Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRANCHO GRANDE/SIERRA VISTA DRIVE C/Z 06-83 1983 PRECISE PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT ZONE CHANGE---- PARCEL MAP - VARIANCE U.U.P. - REFER TO:. — APPLICANT : _ ----- — LOCATION : / — c�etil�t vF SIr=7z -A Vrs REQUEST _ EXISTING ZONE_ Q PREPARATION PROGRESS DATE BY COMMENTS ` APPLICATION RECEIVED —1 LEGAL PUBLICATION SENT NOTICES SENT ! I, FIELD INVESTIGATION <. DEPTS. NOTIFIED BUILDING — ENGINEERING FIRE `t POLICE RECREATION & PARKS _ I SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FLOOD CONTROL PRELIMINARY MEETING i STAFF REPORT � . FINAL PLAN APPROVAL PRECISE PLAN (6) LANDSCAPING PLAN (5) PLAN. DIRECTOR MOD. HEARINGS & ACTIONS DATE ACTION VOTE R REVIEW BOARD HEARING PC. HEARING PUBLISHED P.C. PUBLIC HEARING +!+ � I 1 APPLICANT NOTIFIED G.C. PUBLIC HEARING i I , ORDINANCE NO. s RESOLUTION NO. EFFECTIVE DATE ' RECORDED FOR DATA BANK ZONING MAP CORRECTED I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1, 1983 this item to an adjourned meeting on November 9, 1983, at 6:00 p.m., for further evaluation; carried unanimously 5-0. B. Case No. C/Z 06-83 - ROY M. ULRICH AND DR. JACK R. MAGIT, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and change of zone from R-1 to R-2 (5) for five lots to allow construction of a multiple family residential project for property located at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and indicated that because most of the surrounding zoning in that area was R-1, staff was recommending denial of this request. He further explained that the applicant wished to build 8 condominium units but no precise plan had been submitted. Staff recommended denial. Commissioner Crites and Commissioner Richards questioned the method of determining general plan land use consistency with the proposed zoning. Staff indicated that averaging density in a well defined area is an accepted technique and has been done before in Palm Desert for the San Pablo Properties project on Fred Waring Drive and for a project on the south side of Highway 111. Mr. Diaz further indicated court cases have justified this method. The Commission generally indicated that they felt this method could have a detrimental effect on the general plan and city. It was noted that a petition with several signatures from neighboring residents was received in opposition. Commissioner Richards asked if the petitioners would directly be affected by this project. Mr. Sawa replied that they live in the neighborhood and some live on Sonora Drive, which is proposed to be closed off at Monterey Avenue in the near future. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. ROY ULRICH, 185 Pier Ave., Santa Monica, distributed a letter and some pictures relating to this request and described ingress and egress of the area. He request approval. Commissioner Crites asked Mr. Ulrich to explaine why he stated in his letter that he felt single family residents would be a greater blight than what he is proposing. Mr. Ulrich explained that he meant the quality of his project could appear to be just as, if not more, attractive than single family residents. Mr. Diaz reminded commission that no development plan had been submitted as yet. Mr. Ulrich replied that staff had requested a plan be submitted but not a development plan until now. MR. RON TUFFNEL, 76-988 Kentucky, stated that they are trying to be as compatible as possible with the surrounding neighborhood. He believed the project would enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Richards felt opposed to the request because there had not been any development plan submitted and several residents were opposed to the proposed zone change. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. OPPOSITION: MR. KEN SHAW, 72-884 Sierra Vista, felt it would be detrimental to -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1, 1983 existing properties and would lower the value of their homes. MR. DEREK WALKER, 72-876 Sierra Vista, felt that the neighborhood already had a traffic problem. There are many children in that area and it has or could become dangerous. This project would only create more traffic problems. MR. GEORGE KRYDER, 72-813 Sonora, stated that the signers of the petition represented a large number of the area. He felt that they are already surrounded by the new Palm Desert Town Center and strongly opposed to further intrusions into the R-1 zone. He also questioned the density calculation explained in the staff report. He concluded stating that a zone change would set precedence. MR. M. FOSTER, 72-891 Sierra Vista, also opposed the project for several reasons one being that it would not enhance the area. The applicant withdrew his request after hearing public testimony in opposition. C. Case No. TT 19074 (Amendment) - SAN PABLO PROPERTIES, LTD., AND GFB-McCUTCHAN, INC., Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to a previously approved tentative tract map to create two additional lots for phasing purposes in the PR-7, S.P. zone at the northwest corner of San Pascual Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and noted that it was recommended to delete Condition No. 24 of the original approval through Resolution No. 848 be deleted, and replaced with a condition to read: "That the developer shall pay for added engineering costs incurred by city due to realignment of master plan storm drain through the site to San Pablo Avenue." Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Richards asked Public Works Director Barry McClellan to explain why Condition No. 24 was being changed at this time. (Condition No. 24 read: The developer is responsible for the bridge construction on Magnesia Falls crossing San Pascual Channel, and its costs shall be fully applied as a credit towards required drainage fees). Mr. McClellan replied that condition was being deleted because if the developer were to construct the bridge or culvert that the city could not collect the full drainage fees from the developer on that project. The drainage fees on this development are needed because the Master Plan Storm Drain through the development cannot be constructed by the developer because of hydraulic complication, therefore, the city shall construct a storm drain on San Pablo to connect into the Fred Waring Drive storm drain and the developer's drainage fees will be applied towards that construction. Further, the bridge or culvert is not needed until such a time that Magnesia Falls Drive is extended easterly to Portola Avenue; the culvert can be constructed at the time of street extension. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. STEVE RAY, GFB McCutchan, stated that they concurred with the condition added. Their only concern now would be the right to review engineering costs as they are prepared. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. -4- G$C�� off 1PDMM=1a 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: November 2, 1983 Roy M. Ulrich and Dr. Jack R. Magit 185 Pier Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90405 Tuffnel-Fetridge 74-841 Velie Way, Suite A Palm Desert, CA 92260 e :C/Z 06-83 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of November 1, 1983. No Action Due to Applicant's Oral Withdrawal Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. i RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/lcr cc: Coachella Valley Water District File City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 1, 1983 CASE NO: C/Z 06-83 REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and change of zone from R-1 to R-2 (5) (Single family, one unit per 5000 sq.ft. of land area) for five lots to allow construction of a multiple family residential project for property located at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive. APPLICANT: ROY M. ULRICH/DR. JACK R. MAGIT 185 Pier Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90405 REPRESENTATIVE: TUFFNEL-FETRIDGE 74-841 Velie Way, Suite A Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BACKGROUND• A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The property consists of four lots plus the recently vacated Rancho Grande. The size of this area amounts to 43,057 square feet. This site is very flat and void of any structures. There is a fence surrounding the site which is made of wood, chainlink, and fiberglass panels. With the exception of two or three palm trees, the site is void of any significant vegetation. There are no street improvements in place except for curbs and tie-in paving in front of the vacated Rancho Grande. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: R-I/Single Family South: PC (3), S.P./Regional Shopping Center East: R-2, S.P./Office Building under construction, Multiple Family Dwelling, and Vacant Lot. West: R-1/Single Family C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential 5-7 d.u/acre H. PROJECT PROPOSAL: A. GENERAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a change of zone from R-1 (Single family residential district, minimum 8,000 square foot lot size with one dwelling unit on it) to R-2 (5) (Single family residential district, one dwelling unit allowed for each 5000 square feet of lot area). The size of the area is 43,057 square feet according to the applicant. Therefore, 8 units rather than the 4 presently allowed could be constructed on the property if the zone change is approved. The applicant has submitted a plot plan indicating a possible way to develop the site with 8 condominium units. However, because no precise plan of -1- I _ Staff Report R o C/Z 0 -6 83 November 1, 1983 design has been filed, there is no assurrance of any design. B. LAND USE CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN: The general plan land use element shows the area as medium density residential with a density between 5-7 d.u./acre. The property to the south is shown as regional commercial (Palm Desert Town Center) while the land to the east fronting on Monterey is shown as office professional. This proposal for R-2 (5) zoning in itself works out to 8.7 dwelling units per acre. This is slightly over the maximum 7 d.u./acre allowed by the general plan. However, when averaged out over the neighborhood (Fred Waring Drive to Rancho Grande and Fairhaven Drive to Monterey Avenue) the density is within the range of 5-7 dwelling units per acre. This method of calculating neighborhood densities is acceptable and has been used in the past. The applicant has prepared background information to substantiate compliance with the general plan. II. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR ZONE CHANGE: State law requires that there be findings or reasons for substantiating the requested change of zone. The applicant has submitted the following reasons: 1. Property is within 500 feet of a new regional shopping center. 2. Property along Monterey Road has been under consideration for compatible rezoning in the area of the new center. 3. An uncrowded well maintained condominium project would enhance the general character of residential area. After reviewing this request, staff does not feel there is substantiation for this change of zone. Because of the location with a predominately single family neighborhood with no access to a major arterial, there will be an increase in traffic in the neighborhood. The majority of the surrounding neighborhood is single family which is not compatible with the request. The fact that a regional center is to the south does not justify a rezoning since its impact on this area is minimal because of the separation. Although the zoning to east is presently R-2, the general plan shows it as office professional (O.P.). The OP zone has been developed to be compatible with residential zones, including the existing R-1 zone. The property as zoned presently allows five single family lots with an adjustment of lot sizes which would provide a viable use of the land. In summary, staff does not feel there is justification for approving this zone change. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of environmental services has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis in Section II-A, staff recommends denial of the requested zone change by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, denying a request for a change of zone from R-1 to R-2(5) for property located at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive. -2- Staff Report C/Z 06-83 November 1, 1983 IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Initial Study and Negative Declaration D. Letter from applicant E. Proposed site plan Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /lr -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2 (5) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF RANCHO GRANDE AND SIERRA VISTA DRIVE. CASE NO. C/Z 06-83 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of November, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of ROY ULRICH and JACK MAGIT for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a change of zone from R-1 to R-2 (5) for five lots to allow construction of a multiple family residential project for property located at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive, more particularly described as: APN 640-135-012, 015, 017, 019 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 exist to deny the change of zone: 1. Because of the location within a predominately single family neighborhood with no access to a major arterial, there will be an increase in traffic in the neighborhood. 2. The majority of the surrounding neighborhood is single family which is not compatible with the request. 3. The fact that a regional center is to the south does not justify a rezoning since its impact on this area is minimal because of the separation. 4. Although the zoning to the east is presently R-2, the general plan shows it as office professional (O.P.). The OP zone has been developed to be compatible with residential zones, including the existing R-1 zone. 5. The property as zoned presently allows five single family lots with an adjustment of lot sizes which would provide a viable use of the land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in these cases; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby deny Change of Zone 06-83 for the above reasons. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of November, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr October 14, 1983 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE Case No. C/Z 06-83 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by ROY M. ULRICH and JACK MAGIT for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and change of zone from R-1 to R-2 (5) (single family, one unit per 5000 sq.ft. of land area) or other zone as deemed appropriate, for five lots to allow construction of a multiple family residential project for property located at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive, more particularly described as: APN 640-135-012, 015, 017, 019 12�060 U N -- --- _ — _N�AN/TA o 'll; N L A� AN — . 2 J G FRE , i t h AVENUE > P. C. �i ? > � . ANTA R �S Ai ' P. 4) 6, S.P. I 5 NOR — 1 N NI H © I• AVE S EFAA VISTA u� N A O I U ' w a 'AM PICO DRIVE n W R-2 '(7) uir � AANCHC aRAN DE z - �.; ` aR-11 N SUBJECT PROPERTY w Rkl N m '.R.-6, S.P. 5AN p P.C. (3), S.P. Z SAID public hearing will be held on November 1, 1983, at 7:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room, in the new Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post October 21, 1983 . .. _. ........... -- . rr1 TUFFNELL - FETRIDGE RONALD D. TUFFNELL JAMES R. FETRIDGE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING ( 714) 568-5633 September 12, 1983 Department of Eav „-.ro,.tal. Services City of Palm Desert, ' 45-275 Prickly pear Lane, Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Subject: Four vacant R-1 lots, Proposed 8-Unit condominium project, Assessors Parcel and lot nos. 629-055-012,015,017,021. Dear Sirs: On behalf of our clients Mr. ROy Ulrich and Dr. Jack R. Magit, we wish to S13hat the enclosed density calculation as part of the application for change of zone of the subject property. The resulting figure of 5.03 units per acre, We believe, is consistant with the density range of 5 to 7 units per acre allowed in this aera by the General Plan. i The figure of 5.03 units Per acre includes our condominium project. Proposed 8 unit The calculation is as follows: Area Parcel Numbers, 629-051,052,053,054, 055 = 737,123 sq.ft. 737,123 c 43560=16.9 acres 85 units 4 16.9 = 5.03 units/acre. ) Yours respectfully, Ronald D. i 74-841 VELIE WAY, SUITE A PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 1 POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 06-83 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Roy Ulrich & Jack Magit 185 Pier Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90405 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Change of zone from R-1 to R-2 (5) for property at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive. The director of the department of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. rW RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES /lr CASE NO. =7110N%-=TAL SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY EYVIEO1T=AL EVALUATION CHECXLIST 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. ENVIROt•IMENTAL 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 V geologic substructures? o b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or 4 overcovering of the sail? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? �1 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 { direction of water• movements? _ "` . b. Changes in-absmtfnn rates, drainage patterns,`or the rate and-amount of surface"water runoff? V c. Alteratflood, waterons to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteflow of gr . nd wa direction or rate of flaw of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, I either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? o f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? s 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Ch ange in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass , and V crops)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, \ or endangered species of plants? _ V c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area. -or in a barrier to the normal \ replenishment of existing species? V S. Anima_ Will the proposal 'result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, or — — insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, — — rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. OetericratiOn to existing wildlife habitat? " `' 3. Yes Mtbe No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in .•,the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural e resource? 7. Enercv. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.deseiopment of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of Upset, . Does the proposal involve a risk of 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. Econorri c Loss. Will the proposal result in: o a. A change in -the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and e improvements exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted community risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing ' - noise levels to the point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are \ exceeded? V 11. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the a tT eration of the present developed or \ planned land use of an area? _ V 12. Open Soace. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the amount of designated open space? 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn or the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the City? b. Change in the population distribution by age, income, religion, racial , or ethnic h group, occupational class, household type? _ e 4. ` Yes Maybe No 14. EmuloyMent. Will the proposal result in additional new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? V 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: �1 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? e b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a 0 demand for additional housing? 16. Trans ortation/Circulation. Will the proposal resin: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? e c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation V or movement of people and/or goods? 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 areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? _ c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including \ roads? _ _ `V- f. Other governmental services? _ _ V 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 v need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: r a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? e \ d. Sewer or septic tanks? Y e. Storm water drainage? e f. Solid waste and disposal? a 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or \ potential health hazard? �r b. A change in the level of conmunity health care provided? 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? V 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? a b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive - \ site open to public view? V c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, _ \ and uniqueness? V 23. Liaht and Glar:. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 24. Archeoioaical/4istorical . Will the proposal result in an a teration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building' l 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project-have the pot ef?ial 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 p �e the future. ) o c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: -83 OCT 3 1 1983 October 22 , 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY Of PAL1.1 DESERT We the undersigned, residents of Palm Vista Units 1-2 & 3 are very much opposed to changing A 1 zoning to H 2 or H 3• We feel that changing from H 1 to H 2 or H 3 would sub- stantially reduce our property values. - y_.c �,ua i�v. _ 3 Y6- - 9 _ &a -V- fir_. 3Y40 !_S/3 - - - �'• _ - -- 72 - 87L oSe.Jo,G �R - 3q6_-913.4 7 _ ._�Tl 3yb-Pis l_ . j� �� _- --- --gyp.?�/a c�CYRu•_w- - --- ____ OCT 3 1 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES October 22 , 1983 CITY OF PALM DESERT We the undersigned, residents of Palm Vista Units 1-Z and 3 are very much opposed to changing R 1 zoning to R 2 or R 3. We sincerely feel that changine, from R 1 to R 2 or R 3 would substantially reduce our property values. ADO RES'S _ IELE �fso9Z _ -- yta2�� t Via- I£car — i `7 �-11_17-17 nn PROD= OF PUBLICATION (20109 2015. 5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICE C/L D6-83 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid ; I am over the age of eighteen years9 and not a party to or interested in the CITY OF PALM DESERT above entitled matter. I am the LEGAL NOTICE Case No. C/Z W83 principal clerk of the printer NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that a public hewing will of THE DESERT POST, be held before the Palm De serf Planning Commission to a newspaper of general clrcula- consider o reauesl by ROY M. ULRICH and JACK MAGIT tions printed and published weekly for worovol of a Negative Declaration of Environmental in the city of Riversides County ImVW and change of Zone from R 1 to R-2 (5) (single of Riverside9 and which newspaper to-landlv,me unit per r7 seas bt Ipntl Oreo) or other zone a5 has been adjudged a newspaper of `tsoowrcoriv lots to allow oa , general circulation by the o,ielct forrprrobeerty located)at Superior Court of the County of the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Riverside9 State Of California, Vista Drive,more particularly described as: under date of October 59 19649 APN 64g135-012, 015, 017, 019 Case number 83658; that the held an 1983 m no Lice: of which the annexed is 7ve ponf intheoomI th hive Civic Cece Room, in the new civic Center, 71510 Fred a printed copy9 has been published Waring Drive, Polm Deset California, at which time ark in each regular and entire issue place all Interested persons are invited to attend and be of said newspaper and not in any heard. supplement thereof on the following RSecreary. DIAz date5i to-wit : Commission Desert Planning PDP-10/21 10/21 91983 I Certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated October 219 1983 at Riverside# California CITY OF PALM DESERT ` Ffices of . Roy M. Orich 185 Pier Avenue • Tower Suite • Sonto Monico, CA 90405 (213) 399-9401 TO: THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: APPLICANTS ROY M. ULRICH/DR. JACK R. 14AGIT DATE: NOVEMBER 1 , 1983 RE: RESPONSE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN CASE NO. C/Z 06-83 What we as the applicants have in mind in requesting this zone change is to improve the area under consideration. With that thought in mind, we wish to respond point by point to the arguments raised by the report before you: I There are two access routes from the project site at Sierra Vista and Rancho Grande. There is adequate access to and from the property from Fred Waring Ave- nue and Monterey Avenue (Please see the map enclosed in the report as part of the Legal Notice) . The zoning currently permits for the construction of five homes on five lots. The proposed plan would provide for eight condominiums on the same five lots, a net increase of three. The increase in traffic, if any, would be negligible because of the construction of three additional homes. II The residences to be constructed will be better in quality and at least equal in market value to the homes situated directly across the street from the proposed project. It is true they will be smaller in size, but we can assure you they will at least be equal in quality. (As part of our oral presentation, we will show you photographs of several of the homes - located across the street. (We have submitted a plot plan for review and study by staff. We did not submit a plan of design because we were told that one would not be necessary for the pur- poses of the Planning Commission. We will be happy to supply same on request. ) THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1 , 1983 PAGE 2 Our goal is to provide quality housing for upper- middle income groups in the area. We expect to attract management level people, a segment of which might indeed come from the shopping center adjacent to the project on Monterey Avenue . In our view, five single-family residences on these five lots would be a greater blight on the neighbor- hood than the project we propose. Respectfully submitted, Roy M. Ulrich Dr. Jack Magit RMU:rg r ; TUFMELL- -- FEITRiDQE RONAWD.TL+ ELL JAMESA F.E 3MIOiGE T ARCHrr TURF a RLANINING. QW56$•5633 Mverber.I,.1983 Yj k31' Ijjp:. C 4W Of w" - Mr. IC LII RiL'ii:AND DR; ,CAM R.,Matz j111 $ ..a t3ffiiS'i andide�rai~ive'g8rdela - ?aa3:1.6, the, lm Win m&ke a. s_g firw* aidhitwhz a3 Statmaent Whirk- Will unlIven• the street smew•.and' in genmial', 2UFZVM the image of the eXjZtUq. G=MMity 2. The III31i8 wJii beinLiFY e' ", cabagaW,.with. G ��• tely from �ip09:. to: "00,0M, Yi"iJl 4 R 3. 7he 'eight one-swry imit-;am pleae& in an expansive gremrbeit au a Mah larger than.the now requi.:u rmt oft qxo space, 4- The units While most in sift, will ut i]im.open, pLaMuM am'aoepts- fW maaciaaum spaai.el effect. 9bW =,ld be in=-wsed' in size it necessary. 5- Md3miar elevations will be treaied in an appealing desert design:with sbmW exteriors, deep set wbAaws and tile roofs. 6- Pneaties will i=lude a large pool and tix,nW spa. Together with an attractive cabwaa,. these will provide the twal paint of the greenbelt.. 7. A conoern of every canmMity adequate maintenam and landscape c dare am be asa meld by the haoeaajkers assaaiat4,on. 8. The =r ased traffic generated by the development would be ,_sigrificant in o= opinion. Tbere are four entries into the canrunatY - One from, Monterey and three from_Fred>Haring- Therefor even the mall increase would not be Concentrated on any one street. 9- ]b SUM up: it is our view that the pxvjeet would -eaachmve property Values, make best use of the land and a,oaald be economically practical in todays high cost housing market. � Y : vpy'+jr. truly., iti f1. 5 G 74.BO VEt1E WAY. SUTE X PA A71 OESE=Rt CAUFORN A.2260 � Uu? 3 1. 1983 October 22 , 1983 ENVIRONMEI4TAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT We the undersigned, residents ofralm Vista Units 1-2 & 3 are very much opposed to changing R 1 zoning to R 2 or R 3. We feel that changing from R 1 to R 2 or R 3 would sub- stantially reduce our property values. �'- - - - - 72 - 074 ..Z*_,ao2� -C�;XeL _.3-VC_�_sG_7__. -- B, lvc, Q 7L-871 Sovo2.4 . _1]2 1 LIP 7� OCT 7 1 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES October 22 1983 DESERT CiTZ OF PALM Dc 9 We the undersigned, residents of Palm Vista Units 1-2 and 3 are very much opposed to changing R 1 zoning to R 2 or R 3. We sincerely feel that changin6 from R 1 to R 2 or R 3 would substantially reduce our property values. - NAME Sys_ --�.�t--- s-X e ._zog 1 - - POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 06-83 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Roy Ulrich & Jack Magit 185 Pier Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90405 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Change of zone from R-1 to R-2 (5) for property at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive. The director of the department of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES /1r CASE Y0. G o6-�3 4� ENVn0r!,=TAL SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY ENVIROTTUE21TAL EVALUATI011 CHECKLIST 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. Disruptions, 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? _ �1 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 direction of water' movements? "� . b. Changes in-absorpt7bn rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and- amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or fl ow of — — flood waters? d. Alteration of-the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, I -�I- either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ f. Reduction in the amount of water other wise available for public water supplies? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (in cluding trees, shrubs , grass , and V P b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? V c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the norma l replenishment of existing species? S. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects)? b. Reduction the numbers of any unique, — — rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? \, d. Deterioration to existing wildlife 'habitat? `� Yes t�Xbe No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? 7. Energv. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.development of new sources of energy? V 8. Risk of Upset_, Does the proposal involve a risk of 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. Econonic 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-+emen;s exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted cow.unity risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are \ exceeded? V 11. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the a tTeration of the present developed or planned land use of \an area? V 12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the amount of designated open space? 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn or the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the City? _ b. Change in the population distribution by aye, income, religion, racial , or ethnic h< group, occupational class , household type? 4. ` Yes Maybe No 14. Emoloyment. Will the proposal result in additiona new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, l ' unemployed, and underemployed? V 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. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities , or " demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ 4 d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation v or movement of people and/or goods? 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 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? V 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: 1 a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? _ — d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? 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. Light and Glara. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 24. Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an a teratlon of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, — — object, or building' Yes Maybe 4o 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance: a. Does the project-have the poterf`'ial 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. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on e=h resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: a -$3 TUFFNELL - FETRIDGE RONALD D. TUFFNELL JAMES R. FETRIDGE �•� ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING (714) 568-5633 September 12, 1983 Department of Enviranental Services, City of Palm Desert, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Subject: Four vacant R-1 lots, proposed 8-Unit Cpnrinminium project, Assessors Parcel and Lot nos. 629-055-012,015,017,021. Dear Sirs: On behalf of our clients Mr. Roy Ulrich and Dr. Jack R. Magit, We wish to submit the enclosed density calculation as part of the application for change of zone of the subject property. The resulting figure of 5.03 units per acre, We believe, is consistant with the density range of 5 to 7 units per acre allowed in this aera by the General Plan. The figure of 5.03 units per. acre includes our proposed 8 unit condominium project. The calculation is as follows: Area Parcel Numbers, 629-051,052,053,054, 055 = 737,123 sq.ft. 737,123 _ 43560=16.9 acres 85 units 16.9 = 5.03 units/acre. Yours respectfully, Ronald D. Tuffnell. 74.841 VELIE WAY. SUITE A PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 October 14, 1983 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE Case No. C/Z 06-83 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by ROY M. ULRICH and JACK MAGIT for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and change of zone from R-1 to R-2 (5) (single family, one unit per 5000 sq.ft. of land area) or other zone as deemed appropriate, for five lots to allow construction of a multiple family residential project for property located at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive, more particularly described as: APN 640-135-012, 015, 017, 019 l L ~� _. _ _ ¢ I211OWO > u N I N, � R � _ - --- - P N�ANITA p �I, w L I N I - -+ - z R I 0 -- -- S. 2 FS.P Ith AVENUE . FRED JVLI I PILL 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 R-110I 1 P.C. �I > I SAN TA RO SA 11 p f. 61 S.P. n a 4)9 . III SCNORA i SAN N I C n © ' I f 1 z SIERRA VISTA °1 l I N A O a --1--�'A--4 v �Lf, I 1 1 yW z 'AMPICO DRIVEDO PE a a w D D i , R- 2 ( )I RANCHC oRANDE a > R-I N / SUBJECT PROPERTY a o N �— r CC '.R.-6, S.P. ¢ p P.C. (3), S.P. USAN 1 G f SAID public hearing will be held on November 1, 1983, at 7:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room, in the new Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post October 210 1983 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Department of Environmental Services FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: C/Z 06-83 (ROY M. ULRICH & JACK MAGIT) DATE:October 6, 1983 The following should be considered as a condition of approval : (1) Sufficient evidence of proper vacation of Lots D and E (Sierra Vista and Rancho Grande) by a title report for the subject property. BARRY McCLELLAN, P.E. BDM/ms V� � 5g`; ti.. . OCT - 7 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT b' SCUTHra(`1 C"WIC3nN9A gas comPANY 3 3700 CENTRAL AVENUE • RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA R. W. RIDDELL Eastern Division V Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 2200. RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92516 Distribution Planning Supervisor \ 4'**;� September 26, 1983 Location of nearest gas main: / GQ�Q In Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista 10 QQ0\ �q Drive, within subject area. City of Palm Desert �C� P. O. Box 1977 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Gentlemen: Re: C/Z 06-83 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project; but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time con- tractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction, of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas ser- vice will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Market Services Manager, P. O. Box 6226, San Bernardino, CA 92417, phone (714) 884-9411. [G R. W. Riddell -I `z/�YfJ S\ �fJ ATER ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY J �/SiRIC'f COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE NyeA 398-2651 (619) DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT LOWELL 0.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER—CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POWELL VICTOR B.HARDY,AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDW INE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BUXTON September 30, 1983 File: 0163. 11 )0421. 1 t �0721.1 oc ` 51983 Department of Environmental Services Et4VIRONMENTAI- DESERT S City of Palm Desert CITY Of PALM Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Change of Zone 06-83, Portion of Northeast quarter, Section 19, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Yours very truly, Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager-Chief Engineer CS:ra cc: Riverside County Department of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ei.-- RIVERSIDE COUNTY ��Of CA f FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE C UNTY '.'1 •3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY ' `RIVERS/D DAVID L.FLAKE FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 Sept. 21 , 1983 TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 Ramon A. Diaz Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 5 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Palm Desert CA 92260 Reference: Case No. C/z 06-83 SEP 2 2 1983 Dear Mr. Diaz, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DE§ERT I have no comment at this time on this case. Fire Protection requirements will be established when the applicant submits a request for a development plan, precise plan, etc. Very truly yours, DAVID L. FLAKE Fire Chief � G By, ERTC V�. dpm POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: C/Z 06-83 x2�(c� `a� TI PROJECT: Change of zone SEP 1 9 1983 APPLICANT: Roy M. Ulrich and Jack MagGt4VIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and change of zone from R-1 to R-2 (5) (single family, one unit per 5000 sq.ft. of land area) for five lots to allow construction of a multiple family residential project for property located at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive, more particularly described as: APN 640-135-012, 015, 017, 019 The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollutions) and on public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc.) and site and building plans acceptability. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 4:30 p.m. October 4, 1983, in order to be discussed by the land division committee. The committee (comprised of director of environmental services, city building official, city engineer, fire marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the planning commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the land division committee nor will it be forwarded to the planning commission for consideration. Sincerely, e AA. DIA DIRECTOR OF NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RD/lr PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS 1 POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: C/Z 06-83 PROJECT: Change of zone APPLICANT: Roy M. Ulrich and Jack Magit Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and change of zone from R-1 to R-2 (5) (single family, one unit per 5000 sq.ft. of land area) for five lots to allow construction of a multiple family residential project for property located at the northeast intersection of Rancho Grande and Sierra Vista Drive, more particularly described as: APN 640-1357012, 015, 017, 019 The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollutions) and on public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc.) and site and building plans acceptability. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 4:30 p.m. October 4, 1983, in order to be discussed by the land division committee. The committee (comprised of director of environmental services, city building official, city engineer, fire marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the planning commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the land division committee nor will it be forwarded to the planning commission for consideration. Sincerely, AMON A. DIA DIRECTOR OF NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RD/lr PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS .ff o .'t t a.• ur/SEC./9,TSS.,R.6E. 004 SCALE ti Nor/foICATfo 11105 POR. N//2 NW//4 O 65 N•N'! r' 66 SAW r1NWOLAS /4 t' Q70 w 68 O Qe N, ,e• .fe /!a /eo rt/ . sl !J tit �! 69 Q ^ 7 iY : z � tfJ rJl v/ oo its tte Kr tre LM O0 v t f e " �) � / err .•�S 055 , / F '�' CAFAL/ - w a `r 0 / ♦ • - ' r/ O � ' !JJ /L/�6 fJl P!t t!a NO X/ Xr NJ O ® O © O . O o " tr t J4 • 4„ 7 ' vl J/o jog Joe Jos Joe f%a JX �.: � ; � ©a.lM,. Q ©aJW+. F .� �VA�AL�'— .Y•r«•ems is Jir JIO cow YA4a ,r �ssTED !—�lasJc-16 4/Dto S!7N�ONNO ' r CIRCULATIUN LIST FOR ALL CASES Circulation of Tentative Maps, Parcel "laps, CUP'S , CPA' s , etc. : REVIEW COMMITTEE: 1 , Palm Desert Director of Environmental Services - Ramon Diaz 2.'Palm Desert Director of Building & Safety - Jim Hill 3. Palm Desert Director of Public Works - Barry Mc Clellan 1 4. Palm Desert Fire Marshall - Eric Vogt Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Consultant - Les Pricer 6. Robert P. Brock Office of Road Commissioner and County Surveyor . Administration Office Building, Room 313 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, Calif. 92'LO1 1Phone: 347-8511 , ext. 267) 7. M. A. Ferguson Imperial irrigation Dist. Power Div P.O. Box 248 Coachella, Calif. 92236 (Phone: 398-2211 0Lowell U. Weeks General Manager - Chief Engineer _ Coachella Valley Cop ty Water District (C.V.C.W.D. ) P.O. Box 1058 Coachella, California 92236 (Phone: (714) 398-2651 ) -9. R. J. Lowry Project Development Services California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, .Calif. 92403 (Phone: (714- 383-4671 ) 10. Director of Planning and Building City of Indian Wells . 45-300 Club Drive Indian Wells, Calif.. 92210 (Phone: 345-2831 ) 11. Director of Planning City of Rancho .Mirage 69-825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, Calif. 92270 (Phone: 328-8871 ) 12. . Kermit Martin Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 203 ' Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 .(Phone: 346-8660) 03- Al Doody, RC6003 General Telephone Co. P.O. Box 2920 Pomona, Calif. 91766 (Phone: ) 14. R.W. Riddell Engineering Department Southern California Gas Company P.O. Box 2200 Riverside, Calif. 92506 (Phone: 327-8531 , ask for Riverside extension 214) . it 15. Roger Harlow Director - Pupil Personnel Service Desert Sands Unified School District 83-049 Avenue 46 Indio, Calif. 92201 (Phone: 34/-4071 ) 16. Dick Wolford Palm Desert Disposal Services, Inc. 36-711 Cathedral Canyon Drive P.Q. Drawer LL Cathedral City, Calif. 92234 (Phone: 328-2585 or 328-4687) 17. Robert Lawman President, Palm Desert Community Services District 44-500 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 (Phone: 346-6338) 18. Regional Water Quality Control Board 73-271 Highway 111 , Suite 21 Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 (Phone: ) 19. Harold Housley Foreman/Mails U.S. Post Office Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 (Phone: 346-3864) 20. Joe Benes Vice President & General Manager Coachella Valley Television P.O. Box 368 Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 (Phone: 346-8157) 21 . Don Mc Neilly - Palm'Desert Chamber of Commerce 74-004 Hwy. 111 Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 (Phone: 346-6111 ) 22. Kevin Manning Senior Planner t Riverside County Planning Commission County Administration Building, Room 304 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, Calif. 92201 (Phone: 347-8511 , ext. 277, 278, and 279) 23. James Whitehead Superintendent - District 6. State Parks and Recreation 1350 Front Street, Room 6054 ban Diego, Calif. 92101 (Phone: (714) 236-7411 ) airman Architectural Committee of the Palm Desert Property Owners Assoc. 73-833 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 629-055-017 and 021: Tack Magit 730 N. Beverly Glen Blvd West Los Angeles, CA 627-031-001: 629-054-oo4: 629-055-005: City of Palm Desert Ross Hollands Ronald Dobbins P. 0. Box 789 P. 0. Box 1154 72-945 Sonora Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Tustin, CA 92680 Palm Desert, CA 92260 627-031-022: 629-054-005: 629-055-oo6: City of Palm Desert Marvin Foster Kenneth Trask 45-275 Pricky Pear Lane 72-891 Sierra Vista Drive 1131 Pajaro Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Springs, CA 92262 627-032-001: 629-054-oo6: 629-055-007 and 009: Palm Desert Redevelopment Juan Segundo Paul Gruentzel 45-275 Prickly Pear C/O Bureau of Indian Affairs 3118 Piedmont Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 P. 0. Box 2245 La Crescenta, CA 91214 Palm Springs, CA 92262 627-032-022: 629-054-007: 629-055-008: Palm Desert Redevelopment Samuel Okum Kathleen Shaw 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane 1801 Century Park W. 701 72-884 Sierra Vista Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Los Angeles, CA Palm Desert, CA 92260 627-033-001: 629-054-oo8: 629-055-010: City of Palm Desert Joyce Segundo John Velli 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P. 0. Box 1256 72-400 Rancho Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 627-o61-ool: 629-054-009: 629-055-011: Bank of America Kenneth Savage Ada Taylor 71-301 Sahara Road 72-897 Sierra Vista Drive 44-331 Monterey Avenue Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 629-06o-051: 629-055-001: 629-055-012 and 015: Hahn Desert Partnership Ashley McDermott Jack Magit 3666 Kearny Villa Rd P. 0. Box 2316 730 N. Beverly Glen Blvd. San Diego, CA 92123 Palm Desert, CA 92260 West Los Angeles, CA 629-054-ool: 629-055-002: 629-055-013: Samuel Okum Derek Walker Elmer Summersgill 730 N. Beverly Glen Blvd. 72-876 Sierra Vista 5841 Hampton Court Los Angeles, CA 90024 Palm Desert, CA 92260 San Diego, CA 92120 629-054-002: 629-055-003: 629-055-ol4: Ross Hollands James Cable Jason Oster P. 0. Box 1154 72-929 Sonora Drive 22-764 De Soto Street Tustin, CA 92680 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Grand Terrace, CA 92324 i 629-054-003: 629-055-oo4: 629-055-ol6, 018 and 022: Allen Valley Scott Stice i Palm Desert Board Realtors 73-221 Pinyon Street 71-770 San Gorgonio P. 0. Box 64 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Palm Desert, CA 92260 i ' a e e xczv�l ( `.r fabit le Y "• I u I I � H ' s t a a it ® n •�c ;� • A r v kw 'o Q4"� a � �0` _ t /i'7. 0 iQ O�i �. r \ l�►1i I N � / 'J! ' � •ems � ��� Ci fl►.b. .GT•T ark, r u"" O� - 'i:! a 0�♦ � Sa6®m. e o;��w as =/w �ro �.• e • y. Oci:... '�'• I ' ' w 'e' �� �� . r___•D4r � o _76AV ___ 9G4a•3,•,79m.�.E]..�9rP1'✓�-('� . i wan S CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF PALM DESERT ) I hereby certify that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assess- ment role of the County within the area described on the attached application and for a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the exterior boundaries of the property described on the attached application. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (signed) L Ci,2,, (date) i mry ;j ilk \ g hM• I O •J wl I� i f ci R r N o c L" QL N i V �f 4 � O 4 ti �ee P 4 I - F R..6E. •--� '� SCALE - n eoz POR N//2 NW114 6465 h. "al 1 70 Otl� Ht do *0 /t. W a$ .NI rtt tiO p s 7, 0 O O CU O © Orr O O LZJJ ru v+ no rrt tzs rrr rrt /O - , g .. .. .. .. .. .. 2O O „ + '� . n •,rJt 1 rJt rJl rJr lts 110 r,/ ru 143 09 n y a rF` 7 754 ' 4 a y 4y + J7 sv no wa aar mz Ja Jnt !O, , _ a ,N J/t Jb 1 JIr , !.� JN ; !r0 .QI roar � i BK '��• ...fir r��:.aq�,��' or.n A ' I � v SAN�iV aWi 5 O WIF _ ' . .z ' • , � � � § | , # \ � Q § k # \ / o . \ - � � CO � \ CL O \ } ~ ~ \ � - /\� - . - 2 � e �2■ : , » : ! %§ ,\ � . . . . , . � 4Of,S?EC./9,US.,R.6E. - �Lb I CA 00 POR. N//2 NW//4 Q* 6s p+ 66 - SAN N/6Mf 4v • « � ,y. - .fir, 'm-•• I /4 ©' • r d 70 68 t /3 a FO nF ye lip sr . at. aJ ,ta .SJ 69 O /2 0 Q •'7/ t . ,��y/ 0 Q r � a zJy uo rtD rze to ne y.. /0 055 /0 F CAUL ,, • O ..a O •� t" { r3D tip 1" tJD NO 04/ Nt NJ 50 3 O 054 �aO ; � Z 34 � ! n � ♦ � Jy1 5,t vI no JOD JOr 501 JCD a07 fa, 6 + 3 � D v^UADAffA�•� J S.J J/• JN is 1 Sir • a" ? J" a J/O �Q/ A.S5 35OWS YAP M'.,. TV , f RA•ri�5/AC L101C117/, �. r, /( O? Op O5 © 7O O O9 ,• I K . 77 wOK .1J .w ... .. s _'•ryM,F+".Ye„�'a: ''N'`- 29 10 4 z i x z t S4N_4V7OAfO J O C/Raf .. .'� n I u nn Nf1 W � o y d♦ b 4i o h o tQ la Ao ice• o .Dd ° � • a O i N N to QL l S P t CASE NO. e Environmental Assessment Form TO THE APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completing this form and supplying the information requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required to make an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be considered complete until all information necessary to make the environmental assessment is complete. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name, address , and telephone number of owner, applicant or project sponsor: Rgv.:I 'ITl ri h / })r --7ark�-R .::mo4it— � �125, P e .-Ax—nue Santa `.Moniga,_.: calif. 90405 _ (.213). 399-9.201 ' ® 2. Name, address and telephone number of person to- be contacted con- cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, or other repre- sentative) : Tuffnell - Fetridge Architecture 74855 Joni Dr. Palm Desert, Calif. (619)568-5633 cr- 345-,4605 3. Common name of project (if any): Proposed Condominium Project 4. Project location (street address or general location) : Sierra Vista Dr./.-I ho. Grande (near Monterey and new May Co.) 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets & bounds) : Assessor's book no. _-_ 955 "'2-0'5,eI e2- CW2_10151 O17, 01-1 6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is filed; describe the total undertaking, not just the current application approval being sought) : Two Wfidomium residential buildings of (2)_,1,000 & (2)'.800 sq.ft. residences in each of the two buildings with two four car garages and additional uncovered parking spaces as req'd.and a swinming pool. 7. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects (describe how this project relates to other activities, phases, and develop- ments planned, or now underway): none 8. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, to go forward, including those required by the City, Regional , State and Federal agencies (indicate sub- sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required) : City of Palm Desert Building, Health, Fire and Road Depts. EXISTING CONDITIONS: 9. Project site area: 43,057 sq. ft. ( 0.99 acres) (Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage) 12-ZCS) 10. Present zoning: 9--1 (Proposed zoning) : ^ 11 . General Plan land use designation: Single family,residential. 12. Existing use of the project site: Vacant .:. :'_:_ 13. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example - North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ). ® South- Regional shopping center; west- Single family residences; Fast- New Board of Realty Office Building; North- Single Family residences. 14. Site topography (describe) : Level 15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or adjacent to the property? NO x YES 16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) : Less than 100 cu.yds. 17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed: none 18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scenic aspects of the project site: none 19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer) A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) : r- (8) two bedroom £Fro bath condcminiiun residences of(4)800 &_(4)=1,000 sq.ft. each. two buildings,four units each. B. Schedule of unit sizes: 4 @ 800 sq.ft. each, 4 @ 1,000 sq.ft. each. C. Number of stories one Height 15 ft. max. feet. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) 3,.6.00 (hgt. ) one E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : two to four people max. F. Describe the n_-tuber and type of recreational facilities : Swinming pool G. Is there any night lighting of the project: Low level landscaping and pool lighting H. Range of sales prices or rents: $ 75 ,000 to $ 85 , 000 I. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 % Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . 4 % Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . 81 % Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects: Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as - necessary). YES NO 21 . Change in existing features of hillsides, or substantial alteration of ground contours. x 22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or od ors rs 9 x in the project vicinity. 23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind or flooding. x 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. x 25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport noise (has the required acoustical report been x submitted?) 26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, X flammables or explosives. 27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of X fuel or energy. 28. Changes the demand for municipal services X (police, fire, sewage, etc. ) Possibly due to add'n. of eight to ten people plus or minus 29. Changes the demand for utility services , beyond those presently available or planned in the X near future. 30. Significantly affects any unique or natural X features, including mature trees. 31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing X residential areas or public land or public roads. X 32. Results in the dislocation of people. t. YES NO 33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or other features of the project. X [ ] Additional explanation of "yes" answers attached. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the facts , statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my,knowledge and belief. Tiirirh Fnfarnriapc flame Pint or Type for 1 ( 1 SentPmber 10 19VA f QSignatur Date K INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and sub- mit with this form. ) w Supporting Data:-- � 1. Name of Applicant Roy M. Ulrich of Ulrich Enterprises / Dr. Jack R. Magit 2. This request is made for property described as: Exact legal description Assessor's Parcel and lot nos. 629-055-012 015 017 021. 3. Total area of site: 43,057 sq.ft. if more than 1 zone requested, give subtotal for each 4. Existing Zoning: R-1 describe here or. attach map p(z 1S5 MA JY 5. Proposed Zoning: iz a(5) 1 @99 - - to nerrr t 8 units. Vt115 AGr'ecl`tOLE- describe here or attach map 6. Assessor's Parcel No. : 629-055-012,015,017,021. 7. The property is located at Sierra Dr- And Rancho Grande street address between and street street 8. The present use of the property is vacant i Single family 9. General Plan Designation: 10. The applicant offers the following reasons to justify the request for a Change .of Zone: Property is ithin 500 ft of a new regional shoonina center- nronerty along Monterey road has been under consideration for comatible rr,7,^nina in the area of the new center. An uncrowded well maintained condominium nroiect Would enhance the general character of residential area. { a Ill. The applicant shall submit a minimum of twelve (12) accurate scale drawings of the site (one colored) and the surrounding area showing: - existing streets .and property lines - existing structures - access and utility easements - topographic contours at intervals of not more than two (2) feet. 12. The applicant shall submit a list of all owners of property located within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. The list shall be keyed to a map showing the location of,these properties and shall include the name and address as shown on the latest available assessment role of the Riverside County Assessor's Office. 13. The applicant shall submit a completed Environmental Assessment form. 14. The applicant shall provide such additional information as the Director of Environmental Services may require to determine whether the granting of a Change of Zone would endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. The application may be filed only by the owner of said property and shall be signed by the owner or by a person with a Power of Attorney, . in wiitin? (attached) from the owner authorizing the application or by the Attorney-at-Law for the owner. Indicate your authority below: I am the owner of said property. I am the agent for the owner of said property (attach written authorization) . I have a Power of Attorney from the owner authorizing the appl ication I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at vas /G/.-, z�&I'..ut this It) day of 1 C 07V aF PALM DD L SEh e µ� FORK a®off 45 276 PP kc § Pear Lane9 Pagmm oDe ser4, Ca.92260 C .\ u r r HAJ '1 V. OF Z0 r QPPLUC ATUCH FORM : department.*0 snvlTanmentag IllaMose a pgannBwg d0w6a n a Roy M. Ulrich Dr_ J;ack Applicant (please print) 1ASPitar-Av n -` (21 ) 399-9201 Mailing Address Telephone San+a Mnnira Calif. 904O5 City - ' State Zip-Code REQUEST! (Describe specific nature of approval requested), V2- 1 +6 lz-2 Q57 orL lz:it�,&A. BDY�& arc 8&A*2&L �C� To develope four vacant lots, (R-1) ,in an older residential area now being surrounded on two sides with light and heavy oalmercial use into a condominium unit in a price range suited to the lower-middle income people employed in the "service side" of the business comnunity, (the $80,000 range) . a)9 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: - �3F-012tO15t0)`�I four vacant R-1 lots - Assessor's parcel and lot nos. 021. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. R-1 EXISTING ZONING Property Owner Authorization The undersigned states that they are the oemer(a) of the property described heroin and hereby give author- tlon for the filing of application. .4 9/o/F3 i nature Date Agreement absolving the rty of Palm Desert of all liabilities relallvd to any deed restrictions, 1 DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, Absolve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions Mat may be applicable to the property described heroin. /4F3 Signature Date Applicant's Signature Signature Date (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) Environmental Status Accepted by: � �3 ❑ Ministerial Act E.A. No. ❑ Categorical Exemption f� �C( (�Oo ❑ Negative Declaration VQ ISE uO�vl ❑ other Reference Case No. Vffl oeeeetu serrvic� s*s a+r-es t D D 5 TI APAR. TME. HT rN L `r0 117 F: 7 t T-f� • / tit .. j - 1 • 04 - ------------------ i Li d - . . f 1 ,: ..h..r,...F:.� j>. .. T;e 3° .. .. .sal s•. .... $#"'.. "f. .�. ., -. .. .. .. �': .. ill . 5. ., rc 7 r ur r 4 r,L 1 , ! ` di r' t A f I (1 (� r� n r� n n �-� ri "a t n C; r, m r h r, r i �• r� � j �"� �, -, � r`J �;;;, � _"'' � �/ I t '"� {� t 1 i� =/�( �� }.J {� (� C7 �t 11 � .I � G I 1, 'O. kJ I 1_! ' l 1i i � r_ � 9 � It J !Jo IRKING _'"o �vj,Lr.. "^..:k_+�; -�''�}4_^+1►•�i� IL ' rz T 9^ry v E *-: -r `*' r r r' .r -..7 .' L t_._': _.L .'....:_._"_.,.-..:..:...X._ ... �-.f.�::.•" Z,." -:._. . ._ -:r- ... � "z. _..L. - ,. +J-�-7^... t s7' _ _ - t • i l to•� - -�, � __ �----�---�- _ __, _ _ _ _._ -_-�. �.__._ - -_ - _._____�;,._.._ _�.�M„�, � __ _ T-__ __ __ _ �. . ,.-..� - �.' ' t a '`�- �O �',�.KKINGj � E�r ..., -;^►f -['� �a \` -.� n , l_ l_ .C. ' -� ✓ 1 . / "� � i � ``^ram„ �.y�a � C�.'�y�•�•'��� ',\ f f, - i fay ci-. �tl(P ! { n r, f .: t 1 �' C -� r C 2 - r , j - - 1 _ k L Z¢ m-�.ta- _ i � 1 �s T � .... 1 9:*. .5:�'; �. .., .�*�!�..+lMrt�k al^'.-r.�- ,. � •-_ =t-, s ..,.:, -. ;� .. , •' _ -- ¢ n _v " k 1 x ij ''✓' 1350 �" i ���� 70�0 t �' NI � 1 - ���C.%t?t..: `s't✓� it�-� � �-�• ��� '� 1ti Itl I cam,��� ►�� � � � d d - I elro 4�_ r B/LI - �.�• 2 ��—o",�✓ � �o'-o'� �� , I • 1 7 01, o✓ P f""�• I!��1 � ./irV �' "-�'"';v .Il..f" > I G? j 1!-jGl`�VET Kj t� .�Z -5P/-s,c.''r 2 Q�l G� K' '�'U t�l-.h�Zc3� s�� Lit L EtekP o l-7 �^� � •+�— CITY OF f I �.... � �4"... �- ►416 -4 ► �"! — (PALMDESERT �....- DEPARTMENT � � .. TAL. f I 7��'f �i�t �C/' 1� 1../C../ I �i L.�J I ��?� �i�✓ ENVIRONMEN : 4 • Pa� l tA. , ����• �� � � SERVICES ._... � i i...-�t--.'�' . G•�• '%�O� I © t�.�,�,,,,�,. ,•� -� fr':�...�� �..--'-"" - �,,.n., A..� '•�'�'"i.�.►.� ;,.cs� ac�r�r "`'���, f HNO..__ N I:F- -�.-- CASE N0._.•_ _ T1 - � t u � , Y rr