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? facilities , or on existing acilit es , b. Effects 9arking P demand for new parking? -- c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 72 e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , \ bicyclists , or pedestrians? 617 . Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following arels : a. Fire protection? b. Police protection?C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? — — f. Other governmental services? — 5. ' Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures _and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities .— Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or alterations to the following utilities : a. Power or natural gas? _ _ I 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 ` J care provided? fX-� 21 . Social Seriices . Will the proposal result in - an increased demand for provision of general social services? �( 22, Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a . Obstruction of any scenic vista• or view. open to the public? \/ b. The creation of an . aesthetically offensive — — site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness , pleasantness , and uniqueness? n 23. Licht and Glare. Will the proposal produce -new I ignt or g are? 24 . Archeoloaicai /Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure , object, or building? _ _ � • 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findinas of Siani`ficance. a. Does the- project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? _ 7`/�" b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental .goals? (A short-term impact an the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief , definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into J the future. ) c. Ooes 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 an each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts an the environment is significant. ) — — d. Ooes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? 74 n Initial Study Prepared 9y: L Douglas E. Miller }�r�,�v Constniction Consultant WLVV19� V 39-640 Regency Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 UG 29 1990 (619) 345-9586 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY X PALM DESERT 1 City of Palm Desert C/0 Raymond A. Diaz, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Dr.. Palm Desert, CA 92260 . j subject; Prezone Case No. C/Z 90-11 (Equity Directions ) Dear Mr. R.A. Diaz, I. received a copy of your notice of Prezone Case No. C/Z 90-11 ,. (Equity Directions) Tues . ' Aug. 28, 1990. You state that a meeting 1 will be held Sept. 4, 1990 at 7 P.M. , in the council chamber, at a the Palm Desert City Hall. i My name is Douglas "E" Miller, I am past President & Board Member of the Regency Palms H.O.A. , & represent 110 Homeowners. ' The Homeowners (110) were unanimously in opposition to the Zone Change requested by Equity Directions. As you know the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, & the Riverside Planning Commission 1 have unanimously rejected this request TWICE. Now Equity Directions is coming in the backdoor & you are open ng that door.:- The Homeowners of Regency Palms are unanimously against any pre-annexation disscussion, because of the above, & we will, appose- any attempt by the City .of_Palm Desert to, Annex Regency Palms into the City of Palm Desert. k -n T -•. `!�ivy -, Y ♦. As the Elected' Diror & Representive of the Regency Palms j H.O.A_,' I am requesting that you either cancel, or re-schelude 7 q ?, , the pre=zone Case No. C/Z 90 T1 too at least the 16. or 23 day of l�` ��Oet , 1990 Please Advise, `,& thank you ""' i , � a l '�'-' i"'��a lr,h4 x tL �'$ "C ,rely, ..Douglas "E" .Miller i sr ii� Mi , g �. cc; . PALM Desert. Resort H.OA. _. T Whitehawk-.H O A., Peter Solomon .-. ' Pa Im Desert City Manager Mr... Altman Customer Relations • Quality Assurance • Job Management { August 20, 1990 Mr. Ramon Diaz, Secretary AUG 2 4 1990 Palm Desert Planning Co°L4#Le'Eb&p M ENr 73510 Fred Waring Drive CITY PFPALM DESERT Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Re :Equity Directions C se No. TT 25270 Dear Sir: I would like to register my oppositio o the zoning change on the property located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Oasis Club Drive. Equity Directions is clearly attempting to circumvent the desires of the Riverside County Planning Commission and the hundreds of property owners in the immediate area. They have already gone through the application process with the county. Having been denied their request, they are bringing their problem into the City of Palm Desert sphere of influence. Equity Directions has submitted "a "plan" . Lets cross reference the word plan:contrivance, ruse, trick, dodge, and scheme. All less than complimentary terms, although in this case, applicable. Country Club Drive is one of only four available East/West routes inrsthe area. In the past three years we have seen the addition of traffic signals on Country Club at Washington, Palm Valley, Cook, and the Marriot. Will Oasis Club Drive and Resorter Boulevard be next? I have no quarel with the need for these signals from a safety stand- point. I am concerned, however, that the addition of 75 industrial lots will have a significant negative impact on the traffic patern on Country Club Drive. Let's get back to the word plan. What august body sat in judgement on the "plan" for the business park still under construction on Country Club-west of Washington? This conglomeration of rhymeless buildings is ,a perfect example of poor planning. "Wait 'till it 's finished" . . "It' s still undet construction" , you say. Take a ride on Cook! Turn left or right on any street between Country Club and Fred 1,1aring and see another prime example. My neighbors and I hope you will not make the same mistake again. SincerelvK7� Chuck .King 77027 Preston Trail Palm Desert, CA. 92260 345-1608 PETER SOLOMON & Go. 53-800 Polk St. P.O. Box 241 Thermal, CA92274 (619) 398-6175 a dliscm AUG 2 3 1990 August 21 , 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY AP PALM DESERT Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260 Ref : Legal Notice , Case No. C/Z 90-11 , Pre-Zone Request , Equity Directions Dear Commissioners , I have just this date received the above referenced City of Palm Desert ' s Legal Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, September 4 , 1990. For the following below listed reasons , I hereby request that this hearing be rescheduled for a month, or at least , for 2 weeks. 1 . Although the Notice was dated August 13 , I - and I believe other recipients - did not receive it until August 21 . This does not afford us enough opportunity to prepare for such an important meeting. 2 . For almost 8 months I have been in contact with both City Manager Altman and Planning Director Diaz , expressing my concern and opposition to such a re-zoning. To allow only a 14 day notice to prepare does a disservice to the zone change opponents . 3. September 4 is one day after Labor Day. This holiday is historically one in which many Desert residents leave the Valley for a vacation or long weekend. Moreover, an added reason to extend "away" time for many residents is the fact that this year Desert Sands schools will not open until the 10th of September. Therefore , many directly affected property owners will not be available to attend this important meeting, if held on September 4 . 4. In many conversations with both City Manager Altman and Planning Director Diaz , I have been told that the City Administration supports and endorses a Pre-Annexation Agreement with Equity Directions which includes a change of zone from residential to Industrial/Service . On separate occasions Mr. Diaz has noted that the City needs and welcomes the additional tax base such a zone change would bring to the City treasury. It is Mr. Diaz who has scheduled this Hearing for a date which lends itself to an accommodation of the Equity Directions spokesman at the expense of those of us who live in the annexation area and who may choose to oppose such a zone change. 5 . This zone change has been extremely controversial for well over a year at the County level . Both the Riverside County Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted against the change of zone in favor of maintaining a residential flavor to the Country Club Drive area. It should be noted that at each of the hearings before the East Area Planning Commission, at least 100 opponents appeared to express their opinions . Both Mr. Altman and Mr. Diaz are aware of this fact . Inherent in the very controversial nature of this Pre—zone request , I strongly believe that the points made note of above be taken under submission and my request for a two week to one month delay be positively acted upon. Each resident of the area under consideration for annexation has an interest in maintaining his or her existing property value and the beauty and integrity of the Country Club Drive area. Respectfully Submitted, Pe Solomon PS/lp cc : Regency Palms Homeowners Association Palm Desert Resort Homeowners Association Whitehawk Homeowners Association MEMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 701 East 2811A St„���lite 212, Long Beach, CA 90806 ZYj1f3) 426-6951 (714)S97-9822 d ►�L& ilei A\ccnuc.Suitc'_t18, 1funtingtun Belch,CA 92647 . OSCAR�9. SI IAD,{F;, M.�rD+. ,9� 1HEN 11. DERNSIE N. M1 D. RAYMOND W. KE SO,JR., M.D. JEFFREY U. RIKER, I C7 1 GORDOOK, AAECKF;RLING, NI.D. ERYNA KANE, M.D. JAMES D. WALLACE, MA). IEPHEN GLENN F.LI%Vjo%) fR)1 UE�F PALM tp(�5r{{}k ORY LSS PAYER,M.D. SLARRY A.DRUM, M.D. JAMES R. LICHT, 1,101 JOHN F. CRONIN, M.D. MARK C. ASRILL, M.D. ALLEN S. WARNER, M.D. CRAIG Y.IIAMASAKI.M.D. BRUCE VAN NATTA, M.D. S v CL�((. `t0 au, Ot pk�!'W 9'2-2-6 0 t av�t 6-4 CA- jo [l� ��SCC�1 u1 • Q- 14-c o- 3 q r sf ►'IAKCI �Q GAR .n P 4 1990 September 40 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARiMENi CITYgF PALM DESERT Mr. Ramon A. Diaz Director-Planning Commission, City .of Palm Desert, CA City Hall, 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 REFERENCE: CHANGE OF ZONING - 118 ACRES +; NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE RESIDENTIAL 2B TO MANUFACTURING Dear Mr. Diaze As residents of the Palm Desert Resort country Club, we want to express our distress over the possible change of zoning on the property listed above. This change would not only change the future of Country club Drive, but also the valuation of the properties in the Resort. (960) It is our hope that you will join with us in opposing this change. Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. John W. Mann 41995 Preston Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 P.S. The following listed residents of the Palm Desert Resort join us in sending you this message. a 1 . Mrs. Betty Johnson 41961 Preston Trail 2. Mr. & Mrs. Ken Phillips 41989 Preston Trail 3 . Mr. & Mrs. Stanley Ludolff 41747 Preston Trail 4 . Mr. & Mrs. Jim Kinq 41991 Preston Trail 5 . Mr. & Mrs. Larry Russell 41923 Preston Trail 6 . Mr. & Mre. Lawrence L. Dickinson 41999 Preston Trail 7. Mr. & Mrs. Arnold C. Oss 41651 Resorter Blvd. 8 . Mrs. Calvin Clark 40431 Hayhill Drive 9. Mrs. Helen Flanagan 40915 E. La Costa Circle 73 C'1�Z rl+-�tieo,, 2X2e, ft�F fl �zF ��tfLztJ � ��/tC� �lryt-trcf' �,(' . ✓� x L-t-C.t' 1 1 ti! .f! �! '2 en ��. . 1 K41v �xsia rrne�un ��xiruw uunea�nw uvuneVA 0661 9 t 100 Cy3A1333a Larr Heiserman 1660_ Malcolm Lane Yorba Linda , Ca . 92686 RECEIVED OCT 15 1990 WMMDM"DEWSPMEM DEPARTMENT MY DE RAM DESERT 10-10-90 RECE 190 OG f 15 Palm Desert City1C;9TTi6ft, 73-510 Fred Wa_ing Dr . Palm Desert , Ca . 92260 As we are unable to attend the Pulbic Hearing regarding the annexation of the Equity Directions ' property and its possible zoning as office professional/ service , we would like hereby to oppose this proposal . Si, cere Larr Hei erman homeowners in the Palm Desert Country Club and Resort , 41633 Palmetto Ln , Palm Desert October 12, 1990 RECEM '90 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive CITY C .r. <ovrl Palm Desert, CA 92260 1 oppose the Equity Directions Development for zone change to the office professional/service industrial . It will bring down the value of our Palm Desert Resorter property and down grade the area. It is the responsibility of the City Council to keep the property values from not decreasing and because a developer wants to develop it for his own personal gain. You are not recognizing the needs of the homeowners who have purchased for property values to increase not decrease. I have owned mine for 4 years and I thoroughly enjoy my place. My vote is "NOO Sincerely, Mary c!aro RECEIVE:F l 15759 �indskog Dr. Whittier, CA 90603 OCT 15 15:;J pSI1Y MEVElOFMENT DEFUTPTV1 qry DE PMM DESERT 1�ECEIVE!� '90 OCr15 Pn 2 2030 vine St. CI7YCLERYS Hollywood, Ca 90068 10/11/90 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca .92260 Gentlement I wish to go on record as OPPOSING a rezoning of the land across from the Palm Desert Resort Country Club. Sin�,erely, Quindina C. Giuliani 00T 15 1990 Unit 18-5 40425 Pebble Beach Circle 0"[EDPMm DER MEM, (M1 DF PNM DESERT RECEIVED OCTOBER 12 , 1990 0 C T 15 1990 PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL R"tCEIVFn COMMUNDDRUM[m 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE CITY OF PALMOuaPµrmpr PALM DESERT, CA 92260 '90 RE: APPLICATION OF EQUITY DIRTTSfVLOPMENT FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE C 1iQNGE. GENTLEMEN: I AM WRITING IN REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION OF EQUITY DIRECTIONS DEVELOPMENT FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE ON A 118 ACRE PARCEL ACROSS FROM THE ENTRANCE TO PALM DESERT RESORT. AS A HOMEOWNER AT PALM DESERT RESORT I AM OPPOSED TO THIS ZONE CHANGE AND WOULD LIKE TO URGE THE COUNCIL TO VOTE NO ON THIS PROPOSAL. THE AREA IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND TO THE WEST HAS SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS EITHER EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION. I FEEL THE PARCEL SHOULD REMAIN RESIDENTIAL. THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION WOULD SERIOUSLY IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE 118 ACRES . AS IT STANDS NOW, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN IT IS VERY DIFFICULT IF NOT DANGEROUS TO EXIT PALM DESERT RESORT ONTO COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. THE INCREASED TRAFFIC FROM NOT ONLY PASSENGER CARS BUT DELIVERY TRUCKS AND OTHER LARGE TRACTOR TRAILER VEHICLES THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD CREATE, WILL MAKE IT EVEN MORE HAZARDOUS . AS THERE ARE ALREADY SEVERAL EXISTING, AND A LARGE PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WHICH BACK UP TO THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAIL LINE, I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE RAILROAD TRACKS POSE A PROBLEM TO THIS PARCEL BEING DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. I URGE THE COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST THE DEVELOPERS REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE CHANGE . SHOULD YOU WISH TO CONTACT ME, YOU CAN REACH ME AT THE ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER BELOW. SINCERELY , ?JERR7L. HELTON 77-431 SAWGRASS PALM DESERT , CA 92660 619-345-2734 714-994-0703 October 11, 1990 i1f OEtiVF_ 2 ' RECEIVED OCT 15 1990 plfY Palm Desert City Council COMMUNTEY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Application of Equity Directions Developement for Annexation and Zone Change Gentlemen: Please be advised that I am a homeowner in the Palm Desert Resort Association and I am writing to you in connection with the request of the above developer for annexation and zone change. As I am sure you are aware, our development is directly across the street and south of the proposed 118 acre office/industrial nark. I want to inform you that I am OPPOSED to ,this zone change and I feel that it should be developed as a residential parcel of land. It is my understanding, that a primary reason- that the developer does not want to develon this parcel of land as 'residential is that it backs up to the Southern Pacific Rail Line. However, immediately ad- jacent to the west of this parcel there. is presently under construction a single family home 'development with rather large residences in `ex- cess of 2000 square feet. Immediately adjacent to the west of the project currently under construction is an existing residential home development and to the west of them is the Paul Valley Country Club which also backs up to the Southern Pacific Rail Line. It is my feeling that to develop this land as a 118 acre combination office/industrial park will seriously degrade the quality of life in this surrounding area. There will be increased traffic, noise, air pollution and noise pollution. Additionallv, it can be difficult at times to exit from our development on to Country Club Drive and oc- casi.onally, somewhat dangerous. If this type of proposed development is allowed, there will be a substantial increase in the volume of not only passenger cars, but delivery trucks and other large tractor/trailer vehicles . I urge you to vote against this proposed development. Should any of you have any questions or wish to contact me, I may be reached at the address and telephone numbers below. /J SincereYv, f Gerald I . Stein 40719 La Costa Circle East Palm Desert, CA 619-345-9202 213-864-2738 RECEIVE.- 0 ' 0 OC r .7 S Pn 2 CiTy CLERKS October 12, 1990 OCT 15 1990 COMMUNITY OR Palm Desert City Council CITY 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Annexation of Equity Directions Development property - 118 acres - across from Palm Desert Country Club, Country Club Drive, Palm Desert Gentlemen: This letter represents my opposition to the possible change in zone of the above-captioned property to Office Professional/service industrial.use. I am an owner of a condominium at Palm Desert Resort Country Club and I definitely feel that a development comprised of offices and industrial buildings would adversely affect the market value of my property. I strongly urge you NOT to approve the annexation of this property. Very truly yours, S. M. Weiskopf 41860 Jupiter Hills Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 i;ECEIVEt c Palm Desert City Council. 73-51 t;i Fred Waring Drive RtCS v -t oil , . RECEIVED Palm Desert, Ca . #'�;_':: 6i.i OCT 15 1990 imum Dear Sir=. ; rawm anaWr Concerning the annexation of the Equity Direction Property, and its I' possible zoning as an office-: profe'ssiOnaliservice industrial , we strongly recommend the zoning not be changed. We bought property on the basis that the area was Zoned as residential . I F To change the zoning would cause encroachment of c;7liilnercial i development and effectively lower property values . Also this would cause an increase of traffic We sincerely recommend that you give this change Your careful study and vine against this change of Zone . Robert. L . Day M . D . Lorene May Day 41827 Preston Trail. 41227 Preston Trail Palm Desert., Ca . 9 260 Palm Desert., C:a . 92260 f�EGE1VE0 ,g� CCU 15 P�1 October 12, 1990 C 1i CLERKS Palm Desert City Council: This letter is an expression of our concerns about the annexation of the Equity Directions Development and the possible change of zoning to office, professional/service, industrial. We would appreciate your recognition of our concerns. As homeowners, we certainly have no problem when the city wishes to increase its tax base, however, the proposed change of zoning we diametrically oppose. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Mell and Sarah Ki'ipakrick 40256 Baltusrol Circle Palm Desert, CA 92660 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RECEIVED OCT 15 1990 CDMMMNY DEnL(PMENE DEPARTMENT C"DP PALM DESERT RECEIVE': J� - �/�' Ll�' GC�ZwruQ?J CITY CLERKS L RECEIVED OCT 15 1990 COIQNIIIIY UFYF10PMfNf IXPAPIMENf pA OF P/�LM DES(Q7 .I PR- PALM VALLEY Ul I I •• � REGENCY PALMS Q , DRIVFgmm IP � I LAKES � i RESDRTER � m m i r I m I i x o ► � D y D ru i W 42r.d AVENUE IZ A INO DRIVE 11 � 17� Tt CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. c z 9o-: PLANNING COMMISSION j0n (, RESOLUTION NO. u u IJ E� (l-� 0 LD I`�'r j Date u u IJ B. a CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 4, 1990 CASE NO: C/Z 90- 11 REQUEST: Approval of the prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive. west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city and a negative declaration of environmental impact pertaining thereto. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I . BACKGROUND: For quite some time the city has received various requests to annex::: the subject area since it was added to the sphere of influence several years ago. During the recent north sphere study and general plan work: the area west of Oasis Club Drive was designated low density residential (5 dwelling units/acre) while the area east of Oasis Club Drive was designated basically service industrial. (S. I . ) . Portions of the property north and east of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive were multi- designated R-1 , S. I . , and O.P. This prezoning then will implement the recently adapted general plan land use plan. A. ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE: North: Railroad South: PR-5, C/Z 1619, R-2 8000, R /Vacant (Sunrise) , Resorter, Whitehawk, vacant East: CT/Vacant West: PR-3. 5/Desert Falls B. GENERAL FLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESCRIPTION: Low density residential, five dwelling units per acre ( i . e. Avondale, Palm Valley, Regency Palms, Regency Estates) . Equity Directions and others (east 1/2 of section 1 south of railroad ) service industrial . II . PROJECT DESCR IPTION: A. RESIDENTIAL PORTION FROM DESERT FALLS EAST BOUNDARY TO OASIS CLUB DRIVE. STAFF REPORT i C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 The request is to prezone these properties PR (planned residential five dwelling units per acre) . This zoning will become effective upon anne-xation of the property to the city. This zoning will be consistent with the general plan and north sphere specific plan and will be consistent with the approved residential projects. In addition , the city has aq_ reed that for a period of five years building permit fees charged these developments which were previously approved under the county will not pay the higher city building fees even though they will be in the city. Fees will match those payable in the county at the time of permit issuance. B. SERVICE INDUSTRIAL (S. I. ) EAST HALF OF SECTION 1 , NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB TO WASHINGTON. The westerly portion of this area is presently under development as an industrial/business park while the east end of the area at Washington Street is vacant. It is proposed to prezone this east half of section i S. I . (service industrial ) . C. NORTHEAST CORNER OF OASIS CLUB DRIVE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, O.P. , AND SERVICE INDUSTRIAL, S. I . This site is vacant property bounded by Country Club Drive on the south and Oasis Club Drive on the west. The developers of this site on behalf of the owner have requested that the front row of lots along Country Club and north along Oasis Club Drive a distance of 151.2 feet be prezoned office professional (D. P. ) and the remainder of the 118 acre site service industrial (S. I . ) . DISCUSSION: The only area of contention appears to be the prezoning of the 118 acre site at the northeast corner of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive. This property was before county planning and the Board of Supervisors numerous times for a general plan amendment. Apparently neighborhood opposition was significant and the matter was never concluded. Apparently, the issue came down to the traffic impacts the proposal would have on existing streets, particularly the Washington Street/Country Club intersection and the entrance to the Resorter. STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 Staff supports the requested prezoning to U. F. and S. I . for a variety of reasons. The north sphere plan establishes a 2, 000 foot buffer area from the railroad and freeway where residential development was not to be encouraged. This was to protect residents from the noise produced from the freeway and railroad as well as the vibration and odors produced by the railroad. Considering that the county is presently considering opening Eagle Mountain as a garbage durtIp site for Southern California it may be expected that in addition to diesel odors garbage odors may be next unless all the trash is carried in sealed containers. Fart of the east half of section 1 is presently under development as a business/industrial park. To place residential homes immediately adjacent to those existing tall , bulky, massive structures with windows on the second floor is not something that this city does or would require. If the O. P. zoning is approved as proposed then the city can assure concerned residents that the city will be more sensitive to building design, size, location, height, bulkiness and massiveness than the county has shown up until now. The O. P. --one standards allow a maximum 25 foot heiqht with a minimum setback: of 65 feet- . In addition, through a pre-annexation agreement the perimeter wall will be required to be located at least 32 feet back: from the Country Club and Oasis Club Drives curbs. Appropriate landscape treatment will occupy the 32 feet of setback as well as a meandering G' foot wide sidewalk:. Staff can assure concerned residents that if the area is annexed to the city and zoned O.P. we will not: 1 . Allow a 10 foot wide dirt strip as presently exists along the east side of Oasis Club Drive adjacent to the Resorter for a distance of one mile. 2. Require or permit an 1 : course high ( 14 feet ) block: wall on top of a 5 foot high slope located 12 feet back from the street as exists at the northwest corner of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive at Regency Estates. ?. Require or permit a G foot high wall , elevated 2 feet above the curb with a setback of 12 feet from curb and use half (F,'' ) of the setback: for a meandering sidewalk STAFF REPORT ` C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 leaving only a landscape strip a maximum 6 feet wide wall as occurs across the Whitehawk frontage. 4. Occupancy of a business center without installation of walls and landscaping to screen parking lots from view from public streets as has occurred in the existing Equity Directions center. As we will undoubtedly hear from area residents and as the current traffic report confirms, traffic volumes in this portion of Country Club Drive are high. Traffic volumes of this level can result in significant levels of pollution as well as noise. One way to mitigate this noise is to install 14 foot high noise barrier walls. We would not encourage this along a scenic. corridor. One last reason for having the Equity Direction site O.P. and S. I . is that Oasis Club Drive is a 100 foot wide right- of-way which continues north westerly and will ultimately connect with Frank Sinatra Drive and thereby provide access to the Cool:: Street interchange with I-10. This route will , in the future, carry significant volumes of traffic. This makes it the appropriate break: to provide the land use chanq_e from residential to S. I . and O. P. To change the land use at this location is far more appropriate than the present point where rear or side yards of single family homes would have to back: up to 40 foot high buildings and/or parking lots. CONCLUSION OF LAND USE DISCUSSION: The use of this 118 acre site for residential development is inappropriate for a variety of reasons. The property can and will be developed for O.P. and S. I . uses in a manner compatible with the best existing development in the area if it is annexed to the city. If the area is not annexed to the city then any future development proposals will be reviewed by the county. TRAFFIC: Traffic in the area of the preoning is a problem at this time due to a variety of reasons. Completion of various road segments ( i . e. Oasis Club Drive to Frank: Sinatra, 42nd Avenue to Hovley, Cook Street interchange to I-10, Mid Valley Parkway, Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore) as well as 4 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 road improvements associated with future developments in the prezone area will improve the traffic situation. This conclusion is supported by a recently completed traffic study done in conjunction with TPM 25270, the 118 acre site at the northeast corner of Oasis Club Drive and Country Club Drive. While a residential development on this 118 acre site could result in "slightly less" air quality and traffic impacts than a service industrial/office professional land use designation, it is felt that considering all other factors the slight reduction will be more than offset by the mitigation measures that will be imposed on TPM 25270 through a preannexati.on agreement. In other words, the higher land use designation will result in a higher level of necessary mitigations above the residential level . These various mitigations are outlined more fully in the ASL Traffic Impact Analysis. OVERALL CONCLUSION: Staff feels strongly that the city should not be associated with residential development on the Equity Direction vacant property, considering the long term impacts that the site will face. This conclusion was supported by county staff in their 1 - 17-90 staff report. on EIR No. 305, page 7, where they conclude "Alternative '73' (residential ) is an infeasible alternative for the entire site. " If it must be developed as residential , then let the county approve the application. Staff is confident that the vacant Equity Directions property can be zoned for S. I . and O. P. and be developed in a manner sensitive to the residential community to the west and south. The higher level of traffic mitigation that this site could provide will allow the city to be involved in the traffic solution for the area. If the area is not annexed then the city will have little, if any, involvement in solving the existing traffic problem. This will be left to the county to solve. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed prezoning was considered and reviewed as a part of the north sphere specific plan which was recently completed. In STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-11 , SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 addition, further environmental review will be conducted when a specific project ( i . e. precise plan and tentative map ) is submitted. A negative declaration of environmental impact is enclosed for adoption/certification. IV. FINDINGS FOR. APPROVAL: The proposed prezoning which will become effective upon annexation of the property to the city will be consistent with the adopted specific plan. The types of uses existing in the PR zone are consistent with those presently existing in the area. The proposed service industrial/office professional zonings will result in an upgrade from the existing business park:. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to city council approval of C/Z YO-11 . VI . ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. C. CEGA documentation. D. Comments from city departments and other agencies. E. Plans and exhibits. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by SRS/t.m - — e f� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE , WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF THE RAILWAY RIGHT- OF-WAY TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY . CASE NO. C/Z 90- 11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California. did on the 4th day of September, 1990 , hold a duly noticed Public hearing to consider recommending to the city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and prezoning of the property north of Country Club Drive, west of Washington Street, south of the railway right-of-way to the existing city limit for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89. " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to Justify their actions , as described below: 1 . The proposed prezoning to PR-5 , Service industrial , and Office Professional is consistent with the adopted North Sphere Specific Plan. 2 . The proposed land use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 3. The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2 . That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 90-9 Exhibit "B" on file in the • • AVUt� i' PALM VALLEY �■ -! - REGENCY PALMS _ !�• 'C JI;'F.Y C URI VE4111111aaCl�,� U i LAKES ! � W RESURTER r m � I o E- 12 o a W I,. W •. i cl) 42rd AVENUE O I 9::io F- �� z A PIING DRIVE I� ^�^ CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. c/z 90-11 PLANNING COMMISSION R Chang) (AZ0H � RESOLUTION NO. [EKM0 o 0 7' B1 Date 4W INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO An ACHED CHECKLIST) l. . EARTH a. Much of the area affected by the prezoning is already developed . Development of vacant parcels will result in grading to a maximum depth of five feet. Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures. the area. is relatively flat so that grading will not create _instable earth conditions. b . As part of the normal grading activity on new projects soil will be moved , displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per, permit and approved gradinq plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural developrzents which will take place on the site. i: . The area is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better direction. d . The area does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. Ml_TIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed by UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk: set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. AIR a. Much of the area is already developed. During construction on remaining vacant parcels, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 As discussed earlier the project will have a positive impact in terms of drainage impacts on adjacent properties. b. Properties in the area are not subject to unusual geologic hazards. The project will not effect that hazard. 10. NOISE Construction on vacant land will create temporary noise impacts. MTTIGATICIN LIF_ASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. 11 . LAND USE The prezoning will not alter the present developed and proposed land use in the area. The prezoning is consistent with the approved general plan of the area. 12. OF_EN_SPACE None of the area in question is designated as open space; its development therefore will not result in a reduction in the amount of designated open space. io. POPULATION a. 'The prezoning is a prelude to future annen:ation of the area to the city and, therefore, will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 14. EMPLOYMENT Development of vacant property will create new jobs, however, the prezoning will not provide new jobs; in terms of the value as a whole in and of itself it, is minor. However, when the cumulative effects of area development is analyzed the impact on employment is significant. Most of the jobs created, however, will be filled by residents of the area or those who have come to the Coachella valley for other reasons. 4 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 15. HOUSING a. The project- will not change the housing picture in the community or region . This is based on the conclusions reached in items 13 and 14. In addition this is currently being projected some 8, 000 unsold housing units in the valley; in addition to the number of rental units being developed , in the City of Palm Desert along. b. None - covered in item 15 a. 16. l'RANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. All of the proposed land uses were considered during the review of the north sphere specific plan. It was intended that for any land uses above residential a detailed traffic study would be required to show how the higher land use would impact. traffic. ASL has conducted an in-depth analysis specifically regarding the proposed land use on the 118 acre site at the northeast corner of Country Club and Oasis Club Drive. The conclusion is that given the higher level of land use a higher level of mitigation can be required which when combined with various other traffic improvements throughout the area will have a positive impact on the existing traffic situation. b. Development of vacant land will create a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied on the sites. C. E ::cept for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. d. Principal access to the area will be from Country Club Drive, El Dorado and Frank Sinatra Drive. e. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth by the traffic analysis referred to in item 1.6 (a) should positively affect the existing traffic situation. INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 17. PUBLIC. SERVICE a. The fire department indicates that when this area is annexed to the city it may create a need to add a paramedic squad to existing crew at Portol.a and Country Club Drive. If so, it will be funded from the special fire tax payable by each property. b-f. None. The vacant properties serve no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated the area for development. Infrastructure improvements ( i . e. storm channel , streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. 1:=:. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE Anne::,:ation of the area will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the City of Palm Desert. A fiscal impact analysis is beino prepared pursuant to LAFCO requirements which will determine the net fiscal impact to the city. If the fiscal impact of annexation is negative, it is unlikely that the city will proceed with the annexation. 19. UTILITIES All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the vacant areas. The prezoning and ultimate annexation will not alter utility providers. 2o. HUMAN HEALTH The uses permitted in the proposed zonings will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 6 8 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 90-11 1 . SOCIAL SERVICES The uses permitted in the proposed zonings will not increase the demand for general social services above the level , if the area is reviewed in the county. a_:.. AESTHETICS a. Much of the area is developed. Development on vacant sites will be required to meet city standards, if annexed. Care will be taken to protect any scenic vistas or views. b . The vacant sites and some developed properties in their present condition may be termed as aesthetically offensive. The prezoninq and annexation to the city will mean that all new projects must meet city standards and must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission. C. For reasons stated in items 22 a and b. _ . LIGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced when vacant sites are developed but the projects will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition the requirement for a engineered lightino plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled. 24. There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical significance of this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. SRS/tm 7 CAZZ NO . G e 1 l o� L' `TC'IRON-=AL SERVICES DEPT. I INITIAL STUDY EYPI80NIM"`ITAL EVALUATION CEECKLIST ;NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIROrIMENTAL 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 overcovering of the soil ? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering � or modification 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 _ — 4 direction of water' movements? b. Changes in-absorption rates , drainage Patterns, or the rate and' amount of — surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration of .the direction or rate of / flow of ground waters? _ J� 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? _ s. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees , shrubs , grass , and _ — Crops ) ? /Z b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare, or endangered species of plants? . c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 'S. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or nursers of any species animals (birds ,re — — land animals including reptiles , or insects )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, a rare, or endangered species of animals? �C c. Introduction of new species of animals Into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d . Ceterioration to existing vildtife habit7t '7 Yes Mavbe rlo 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 resource? — 7 . Enemy, Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energ re- quire the.dezelapment of new sou rces o ar re of energy? 8. Risk of Uoset. . Does the proposal involve a risk or an explosion or the release of , hazardous substances ( including, but not limited to, pesticides , oil , chemicals , or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ 9. E,anonic Loss . Will the proposal result in: a. A change in 4 value of property and e en _ — improvemnts endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and improvements exposed to geologic hazards _ beyond accepted com:runity risk Standards? _ 10. Noise. 'Jill the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted exceeded? noise and vibration levels are — — exceeded? 11. Land 'use. Will the proposal result in the a t�ti of the present developed or la — planned land use of an area? � 12. Ooen Sadce. Will the prcpasal lead to a decrease in the an+aunt of designated open space? 13 . Pcoulation. Will the proposal result in: a . Alteration or the location, distribution , density, or growth rate of the human Population of the City? b. Change in the population distribution by aye , income, religion , racial , or ethnic group , ocC.:pational class , hou5ehehrld [ype? 0 I ` Yes Maybe No 14. E.maloyment. Will the proposal result in aco anal new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed , unemployed , and underemployed? 15 . Housina. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range , zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? _ _ 16 . Transoortation/Circulation. Will the proposal resu tin: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? 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 mcvement of people and/or goods? tX` e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , \ , bicyclists , or pedestrians? • 17 . Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following a••as; 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? I Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal resu t in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures )? 19. Utilities .— Will the proposal result in a neea 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: —4— a . The creation of any health hazard or — — ' potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health , / care provided? fX� 21 . Social Se rjices. Will the proposal result in _ an increased derfand for provision of general — social services? 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a . Obstruction of any scenic vista. or view. open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive — — site open to public view? c. lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness , pleasantness , and uniqueness? n 23. Licht and Glara. Will the proposal produce — — new light or g are? 24 . Archeolocical/4istorical . Will the proposal result in an a teration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure , object, or building? J 6. Yes Maybe 'to 25 . Mandatory Findings of Sioni"icance. a. Oaes the- project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? _ b. Ooes the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental .goals? (A short-term impact an the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief , definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into J the future. ) .— c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact an two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts an the environment is significant. ) — d. Ooes the project have environmental effects which -will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? — Inil:ial Study Prepared 9y: Douglas E. Miller Constn(ction Consultant (� V 39-640 Regency Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 BUG 29 1990 (619) 345-9586 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY X PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert C/O Raymond A. Diaz, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject; Prezone Case No. C/Z 90-11 (Equity Directions ) Dear Mr. R.A. Diaz, I received a copy of your notice of Prezone Case No. C/Z 90-11 , (Equity Directions) Tues. Aug. 28, 1990. You state that a meeting will be held Sept. 4, 1990 at 7 P.M. , in the council chamber, at the Palm Desert City Hall. My name is Douglas "E" Miller, I am past President & Board Member of the Regency Palms H.O.A. , &represent 110 Homeowners. The Homeowners ( 110) were unanimously in opposition to the Zone Change requested by Equity Directions. As you know the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, & the Riverside Planning Commission have unanimously rejected this request TWICE. Now Equity Directions is coming in the back door & you are open- ing that door. The Homeowners of Regency Palms are unanimously against any pre-annexation disscussion, because of the above, & we will appose any attempt by the City of Palm Desert to, Annex Regency Palms into the City of Palm Desert. As the Elected ^Director & Representive of the Regency Palms H.O.A., I am requesting that you either cancel, or re-schelude the pre-zone Case-Uci- C/Z 90-11 too at least the 16 or 23 day of I Oct-,, 1990 Please Advise, & thank you. IKE !. 4A {m ar S c rely, q Douglas "E" Miller. cc; PALM Desert Resort H.OA. Whitehawk H.O_A_ Peter Solomon Palm Desert City Manager Mr. Altman Customer Relations • Quality Assurance • Job Management August 99 20 1 0 v413 40 Mr. Ramon Diaz, Secretary A.L)G 2 4 1990 Palm Desert Planning Core� Rrin 73510 Fred 'baring Drive P1 Ra(M DESEDEP RJARIMENi Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Re :Equity Directions C se :No. TT ?70 Dear Sir: I would like to register my oppositi zoning change on the property located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Oasis Club Drive. Equity Directions is clearly attempting to circumvent the desires of the Riverside County Planning Commission and the hundreds of property owners in the immediate area. They have already gone through the application process with the county. Having been denied their reauest, they are bringing their problem into the City of Palm Desert sphere of influence. Equity Directions has submitted 's "plan" . Lets cross reference the word plan:contrivance , ruse , trick, dodge, and scheme. All less than complimentary terms, although in this case , applicable. Country Club Drive is one of only four available East/',lest routes inrthe area. In the past three years we have seen the addition of traffic signals on Country Club at lashington, Palm Valley, Cook, and the Marriot. Will Oasis Club Drive and Resorter Boulevard be next? I have no quarel with the need for these signals from a safety stand- point. I am concerned, however, that the addition of 75 industrial lots will have a significant negative impact on the traffic Datern on Country Club Drive. Let's get back to the word plan. What august body sat in judgement on the "plan" for the business park still under construction on Country Club-west of Washington? This conglomeration of rhymeless buildings is •a perfect example of poor planning. "Wait ' till it 's finished" . . "It' s still undet construction" , you say. Take a ride on Cook! Turn left or right on any street between Country Club and Fred Waring and see another prime example. My neighbors and I hope .you will not make the same mistake again. Sincerely���i Chuck King �•� 77027 Preston Trail Palm Desert, CA. 92260 345-1608 PETER SOLOMON & moo. 53-800 Polk St. P.O. Box 241 Thermal, CA 92274 (619) 398-6175 &C I a V 150 AUG 2 3 1990 August 21 , 1990 COMMUNITY MEEOPMENi JER4RTMfN1 CIfY"PF P.,!M DESERT Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260 Ref : Legal Notice , Case No. C/Z 90-11 , Pre-Zone Request, Equity Directions Dear Commissioners , I have just this date received the above referenced City of Palm Desert ' s Legal Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, September 4 , 1990. For the following below listed reasons , I hereby request that this hearing be rescheduled for a month, or at least , for 2 weeks . 1 . Although the Notice was dated August 13 , I - and I believe other recipients - did not receive it until August 21 . This does not afford us enough opportunity to prepare for such an important meeting. 2 . For almost 8 months I have been in contact with both City Manager Altman and Planning Director Diaz , expressing my concern and opposition to such a re-zoning. To allow only a 14 day notice to prepare does a disservice to the zone change opponents . 3 . September 4 is one day after Labor Day. This holiday is historically one in which many Desert residents leave the Valley for a vacation or long weekend. Moreover, an added reason to extend "away" time for many residents is the fact that this year Desert Sands schools will not open until the 10th of September. Therefore , many directly affected property owners will not be available to attend this important meeting, if held on September 4. 4 . In many conversations with both City Manager Altman and Planning Director Diaz , I have been told that the City Administration supports and endorses a Pre-Annexation Agreement with Equity Directions which includes a change of zone from residential to Industrial/Service . On separate occasions Mr. Diaz has noted that the City needs and welcomes the additional tax base such a zone change would bring to the City treasury. i s It is Mr. Diaz who has scheduled this Hearing for a date which lends itself to an accommodation of the Equity Directions spokesman at the expense of those of us who live in the annexation area and who may choose to oppose such a zone change . 5 . This zone change has been extremely controversial for well over a year at the County level . Both the Riverside County Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted against the change of zone in favor of maintaining a residential flavor to the Country Club Drive area. It should be noted that at each of the hearings before the East Area Planning Commission, at least 100 opponents appeared to express their opinions . Both Mr. Altman and Mr. Diaz are aware of this fact . Inherent in the very controversial nature of this Pre—zone request , I strongly believe that the points made note of above be taken under submission and my request for a two week to one month delay be positively acted upon. Each resident of the area under consideration for annexation has an interest in maintaining his or her existing property value and the beauty and integrity of the Country Club Drive area. Respectfully Submitted, Pe Solomon PS/lp cc : Regency Palms Homeowners Association Palm Desert Resort Homeowners Association Whitehawk Homeowners Association MEMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC. ' All Gast 28th St, ;y�ite 212, Umg IScarh, G\ 9(IFtl16 lice" 3) 426-6951 (714)S97--1+N" �(�o 1ys t�i tv;AA(Yi � ,C1111M. Suile '_lle. IluntineWn 13cach.('A 43617 OSCAR All IAADLF., NI//D��. �jq HrN B. RPRN511!IN. \1.U. RA)LIOND W. KELSO, JR.. AI D. JEFFREY B. RIKER, I ij6 31 �GURD(("�AWC-KERI.ING. A1.D. 13RI NA KANF, A1.D. JAMES D. WAI.IACE, NI A viaw OF q( W. SONNF, N1.D. S1LFl IFN BROWN. \1 D. GLENN F. I.It1W*05RIY F PB(1A 015%4k;ORY L. SIRAYER, N.D. LARRY A. DRUM, N1.D. JAMES R. LICIT(. N.Ic' JONN F. CRONIN, M.D. MARK C. ASBILL, N.D. ALLEN S. WARNER, M.D. (RAIC Y. D. BRUCE VAN NATFA, NI.D. u-rl- u� J(�ct��ct �v1en Cl' ZZ6 G �} aut o-vj� d `iuu pkau Ao Ac -c,LtLQ bV(G'tR G �CttL'kllt � 'IltiGlV ��E' jut ��- 3Y �br sf.., 1tCLCIA • � 1tblCL, l %�iyvr�, / SEP y 1990 / —��-I>io MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY aqF PALM DESERT J l UA SEE y 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY gF'PALM DESERT September 04, 1990 Palm Desert Planning Commission c/o Raymond A. Diaz 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 RE: Case # C/Z 90-11 Dear Commissioner, My wife and I as homeowners in Regency Palms object strenuously to th above matter! The following are some questions and objections we have. 1. Why the zone change in Avondale, Palm Valley, Regency Palms, and Regency Estates? 2. We wish a vote by the people on the matters not what appears as "railroading" the case through. 3. Why the divide and the conquer approach? As I was told one area acros the street has been approved without any notice to us. 4. Both County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors unanimous] have rejected what is before you. 5. Timing appears unreasonable if the constituent are to be properly notified and have input prior to you making you decisions. Sincerely, Bruce & Helen Wylie Home owners T CNC9�bC�Cs v S10 sEp 6 1990 CDMMUNIiy DEVELDPMEN! DErARTmol August 30, 1990 CA1Y X FALM DESERT Mr. Ray Diaz Secretary Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Diaz and Planning Commission Members: Our home is located at: 76-820 Castle Court, Palm Desert, which is located in the Regency Palms Development on Country Club Drive. We understand that this is part of the area under consideration for Annexation. We want to go on record in opposition to any Industrial Park zoning on Country Club Drive. Already there is way too much truck traffic in the area and an additional business park would only add to the mess. We have two young children and we want Country Club Drive to remain residential in nature. Sincerely, Q �, Barbara and David Nicolson 76820 Castle Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 s ftwvwTV DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CIR'X PALM DESERT August 30, 1990 Planning Commision City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert Ca 92260 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that as homeowners of Regency Palms we are against the rezoning and annexation of any properties of the city of Palm Desert located on County Club Dr. . Moreover, we feel that the lack of notification in a timely manner was an injustice to the homeowners of Regency Palms as it did not give proper opportunity for the homeowners to assess the situation. Sincerely, ')�� Suzi Solomon ..-�,- ,.� 61 Michelle DeSilva Cami Myrkin 76-801 Lancelot Court Palm Desert Ca l` 7� �c'GC 2 J GL• L (Li da Fullarton Paul Fullarton 76-761 Lancelot Court Palm Desert Ca U& 31, 1990 COMMutolly ulvauivwl DEPARIM01 ClIY :4 PALM D E SERI /7 94 A4, �l 2 L?J-7 AAA? L/D eS el- PR l7a?.26(0 �G---------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------------------- SEP-04-1990 18:04 FROM F9UITY DIRECTIONS INC TO 101 ' EDDIPALMDESERT P.01 J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARSMENi SUA V\�.ISE �I P HERS COMPANY April . 27 , 1989 Mr . Rick Jacobs Equity Directions, Inc. 5100 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Rick: We have reviewed your plans for Country Club Business Park West at Country Club Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue. As YOU may know .we own the 640 acre parcel .at the southwest corner of this intersection. We think your plans ure exdeptional and will be an asset to the surrounding neighborhood;; We very much favor - your development and authorize you to include our thoughts at governmental hearing processes. Good Luck. If we can assist. you, please let me know. Sincerely, , J c M. Con�n President JMC:mm FAX'd 4/27/89 �P 4 1990 WAR PRESLEY of SOUTHERN CAL/FORIVj'°i C1TJ',T PAIMITYENT DESERI MEN' J I:U4 i ` JJ irl •...SJ i�i L.C. ••BOS••Albbttson.Jt. ' Y�CnJ�nt April 12, 1989 Mr. Richard Jacobs. Equity Directions, Inc. 5100 Birch Street 'Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear ,Mr. Jacobs: I am in receipt or your plans, dated March lot 1989, for Country Club West Business Park located on the north side of our Palm Desert Resort community. , We appreciate having the opportunity to review your plans and feed - the development will be a posi,Jve project for ihe• area. T Our concern would be whether the uses shown will' • blend properly with the residential environment. As I . understand it, you are submitting your plans to the Palm Desert Resorter Homeowners Association for their review and comments prior to proceeding with the project. 1 Thank you for making us aware of your plans. Sincer . C. "Bob" Alberts , Jr. LCA/mm ' Enclosure i j ,: 171N MIICO•N OOWA • ItYMs.COOIOIOIs s>fsl�•s01s • (7U)Os0A0s0 -1 1 Y.M un•..Mw OI1w.M NIII • y.w.tuy.r..lanes.! TOTAL P.02 , S E P a 1990 COMMUNITY DEVEtOPMENI DEPAMMENt �3 - ('�U �u•L�C/U /�/�/� � CITY X PALM DESERT l 0 2 �,q f1J �/✓�C=G'�'f/.div I,?i (J G Al f'/zC i`f-J-0 Fpv,,,'�g C 31 1990 04*^1Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C'n Pf PALM DESERT August 30, 1990 Planning Commision City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert Ca 92260 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that as homeowners of Regency Palms we are against the rezoning and annexation of any properties of the city of Palm Desert located on County Club Dr. Moreover, we feel that the lack of notification in a timely manner was an injustice to the homeowners of Regency Palms as it did not give proper opportunity for the homeowners to assess the situation. Sincerely, Suzi Solomon Michelle DeSilva Cami Myrkin 76-801 Lancelot Court Palm Desert Ca 'f 0 a S 9 l�f A CV A. Linda Fullarton Paul Fullarton 76-761 Lancelot Court Palm Desert Ca E P a 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST CITY X PALM KSENT Q� Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. Name Address p 4 1990 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST (NmWIV OEVEEDPMEN, DEPM,MEN1 EIIY:f'PAW DESERT Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th V� Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. (J� I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the 11 Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. L &� .- - - I Name a -- C9 L S� 6 kG, ids Cam. SzZ Address c f P 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST CITY:P PALM DESERT Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if pro erly landscaped along Country Club Drive. ame Address 0 e I✓} L) S E P 4 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST CITY PP PALM DESERT ( Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( �1 I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly iandscaped along Country Club Drive. N11CH�2rLL � , Sm,�y Name 42Pdo c-dot< fAcYul DrZrk/(LT- cY' _ �z2rov Address CEP 4 1990 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WES'pMMONITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY PF PALM DESERT v Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. 5s� 6wr Im rek icx),5 Name AL �,,12,(- �- Ad ress �IS� v LO S E P o 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST CITY OF PALM DESERT ()(j Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object i.f prc-perly landscaped along Country Club Drive. Qh1AGC�7c.iFoL�n�/ 'Name l �o ����T � ST �,•�-� Z�oy�AL,In �E�FIL! Address �FP 4 1990 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST COMMONitt DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C"Y QP PALM DESERT ()() Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th / Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS \ / PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. (X1� I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the /l Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. nn �J Na J/ �ddr /� IV, so G F P 41990 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WEST COMMNNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY X PALM DESERT Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do not object if properly landscaped along Country Club Drive. r Name Address NOLL v � ` ° 4 1990 COMMUN"' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTNENI COUNTRY CHUB BUSINESS PARK LEST CITY•1F PALM DESERT Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do of . hj c pr,) •l r. �f sex y iaLG••<capeG along Country Club Drive. Name /� U T Add ess i -' 4 1990 COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS PARK WESTMMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY QP PALM DESERT Unfortunately I am unable to attend the September 4th Planning Commission Meeting but would like to acknowledge my full support for the proposed BUSINESS PARK that Equity Directions Development is proposing. ( ) I have reviewed the proposed zoned change and the Preliminary Plans from Equity Directions Development and do no' ec:t if pr— --dscaped along Country 1 rive. Name y/ A �t, 44*440 W 40,we A• 'a � L 1k'71'Rfi' A i f EN T i V N I ' ►'PREZONE►► CITY OF PALM DESERT k AUGUST 28, 1990 Dear,Neighbor: Upon' receiving the notice for a "prezone" hearing from the City of Palm a .•t . . Desert, I .became alarmed and went to the city.,for more information. The following is letting YOU know what I found out regarding. this matter. I'm 1 alarmed as this could hurt all of our property valuesl ` This morning as I discussed this matter of "prezoning" with Phil Drell, Senior i Planner for the City, he could not give me a good reason why Avondale, Palm Valley, Re enc Palms, and Regency Estates would become zoned PR-5 (S residential units per acre, which sets up for putting in duplexes P apartments). LAND EAST OF OASIS CLUB DRIVE The land East of Oasis Club Drive, which most of us have been concerned about, is proposed as two zones OP (office & Professional) for which the new j a . development at Fred Waring along Monterey was sited. The largest piece would be SI (service industrial) for which Mr. Drell sited the new development on the East side of Cook as an example. HOMEOWNERS' NEED TO OBJECT Mr. Drell then said that if LESS THAN 25% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS' DON'T OBJECT - THE CITY WILL APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION PREZONING AND ANNEXATION AS STATED. The City of Palm Desert is having several of these "prezoning" hearings on various parcels of land in this area and only informing you of this one hearing. One parcel of land across Country Club has already been approved in this ' "prezoning" matter. I l •y COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION This same developer that is petitioning the City of Palm Desert for a zone change had originally submitted his request to the County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission denied the request and made their recommendation against it to the Board of Supervisors. A few days before this matter came before the Board of Supervisors, the developer attempted to withdraw his peti- tion in writing. The Board of Supervisors would not cancel the hearing and then went on to VOTE UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE. The developer then pursued his rezoning petition with the City of Palm Desert that would then involve annexation also. Continued on side 2 x.� HEARING TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER 4 The notices were just mailed to us a few 'days ago but yet the hearing is ' scheduled-for September 4 at 7 p.m. (at City Hall) - the day after Labor Day. r Many will be out of town or just getting back therefore, not having time to respond and be heard. If you have an reservations, lease ask the City Plan- ning Commission to reschedule the proposed hearing. WHAT ANNEXATION WOULD MEAN TO HOMEOWNER The following items are the alleged results to the homeowner if annexation and rezoning become a reality: iF, ar rtf: e'a., • Annexation will increase taxes as the County charges less 5r rhea the City for all bcharge.ut one School District priviledges remain the same. . Services remain the same. ■ The developer does not own the property in question - he only has an option to buy. • Equity Directions is behind this whole matter. • The price of YOUR PROPERTY WOULD PROBABLY BE HURT if this rezoning is approved. • Timing appears unreasonable for meaningful public input. If YOU are concerned about this matter, a letter should be written to: PLANNING COMMISSION 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 This letter must be received by the Planning Commission no later than Sep- _-t tember 4, 1990. Let them know how YOU feel. it's their iob to listen_Also___,._ +' ^ when signing this letter be sure and adJ Fat you are a homeowner. - Y , 1' 1 i +•. Let's all work together to protect our home values I Have a good Labor Day Weekend ! Sincerely, v Bruce & Helen Wylie 76-771 Queen's Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 345-9967 County of Riverside PLANNING DEPARTn7ENT PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION I, Vicki Sharples , certify that on August 16, 1990 (print name) (month-day-year) the attached property owners list was prepared by Stewart Title Co. (print company or of Riverside County pursuant to application requirements individual's name) furnished by the County of Riverside Planning Department. Said list is a complete and true compilation of owner of the subject property and all other property owners within 300 feet of the property involved in the application and is based upon the latest equalized assessment rolls. I further certify that the information filed is true and correct to the best of my knowledge; I understand that incorrect or erroneous information may be grounds for rejection or denial of the application. Name: Vicki Sharples TITLE/REGISTRATION: Stewart Title Co. of Riverside County ADDRESS: 2002 Iowa Ave. , Ste. 100 Riverside, CA 92502 PHONE: (714) 276-2700 SIGNATURE: vz J� DATE: / CASE: V ! m a N N W r n � p N b b b t-0u V y O (39 9// A1 W NO. wa ti« b rn I a Z N z a � / T V I4a.07) n N a4 as Tby g' zm n a N � w/ ;; •iE . 2 . ®® \w \ . � § 9/ E @@4 , � �6 • ` • � — % \\\ w•� \ EE ;g 2 . e «E � \ °�• ; � \\ ®� ; rRA 075-004 ; N & � § {� � ; k \( k (§ � . !. . � . . . % . . 2 � N \f § \ \\ I o C11 C ♦ _ _ _ _ _ , R. y ♦ :,I r _y � a F• � in k n q�r N i � y O m . « ; . - - - - - - - - - - ` § � s � ! � I . §k / _. --- -- - 5ZO \ / - CA § \ »§ k^ i »|§ \/ - --CAS/ \ ƒ —� --- — - - - --7 . : (PE . , . ! . ,ry-orisa-t D LCBr S-TilEf-�—t bIA r.m•u .oesi 1 i LOST °w ,.,�, ,rt•L q�l eq.. �® /: 1 y i O ti` , gasper• n $ b �". i y i s t �e�o • { aoi ie \42 � i v t m . � a'. ' nq®m � W @ to as •a - N \aa f{••°�, i/L 'V p a ._� � a o r N : (�• O 7c yti:a 49/ 0• 2 CH y 4 tY.t n oq �• L e t Z ;, Q N N V2 paa e,{ i v D V m n p �/f,i[I rA4 OiB-Qy6 rK Z !^ 4 . e � i " Ili (r' :.... * ^� a•i e p y r . J, ides O � ° N r^ •`n rL n c's uO' 4 to \ 4 •.• },F o ° ` j G ,.,..,,,.. *� ^I`�,.a ___ _ ,.a_rQ___ _ • tab 6 n�i a' pY (V � S�r\i� �y • aJ l � _ new� •., W cD � FF'` x x I �VOr a"' •" n �c •, t=a �8 b R 1 F� � 000 I n q • ; r a mg ^ • '•' '�' o a~ t.a Ot e ♦ 2� n ° r A �1 o�an�'i i gg GO V f4 y� , h Y YYO y wr0 �� d• ` 4 V (�VQ I • • . .. i • r nl N !4'a,,,,;Cbl- 3 t : :"s{,'T v+Y � RIVE r„ •` i y� i`O a s�\ r • � IV at ICA do fit ��?w •Z Abe ��° a' °,' � `".® �{ � � . Y kk .c a I � yKy arc. y �v e •9..A w W lI( &¢ CA qmq iZ q r I �`• b c} �•�' j�j�5�,v ♦ � � ;-Y.- I + �9 �®:�� ! III � �� �� •a� !I IV ti " §V w.a• �� C a igg��n „ .• � F ,Na • M � yy 4��g��� Y . <r' n ... b �••' w�i i L OL UE ORrVf L.� Y r °.7�n � � sewn •- o ELDORADO ... ,,.J 1�,. .-a.'aa• DRIVE r..•es ti ZL— L Yt tY .``1 iL' aY E:S :i` .Y poL (QN ._... .. _ � °rLYt• aj; � � `� CS � g. t a.•c n'• ` ...o• Fp a°• tag III Y I; I I 1y ll tp II I xi • D I o � n- r 544]� c•a.�e rr..a' a rrr� A N �(n 7�8 ! raa.la i OI V1� e s ' A I � I .'Ymsm ii Y I . m3mm . m.m N , I V alw $0 C yO� to f rr.on.ma ° p I a �a goo �p5 a •�+e.., " S 7Y �i.ra' QB�a �: v4• �LI?ge m �r•o, ya j ti - ZE �_ v w T N Y eKm till f.eam' .A r.rq.ee' '�, Q R .. .. I - 1 g 11 t nr.u' Kr,' Aix Alw I 'd ' Ht4' xt '^.fill. Q W p 198r• j "RN' a ' T. IY® eq o C T4 r'• YO '10•m O I V w 4 HIV I� I n ,Till, or •lIH Mre' 11.11' frr,• ar I j w II• �® � t � � tO C � � � � r I� � of ,s.N'• ISM i I" F/rTv D t 1. •V 9 f I 'N• Oa A Rio N {e I ani � i °s �mv � ®eAl Moe f" N t o � x fe ql' ee ee I I 8 Q aO eK •EdS-FBI/•`•`/wii—•—s'-+iiic fa u t q L a•ee'x'r. A JaM MY' NN ,fii'. M,/' fqw' ei/e' vi i � I I ZRC� E Mir mk N.eC ' I 8 BK. 626 Ai --_ --- — —R' - R O •`b �`� I q A I g dye � b I 2 ` � ` ' I IdT .0 6 sMAcm t` � I 10 do i r t w � ��;` ,''my rw• I y • B I V a I ? 26 y ' + 23 + to S+f v I A r 3O•S � 'L I A m>s i © ?x B6Acm 4 R I A 27 i I W R � 0 ro i F , e..ee nw AES&MERi a .. 3 ` V a 2 (ta 7 N S Op 3`1\ y m V rwv Ob 'r\\ e ®O 4 1 x r v P / r® .®"n 04 , a ;mom 1.31 ko O Y I 77 \ 0 E 8 5 N / L Qp Ne.i) I I fw 1 1 ! M 1 I I I ICI 01 I QO I I I I I r I ° G4 sr I I n I 1 1 y >e 1 I 1 � o to a,� v O a V W C Oqv• / �. 1 O /` 4 •,�w I n � �`nn m v7 o - - - - v � $ . I |`! � q! , , \ / \ 4 � � \ \ . ---- 073 —4 018a4s - ----- �~ ' » N \ 4 , \ b � § §9 � � � � ' \ R ; � �® ` / eaLMSUS R ELDORADO-!OR . � z � ■ ` K . , \ \ \ a ! m ! Q k! @ k_e. a � e § $ : O \ � , 4 . K ; k . � ° " \% . ƒ g ( g ■ l U \) _ m! . } \ ; @ ¥ R - - - - - - A §- . Qq \ t . . ) /\ F ~ � . q . IS K , § � � { / / > . f m / � ^ r r 0e.x T45 nvcnuic .,.'r Av �vc�- - m I \ � i n d y � A \ o b b w V y V n b \ V 09 91) AO.2 N O 414 b 4 fV N a � U ; rn a 1 � � � Z V I c y • C_1 -J V (40.07) y �O 3 ce ti e0 ti a r rnJ ! V , oil � y V N [All _ R.6E 2160 R 7E eael a se — �J n • � IOLn Icl.lc a JOJ.Lo n .y� 4 o= a a V A 4�T3'O04 anlz \e o v 3sL./s 7RA 075-004 O � N Jr' O A RQ o�f,! V O Y A � O ® q a o � ' V Cr = �r o S J/ -! O m- D Ol _ �-gym K : t R h• n OI D -V '� Kn b 50 p i K= T -1 D yC r- m Oo Jf,r .. � 0 � O y oy ' � � y • oa � g° � o i Y C A IL Qj 0 Y )/n•J I y ♦ Y L� _ — I•J rr_ l l l d � r R6£ R. 7E ti ; ASS "C ri � . v' ••r q I T a b A L w 4D F a I• � O / ��� 'I �� I nM14�g�4 r a •� t om ymO QM1 n� r ' ZZyy p 11 D C29 16 v 9p . 0 r A i 0 1 h n � o 7lsze eisz _ # /,�ssi eisz COI Lea H O.Os'Se C Z W N n as 4 b I G I I 4 � W N o•os'oo"e i CITY —.,. TR..—...186? z4sf.e1 i4ss.cr 7RA. 754? h h i m n n 1 CA 'b Fx 3 b i f N w N e o CA vl VI bFZ 0 vO A7eM 9 m - Z-A =.ti b IA H � W k m v U �1 F4 b yn � Q arA o 0 O N 'v OAS/A CLUB DRIVE (PENNSYLVANIA AVEI 4 4 \ 0 • a w � Np^G14/as"E 2G 51 t '4 + 1 � �' T/ZA.018-06Z m '+� a - y .0 c y LOST b 1h m91 OI Q < N !! Ii `egg r o W y 1 O 1 +� n a Qj N C a,el 6' IUD — — —" Sat B3 � 0 u .. ca n ly m o J C SE.iJ y A v ? A A A 9N a �3L of f c S \ 4 �F V �j Wa Smly .7 Q ° aOyN O a \ �®tic tsb' R � F r• ' d � (� N O b � '°�� Y � u 1• !. .ppt .qbF 0 A arz A.0, peg £ °• yb °r< 1 TAa 0,-pe N r •�' o \^\I w S 0p • . � � O y � W n wN Iw C 1 O , A O J p ? ��.� 961•' c / 6G e4£ a y Y Wh Nf/5 NN � D zoa.t3 `'o 'O r ?t ® aA n C'1 O -2 4 1a 4 \ nC-) � y Y° I W • 2 V m� b 0 0 4�° a, 'o <sJ �.ac rso \ o V .Q 'Q ' LET 9 „ o' c ` U q ��<? 0 6 F � �� � d � �• -` v d tom, ,q •,� .B, � : Z• r° � pp N m 4 \ p w N W 4O � V W / a �u' ' gCbLI . �Q0.9_B g� 8 • fQfY D �3� S � �4N � � <• ���3 '� 0 �, 00 0 1 N o9� Om (p A�j I I N n a 70 7 T y Q) ko �� do w 01 a n m y M \ N a 1 ati w w w N N N C p u, CA 10r f!\ w w q0 w � \ � . \ m a n • �° , \ w E 'fie lao.�9 � /Or c O N � N ` y N 4 w O b q tp• � 6 � y • V IF/ v a 0 m q = m Z Q v y � ��, �T4� a•Q Fi N v � 0 44 TEA/� • �-�., /.. � � , . � w °a w a ,, }— w n It " ,� ®al k X•k DRIVE � ' `"„ f `� � � .t. .v' a• �"' s a s 2 j nay � 1� ti �W. •.� t� ` - I w T ` J.�r � Ir r �.• ,fi y�o� • LLTT � 4 4�•a S � J4 �zr>Zo e Z L T A N Irk S CA ��•rc � i• '�� �a 9� I w Z Ca 1 J ZOO" • 13 13 Vw 4 11•Yt A ♦.aK•r `aa. (^'� Y � ` v � � � Ait/.� 40r0y* CA ilk ` • � � O ®~ � �' � �u ��'r r .: t sr l.s it , . 1r.kp c �- � r .• oV r.r YN M ur kb u ��y1 A i i.e.o • S t J�• 9 Vt3 dr, w O Q t C� !/• � L o BLUE 4RIVERf RPDR/VE00 SQj : �:�(�'+� /�' °• • ♦+• r • tit til woo G d , "No•o,rs•c" DR/VE t = Z E.10 DO ,J w h ill , fit } Z ' Y • 4 ^ ' i L ' � 0 w` SS ., ti tiI 10, °ro b b 1 L µ a "Ol I 2 a OAS, 4 y I h I { < y4� I °mI ' r I \ I ro n♦ W I (,�O'�' w I Vet ul W W M (I 4 II � w•n�� u = a >o o I S-0 w_ � N o• i6'2L'6 Jil,O{' 1 I.li' � n` 110 n V CF) b I � cb OK f^ V co A I Lo/ E rwA 070./01 U \ y n n +Y /4r.J1• �, s o � " s. � i r•* '• 4 � a `r A • = zoo co n? ko cb A w _� n u y� o r00p00R 'A �" ,I.si it r!": re.eo' ._ mj { � p .1 O /wA 0/7.OW 66. a i.,i.y 3NO oo`ro N " � L GI a C lyil ryi, 1}1 � h. lslJ! •� � y Agg sift.sO.Od •$ O II .. Mo.FO • /P a to dt'Ifn LI/� • urge' aS. / Afw /IJtJ1• to I a I n y r so io v© O Jo sosb O V b 4 c�j al♦ 1 y M i w ,TI ,tlYf Y'IAO' 71.10' 7Re0' //e• I 1 y1 y �� � ® � ` •4 S �Cv f' M .� 1 � O r Iy � � s R � I • I C� tx N.Ol Jd//"r. . • � Ly/ i � I 1G a' /a .� lr.os' N u g 'y OO Tli O� f V 0, h '�O A Al' as' .. .. I r 4 y lk .44 O� I �, wt M qp� 1 yy1 . v •� `, C11 v O 2 (mil 1t � • Y , •O ' I 'UCi �- N rl Yl ♦ r y - ( vl ♦ • aO . I K 4 y `•1 1 q -� P1 O I fy Sw O � -i n 7n C � r • 1 �O 1 cuia aye A y u t0zom Ik ( moo 0_ w a s0 s0 dt' ' so Jo y 1 O w K= y gar O w ® r V a 4 m ',1 fRs • � � e/' Z IN/ko 16 b b Bass' !l!' cA�."Ile / w w/� 4 fm, t (NI, a V. O's0'//,� L O L./ I Q N.1{' 1Maf' *74.00' ' 7f./2' ?Ass, • � V II II MIf' 7{.t7'' 7r./1' 7!.!r' ." !/./O, + � ^- w I 1 O -T 1. 8 —' _ ti I r ---r R:ZG b 4' t7 l+4S IK (A :p 47.94 110.40 M n t.n.a7 Oti W I GI) ° I , 55 65 ,V F Qws A k ®m d O OD 14 Y $ 1 th � J O a y \ x J M J O b tJ Y O I x � � I w A 0 , V / = N w � h ly wW r� �, � . / 4W w ♦w < � I � A N � � �ww � �♦ ,"' mC Z i U. C o3D C K o a Q Qq b bx � t ti YL-VANIA---11 V) N o'aq'43'E e so m I >< I I ICI o I N i I I + I .J Cn u Y I I $ I � O r 1 03 J I ' ro 98 ' I � I 4 Q (H e 1 ZSP 55 SS �T ti Fi.�•A y o O A 14 / 8 H Q a 4 N I u Oyti ` I CD N G m � Si 51.91 No.4o ;)`T � pa NO'50,08 o 0 o O o (v� l� W i w o m n < ti cry n mp V 14 � N L �0C n �v ADZ D v C D m 11 m mn T OO o� m 3 > � � O C i A N U Oro w 0� � b Z p o ti THA 018 -073 / 7NA 078734 2331.[s3 _�___��.___.._.,C_• .. l / y b e / >zo pV> H p (CGUJMBUS RD.) ELDORADO-. DR ` �^) /XX16, Z6i, O 'rj N� 431 C.� W � O � � I e 'U - U a ; � o ° to ^' o 0 y � 0y •• , /,�y ti y w � y c ➢. m a b d m- d !o O a ^ ' , n ° a j IO , U w n ^� 0 � a � NO ro d � a N � n 14 (Jr, Rio N r h IY474.0e L'o use e tie �i 0 0 o Om 4A �K1 V b �v , s ♦ � O O A 10 NLl ^ $K �O a n 2 � 1 s C n SO 01 lag A I!/I,i• d 0 i � \y � . � \ - - - - ) ! A 3 � . 2 � � Zt / $ « 1 � @ ® � % 4 7 % ® n \ d , � � ; m F e Q � 2 � Itt � q . \E � - m , ~ % § 2 , 2 \ Is ( � » ( � /C4 ~ 23 . �$ | � •- � n p i JV Jo•i•'.a•! µ. C � L n m nroa N o b m A u O N b e O Ov W n O W \ 44 n n � \ fq 4 a ti o O m o, a A Y Y A O V U Qq I � ` n W OAJ Y I W w (( v7 �1 vV ' 1 v� w w n a o �� % a b C n zor ym zi IN]� aO cI rl R 7E _ - - �O V N O � m 31 m 0 0 .0 x znnnn O G:/ � o < �j m �j D r i m ° to m u 0 (•' Nq Gl n D D COrN a q Q m N 2 N m A H Z m i 0 W � 0) O N 7 G ^J rn N m :r -- mac D uTr f^ q a C CJ D D of L7 D H �� N 25Un)O , DD - , t- 'ate ;u rn -Pj ` zln z� . S: o a -i o D Pi c,< -ao �.o m m x PAS^.r� z C7 m X ca r o m Pi 4 ( � - c R N v Ul c . FAR, 16 O ri o ool W (X)w w z w w ✓ ar cn rIH .y O!- >--O ?� Cd <O4- 7C9 3.+ ml n U� [ltVh- 'ti J Q H W o iw(n=Z Q� a N H ¢ Z Z U os w Q ¢t'3 rJ JoQ o a ¢ QCdJ Ic 3- N 6 ' d u MCO = W it a ¢ v = N J c E 0 L N J 0 J Q U H a � w y w a a o a 0 0[ C= wrva 3o km 3n3waanm a m"m i T 130 �(( A1333H //-Od Z/j r� w ` v L 3 L O _ u: o r G LU O J ry ¢ o ; ¢ = U N � � Od Q ZN (n 2 N 7 J O W _ LU LL O UJ U' J ^ V E U Z SLr7� n-i ¢ N � ° �o to N U) 1 w N ¢ N U a � :O O] N J O a a > ¢O 1tl3S301(IVd 30 Alp LURMd30 Rlltl3MM 1 "FM L� Z 0 066L 5 9 100 ®3AI303H i�-o� Z117 _z (� W cr) W — r AvZ V �9 O O J J O J 4 2 U U \o Z W Z O LL U W N n N Q N O C] Q OO 30 O rt LL ^ Lq {� O I n I4. �� Q y. Ki J w O CD ON _�. L41 7 W L h— W O {` LJ w L1 T L7 O L 1 i K ¢ W IM ¢ N v h 1 co q�.m Ld U F` $ N a = inavv 0 o 0661 p 100 ; _ LO. . CV at d-i } h Z �. C G 1. j q O G� liJ _r 4 O [i C fit; N 41 f� 6 :O Cf] CCU J 1Y3111yr1M3S3°p7yd�0 AII° e3°ix3wemiaw wxnwwm a004 0661 100 Como a3Af3C)3Z1 aooU, �0LLO 9 ti Lo CV } ,'` • 3 At a v 6 ik C. V O `ti _J u v x o:. J U o e c m ¢ c N z 0 N W �`- G u .o w CO _J J U r a ¢ w a w a � 0 a w o ¢ 0 o� z_ C� ¢ 3 o w LL {� O qmq � IUI M �J n •Yr.r(Y��Y ' rr r•ii 0cl� rn I LU trz rn ni❑ of r-:— ; :Zz Cy CC."'_ :-3Ll 2 J <ZR-4:6c:w <—a� •u.l11 r7G U 71- l "l1t'• Ll M fAfft zo-- u� = OGrll_.1 o _r •141 cl zl wrAtu Li G a LU LD d , J wL t � W d yOu g ' Z $ K p 6 N y < O � O W z O � u: c., v» 7 ,.O R' N Ul co w N O f J < 6 W O O Z 3 O W 2 LL O w ��jyY yt I f Ertu WNoix I out Sul ' OF- 'Ir. JA r r�aaur r?g24g/ �e2Vi� w O ' GOOF ilJ a me o = j 4 un o - z W C] Gl r� Cu 4 7 JO W C orn t, W C d' Z V W 0' � W n (n o^ o t 7_ 2 D a, co < V M om ��� a t i++3muraaw°wN ao w� uuwTaannw.wNrwxr� �>DON 066� L joo N?! o;aU a3AI333N J23: avww �U.¢Q �L� 3 QWAQ. 0 1 c S1 C N r — N (� O U 4 � U W = N 7 W U 0 n ;r p] Z Z CD itl LL1 O LL �1 _1 O a v) Hvn LKV V 4 W ¢ � UNLK o w w a o a o ¢ 0 z o w K� o n \� e E- &6y� /\\ \$aw _ }; w �o ' \ \ 2 ;A ƒ/?/ C.\ /) � • R,§ . �ITT-�� � « ;C, 3# - �� \ \ \ =ZL , /@3 CD Cc w //zs = I-- I 2Ec� . \ k @ § § ►�� LI P _ . _ . . . . . ow LO n N ` � o C jr m IQ � JI O�U Q CD y " ep?,w Q Co Q $SO = w m O Zwti O � yti� i7 � ro QO j a F+ m O w T ro G ro ro ou6 3 x O n d G G N O O O M yJ >p a V G d = O I LL ro _ 'O vl U r W N w 0 a ¢ w >_ r o _ O ¢ a O - w LL h l� ..Lo - G N 1 )) l4 a J13 Q W �O - h4, J 5 — r 1p x - > 0 .H p F4 N O O1 N d 4 N U C $ N U C w 1 U 0 o 0 k ro a H 4 a O •V (O 0.7 1 ' LL N O 3 3� a N 6 2 0 w t0 V 10 2 ` a \\ f J^\ n ! � 1 6 LL N �J A NRL _�Tf CV f! J ^I J U �J N Q 01 3 Q � 7 f F H C'' CG U, Q Q C J CD ¢ b (y w Q a � (D a (01 �ava�lavmou&N wxnenm lZ 66l Z 100 fr LV 6 Az WQ(7m r_z W ZQV 0.U CcU. LL1 �00 LLO Y rrf_r•1111••f S Ln 'n CV I! yJl ♦C� `11 •/���V�J v � W f �W _ �O N a� = N �a jF _ ® O V ry 5`E C1tP0 F�77 +J N �d�o G c `:,• N u � U o Off£ , ` i o o + vro LL o • rom N Hrj (0 a+ N N\C) to 0 OUN rn w w 0 i J Q 6 7 /I/ ¢ O 2 ¢ v V t G W LL O A LO N ' O d LU O J LL Cq 5 <w `ul7_¢W . Z Cr 0:9 - Q.'Z W UJ O ill 1fRiO � M OU 1aIL Gn 00m00 wan O---CCJ¢ O-n¢q0 U' �OF-3<- , (0' - i" Llj m z J r .z X LL O C9 N J k� U CY 1 l� rr U P ' Q rr- 6 C,j ui o 1 ti 2 WOO mud IO.gyp Q 4N'"430 IMMOMA34 kjf WgW O 0661 99 100 � W LL K� o ' N I ,lfd Mlia-f„T a� b: LU N N W O f J Q a w 0 W N A� CC•j. Q r = W ff 1 Lip v u > t a V c-I ' J G� X f� G� c7 W J U 2 W � tY Q � 3 � z o z ¢ hl .: U O O d l0 LL J X rn U U `J U 2 Ld W W a ° a � o ¢ o ° ¢ UNd3�1N7O13ALIN11WMd! 0661 t 100 LL 1 � r J Gp'9. O N N _ O Q _ O gfd i`d O U Y V VJ O W �O VJ 4FY'.1 O J V W rn � C� Q N ® w V no VJ J l0 S C. Q U ��// ox W N J a � ui 0 O Z 0 a o w LL O N r c� • j LO l,j '•n�� c ^lug �G O w iz Lf! 4 u7 L G O 7 Qi CY J � W U J U rn .� Q ra r L) F U y cY3 N O W ¢ I u 0 l cr) h» J Z LJ w O, w a•� O �V f � � n M1a1 O Y O 2 O w LL O ►1\�"�-mil c r C (D 0\ y G J I v- . C 4Ld JZ4W `J Zi ZR03LdofG' ya i u)C WLL[T O G a; NI ��plC-O w G o 0: OZC]WZ 4 S trf UF34�- Ll w t WCCZW LL } r z o la� D Y - � �o CD L N a z 2 0 LL Q {� U �S ¢ a W a0 1N3W(yylmpry�dOjOAM AI/N(NI ui 0661 9 g 100 m 3 0 0 w - LL m I �n ! ' CD LC LO cv A g t °•a�•, �. . N f Q co (() Q Q W � = N 8 m rt. Q N .aM1Z V M1 LD Q U w N w O E J Q a ui g� o H w z O � 3 w LL O n r rrrr•rrr✓i N 1 IT m 0 f o ' c y C : r u :c oos- � C: CD ' J m Ic w b -' L, T 4: _< Z O u J V F w N W O i J Q a az ¢ 3 o W LL O H 11/ n ,`I`\ t5551 \ \ ! ±/LD \ mY \ 53 No� uu . ac � < g / z co a U§2 sic !!«� gSS¥ &222 . §ta LA C . O O _ OD U - z J (n CL J s r d iyonr A- m to ro o o w w N O Z co � m O 6 3 v A n W D O m J LL N = Ifl W co w cn a o a = � 3 o � W o: o1=30 WWJ 30 AM IMMMA301NYMOI A30 Aiwnw o o [r 0661 £ 100 N a3AI3336 //- of Z�� So m o r 7J0 00 XOfTI 0T 0T m ! o�zm >G D f RECEIVE i . i.0 i,.....i� OCT 111990 �rT iyAy_y.� WMMUx���r M i_R q•...'f�ri p Cl U :0� p m C C O r` cJ Z_ ti TOOM. z3 Qa] rn "i m m�i ull nZ� fr, = X0m N - 3 C w iTl \ 111E /7� C7 � 1 N hJ - Lri r. i Ne r ci -a C" co 0) 4c 'y ;9: (J (e) litW C) U) CO LLJ z ro 'o � U) C:) C:) \o O Z LL ui o VBSIG MW 40 Allo j�C-4N34 DO BURMAN AIINOMOG @ B661 9 T i00 L JMA O i 1•. fd W .y co J W Z¢W m Z003A 0 . z aZ c WirOW L.' OU1 WW LCN � \ bd 00m00 CdhOF!— r NZCIWZ 00<00 L OWOCZW z M00¢ LL r N O P Z X � Cz VJ UJ W C O E (n LU W O J N Q l0 m In J Z 2 d O G .a: {� U E`er w W a 0 � a a > o I"ti Z � 3 o w oCca�� LL 193S30 Witld de'11110 lJ 3 830 WWAMUO A11NQ"NO3 06619 d3S _ I•I� II Ln N C3 �I �bd v� N :J D1 I oz u oa u A e, Lic o y F ia' C sw 2 DCN (n k O J L V F Q W N W O J Q 6 1_ Q O lama wlvd.Ic klo 3N3Wlatld30 1N3WdOl3A30 AiIN0WW03 0661 d�S LL (FATnP.T RT H-X= Q D D 41 FS X .w VA"" •b., w1j.1:1 Lr IXE1314 C�ui ro n W p2 N uj o LU yy Q- ID (D Ld > @ z LL Vd3a lt3"TA30 Ch 06610 1 d3 Lo ^ N PY V �, �.3.z J n O R:�Cf �bd V 00 W tO f-Czzi ZUl f• - �� I'�O • W O > V� r y Z &L z �I Z•.jz Ll JLu Q Uv � w N W n O O a O ¢ O � 4 Z_ ¢ � 3 o T 183S30 Wltld dC Allj m o 1N3W18tld30 MWd013A30 AlINO WWOJ 066I a d 7 ? .rA\ ��_ �� Completion of this card is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and accurate records. Thank you for your cooperation. K JC DATP,'_ �T SPEAKERS Oral Communications and/or Public Hearings If you are attending the City Council Meeting to address the City Council, whether it is a scheduled Agenda item or comments under oral communications, please complete the following information and give it to the City yClerk >in advance of the meeting. Thank you. ADDRESS:.n�'C--O' ' 1 WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UNDER: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS,ABOUT em!� i � AGENDA ITEM. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IN FAVOR OF OPPOSED TOE (CHECK ONE) Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation I .m c L III • D PALM DR II mI III II DEL SAFARI � DR. II' 74 Ma nb -------- .�14�\\�yGLADI0LO5- �, r�-�NNIA Z.•R-�\�'—I I c_ / vII_I FrIss, I Ilse SWEET `J11i� --- ClR. cc) of OSA 1�\. I II //It I _ li 1� —,�_ 1 \Irn TG 'A I I I ill IM Ilo \�\� \ 1IZ— \N�A d II -IIz 11r IIn \VN C7 II fir" 11 „ \\9 ��_�i,� (A N , OR t _ PO r / .--- - O� ANNETTE ST. 1 JLJ� 1 ! I L- / % ---------- -� �I tz rz o :f [ n 1 �