Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DEEP CANYON ROAD/HIGHWAY 111 C/Z 01-80 1980
N D m R W ri 0 C� CD Li 650' — 400' - -u 0 w • • • • O ~ �� • It • • •w1 405' 360 • Fla Ar. E •and '� Ro\ 0, DEEP CANYON ROAD (3I - 620' awm ssnvm 0) W O •ft � 1330' C n0 `° -0. V 0, �!. : (A O 00 a, ` 5 00 0 :� o 0 0 • I: .a RESOLUTION NO. 81-10 F-A/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM �/l DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT /� REPORT EIR 80-1 FOR A PROJECT DESCRIBED AS CHANGE OF ZONE 01-80, DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-80, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-80 AS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIF- ORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of February, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider certi- fication of a final Environmental Impact Report, herein after referred to as EIR 80-1, for a project commonly referred to as The Fountains; WHEREAS, said project encompassed an application for a Change of Zone, herein after referred to as C/Z 01-80; a Development Plan, herein after referred to as DP 07-80; and a Conditional Use Permit, herein after referred to as CUP 07-80; encom- passing approximately 30 acres generally located at the northeast corner of State Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert had previously scheduled and advertised a Public Hearing for its regular meeting of January 22, 1981, to hear testimony pertaining to Draft EIR 80-1 and C/Z 01-80; WHEREAS, an appeal was filed with the City Council from the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission approval of DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 at its regular scheduled meeting of December 30, 1981, per Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 667 and 668; WHEREAS, said appeal was scheduled for Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on February 12, 1981; WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently opened and continued said Public Hearing on C/Z 01-80 and EIR 80-1 as it pertained thereto, to February 12, 1981, the date set for the duly advertised hearings on DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 and EIR 80-1 as it pertains thereto; and recontinued entire matter to February 26, 1981; WHEREAS, the City Council did receive and review copies of EIR 80-1; WHEREAS, the City Council did receive and review staff reports, public comments and responses to said public comments, all minutes and resolutions pertaining to EIR 80-1; WHEREAS, the following potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures were identified either within EIR 80-1, or testimony, staff reports, or comments and responses pertaining to EIR 80-1: A) DRAINAGE Impacts The site is adequately drained, however, the site's drainage facilities plan is not designed to accomodate any significant increases in storm water flow onto the site from the upslope areas. Mitigation Measures Provisions should be made to assure that the site's drainage RESOLUTION NO. 81-10 Page Two Mitigation Measures a. The California State Department of Transportation shall impose measure to reduce or mitigate potential impacts of Highway 111. b. The proposed public street into the project from Highway 111 must meet California Department of Transportation standards and requirements. c. Additional dedication and improvement of Deep Canyon Road adjacent to the site will mitigate any signifi- cant adverse traffic impact on Deep Canyon Road. C) NOISE Impacts There would be noise during construction and operation of the commercial center. . Mitigation Measures Existing state and local regulations would mitigate potential noise during construction. Limiting hours of delivery to the market as well as proper design of the loading area would mitigate noise impacts. WHEREAS, conditions of approval set forth by Planning Commission Resolution No. 668 did implement those mitigation measures recommended in EIR 80-1 as follows: A) Special Conditions 1 and 2 - Drainage 1. "Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No 218 _J and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the J Public Works Director. 2. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm water flows." B) Special Conditions 3, 4 and 7 - Traffic and Circulation 3. "Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep Canyon Road, adjacent to the property, to coincide with the existing curb, gutter, and paved roadway abutting subject property to the north. 4. Applicant shall dedicate sufficient parkway to assure that the ultimate improvements of Deep Canyon Road are provided for in a manner to coincide and be uniform with existing improvements north of the subject property. 7. Street improvements along Highway 111 shall be made as required by the State of California Department of Transportation." C) Special Conditions 3. 6 and 9 - Noise RESOLUTION NO. 81-10 Page Three WHEREAS, said Environmental Impact Report 80-1 concludes that the project described as C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this matter. 2. The Council does hereby certify the final EIR Text has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended; and, State and City guidelines implementing said act, with the inclusion of the following attached hereto: Exhibit "A", draft EIR 80-1 Text; - Exhibit "B", comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR during the public review period; - Exhibit "C", listing of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; - Exhibit "D", authorized response to significant envir- onmental points raised in the review and consultation process; - Exhibit "E", minutes of City of Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting of December 30, 1980; - Exhibit "F", minutes of City Council meetings of January 22, and February 12, 1981; - Exhibit "G", Environmental Services Department staff reports dated January 22, and February 12, 1981; and, - Exhibit "H", City Council Resolutions and Ordinances approving C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on this 26 day of February 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, Puluqi, Snyder & Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I ATTEST: �� J RESOLUTION NO. 81-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN SECTION 25.92 ET SEQ., BY CHANGING THE ZONE DESIGNATIONS FROM PR-5 N, S.P. TO C-1 N, S.P. (4.6 ACRES): FROM PC (4), S.P. TO C-1 N, S.P. (7.3 ACRES) AND FROM PR-5 N TO C-1 N, S.P. (.44 ACRES) GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NO. C/Z 01-80 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day of January, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND BERNARD SOLOMON for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P; to allow the construction of a commercial/resort/residential development on 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, said Public Hearing was continued to February 12, 1981; and, WHEREAS, as a result of comments raised pertaining to Environmental Impact Report 80-1, the public hearing was continued to February 26, 1981, with the public testimony portion of the said hearing closed on February 12, 1981; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing upon considering all testimony of all inter- ested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council did find the -following facts to justify theyr actions: 1. A residential type of commercial activity would be a better transitional use on this site adjacent to existing residential development than general commercial uses; 2. There already exists a great deal of general commercially zoned property in the vicinity; and, 3. The long range interests of the City calls for the maintenance of hotel/motel developments and limiting areas to zoning_ that generally limits land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to the provisions of the City Municipal Code, does hereby deny requested zone change C/Z 01-80. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council on this 26th day of February, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: PULUQI, NEWBRANDER, WILSON NOES: SNYDER, MCPHERSON ABSENT: NONE ARSTAIN- NnNF Z., ,IIE��L E ,� �_ COUNTY OCT 2 8 199 OCT 2 7 1981 �~ ENVIRONMENTAL SEF VICES CITY OF PALM DEE ERT By DONALD D. 56LLIVAN, Clerk CS ` Ei.�wo E. Saak _ Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE LESLIE FUND INC. Plaintiff(s) Case No. IND TO 33537 VS. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CITY OF PAL?-1 DESERT, Et al (By Clerk) Defendant(s) JUDGh1ENT TO THE ABOVE NAMED PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: YOU ARE IiEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to the provisions of Section 664.5 of the code of Civil Procedure, that a "judgment," to wit: x❑ judgment, Judgment Book No. Indio 88 page 304 ❑ decree ❑ signed order was entered in the above entitled action on October 27, 1981 DONALD D. SULL ANILERK By �� `� Deputy I, DONALD D. SULLIVAN, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Superior Court, County of Riverside, do hereby certify that I am not a party to the within action or proceeding; that I served a copy of the within NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (By Clerk), this date, by depositing said copy enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the mail at the City of ❑ Riverside 13 }Andio, California, a�,lressed as follows: FER•vlT 1 & ANDER!WLT 71f 090 El Paseo P. 0. Box •189 LPalm Desert, Calit'. 92261� Dated: October 27, lo- F—RF.TD, BABBAGE R: COTL 3800 Orange St. P. 0. Box 1300 Riverside, Calif. 92501 DONALD D.�I dVAN, .CLERK By �`- Deputy 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 pill 21 22 23 24 25 26 a ERWIN & ANDERHOLT A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 74-090 EL PASEO POST OFFICE BOX 789 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 (714) 568-2611 Arcorneys for Respondents RER5iL C0UNTY E �—D nCT 971981 3y OONALD D. SULLIVAN, Clerk d�p E: Saak Depuf/ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE LESLIE FUND, INC., Petitioner, VS. CITY OF PALM DESERT, Respondents NO. INDIO 33537 JUDGMENT The above -entitled cause came on regularly for hearing on the Petition for writ of Mandamus, on September 18, 1981, in Department "J" of the above -entitled court, the Honorable Richard E. Lee, Judge presiding, without a jury, and was, actually heard on that date. Petitioner appeared by Reid, Babbage & Coil, by Enos C. Reid, its attorneys, and respondent appeared by Douglas S. Phillips of Erwin & Anderholt, its attorneys. Oral, documentary and tape recorded evidence was intro- duced on behalf of the parties. -1- 2I 4I 5' 6' 7 8 91 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Court having considered the evidence and having heard the arguments of counsel, and the parties through their counsel having stipulated that the manner may be heard by Judge Richard Lee, Pro Tempore, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT The Court finds that: '1. At all times mentioned in the petition, petitioner, LESLIE FUND, INC., was, and now is the owner of a certain portion of the real property situated on approximately twenty-eight (28) acres located at the north corner of State Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road in the City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, and has intended .and now intends, to engage in the primary business of constructing and operating a commercial center on said real property, in conjunction with the other adjacent property owners, which center would include a supermarket, various commercial shops, a hotel, bank and restaurant. 2. At all times mentioned in the petition, respondent City of Palm Desert was, and now is, organized and existing under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of California. 3. At all times mentioned in the petition, respondent, City of Palm Desert, City Council was, and now is, the legally constituted, elected governing body of said City, charged with the duty, among others, of administering the zoning ordinance of said City, and consists of individual respondents, S. ROY VIN !1 AN DERXOLT orsssrt.0 to Cosr. 1 DESERT. CA 92261 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WILSON, ROMEO S. PULUQI, ALEXIS B. NEWBRANDER, WALTER S. SNYDER, and JAMES E. McPHERSON, as members -thereof. 4. At all times mentioned in the petition, C. ROBERT HUBBARD, was and now is, acting as the agent of, and was, and now is, employed by petitioner, LESLIE FUND, INC. 5. That certain portions of petitioner's property are zoned resort/commercial (PC-4), and that the general plan at one time designated certain portions of petitioner's property as general commercial. 6. On or about March 3, 1980, C. ROBERT HUBBARD, for and on behalf of petitioner, filed with the City of Palm DEsert Planning Department, a written application for change of zone, requesting, inter alia, a zone change from PC — S.P. Resort/Commercial, to C-1, N.S.P., General Commercial. 7. Petitioner sought the change of zone in order to permit development and construction of a large commercial center, but was precluded from doing so by the Resort/Commercial Zoning. 8. The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission held hearings on petitioner's application on June 3 and July 1, 1980, and on July 1, 1980 voted to defer consideration of the application pending completing of the environmental impact report. 9. On or about June 3, 1980, the director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, issued a Negative Declaration of environmental impact in conjunction with VIN • ANDERNOLT «Gua„tL,�On,,. I DESERT. CA 92261 -3- •� J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C petitioner's application for change of zone. 10. On or about June 26,- 1980, in response to an appeal of the issuance of the negative declaration, respondent City Counsel directed that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared regarding the petitioner's proposed development. 11. On or about November 1, 1980, the Environmental Impact Report was completed and concluded that no significant environmental impact would result from the proposed development. 12. On or about December 30, 1980, the CITY OF PALM DESERT Planning Commission Staff issued its report on petitioner's change of zone request, and recommended that the Planning Commission certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Planning Commission Resolution No. 667 and No. 668, which recommended City Council approval of the zone change, and approved petitioner's development plan and conditional use permit. 13. On December 30, 1980, the CITY OF PALM DESERT Planning Commission held a hearing on petitioner's change of zone request, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution NO. 667 and NO. 668, recommending approval to the City Council of the change of zone and certification of the Environmental Impact Report, and approving petitioner's development plan and application for conditional use permit. 14. On January 14, 1981, an appeal was filed with the PLAM DESERT City Council regarding the Planning Commission's VIN G ANDERHOLT OIESUot•LAW CORP. -4- 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 decision to approve petitioner's development plan and conditional use permit. 15. On February 12 and 26, 1981, the PALM DESERT City Council considered, and took testimony regarding the petitioner's application for change of zone. At these meetings, the City Council voted to certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for petitioner's application and the proposed commercial development. The City Council then considered and rejected the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the zone change. Copies of the pertinent portions of the minutes of the City Council meetings of February 12 and 26, 1981, along with City Council Resolution No. 81-17, marked as Exhibits H, I and.J, respectively, are attached to the Petition for Writ of Mandate and are incorporated herein. 16. On March 12 and 26, and April 9, 1981, the PALM DESERT City Council held hearings regarding the amendment, of the Palm Desert General Plan. 17. On May 5, 1981, the PALM DESERT Planning Commission considered the General Plan Amendments, including the proposed change of designation of certain of petitioner's property from general commercial (C-1) to resort/commercial (PC-4). 18. On May 5, 1981, the PALM Desert Planning Commission passed a minute action recommending that the petitioner's real property not be designated resort/commercial on the general plan, and that the resort/commercial designation be deleted from the general plan. NIN 6 ANDERNOLT w reswon+t L.�C..I. A DESERT. CA 92261 -5- 1 2 3 4, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19. On May 14, 1981, the City Council considered and rejected the Planning Commission's recommendation and approved the General Plan redesignation of petitioner's real property from General Commercial to Resort/Commercial. A copy of the pertinent minutes of the May 14, 1981 City Council meeting, marked as Exhibit "P", are attached to the Petition for Writ of Mandate and incorporated herein by reference. 20. The final decision of the PALM DESERT City Council rejecting the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the petitioner's zone change is an appropriate exercise of the descretion vested in the City Council of the CITY OF PALM DESERT, which discretion has not been abused by the City Council of the CITY OF PALM DESERT in that the minutes of the City Council meeting of February 26, 1981, confirm that: (1) the resort/commercial designation on the petitioner's property represents a proper transition from residential to commercial, which zones abut the area in question; (2) that sufficient general commercial zoned property existed elsewhere in the City; (3) that additional hotel/motel development was and is needed in the CITY OF PALM DESERT; and (4) that taking into consideration the entire general plan as it was developed for the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a decision granting the petitioner's request for change of zone would be in conflict with the long-range interests of the CITY OF PALM DESERT. V II: 6 AH DERXOLT a rt3f ioxu 4� Cotr. I DESERT. CA 92261 1! 2 3 4' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 21. The final decision of the PALM DESERT City Council of May 14, 1981 retaining the general plan resort/commercial land use designation is a discretionary decision of the City Council of the CITY OF PALM DESERT, and the decision did not constitute an abuse of that discretion in that the decision adequately represents a comprehensive, long-range general plan for the physical development of the CITY OF PALM DESERT and its planning area, and in that the PALM DESERT General Plan complies with the requirements of the Government Code of the State of California. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW From the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following Conclusions of Law: 1. The City Council of the CITY OF PALM DESERT has discretion to enact or decline to enact a zone change. 2. The respondents have exercised their discretion and based on the facts of the law, have not abused such discretion. 3. The zoning ordinance zoning certain portions of the petitioner's property as resort/commercial (PC-4) is consistent with the general plan designation of general commercial. 4. Petitioner is not entitled to have the decisions of the City Council of the CITY OF PALM DESERT set aside or otherwise modified, nor is petitioner entitled to anything upon his petition for writ of Mandamus. VIN • ANDENNOLT erenm.a uwtorr. -7 - 1 NOW, THEREFORE, it is ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that 2 Petitioner take nothing by way of his petition for Writ of 3 Mandamus, that Petitioner's request for Writ of Mandate be 4 denied, and that -judgment be granted to Respondents. 5 DATED: "2-3 1,9F1 6- 7 RICHARD LEE 8 RICHARD E. LEE, Judge, Pro Tempore of the Superior Court 9 Entered on date filed 10 lull) Q 3011 Judgmant Soo!< Page_ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4fN ! ANOERNOLT —8— II LAW OFFICES REID, BABBAGE & COIL 2 II 3800 ORANGE STREET 0 D 2 J 2 J POST OFFICE BOX 1300 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 3 III T6LlPR OHE 682•IJ]1 41 5.1 Attorneys for. Petitioner RECEIVED 6 ,,i� '$I RAG 13 PPI Z 35 7 8 II SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFOIINL iA, COIjQfi* 'I'r Ii3I i E 9. t) 10 '53i 11 LESLIE FUND, INC., ) No . INDIQ 3 ie 121 Petitioner, ) ALTERNATIVE i ) WRIT OF MANDATE 13 vs. ) 14 CITY OF PALM DESERT, PALM DESERT -*�M C : fir: IFS'R 'x. CITY COUNCIL, AND S. ROY WILSON, 15, ROMEO S. PULUGI, ALEXIS D. ) f� NEWBRANDER, WALTER H. SNYDER, ) 16 AND JAMES E. McPHERSON, AS ) MEMBERS THEREOF, ) -17 ) Respondents. ) 18 ) 191 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2011 TO: Respondents City of Palm Desert, Palm Desert City Council 211 and S. Roy Wilson, Romeo S. Pulugi, Alexis D. Newbrander, 1 22 Walter H. Snyder and James E. McPherson, as members thereof. 23 24 It appears from the verified petition on file in this 25 action that you have abused your discretion and acted in 26 excess of your authority by refusing to grant petitioner's 27 chan.<- of zone request and by amending the Palm Desert General 281 Plar. to redesignate petitioner's real property as resort f r I commercial, and that petitioner, the party beneficially 4k 2 interested, has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the 3 ordinary course of law. 4 THEREFORE, you are commanded, immediately on receipt of 5 this writ, to set aside the Palm Desert General Plan amendment 6 redesignating petitioner's property resort commercial, and to 7 grant petitioner's change of zone application, or g IN THE ALTERNATIVE, to show cause before this court on g , 1981, at y' 61 in the courtroom 117 10 of Department P, Riverside Superior Court, 4b=2a9-Oasis:61 .. 11ii+b" , California, why you have not.done so. 12 DATED: 1981 UWZ W,0M,8 13 DONALD D. SULLIVAN, Clerk UWm- LLa03 14 ona,� 5 / 3:<0 15 BY (p gm00W DeputyyG erc Ci a > E SAAK W°'c 16 rc 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 0ill 3�' 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Ii 211 221 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES REID, BABBAGE48V(.r) S 3800 ORANGE 5 ( .•33 J POST OFFICE BOX 1300 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA TCL[PPONC 682-1771 _ Attorneys for PetiP tt"RED 081 AUG 13 PO 2 35 IRIVERSIDE COUNTY AUG 13 1981 DONALD O. 5ULLIVAN. Lien: By • A. Bacon. Deputy CI�jYPMERSUMF CAT.IFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE LESLIE FUND, INC., Petitioner, vs CITY OF PALM DESERT, PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL, AND S. ROY WILSON, ROMEO S. PULUGI, ALEXIS D. NEWBRANDER, WALTER H. SNYDER, AND JAMES E. MCPHERSON, AS MEMBERS THEREOF, Respondents. CASE NO. INDI® a 3 ORDER DIRECTING ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF WRIT IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Alternative Writ in the within action be issued, and a copy thereof, together with a copy of the Petition, be served no later than c2J) days prior to the hearing on the order to show cause. DATED: August I� , 1981 WARREN E.SLAUGHTER Judge of the Superior Court 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27I' 28II LAW OFFICES REID, BABBAGE & COIL 3800 ORANGE STREET POST OFFICE BOY 1300 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE 66E.171I Ii Attomeysfor Petitioner 00232V I � P F �Vv^c 1c m-v AUG 13 1981 RECEI'!ED zv Vim• Y VeJ W., 981 AUG 13 PH Z 35 SUPERIOR COURT OF i£Li►t1&TEY OF RIVERSIDE LESLIE FUND, INC., ) Petitioner, ) VS. ) CITY OF PALM DESERT, PALM DESERT ) CITY COUNCIL, AND S. ROY WILSON, ) ROMEO S. PULUGI, ALEXIS D. ) NEWBRANDER, WALTER H. SNYDER, ) AND JAMES E. McPHERSON, AS ) MEMBERS THEREOF, ) Respondents. ) No. INDIO 3 3 3 1 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL (Riv. Cty. Rule 21) The undersigned certifies that this matter should be tried or heard in the 1_1 Riverside JXJ Indio Branch for the following reason (check one): The action arose in this Branch area; The action concerns real property located in this Branch area; 1_1 One of the parties resides in this Branch area; DATED: Apctj,Si" l3� [j _ REID, BABBAGE & COIL By S' F ra n� as Enos C. Reid Attorney for Plaintiff li 1... - t•[ I LAW OFFICES !j REID, BABBAGE & COIL ! j 3830 ORANGE STREET II POST OFFICE BOX 1300 002329 11 II RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA e RIVERSIDE COUNTY �I TEIE VNO VE 682.1]]I it AUG 13 1981 4 !I Petitioner Attorneys for DONALD D. SULLIVAIV. Ulerk By ,5 RECEIVED � �. g}af%- 37'I A. Barron Deputy PIN 2 35 711 I 8,1 R1Y(�T Gtii�IFRI1VIr1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SUPERIO. ©(�jj,-'1-0 V, I- t 9 10 jI it n. n 53F7 LESLIE FUND, INC., No. 110I0 11 ) 121 Petitioner, ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF j ) MANDAMUS, WITH POINTS. 13�1 VS. ) AND AUTHORITIES 1;1 CITY OF PALM DESERT, PALM DESERT ) CITY COUNCIL, AND S. ROY WILSON, ) ROMEO S. PULUGI, ALEXIS D. ) NEL.BRANDER, WALTER H. SNYDER, ) 161j AND JAMES E. McPHERSON, AS ) i MEMBEP.S THEREOF, ) 17!i Respondents. 18 ) 19 li 201 Petitioner respectfully represents: 21i 1. At all times mentioned herein, petitioner Leslie 22 Fund, Inc., was, and now is, an Illinois corporation duly 23I' I licensed and qualified to transact business in the State of till California. At all said times, petitioner Leslie Fund, Inc., 25i was, and now is, the owner of a certain portion of the real 26i property situated on approximately 2E acres located at the 27iI north corner`of State Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road in II 28i the City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, and has intended, i 1 i 21 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 J 12 LO uz W:FO 13 U W MLI u a<zs 14 o m r w arrow 15 J�oj Fgmx 16 Ir 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and now intends, to engage in the primary business of constructing and operating a commercial center on said real property, in conjunction with the other adjacent property owners, which center would include a supermarket, various commercial shops, a hotel, bank and restaurant. 2. At all times mentioned herein, respondent City of Palm Desert was, and now is., organized and existing under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of California. 3. At all times mentioned herein, respondent Palm Desert City Council was, and now is, the legally constituted elected governing body of said city charged with -.the duty, among others, of administering the Zoning Ordinance.of said city, and consisting of individual respondents, S. Roy Wilson, Romeo S. Pulugi, Alexis D. Newbrander, Walter H. Snyder, and James E. McPherson as members therof. 4. At all times mentioned herein, C. Robert Hubbard was, and now is, acting as the agent of, and was, and now is, employed by petitioner'Leslie Fund, Inc. 5. Since in or about 1975, the ordinances of said City of Palm Desert have restricted development of petitioner's property by zoning certain portions of petitioner's property described above in paragraph 1, as resort/commercial (PC-4), thereby precluding the establishment of large commercial enterprises such as supermarkets. Since in or about 1975, the General Plan of said City has designated that same real property as general commercial, rather than resort/commercial. Thus, since in or about 1975, the zoning ordinance as mentioned was inconsistent with the General Plan. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 J 12 F) W2 w'ro 13 UW''� k°a Zs 14 n �Mco <mo¢ 15 J O W Oo> w " ac 16 a 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. On or about March 3, 1980, C. Robert Hubbard, for and on behalf of petitioner, filed with the City of Palm Desert Planning Department a written application for change of zone requesting, inter alia, a zone change from PC-4, S.P., Resort -Commercial, to C-1, N.S.P., General Commercial. A copy of said application, marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 7. Petitioner sought the change of zone in order to permit development and construction of a large commercial center which would include a supermarket, an activity which was permissible under the General Plan designation but precluded by the resort -commercial zoning. Moreover; while construction of a planned 200-room hotel on adjacent land was permissible within the existing resort -commercial zoning, the hotel required the type of commercial development planned by petitioner and permissible with general commercial zoning for economic support. 8. The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission held hearings on petitioner's application on June 3 and July 1, 1980, and on July 1, 1980, voted to defer consideration of the application pending completion of the environmental impact report. Copies of the pertinent portions of the Planning Commission minutes marked Exhibits "B" and "C," respectively, are attached hereto and made a part hereof. 9. On or about June 3, 1980, the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact in conjunction with petitioner's application for change of zone. On or about June 26, 1980, in response to an appeal of the issuance of the Negative Declaration, 3 1 respondent City Council directed that an environmental impact 2 report be prepared regarding the petitioner's proposed development. 3 10. On or about November 1, 1980, the Environmental 4 Impact Report was completed and concluded that no significant 5 environmental impact would result from the proposed development. 6 11. On or about December.30, 1980, the City of Palm 7 Desert Planning Commission staff issued its report on petitioner's 8 change of zone request. In its report, the Planning Commission g found that the proposed change of zone would not adversely 10 affect adjoining property as to value or precedent and would 11 not be detrimental to the adjoining area; that the proposed J 12 change of zone would be in the interest of furthering the public owZ �o 13 health, safety and general welfare; and that approval of the WZ Ui,l 14 proposed change of zone was consistent with the Palm Desert m o <. W 3Q011' 15 General Plan. The Planning Commission staff recommended that ¢m0= JwmQ-c 16 the Planning Commission certify the Environmental Impact Report 17 and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 667 and 668 18 which recommended City Council approval of the zone change and 19 approved petitioner's development plan and conditional use 26 permit. Copies of the Planning Commission Staff Report and 21 Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 667 and 668, marked as 22 Exhibits "D," "E" and "F," respectively, are attached hereto 23 and made a part hereof. . 24 12. On December 30, 1980, the City of Palm Desert Planning 25 Commission held a hearing on petitioner's change of zone request 26 and unanimously (4-0) adopted Planning Commission Resolution 27 Nos. 667 and 668, recommending approval to the City Council of 28 -the change of zone and certification of the Environmental 4 , T I Impact Report and approving petitioner's development plan and 2 application for conditional use permit. A 66py of the pertinent 3 portions of the minutes of said Planning Commission meeting, 4 marked as Exhibit "G," is attached hereto and made a part 5 hereof. On January 14, 1981, an appeal was filed with the 6 Palm Desert City Council regarding the Planning Commission's 7 decision to approve the petitioner's development plan and 8 conditional use permit. 9 13. On February 12 and 26, 1981, the Palm Desert City 10 Council considered, and took testimony regarding, the petitoner's 11 application for change of zone. At these meetings, the City 12 Council voted to certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared u Z wc4 13 for petitioner's application and the proposed commercial LL<z3 14 development. The City Council then considered and rejected by omc ; Qmop 15 a 3 to 2 vote the Planning Commission's recommendation for Joo> PC 16 approval of the zone change based upon the asserted need for 17 additional hotel/motel development in Palm Desert. Copies of 18 the pertinent portions of the minutes of the City Council 19 meetings of February 12 and 26, 1981, along with City Council 20 Resolution No. 81-17, marked as Exhibits "H," "I" and "J," 21 respectively, are attached hereto and incorporated herein. 22 14. On March 12 and 26 and April 9, 1981, the Palm Desert 23 City Council held hearings regarding the amendment of the Palm 24 Desert General Plan. Copies of the minutes of these City Council 25Imeetings, marked as Exhibits "K," "L" amd "M," respectively, 26 are attached hereto and incorporated herein. On May 5, 1981, 27 the Palm Desert Planning Commission considered the General 28 Plan amendments, including the proposed change of designation 5 1 of certain of petitioner's property from general commercial 2 (C-1) to resort -commercial (PC-4). Based on a study by the 3 Planning Commission staff (a copy of which has been marked as 4 Exhibit "N," and is attached hereto and incorporated herein), 5 the Commission unanimously passed a Minute Action recommending 6 that the petitioner's real property not be designated.resort 7 commercial on the General Plan and that the resort -commercial 8 designation be deleted from the General Plan. A copy of the 9 minutes of the May 5, 1981, Planning Commission meeting, marked 10 as Exhibit "0," is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 11 On May 14, 1981, the City Council considered and rejected the 12 Planning Commission's recommendation and approved the General � � 2 we.$Fg 13 Plan redesignation of petitioner's real property from general uww!_ w°¢gg z 14 commercial to resort commercial based upon the asserted need �mau 3aOH 15 for additional hotel/motel development on petitioner's property. ¢m0C p o j wm� 16 A copy of the pertinent minutes of the May 14, 1981 City Council. a 17 meeting, marked as Exhibit "P," is attached hereto and incorporated 18 herein. 19 15. The February 26, 1981, and May 14, 1981, decisions 20 of the Palm Desert City Council to deny petitioner's change of 21 zone application and to redesignate petitioner's property as 22 resort -commercial constitute an abuse of discretion and are in 23 excess of authority in that: 24 a. The decisions of respondents are not supported 25I by substantial evidence, there being no evidence whatsoever to 26I establish any requirement or necessity for, or even the 27 feasibility of hotel/motel development on petitioner's property 28 or further hotel/motel development in Palm Desert in general; and 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 J 12 oW Wmxo 13 oWn W J LL¢Lu 14 oMZW amo"c 15 Jo0W w"rc 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b. The decisions of respondents were made on the premise that further hotel/motel development was required within the City of Palm Desert and, in turn, were based on pure speculation, unrealistic and wholly unsubstantiated contentions that further hotel/motel developments were economically feasible and necessary for continued growth within Palm Desert. 16. Petitioner has exhausted all its administrative remedies in applying for the change of zone and opposing the General Plan redesignation. There is no provision for further appeal from the decisions of respondents and petitioner has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that a writ of mandate issue commanding respondents, and each of them, to vacate and set aside their decisions denying petitioner's change of zone application and redesignating petitioner's real property on the general plan from general commercial, C-1, to resort commercial, PC-4, or to show cause before this court at a specified time and place why they have not done so, and for such other and further relief as the court deems proper, together with petitioner'sl' costs herein. DATED: August B , 1981 Respectfully submitted, REID, BABBAGE & COIL ENOS C. REID, INC. BY Enos C. Reid Attorneys for Petitioner 7 J mUuZ wZbk oWb� FLO w< LL<iu m om<L; Sao° N Qmpa: JOoj @mom 1 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I 3 INTRODUCTION 4 As discussed more fully above, petitioner is seeking a 5 writ to compel respondents to rezone petitioner's real property 6 from resort commercial, PC-4, to general commercial, C-1, and 7 to compel respondents to set aside the Palm Desert Plan amendment 8 which redesignated petitioner's real property to resort 9 commercial. 10 II 11 ARGUMENT 12 A. The Court has Authority to Issuea Writ under the'Provisions 13 of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085. 14 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 provides 15 that a writ of mandamus: 16 may be issued by any court, except a municipal or justice court, to any inferior tribunal, corporation, 17 board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins . or to compel the 18 admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, and from which he has 19 been unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person." 20 21 It has been determined that a petition for writ of mandamus 22 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is the proper 23 method to seek judicial review of a denial of a change of zone 24application or the amendment of a general plan. (Toso v. City 25 of Santa Barbara (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 934 (a rezoning 25Iapplication); Karlson v. Cit of Camarillo (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d Y 27 789 (amendment of a general plan).) 28 8 J pWt NUW¢ L) izo -, LL<0s 0 © c 01 3<O� N <m"M J6OW w"a rc 1 B. Municipal Zoning Actions and General Plan Amendments Must 2 Not be Arbitrary or Unreasonable 3 In Lockard v. City of Los Angeles (1949) 33 Cal.2d 453, 4 461, the court noted that: 5 zoning ordinances, when reasonable in object and not arbitrary in operation, constitute a justfiable exercise 6 of police power." 7 However, where the power to enact and maintain a zoning 8 ordinance is exercised in an oppressive and unreasonable manner, 9 courts will protect a property owner from unlawful government 10 interference with his property. (See, Skalko v. City of Sunnyvale 11 (1939) 14 Cal.2d 213, 215 (action for declaratory judgment).) 12 The function of the court is to determine whether there is 13 a reasonable basis in fact for the action of the zoning authority. 14 If the zoning authority's decision bears no reasonable relation 15 to the public welfare, the decision may be set aside. (See, 16 generally, Lockard v. City of Los Angeles, supra, at pp.461-462; 17 Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v City Council (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 18 467, 474.) 19 C. Respondents' Action in Denying Petitioner's Change of Zone 20 Application and its Decision to Amend the Palm Desert General 21 Plan were Arbitrary and Unreasonable 22 In the instant case, petitioner's application for a change 23 of zone was supported unanimously by the Palm Desert Planning 24 Commission and its staff. In recommending approval of the 25 application, and after conducting public hearings, the Commission 26 fo-_:nn. that the change of zone was compatible with adjacent 27 existing and proposed land uses as well as the General Plan. 28 The Commission further found, inter alia, that the change of 9 1 zone would not adversely affect adjoining property as to value 2 or precedent and would not be detrimental to —the area; and 3 that the proposed change of zone would be in the interest.of 4 furthering the public health, safety and general welfare. 5 .The City Council rejected the Planning Commission 6 recommendation, denied the rezoning application and subsequently 7 amended the General Plan based largely on the arbitrary and i 8 unsupported finding that the interests of the City required 9 additional hotel/motel development. During the public hearings 10 conducted by the City Council on the change of zone application 11 and General Plan amendment, no evidence was presented to establish 12 that further hotel and motel development would advance the V W 2 Waste"° 13 public health, safety, or general welfare. Rather, the evidence OW m � n,¢z6 14 clearly established that the proposed rezoning and the existing omZ 3m U; 15 General Plan designation would have no adverse impact on public ajO0M m� ame 16 welfare. Moreover, the City Council certified the Environmental 17 Impact Report relative to the change of zone application which 18 report demonstrated that no significant adverse environmental 19 impact would result from the rezoning. 20 In denying the rezoning application and in amending the 21 General Plan to redesignate petitioner's property Resort 22 Commercial, the Palm Desert City Council acted in an arbitrary 23 manner, which actions were totally unsupported by the evidence 24 of record and which actions bore no reasonable relation to the 25 public welfare. 26 III 27 CONCLUSION 26 For the reasons set forth above, the court should set 10 1 2 3 4 51 6 7 8' 9 10 11 _J 12 O�Z NV waso 13 0 lil w-LLi U. < 14 OmCw Q©oM 15 J ow Oo> w°rc 16 K 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 aside the City Council's decision to amend the General Plan and should compel the City Council to grant petitioner's change of zone application. DATED: August ��J , 1981. REID, BABBAGE & COIL ENOS C. REID, INC. By S I C n-OQ C , �Qtfill Eno C. Rei Attorneys for Petitioner 11 W y `} �y/Lw }y "g` ova -. ...j.M/S�SL+• �wLr-�wN/9nvwla'L��i�JWir....t.. on 9 :✓� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA. 92260 ***CFIANGE OF ZONE*** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION Applicant I aleose w-n,) Mailing, Adcress T Teleobone Alai_ u CA. �T2Z lac? City State Zip- Code REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) e << ��_ z Qc,a.>ti10 G.���}5.�? �t �arl�( PR• 5,�1t�P _ T° PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: _ ,f _ I I 'r I , ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. EXISTING ZONING - aS Property O'XCer AuthorrctiGn THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE O'WNEP�dS) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR— Supporting Data: WD 1. Nave of Applicant e,,�.Gi`ZT i Q. This request is made for property described as: Exact legal description 3. Total area of site: 5 ti Id GC42S �i2r jBQCV 6 G1 if more than 1 zone requested, give sou otal for each) 4. Existing Zoning: G � L,5-. 6f) _� f �iul`( �i�� Ls� �fL�i describe here or attach map) 5. Proposed Zoning: '� .Q. '�G,2 oml,w/65 111!� I7 �; (� 5•? C t`� 2 describe here or attach map 6. Assessor's Parcel No.: GL5'10 fG� � 11 Mgr-elo,1-7,jqIR 7. The property is located at OF RWY ig F p «tkt(pL� - ---- - - street address - between _ .. __....... and -._ .. _ street street 8. The present use of the property is A VATS t' AL,, 9. General ?;an Designation: f� /,j)JI �=i�aa► 11. 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. - _r 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 writing (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 application rt on,M DESERT PLANNING COmMISSIL' _ TUESDAY--JUNE 3, 1980 7.00 r rt --CITY HALL COUNCIL CHANDERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III. ROLL LL Members esent: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner McLachlan Commissioner Richards Chairman Miller Staff Present: '�IP�aul Williams, Director of Environmental Services Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Linda•`Russell, Planning Secretary Others Present: L. Cl., IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ebe, Director of Public Works A. Minutes of regular meeting of May 14, 1980 Mr. Williams noted some corrections' -on page four: Last paragraph, under'Item C of DISCUSSION ITEMS; should read: "After some discussion on that matter, the Commission determined that the proposed program provides for the mitigation measures and conditions as approved by the Commission when the project was reviewed." Paragraph under COMMENTS; second sentence shou d read: "The Hope Lutheran Church parking lot is in sequence with the approval of Planning Commission." Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by lepmmissioner Kryder, to approve the minutes as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams indicated that there were several letters receive\ taining to public hearing cases; they would be discussed at that time. :_-PUBLIC. HEARINGS_^-;----- --- -- A. Case Nos. /Z 01-80, DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 - C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPK iM B--SOLOMON, APPLICANTS, (Representative - BALLEW-MCFARLAND) ' Request for Change of Zone from PC(4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay), and PC(4), S.P., N (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors --Restricted Development Overlay) [Approx. 12 acres]; PR-5, S.P. N (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. per acre, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors --Restricted Development Overlay) and PD-5, N (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. per acre, Natural Factors Overlay) [Approx. 19 acres], TO C-1, N (General Commercial, Scenic Preservation and r,rtn,-r__RPgtricted Development Overlays) fApprox. 12.6 acres]; ' MINUTE-S PALM DESERT PLANNING JUNE 3, 1930 -------------------- COMMISSION Page 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Williams began his presentation with an illustration of the proposed zone changes and development at the corner of Deep Canyon Drive and Highway 111. He described the applicant's proposed size and locations for the market/drugstore, commercial shops, hotel/condominiums. Mr. Williams indicated that there would be a proposed new street running east -west, in the center of the project, from Deep Canyon Drive to Cook Street. Mr. Williams then gave a short description of what had previously been considered by the Planning Commission at this particular location in terms of zoning and land use. He described the issues that staff felt needed to be carefully considered which were: Commercial zoning next to residential zoning; traffic impact at the intersection of the proposed new street and Deep Canyon. He described the concerns expressed by the City of Indian Wells, and read a number of letters received by individuals opposed to this:project, summarizing their reasons•for opposition. The majority of the letters were received from residents at Hidden Palms opposing the proposed change of zone. Mr. Williams stated that the Planning Commission had previously discussed the zoning on this property on three previous occasions but this was the first time that it would be reviewed with a specific project being proposed. He stated that the applicants had made several studies which included a Traffic Study, Economic Feasibility Study, Analysis of Fiscal Impacts and an Evaluation of Natural Factors overlay zone. _. Mr. Williams concluded giving Staff's recommendations as follows: Approval of the change of zone to C-1; approval of the market/drugstore and commercial shops; hotel/condominiums; and, future planned commercial resort development. These recommendations were made subject to the following revisions: Scaling down of the market/drugstore and commercial center and relocating; filing of an amendment for full details of the design of the project; signalization at the intersection of the new proposed street and Deep Canyon; access points off of Hwy 111 to be limited to right turns in and right turns out; extending the new east -west street to Cook; drainage installation conforming with City's Master Drainage Plan; and, Bicycle and pedestrian paths relocated to run on the new public street:on the south side. -Commissioner Kryder asked what study indicated a need for a traffic signal on Deep Canyon. Mr. Williams replied that the applicant -prepared traffic study showed the signalization would be needed during peak hours opf the day. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Williams how the developers felt about the relocation of the commercial area. Mr. Williams stated that the devleopers did not feel it was feasible. __..._...__ _..-__....._.___..._�_._ __...._.�. -Commissioner Kryder asked if the PC(4) zone area would be unavailable for development. Mr. Williams replied that presently that area is proposed by the applicants to be the final phase, therefore, availablefor future development. Chairan Miller reviewed Staff 's suggestions and recommendations and opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. ROBERT HUBBARD, 22 Standford Drive, Rancho Mirage, introduced the following individuals related to the project. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COP_, _SION JUNE 3, 1980 ------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLICS HEARINGS (continued) Page 3 ------------------------------------ MR. CLIFF YOUNGMAN, employee of Albertson's, 250 Park Center Blvd., Boise, Idaho, described what the market would consist of and why they chose this area for the market after a research study by Albertson's, and, Lord and Associates. He also pointed out what improvements would be provided upon completion of the market. Mr. Youngman' indicated that a survey had been done in the area and the result of the survey indicated that 95% of the people sampled were in favor of tiie project. He provided a list of those residents in the area in favor of the proposed development. He then briefly reviewed all -the conditions stating his approval and objections. He concluded his presentation asking for approval of the plans as submitted. MR. BERNIE SOLOMON, developer, 48-842 Cassia Place, Palm Desert, stated that the market study determined chat this type of development was viable. He opposed the suggested relocating of the market and requested approval as presented. MR. STEVE FLESHP'LAN, 74-241 Highway 111, original designer of the plan, addressed the Commission on two items which he felt were not appropriate requirements, the suggested reduced size and relocation of the buildings. He suggested some problems that would occur, if it were developed as suggested by Staff Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There being no one, he asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in OPPOSITION: 3q6 - g91J MR. WAYNE BARLOW, Attorney, 44-685 Monaco Circle, Hidden Palms, stated that his property immediately boarders the proposed development and strongly objected. He pointed out that proper noticing was not received and requested a continuance on this case for an opportunity to research the matter. He also felt that it was not appropriate to approve the project without an Environmental Impact Report; he believed there would be a tremendous impact on the community. Mr. Barlow asked for necessary information and forms to appeal this case. He also gave a number of reasons as to why he and residents of the Hidden Palms area felt the proposed project should not be approved. He concluded stating that residents at Hidden Palms intend to live in that area for a long time and had moved there with the understand- ing that the vacant property next to it would remain as residential. f The following is a list of residents of the Hidden Palms area who voiced their opposition to the change of zone and did not receive legal.notice: TOM SCHULTZ, 44-681 Monaco Circle ELIZABETH BARLOW, 44-685 Monaco Circle BOB MCGUIRE, 44-099 Bygo Court GERRIE SHERMAN, 44-656 Monaco Circle - LOU JOKES, -44-691 Monaco Circle - -- ------ -- ------------ - ROGER BAILEY, 74034 San Marina Circle (Not Hidden Palms resident) CHRISTINE JONES, 44-691 Monaco Circle KATHERINE SMITH, 44-379 Baden Court (purchasing home) NICK BATLEDGE, 44-289 Portofino Court MR. G. BRUTAN, Southwest Engineering, Baden Court, Hidden Palms, believed that some of the problems could be resolved in joint meetings. He requested a continuance for this purpose. MR. GARY GOUDS4IAARD, 44-755 Deep Canyon Rd., also stressed his opposition to the orn.i2ct.nivinn manv of hic viawc nn fho mAffo,- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 41 . PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Hubbard stated that he would agree to a continuance. Page 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER CALLED FOR A SHORT RECESS --THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:30 P.M_ Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to continue this case to July 1, 1980. Carried unanimously (5-0). Case No. DP 06-80, GERALD CHAZAN, APPLICANT. Request for approval of a Development Plan to allow the construction of 71,200 square feet of commercial space on approximately 7.23 dross acres within the PC(3), S.P. (Planned Commercial, Regional Cegter, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of E1 Paseo and Hwy 111. Mr. Williams stated that the applicant had sent a letter requesting for a continuance. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being no one, motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this case to June 18, 1980. Carried unanimously (5-0). C. Case No. CUP 03-80 MARIE ELAINE MALONEY, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a pre-school at an existing church within the R-1 9,000 (Single family residential, minimum 9,000 square foot lot) zone located on the northwest corner of Deep Canyon Road and 44th Avenue. Mr. Crump presented this case stating that the pre-school would accomodate 20 students. He proceeded to review the staff report which indicated that staff felt there would not be a traffic impact, and that the location was acceptable for the intended use. +1r. Crump reviewed the design features and recommended that a 3rd Special Condition be added to read: "That'the total number of pupils shall be limited to 20. An increase in the number of authorized pupils shall require an amendment to be filed for consideration by the Planning Commission". Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant wished to make a presentation. - -- --- MARIE ELAINE MALONEY, 1900 East Ocean Blvd.-; Long -..Beach, -briefly explained when the school would open and that the school hours would, be from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. She added that the children's ages would range up to 5 years of age. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder,- to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 599, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). Y, MINUTES PALM DESERT PLA:IJII:(G CO:":MISSIO, MEET IIIG '" 1p TUESDAY - JULY 1, 1980 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called t order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEG .NCE - Commissioner Richards I11. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissi er Berkey Commission r� Kryder Commissioner-MgLachlan Commissioner Ribhards Chairman Miller Staff Present: Paul Williams, Director f Environmental Services Stan Sawa, Associate Plan r Linda Russell, Planning Sec ary Others Present: Eric Vogt, Fire Marshal IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of June 18, 1980. Mr. Williams noted one correction: Chairman Miller's absence was excused. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the Minutes as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). \ V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE Vi. PUBLIC HEARINGS i A. Continued Case Nos C/Z 01-80 DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 - C.ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. NAPKIN, B. SO r plicants (Rep. by: BALLEW-MCFARLAND) Request for Change of Zone from PC(4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay), and PC(4), S.P., N (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors, --Restricted Development Overlay) _[Approx.-12 acres]; PR-5, S.P: N (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. per acre, _ - --`Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors --Restricted Development Overlay) and PR-5, N (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. per acre, Natural Factors Overlay) [Approx. 19 acres], TO C-1, N (General Commercial, Scenic Preservation and Natural factors --Restricted Development Overlays) [Approx. 12.6 acres] ; PC(4), S.P., N [Approx. 4.4 acres]; and, PR-5, N [Approx. 14 acres] on approximately 31 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. Rea -nest for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development of a proposed Supermarket, on property to be designated as C-1, S.P., N, MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COiMMISSION MEETING JULY 1, 1930 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) 'Page Two * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Williams stated that the City Council requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for this project, therefore, recommended that the Commission leave the Public Hearing open and continue this matter either indefinitely or to November 4, 1980, at which time the EIR should be completed. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Williams if there were any adverse reasons for setting a specific date. Mr. Williams replied that it was more procedurely. Commissioner Berkey asked if Legal Notices would still be sent out. Mr. Williams replied that Notices would be sent out in any case. Chairman Miller stated that the Public Hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. ROBERT HUBBARD, 22 Standford Drive, Rancho Mirage, stated he had no objections to an EIR but would like to complete the project as soon as possible. MARIAN KENNEY, 44-835 Deep Canyon Rd.; felt that more markets and shops were not needed in the City. Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey,'seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this case indefinitely, until completion of an EIR. Carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Williams explained that upon completion of an EIR, Staff would notify Commission and set a date for the hearing. Continued Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, Applicant 1'R1%�ised request of a Development Plan to construct a 390 unit hotel/ co?rdominium complex with a maximum yield of 780 hotel rooms, a 35,7 ,,square foot racquet club/convention facility, two restaurants totaling 13,000 square feet, as.the major site uses, with a Variance to al Gt"� ditional ingress/egress points from an adjacent street; and a 2.54 11cre future phase not being developed at this time, on approximately .29 gross acres within the PC(4), S.P. (Planned Commercial, Reso ,�, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the soutkviest corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams presented thi\case giving the location and reviewing the revisions made by the applicant since he first hearing. He stated that a variance .was required (1) for the number of accce k points to Painter's Path, (2) for setbacks, and (3) for parking spaces for the stadium, which a TUP could be pursued by the applicant for each event. Mr. Williams also stated that the convention facility was integrated in the Racquet Ball facility. Mr. Williams suggested an additional Special`Condition.No. 14, to read: The management contract for the hotel shall be revs wed and approved by the City Attor-ey to verify its compliance to these conditions." He recommended approval subject to those conditions. CF.eirman Miller stated the Public Hearing was open and asked if anyone wished w•v STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Change of Zone, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permits and Environmental Impact Report APPLICANT: C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. P.APKIN, B. SOLOMON 74-133 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA. 52260 Representative: BALLET'!-MCFARLAND 18025-k Skypark Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 CASE NOS: C/Z 0 81 0, DP 07-80, and"CUP 07-80 DATE: December 30, 1980 6.rp I. REQUEST: e Applicants are requesting a zone change, Development Plan approval, arid CUP permits to permit the construction of a hotel/condominium/commercial project on a 30.5t acres, "L" shaped site located at the northeast corner" of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. n LOCATIONAL MAP: �• a r ! P.R.-5,N o I r , Qk OP 07-90 • EI P.R.-5 , r n0�E� C-I: i=evanmo n��• r I"'.�. !ail P. i !41 S.P. RoaA '.......... .... ' -l01 !IS P III !P.C. 1 -' '--4--STATE—NIaN'irar—llF—}-- -- - II. 'BACKGROUND: This matter was before the Plannina Commission for hearing on June 3, 1980. Thre matter was continued because'of the concern voiced over the projecl:'s design, impact and problems of notification of the hearing. .Subsequently, the applicant was informed that an Environmental Impact Report would have to be prepared on the project. The applicant has modified his proposal and an Environmental Impact Report has been nrPnRrPrl by Ai-lantic Crinntifir nnrlor rnn-Frarf +n +t,o (`i Fv n.P Dnlm Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1930 Page Two III. DATA (cont.) Overall Setbacks: 30 ft. front required 35 ft. on street pro, 15 ft. side required 20 ft. side provided A. Residential Site - 13.0 acres in the northeast portion of the site. - Dwelling units/density. 65/5.0 units per acre - Parking 163 required 189 proposed (130 covered; 59 open) - Building coverage 40% permitted 20% proposed - Common open space 50% required 57% (7.37 acres) proposed - Perimeter setbacks 20 ft. required = 20 ft. on ease provided 30 ft. on north provided 50 ft. on west Provided B. Resort Center -Site PC-4 - 4.8 acres on the southeast portion of the site. 1. Hotel - - units/density 144/30 units per acre - Parking 249 required 249 proposed (215 subterranean) - Landscaped open space 40% required _ 48% proposed 2. Restaurant - Size 5000 sq.ft. - Parking 75 required 75 proposed - Landscaped open space 20% required 28% proposed C.'Commercial Site (C-1) - 11.91 acres adjacent to Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111. - Square ft. buildings = 110,000 sq.ft. = 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket 70,000 sq.ft. Ancillary Commerci Uses - Parking 534 required 534 proposed - Open space None required Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Three III. DATA: (cont.) D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses of Entire Site. 1. *North a. Zoned PR-5 N (Planned Residential Development, 5 units per acre, Natural Factors/Restricted Development). b. Land Use - Condominium Residential Development. *also west side of residential portion of project 2. West (across Deep Canyon Road) a. Zoned 1. R-1 13,000 2. R-3 (4) Multifamily residential, 1 unit per 4,000 sq.ft.. (equals 10 units per acre) 3. South of Alessandro, C-1, S.P. (General Commercial) b. Land Use - 1. single family residential 2. south of Alessandro - small corr,lercial complex IV. ANALYSIS: A. Zone Change 1. Residential Site - The residential site does not require a change. The present zoning is Planned Residential Development, 5 units per acre and the proposed use is permitted by zone. 2. Hotel Site - 'Is presently on land zoned partially Planned Residential Development, 5 units (PR-5) per acre, and predominately Resort Commercial. In order to be developed, the 36,000-sg.ft. zoned PR-5 must be rezoned to Resort Commercial. 3. Restaurant Site - Presently zoned Resort Commercial, a change of zone is not required. It is a permitted use in the Resort Commercial zone. 4. Commercial Site - Presently zoned partially Planned Residential, 5 units per acre (4.7 acres ±) and Resort Commercial (7.2 acres t). The entire 11.9 # acres would have to be rezoned to permit constructic of the commercial portion of this project. In addition, a conditional use permit is required to permit the development of the supermarket _facility on the commercial site:- - -- 5. Present General Plan Designation - Core Area Commercial Planned Commercial Resort Medium Density Residential 5-7 dwelling units per acre There are certain specific findings that should be made prior to approval of a change of zone. These are: 1. There are changed conditions since the existing zoning became effective to warrant other or additional zoning: Staff Report C. P,obert Hubbard December 30, 1920 IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) Page Four c. With the corresponding increases within the region, the need and demand for additional commercial services has increased. These services should be kept on major arterials. 2. The proposed change of zone will not adversely affect adjoining property as to value or precedent and will not be detrimental to the area:' a. The change of zone actually involves only 11.91 acres of the 30.5 ± acre site. Of that 11.91 acres, 7.2 acres are already zoned resort commercial. b. The impact on adjacent properties of the change of zone will be mitigated through conditions imposed on the development.- c. Similar zoning along Hwy III has not adversely impacted adjoining properties as to value, or been detrimental to the area when properly planned and developed. 3.. The proposed change of zone will be -in the interest of furthering the public health, safety, and general welfare:' a. It will enable the entire site to be developed in a unified manner, and provide additional commercial services into the area. b. Through added commercial development residents of the community will have greater variety of choice. c. When the development of the entire site, particularly its commercial portions, is completed, more jobs will be created for the region, increasing its economic viabil-ity. d. As stated previously, when the site is developed in.accordance with the appropriate conditions imposed via the City's Planning .process, potential impacts on adjoining properties should be mitigated. .4. The approval of the proposed change of zone is consistent with the City's adopted general plan: a.. The City's adopted Land Use Element of the general plan shows the site designated as general commercial. The issues must then be :"resolved as.to the depth of the commercial area north of HwY Ill. b. The Land Use Element should not be used alone in attempting to determine general plan consistency. In, looking at the City's adopted noise element, further insight is given .as to the site's suitability for residential development. (Let us clarify that .we are just speaking of the area to be rezoned). As stated previously, the noise element of the general plan establishes criteria which should be utilized to determine a site's suit- ability for residential development. r Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Five IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) e. The key question is the depth of the zoning along Deep Canyon Road. The central issue is the method in which the development will occur, and can it be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties. The development plan as proposed through design does mitigate potential impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties. B. Development Plan The development plan itself can be divided into three principal sections: 1. The Commercial facility 2. The Hotel Complex and Restaurant 3. Residential facility 1. Commercial facility As previously stated the commercial facility encompasses 11.91 acres of the site. It is composed of a 40,000 sq.ft. supermarket and 70,000 sq.ft. of various shops, offices and financial institutions. Access to the commercial area shall be from Deep Canyon Road and a future public street from Hwy 111. The access drive from Deep Canyon Road is 520 ft. from the centerline of Highway 111. As previously stated, the proposed development meets or exceeds all Palm Desert requirements for building coverage, parking and lands- caping. 2. Hotel Complex and Restaurant - The hotel and restaurant facility covers approximately 5.8 acres of the site. The hotel will contain 144 units and provide 249 parking spaces, while the restaurant will be approximately 5000 sq.ft. and provide 75 parking spaces. Access to this facility will be from the public street extending north of Highway 111. ; As with the commercial center all City requirements be met or exceeded. .3. Residential Development - The residential portion of the site is 13 acres. .It will contain 65 units at a density of 5 dwelling units per acre. Access will be from the future public street extending from Highway 111. As shown in the data portion of this report all local ordinances have been complied with. Differences between previously submitted Development Plan: Certain concerns raised at the previous public hearing concering this development have brought changes from the originally submitted developmei:i: plan (Alternate I in Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Page V-46). The previously submitted proposal contained a 57,000 sq.ft. supermarket and 53,750 sq.ft. of other commercial offices and shops. The previous Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard - December 30, 1980 Page Six IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) The deletion of the east -west roadway, the reduction and relocation of the supermarket, and expansion of the landscape buffer and movement of the Deep Canyon driveway southerly was done to address the concerns of the residents voiced in the previous hearing.. The hotel complex previously located on the northern portion of the property, abutting the Hidden Palms development to the west, has been relocated southerly to abut Highway 111. In its place a 65 unit condo- minium development is projected; thus, abutting Hidden Palms to the west well be residential units at a density of five units per acre. The size of the hotel complex has been reduced to 144 units from 220. The number of access points to Deep Canyon Road has been reduced from. two (a driveway and public street) to one (a commercial driveway). C. Conditional Use Per -,;,it The present Municipal Code requires that a conditional Use Permit be approved for a supermarket use. The required findings necessary for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the zoning district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the condi- tions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's general plan. Staff believes that all required findings can be met:'.. . .1. As stated previously, under the findings for the change of zone, particularly as it relates to consistency with the adopted general plan. The site is suitable for the development of a commercial center. Commercial centers,' by their nature, usually require - some type of "anchor" or large commercial attraction, (i.e., a -- food market, drug store, home improvement center, etc.). A 40,000 sq.ft. supermarket at this location and developed as part of an overall shopping center, would not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties and thus, meets the intent and purpose of the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance. 2. As part of an overall commercial site plan, with controlled points of ingress and egress, and properly buffered and distant from adjoining residences, a supermarket will not be detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. In this case, while access to the center is across the street from R-1 zoned DroDerty. the Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Seven IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) 4. As stated under the general plan consistency findings of the zone change analysis, the proposed use meets the goals and objectives of the City's general plan. D. Environmental Impact Analysis 1. Drainage - According to the environmental impact report, the drainage plans as prepared ensures "that the proposed development is adequately drained". However, the report continues "the facilities are designed to accomodate the present volume of stormwater entering the site from upslope areas... The drainage facilities plan is not designed to accomodate any significant increases in stormwater floc, onto the site from the upslope areas". Since the City's master drainage plan includes plans for eventual increased storr;,iater drainage to the site, provisions should be made to assure that the site's -drainage facility can accomodate this add2d"drainage. In addition, the City of Indian Wells has expressed concern over the impact of the project at the intersection of 44th Avenue and Cook Street. Conditions of approval - a. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance 218 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director. .b. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; -said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm water flows. _ These conditions should mitigate potential drainage problems. 2. Traffic and Circulation - The majority of the development's traffic is expected to utilize Highway 111. According to the Analysis of the Environmental Impact Report, 65% of the traffic generated by .the site would utilize Highway 111. While, the traffic volume on Highway 111 may exceed the design capacity, the traffic service will still fall within the good and acceptable level at the critical intersection of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon. -- - ._"Potential mitigation measures for any significant adverse impacts on Highway 111 must be imposed by the California Department of Transportation.. The proposed public street which will provide access to the development at Highway 111 must have intersection design approved by Cal Trans. At that time, Cal Trans will impose what they deem appropriate to facilitate traffic flows on Hwy I11. In order to assure smooth transition along Deep Canyon.Road, the following conditions should be imposed: .a. Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep Canyon Road, adjacent to the property, to coincide with the Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Eight IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) The conclusion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report is that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt findings as recommended by Staff; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recomnending to the City Council adoption of Change of Zone 01-80 and certification of the Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. 3. Approving Case Nos. DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , and certifying the Environmental Impact Report as it pertains ti-iereto. N 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA92260 ITELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 _J)ecem'cer^-rZ-Zg13D_ CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF (1) A CHANGE OF ZONE, (2) DEVELOPI'IENT PLAN, AND (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND (4) THE REVIEW OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMM, ERC IAL/ RESORT/ RES I DENT IAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY Ill AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS.'C/Z 10-80, CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 NOTICE IS HERESY GIVE„ that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning C-..= issicn to consider- a request by K0. C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a (1) Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Cormercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Comirercial. S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC(4) N. S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P; (2) Development Plan; (3) Conditional Use Permit; (4) Review of Draft Environ- mental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. coc^ercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway Ill and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: i.'il 525-'..••VC 625-i0-DDu, 625-10-vvu 625-10-004, 625-10-015 thru625-10-022 o { i P.R.-5, N S.P. PP-5, N P.G. (4) f-j, 70) N, S P 1 DPP-5 1 C/Z OI-80 CUP07-e0 ' DP 07-80 b —ft•STATE—HIGH =C C 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-06II December 31, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE . A -REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL I:'IPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FOR -A PORTION OF 30 ACRES' • LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHIWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 and•EIR 80-01 - NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing wi11'•be held before the Palm Desert City Council to cbnsider a request by C;.ROBERT HUBB,ARD et al for a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./, ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres).to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N,.S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P: (Planned Resort Commercial- S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S-P. and from PR-5 N•(1.3 acres).to PC (4) •N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44-acres) to C-1, N, S.P. and*for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact -Report as it pertains thereto for a pbrtion of acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon P,oad_ more particularly described as: _ APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 `625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 C/Z 0' —_— 80 1 �° b .._............... °P 07 80 i P.R: 5, N ... _._.._......_. _ _ r + i Alnzsa�d.o U/ive --S _ P.C.I41, S.P. �;% iG.) I; •� Ij,P,Crf4) N. SP —G••STATE—HIGHWAY—III—c- --— PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 667 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIM OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOi.MEINDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COU-NCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COINMERICAL/ RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80, EIR 01-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 1980, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued r' Public Hearing on the 30th day of December, 1980, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAP'LIN AND B. SOMMON for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P; to allow the construction of a commercial/resort/residential development on 30 acres located at the north- east corner of Highway ill and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-1-00-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been complete in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo;ly and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Corr.issit; did find the following facts'to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Change of Zone: A. The Land Use resulting from the Change of Zone would be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses. B. The Commission has determined that.the proposed Change of Zone would be compatible with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan and General Plan of the City. -:I C. The proposed Change of Zone conforms to the intent and purpose,of the City's Zoning Ordinance. --"- D. Findings as eiscussed in staff report dated 12-30-80. 2. Environmental Impact Report: 'A. The EIR has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. B. Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of . Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City CGuncil approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. to C-1 N, PLANNING CUvVNISSION RESOLUTION NO. 667 Page Two A. Comments received on the draft EIR and related responses by City. B. Public testimony regarding the EIR during the Public Hearings and related responses. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission held on the 30th day of December, 1930, by the following vote, to.wit: AYES: BERKEY, KP,YDER, RICHARDS, MILLER NOES: NONE - ABSENT: MCLACHLAN ABSTAIN: NOTE CHARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr Ui I PL..--..Ii:G COr;61ISSIOr1 RESOLUTI0:1 NO. A RESOLUTIO-N OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COi-li•IERCIAL/P.ESORT/RESIDciITIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGH14AY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. CUP 07-80, DP 07-80, EIR 01-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, _ did hold a duly noticed public hearing on the 3rd day of June, 1980, readvertised and continued the public hearing to the 30th day of December, 1980, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND BERNARD SOLOMON for approval of a Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condoir,inium, a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. Restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. commercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Rd., more particularly described as: APN 625-10-004, 625-10-006, 625-10-008 625-10-009, 625-10-015, thru 625-10-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California EnVironmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been complete: in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimon3 and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commissr did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Environmental Impact Report:. - a) The EIR, has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. b) Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. ! 2. Development Plan: F --.,a) The proposed project conforms with the intent and purpose of the PR and PC-4 Zones. b) The proposed project as conditioned is well suited for the specific site and is compatible with the existing and proposed development in the area. c) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the Health, Safety, and General Welfare of the community. 3. Conditional Use Permit: a) The proposed project as conditioned would be adequately suited for the subject property and would be compatible _ with existing and proposed development in the area. b) The proposed Supermarket as conditioned generally conforms to the intent and purpose of C-1 Zone District, I1nr1ava1nnmanl- Vlnn �nef r;F. I.. r....... l M PLANNING COMaIISSION RFC TION NO. 668 ;:i Page Two ; NO:J, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true, correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby certify the final EIR as complete to include: a) The draft EIR; b) Comments received on the draft EIR and related responses by City; and, e)Public Testimony regarding the EIR during the Public Hearings and related responses. 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan subject to those conditions - labeled Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the :,eating of the Palm Desert Planning Commission on the 30ch day of December, 1920, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, RICHARDS, MILLER NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCLACHLAN ABSTAIN: NONE •- CHARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary PLANNING CO irIISSIOPI RI UTION NO. 663 Page Three EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 STANDAP.D CONDITIONS: 1. Planning Commission approval of Case Nos. CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 is subject to City Council approval of Change of Zone 01-80. 2. The development of the property shall conform substantially with ExhibitsA thru E (Case Nos. DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80) on file with the Department of Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall, first complete all the procedural requirements of the City which include, but are not limited to Design Review, Subdivision process, and building permits procedures. 4. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each phase as a single project, and have specific approval from the Planning Commission. 5. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from % the date of final approval otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 6. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing to these conditions of approval. 7. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all Municipal Ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. ` 8. All existing electrical distribution l�n ees telephone, e ne cable antenna television and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to the_property being developed shall be -installed underground as a part of development from the nearest"existing pole not on the property being developed. 9. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as a part of the development of this project per attached letters dated 5122/80 & 1?V11/80. 10. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until completed. 11. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works. 12. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required by the Director of Public Works. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use "contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance (' from the followinq agencies: Y_ PLANNING CO,"MISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 Page Foi,r SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director. 2. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm dater flows. 3. Applicant shall dedicate and improve that -portion of Deep Canyon Road, adjacent to the property, to coincide with the existing curb, gutter, and paved roadway abutting the subject property to the north. 4. Applicant shall dedicate sufficient parkway to assure that the ultimate improvements of Deep Canyon Road are provided for in manner to coincide and be uniform with existing improvements north of the subject property. 5. There shall be no nigh` deliveries to the supermarket between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 6. All mechanical equipment associated %lith the development shall be equi;.ped with manufacturer -supplied noise control devices and screened to satisfaction of Design Review Board. 7. Street improvements along Highway Ill shall be made as required by the State of California Department of Transportation. 8. Landscape plans submitted for review as a part of the Design Review process shall include special details related to: a. Preservation of Date Palms. b. Treatment along Deap Canyon and Highway Ill relative to mounding and landscape materials. C. Interior perimeter particularly adjacent to the existing condo development in terms of mounding and landscape materials. d. Commercial center parking lot particularly in terms of the relationship of landscape to lighting. e. On -site water retention. 9. The supermarket loading area shall be enclosed by a masonry ball or an equivalent combination of grade differential and masonry wall as approved _... ... _ by Design Review Board. ...... _ 10. Parking lot area next to supermarket shall be modified to delete some of the ingress and egress points to diagonal circulation aisle between Deep Canyon Road and new public street from Highway 111; said modification shall be subject to approval by Design Review Board. 11. Traffic signal at northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Highway ill shall be relocated to satisfaction of Director of Public Works and Environmental Servi=es. 12. Heig' of windows of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be limited PLANNING COMMISSI01 RESOLUTION NO. 668 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE HARDEN May 22, 1980 Paul A. Williams Director of Environxental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Reference: Case No. DP07-80, C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80 Gentlemen: Page Five P.O. BOX 24,3 210 WEST SAN JACINT0 STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE. S774I 657-3183 k CI- f cis , Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions must be. met: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 5000 GPM fire flog for a five (5) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurewent. 3 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 150 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. --- C. Curbs (if installed), shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original will be.returned to the developer. 4. The eater system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that PLANNING C0,1•'MISSI( RESOLUTION tt0. 6-- Page Six- 6. All buildings shall be fully protected with automatic sprinklers. 7. Fire lanes may be required for access to buildings. Very truly yours, David L. Flake Fire Chief eo";' Eric L. Vogt Fire Marshal ELV:dt CC: CM4D; J. Zimmerman f `� -page 2- i • N e 111VERS1 _5 1� = c4 December 11,1980 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN Philip Drell Q%u�� 1980 Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert ENV;Rul"'I`NI"L SERVIC-s 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane clrr OF PA4t DESERT Palr:) Desert, CA 92260 P.O. BOX 248 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 923770 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183 Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Report on "The Fountains." Gentlemen: In viewing this Draft EIR of "The Fountai-ns", fire protection is only slightly mentioned as "adequate and no negative impacts are predicted." I feel very concerned that fire protection and life safety be given a higher priority and be provided for by the developer. In order that the developer adequately contribute towards the City of Palm Desert's responsibility for fire protection, the developer must provide built-in fire protection. This built-in fire protection includes Automatic Fire Sprinkler systems, Automatic Smoke :and Ventilation Control systems and a Fire flow to meet the demand of the development. These fire protection systems must be imposed at the initial development stages if the project is phased' so that the entire project is provided with adequate fire protection. If you have any questions'or need further information, please call me at Rancho Mireage Fire Station. Sincerely yours DAVID L. FLAKE Fire Chief �/ ERIC L. VOIrT Fire Marshal f PLANNING COi'iIISSIOi RESOLUTION J10. 66� Page Six - 6. All buildings shall be fully protected with automatic sprinklers. 7. Fire lanes may be required for access to buildings. Very truly yours, David L. Flake Firs Chief Eric L. Vogt Fire Marshal ELV:dt CC: CVCWD; J. Zimmerman -page 2- MINUTES - PALM DESERT PLANNING uui•s•IISSION MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Page Two ,? VI. •PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) B. Case Nos. DP 07-80, C/Z 01-80, and CUP 07-80 - C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPrIN, B. SOLOMON, (BALLEW41CFARLAND, Rep.), Applicants Request for a Zone Change, Development Plan, and Conditional Use Permits to allow construction of a hotel/condominium/ commercial project on a 30.5+ acres, "L" shaped site, located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Diaz presented this case stating that this project was continued because of concerns expressed from the public and a request to prepare an EIR. Mr. Diaz stated that the EIR was now prepared and needed certification. Mr. Diaz then reviewed the residential, resort center, and commercial sites giving the proposed data and what was required by code, noting that all the sites, as proposed, did meet the City requirements; and that the zone change was consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. e He reviewed the zons changes proposed: A portion of the hotel site was to be rezoned to resort commercial; Connercial site to be rezoned to general commercial, and a CUP was required for development of a supermarket in this area. Mr. Diaz also noted several findings that warranted the proposed project. He described the development pointing out that the market has been reduced to 40,000 sq.ft. (from 57,000 sq.ft.) and relocated further south; the proposed road, running east -west from Deep Canyon to Cook, has been eliminated. Mr. Diaz stated that a 60 ft. wide landscape buffer strip was provided adjacent to Hidden Palms, which addressed one of the concerns expressed at the last hearing. He then described the hotel complex relocation and stated that a condominium complex was being projected to be developed abutting Hidden Palms. Mr. Diaz stated that, in terms of the CUP required for the supermarket, Staff believed that it would not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties, will not be detrimental to surrounding properites, and it would meet the goals and objectives of the City's Genral Plan. �• Mr. Diaz reviewed the Environmental Impact Analysis which included drainage, traffic and circulation, and noise. He concluded by giving Staff's recommendation for approval.. . Mr. Diaz also noted the mitigating measures set forth in the EIR were imposed as conditions of approval as part 'of the Resolution. Commissioner Berkey noted that Standard Condition No. 9'Should also include the Fire Marshal's letter dated December 11, 1980. Mr. Diaz noted a concern was made in regards to privacy; therefore, he recon:mer an additional -condition, which would assure privacy to surrounding residents, to read: "Height of windows of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be limited to 6 fv from grade." Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. BERNARD SOLOMON, 48-842 Cassia Place, stated that the original plans were Vary tan+no- i..v u„ .1..___a �_r ..1_- .• - -- _ _.MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CO"L•IISSION MEETING ' DECE11BER 30, 1980 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) OPPOSITIONS: MR. BARRY WOODS, 44775 Deep Canyon, stated he was told this project was defeated at the previous hearing. He stated that he was not opposed to the developmen but was opposed to the supermarket and cor.-mercial site; he felt that the property value would be affected and he would have a problem selling his home in the future. JAI KOPIC, 44079 Oran Court, stated that she received notice on Christmas Eve and felt that since property owners were gone for the holidays, she requested a continuance. Chairman Miller asked staff when the notices were mailed. Staff replied that they were mailed and published on the 18th of December. ELIZABETH BARLOW, 44685 Monaco Circle, stated that there were many people who did not receive notice and that there was insufficient time given to review the EIR. Site noted that the EIR did not give. any elevations for Hidden Palms on Deep Canyon. GARY GOUDSWAARD, 44-755 Deep Canyon Road, stated that the market would create a traffic problem on Deep Canyon. He felt that there were too many markets, banks, etc already, for this City He further noted that currently the City does not have any fire protection. MARYANNE KENNY, 44835 Deep Canyon Road, felt that the buffer was added for the benefit of the Hidden Palms residents but nothing was done for the residents on Deep Canyon Road. She felt that the market "sticks out" too much. She also felt that the City has sufficient commercial development. Chairman Miller noted that Deep Canyon Road would be widened when the proposed project is developed. MR. DOUGLAS RICHARDSON, 44665 Monaco Circle, asked for clarification on the commercial building locations and the height of the buffer. After some discussion on the height of the buildings Mr.. Diaz stated that a condition could be added to limit the height of the buildings adjacent to the Hidden Palms residential area to 18 feet. GWEN CARTER, 44-379 Cannes Court, also felt that there were traffic problems and this development would add to those problems. N.D. SMITH, 44-379 Baden Court, stated that the lights from the development would have a great impact on the residents. --He questioned the drainage and stated -- he needed more information of the overall development. He objected to the rezoning of the residential zone to commercial. Chairman Miller briefly explained to those concerned that the lighting would be revie:•;ed by the Design Review Board to assure there would not be any problems. Chairman Miller called for Mr. Solomon to give a rebuttal. Mr. Solomon stated that he met with Pat Reed, Rev. Smith, and Mr. Razella, of the Board of Directors for Hidden Palms. He pointed out that the EIR was completed Cnd...- -_- --A -__ �_ 6e_ n_._1 _.. u._ r_i_—__ __JG__1_J iU_i ice_ ___ MINUTES _. PALM DESERT PLANNING CO;•INISSIOiI MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Page Four VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) Mr. Goudswaard again stated that there were several traffic problems and maintenance of vacant lots. He strongly opposed the project. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Richards felt that the public did have valid complaints as to information availability and knowlege of the City's code requirements. He pointed out that some of the problems raised would be taken care of through the Design Revla-t•! Board process. Commissioner Berkey agreed with Commissioner Richards and asked staff if the building locations of the proposed development were definite. Mr. Diaz stated that there were comments regarding the location of the market and other buildings and asked for a continuance in order to give staff the opportunit; to address these concerns. He indicated that EIR copies would be available and in ic;ir Environnental S=rvices Department for re•✓ie-a and requested that torments frog t o public be submitted in writing. Commissioner Richards moved to continue this matter to January 14, 1981. The motion died due to lack of a second. A 10 MINUTE RECESS IJAS CALLED - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:35 P.M. Chairman Miller reopened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wishetl to speak. Mr. Solomon stated that there was a time element involved. He stated that everything had been done that was required by the City code and by law, including the EIR. He felt that the EIR has been available to the public and everyone had been aware of this. He did not feel there was any basis for a continuance and reques'� for a decision tonight. Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Berkey was concerned with the `legal procedures and asked Mr. Ding what could or could not be done tonight. Mr. Diaz stated that the Development -Plan and Conditional Use Permit would only be valid if City Council approved the Change of Zone. He indicated that Staff would respond to the comments on the EIR. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Diaz to explain to the public what the procedures were and then respond to the comments. Mr. Diaz stated that the next Public Hearing would be before the City Council for the approval of the Change of Zone. He explained what would be reviewed at the Design Review Board and asked if anyone who wished to be present for that meeting may request notification. Co7miissioner Berkey noted that there is an appeal period also for any decision reached by the Planning Commission or City Council. - . ,MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNiriu C01.11.1ISSION MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Page Five VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) Commissioner Berkey noted that the question of the economics of another market in the City was raised. Mr. Diaz stated that the EIR showed there is sufficient demand for this additional market. Chairman Miller reviewed the added Special Conditions, which were as follows: "12. Height of windows of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be limited to 6 feet above grade." "13. Height of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be a maximum of 18 feet. The Commission agreed to these additions. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to recommend approval to the City Council of a Change of Zone and certification of the EIR as it relates thereto, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 667; and, approve Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and certification of the EIR as it relates thereto, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 668, subject to conditions as amended. Carried unanimously (4-0). The Commission informed the public that the hearing for the Change of Zone would go before the City Council on the 22nd of January, 1981. C. - 05-80 and ZOA 06-80 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Amendment to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.20; regarding conditionally permitted uses in the R-3 zone (Multifamily Residential District). Amendment to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.18, regarding conditionally permitted uses in the R-2 zone (Single Family Residential District). Council Mr. Di z reviewed the staff report and recommended approval- to the City . - Chairman filler opened the Public Hearing and"asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. Mr. Dean Col 73-144 Catalina, gave the present zones in his area and stated he would eventually 'ke to convert his home into an office. He encouraged approval. There was dicuss'on regional center on Monte e ._.___..:indicated that as long as apply for a conditional us occurred concerning proper from commercially zoned p could also have the right Therefore, the Resolutio ZOA 05-80 - (N) Professional off c across street, or alley, from a P residential development standards ZOA 06-80 - (K) Professional offic across street, or alley, from a P C y, sinc on the matter of the properties abutting the proposed e the properties also abutted R-1. Mr. Diaz a parcel abutted the regional commercial zone it could --- permit for office purposes. Additional discussion t zoned R-3 or R-2 which are across a street or alley. ro erty and the Commission concluded that such parcels to ply for a conditional use permit for office uses. Exhibit "A" , were amended as follows: es, provided property to be developed is abutting, (3) zone or existing professional office use; o be used to insure compatibility. e , provided property to be developed is abutting, ( ) zone or existing professional office use: i MINUTES ,XtGULAR' CITY COUNCI" " • � '.�, z ., it ;': d: � is :: :': •:: -� LNG � y �- .. �; 4c 4; ;•; � ", ,. ", ` VI. NSENT CALENDAR (Continued) F. ETTER FROM RICHARD I. ROEiIER, Attorney, Rela4ve to CUP 07-77 ': Propose Wor�on the Palm Valley Storm DrYin. Rec Receive and refer to the Departmeryt/of Public Works. G. REQUE T FROM POMONA FIRST FEDERAL SAVING /& LOAN ASSOCIATION For e option o business License Tar, d Refund o Pro Rata Share Pa� For 1981. Rec:. pprove the request and au horize the refund of $ 16.79. H. RE LEST FOR A HORIZATION TO CA FOR BIDS For Contract No. 1039 Street Improvement Project on as Palmas Avenue, Las Flores Lane San Gorgonio Way, and Royal P 1m Drives Rec: Approve \the reque and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for Did;. I. RE UEST FOR BOND RE CT ON FOR TRACT NO. 13008, Southwestern Enterprises, Inc., A .icant. Rec: Approve th re uest and authorize the reduction of the Fa' hfulerformance Bond from $1,293,000 to $647,ty 0. J. CLAIM AGAINST T CITY By ids ter Z. Baro, M.D., 5475-B Paseo e Lago East, Laguna Hills, alifornia 92653, In An Unspeci- fied Amount.. Rec: D ny the Claim and aut rize the City Clerk to f 0 advise the Claimant. K. RF.QUEST,,FOR APPROVAL OF REDUCTION BUILDING PERMIT FEES FVY—Mr. Ron Cat cart, -.i buttonwoo Street, Pa m Desert. Rec:/ Approve the request and authorize. a 50% reduction in building permit fees.and w 've fees for plan checking. Councilman Newbrander removed Item "E" for dis XI of the 'genda. ussion under Section approve/tly. hecilman balancecofethenConsentaCalenda unanim usr1lmasapreseatedSnersecMotiontcarried s VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None VIII. PUBLIC BEARINGS A. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-RO C .. .. •. .. .. .. .. .. •. .. ., i� �.♦ .. •. ♦. .. 1. .� W /• . 'VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 (Continued) NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY Ill AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. (Case No. C/Z 01-80 Continued from Meeting of January 22, 1981.) Mayor Wilson reviewed the procedure for the Public Hearing and declared the Hearing open. He called for Staff's report. 1 Mr. Diaz gave an indepth review of the Staff Report (on file J and of record in the City Clerk's Department) which justified Staff's findings and recommendations of approval. Mayor Wilson invited input from the applicant. MR. BERNAP.D SOLOMON addressed Council stating his concurrence with the Staff Report and recommendation. He reviewed the history of the request and stated that changes had been made to their development plan as a result of both public input and findings made in the Environmental Impact Report. He pointed out that the City, through the Redevelop- ment Agency, would receive tax increment monies as a result bf the development, not to mention the sales tax money to the City. Mr. Solomon submitted a petition of individuals in favor of the development (attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A"). Mayor Wilson invited input.in FAVOR of the request, and the following individuals spoke: - MR. ENOS REID, Reid, Babbage & Coil, Attorneys at Law, J addressed Council on behalf of the applicant. He stated he was present merely to answer questions about procedural law involved and that he would be happy to address that if questions arose.. He felt that the Staff Report very ade- quately addressed the issues of the case, and that the changes made by the developer had met the concerns'of the people. MR. RAY NORTON,. Desert Sun Complex. MR. RAY FARRELL, 48-842 Acacia, Palm Desert. MS. SHIRLEY.,CHAPNICK, 189 ChamOnix,.Palm Desert. Mayor Wilson invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and the following people spoke: MR. RAY DIAZ read a letter from Mr. Zachary Sacks, Santa Monica, California .(attached and made.a part hereof as Exhibit "B"). Mom. CHARLES BERWANGER, Attorney for the Appellants, addressed Council and read letters in opposition from the following l individuals (attached and made a part hereof- ; as Exhibit "C"): 1. Mr. Roy Rottner, 922 North Vine Street, Los Aneeles 0 ,._ .>.r Y.': .:N'.. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 (Continued) He stated that this had not been done in that the report did not address mitigation measures, specifically as it related to drainage, and traffic. Mayor Wilson interrupted at this point to advise Mr. Berwanger that the proposed resolution of approval did specifically address mitigation of problems brought out in the EIR in that the resolution provided for specific conditions of approval which set forth when and what had to be done: Mr. Berwanger responded that he had not had a chance to read that material. He continued that another defect of the EIR's cumulative impact was other developments that will come along after to further increase traffic and drainage. He mentioned an inadequate amount of parking for the -project to accom- modate both employees and customers. He concluded by stating that the residents complained about t_hair lack of input on this project; had they had it, they would not be present in opposition. MR. WAYNE BARLOW, 44-685 Monaco Circle, Palm Desert, stated that no one had seen.fit to discuss the project with the residents and that there had been a plan in between the initial one and the one being presented that had been acceptable to them. He opposed the Change of Zone in that the developer knew the zoning when he bought it, and a change would depreciate their property values. He felt a solution was to require the developer to meet with and negotiate with surrounding property owners to come up with mitigation measures. The following individuals also spoke in opposition with regard to traffic, vandalism, noise, drainage, and their lack of input: DR. BARRY WOODS, 44-775 Deep Canyon Road, Palm Desert, read a resolution in opposition signed by himself and Stan Mascher, 44-775 Deep Canyon Road (attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "D). MR. CURT KOPIC, 74-079 Orin Circle, Palm Desert. MR. PETER LEGGETT, 682 Monaco Circle, Palm Desert.. MR. TOM SIiULTIS, 44-681 Monaco Circle, Palm Desert. MR. GARY GOUDSWAARD, 44-755 Deep Canyon, Palm Desert. MS. MARIAN KENNY, 44-835 Deep Canyon, Palm Desert. MS. JAN KOPIC, 74-079 Orin Circle, Palm Desert. MS. JERRI SHERMAN, 44-566 Monaca Circle, Palm Desert.. MS. ELIZABET_i BARLOW,,44-635 Monaco Circle, Palm Desert. MR. JAMES CLARK, Hidden Palms. MS. MARIAN SHULTIS, 44-681 Monaco Circle, Palm Desert. MS. GWEN CARTER, 44-379 Monaco Circle, Palm Desert. Mayor Wilson asked for rebuttal by the applicant. N-:? nrnnl r ,,,. . — ,....... VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 (Continued) Mr. Diaz stated that from the comments made by the appellant's attorney, Staff would recommend a two -week continuance to allow them to respond to the issues raised in writing. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing closed. Dave Erwin, City Attorney, advised that the EIR must be acted on before any of the other issues could be acted on. Councilman Puluqi stated he was ready to make a decision and felt Council should go ahead and act on all requests. Mayor Wilson reopened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant his feeling relative to a continuance. Mr. Solomon responded that although the issues raised had been addressed in the Conditions of approval, he could understand that law required they be addressed and answered. Thus he would go along with the continuance. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing closed and reopened it for the appellant's attorney. MR. BOWANGER stated that these comments relative to the EIR had been made to the Planning Commission by his associate, Mr. Winfield. Mr. Diaz responded that the comments had not been made at the Commission meeting. Mayor Wilson closed the Public Hearing. He stated that he felt legally Council had to continue the matter because of the questions raised on the EIR. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to continue the matter to the Council Meeting of February 26, 1981. Motion carried on a 4-1 vote with Councilman Puluqi voting NO. B. CASE NO. TT 16396, WATT INDUSTRIES/PALM SPRINGS, STAN MORSE, CE TPTL1CANIS: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL- OF A 139 LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 128 SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE DWELLING UNITS AND ASSOCIATED RECREATIONAL AMENI- TIES' ON 18.72 ACRES WITHIN THE R-2 (6), S.P. o7ON ; (SINGLE FAMIIlY RESIDENTIAL, -ONE UNIT PER 6,000 SQ OF LOT AREA, SCENIC' RESERVATION OVERLAY) LOCATED A HE OF INTER- SECTION 44TH AVENUE AND THE PALM LLEY STORPI CHANNEL. (Continued om Meetin<ee 8, 1981.) Mayor Wilson de fared Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz stated that nt had submit a request that that matter be cont' uitely. He pointed out that the applicant hadeenhat there was a one-year time limitation rom tthe Planning Commissionaction. 2:ayor :;ilson inited inputa OPPOSITION to the request, III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80, C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN B. SOLOMON, tTP—I'LI�nPITS.SIUEKA'PION OF A REQUEST 2'OR APPROVAL OF A CHAT E OF ZO-NE FROM PR-5 N, S.P. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, 5 D.U./AC., MAXI- MUM DENSITY NATURAL FACTORS/RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT AND SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) (4.6 ACRES) TO C-1 N, S.P. (GENERAL COM- MERCIAL) AND FROM PC (4), S.P. (PLANNED RESORT COMMERCIAL SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) (7.3 ACRES) TO C-1 N, S.P. AND FROM PR-5 N (1.3 ACRES) TO PC (4) N, S.P. AND FROM PR-5, N (.44 ACRES) TO C-1 N, S.P. MID CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO AND CON- SIDEP.ATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL EIR AS IT PERTAINS THERETO, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 144 UNIT HOTEL, 65 UNIT CONDOMINIUM, A 40,000 SQ. FT. SUPERMARKET, 5,000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT, AND 70,000 SQ. FT. COkQ4ERCIAL/FINANCIAL COMPLEX ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE r+ NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGH14AY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. (Continued from the Meeting of February 12, 1981. Note: The Public Hearing was closed on February 12,'1981, and no-= further public testimony can be received at this time. r. Mayor Wilson called on Staff for their report.?t} Mr. Diaz reviewed in detail the response prepared to the issues raised at the February 12th Council meeting by Mr. Charles V. Berwanger, Attorney tfor Appellants, which dealt with the draft EIR 80-1. He referred also to a letter from Mr. Berwanger dated February 23, 1981, (attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A") which stated the appellants' feeling that the draft EIR had not met the spirit of the law of CEQA. Mr. Diaz stated that the concerns raised by Mr. Berwanger had been mitigated as part of the proposed resolution of approval in that specific conditions had been imposed to provide for specific solutions to these concerns. In addition, Staff had been presented with A letter during Study Session, said letter dated February 26, 1981, from Mr. Thomas F. Winfield III which called out specific addi- tions to the conditions, which, if added, would eliminate - the concerns of the appellant (letter attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B"). Mr. Diaz reviewed the proposed additions to the conditions and recommended their inclusion in the proposed resolution of approval. Councilman Snyder stated that with these additions as suggested y the appellant, it would appear that both sides would be satisfied. :e moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-10,- :ertifying the EIR. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried manimously. Mayor Wilson asked for Council's comments relative to the request" for Change of Zone. Councilman McPherson stated that it was brought out at the last meeting regarding zone changes that if a city is going to remain vibrant and 'healthy and full of life, zone changes are a neces- sary process. He said that cnmennP hnrl ennlxnn �i f-1,o 1 RFGbLAR CITY COUNCIL( STING VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. (Continued) Councilman Snyder stated that he agreed with the purpose of the General Plan, that it is to create zoning and to determine what the City is goic�, to build towards and what the ground use will be. The problem we have in this particular area, in his opinion, was the fact that when our first General Plan was created, that area was listed as "Open Space" because at that time, the city couldn't determine exactly what was wanted there. It was subsequent_y put into Planned Resort/Commercial. He felt that it was obvious that there would be changes as we went along. He pointed out that the new General Plan amendments that have been put to the public for consideration are to literally change all of the land.on Ill to commercial. It will be commercial seemingly from Palm Springs to Indio. Therefore, he said that we must take into consideration as our City grows, whether we want it to grow or not, it will grow. Then it's to all of our interests to see to it that it grows prooerly. In other words that.where commercial must go in, that's where commercial should be. If we can force that commercial to go in properly and to properly protect those who live around it ar, it seems that that's what we are attempting to do. If, indeed, we are serving both people, both sides of this program to the best of our ability, we must then look at: Do we stop things merely for the purpose of stopping them which would wind us all up in court? or, Do we look at how we do it best and attempt to adjudicate that matter and that philosophy.. With these thoughts in mind, he felt that the zone change was the right way to go. Councilman Puluqi stated that he had nothing to add. Mayor Wilson stated that the Council had had an extra two weeks to think about this. We have had almost a year to think about this zone change request. He felt that in all the years he had been associated with the City -- the Council and prior to that.the Planning Commission -- this was probably the toughest decision he had had to wrestle with. It was one Where there was no right or wrong answer. There are good points and bad points on both sides of the artrument. He stated that the aplicant, Pir. Solomon, had pointed out at the last meeting that if the project were approved, the City would stand to gain over a half million dollars of annual revenue which it badly needs for police protection, flood protection, and those kinds of things. It also has something that this property has envisioned for a long time -- a nice hotel development. Mayor Wilson stated that his concern with the request to change the zone was that the land had been zoned for Resort Commercial for a very specific reason. That reason was that we admitted that the highway frontage could not be residential, it had to be coir_-ie_cial, But, it was adjacent to residential property, and there *.;are several reasons whythe P at. it wac a o, A C-4 designation caac ;., a VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) A. (Continued) -=r people had told him that that much motel/hotel development wasn't feasible at this time, that the package before the Council was the one that would sell. He felt that a decision to approve it would '• be in the best short-range interest of our City, but he honestly 1 felt that the decision to approve it would be the wrong decision °'' in the long-range interests of the City. He stated he would like to see the project come back with hotel/motel development all the way to Deep Canyon. Councilman Puluqi moved to deny the request for a change of zone and Councilman Newbrander seconded the motion. Motion carried on a 3-2 vote with Councilmen McPherson and Snyder voting NO. Mayor Wilson asked the City Attorney if there was any need to take action on the development plan and Mr. Erwin responded that it would have no bearing with the zone change denied. B. REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF PER PARCEL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE . Ur r D5 Fu+D OTIiE !3U'�,.7CAS. (Mayor Wilson excused himself from the meeting immediately after action under Item A of the Public Hearings and Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson now chaired the meeting.) Mayor.Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Bouman stated that these assessments were against property o�mers who had failed to clean up their property after notice by the City and the City had then had the work done. The cost for such abatement will then, upon approval by Council, be filed as a lien on the property. He noted the following parcels had paid since the original preparation of the resolution and should thus be deleted: 627-071-024-3 627-081-010-1 627-102-018-3 627-111-012-5 627-141-003-0 - 627-041-004-6 627-053-002-1 Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in FAVOR of the request, and none was offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Pulugi seconded to iaive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-30. Motion carrie4 inanimously with the members present. C. CASE NO. C/Z 03-80 AND CUP 17- APPLI --�---- - �-• - .. .... v<>u vi p t 1\l:-[i1V lViaL'S11VLV CEr GE OF ZONE FROM R-1, 12,000 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESID=':TIAL 12,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ZONE TO.R.M. (UA) (1403I _HOME SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AND PC-2 (UA) (DTST?,7= CONLIIERCIAL CENTER) OR OTIIER ZONE AS DEEME-D APPROPRIATE - Aa rnr.-\r mr mow. ♦. ...... __ .__ __ _r RESOLUTION NO. 81-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN SECTION 25.92 ET SEQ., BY CHANGING THE ZONE DESIGNATIONS FP,OM PR-5 N, S.P. TO C-1 N, S.P. (4.6 ACRES): FROM PC (4), S.P. TO C-1 N, S.P. (7.3 ACRES) AND FROM PR-5 N TO C-1 N, S.P. (.44 ACRES) GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY Ill AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NO. C/Z 01-80 WHEREAS, the. City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day of January, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consid:-r a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. R.4PKIN AND BERNARD SOLOMON for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P; to allow the construction of a commercial/resort/residential development on 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, said Public Hearing was continued to February 12, 1981; and, WHEREAS, as a result of comments raised pertaining to Environmental Impact Report 80-1, the public hearing was continued to February 26, 1981, with the public testimony portion of the said hearing closed on February 12, 1981; and, WHEREAS,. at said Public Hearing upon considering all testimony 'of all inter- ested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council did find the..following facts to justify theyr actions: I. A residential type of commercial activity would be a better transitional use on this site adjacent to existing residential development than general commercial uses; 2. There already exists a great deal of general commercially zoned property in the vicinity; and, 3. The long range interests of the City calls for the maintenance of hotel/motel developments and limiting areas to zoning that generally limits land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm ' Desert, California, pursuant to the provisions of the City Municipal Code, does hereby deny requested zone change C/Z 01-80. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council on this 26th day of February, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: PULUQI, NEWBRANDER, WILSON ; e. NOES: SNYDER, MCPHERSON ASSENT: NOIJE 1 ABSTAIN: NONE 1 ! Z t MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1981 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS J_ .. �': .. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilson called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 12, 1981, in City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Walter H. Snyder. III. INVOCATION - Mayor S. Roy Wilson IV. ROLL CALL Members Prese.,- Councilman Alexis D. Newbrander Councilman Romeo S. Pulugi Councilman Walter H. Snyder Mayor S. Roy Wilson Also Present: Excused Absence: Mayor Pro-Tem James E. MCPher: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services Barry McClellan, Director of Public Works Paul Byers, Director of Finance V., AWARDS, PRESE14TATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS ;. A. PROCLAMATION DECLA?.ING THE WEEK OF MARCH 15TH - 21ST, 1981, AS -VOLUNTEER IRE FIGHTER WEEK". Mayor Wilson read the proclamation and extended the Council's sincere thanks to the volunteers working in the Fire Department Mr. Phil Altpeter accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Volunteer Fire Department and announced their fund-raising drive. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert of February 26, 1981. Rec: Approve as presented. B_ CLAIMS AND DEI-LANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand No. f 1-083. c 0 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) D. RESOLUTION NO. 81-37 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH-F C_TY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE RIVP•,RSIDE COUNTY ARTS PLAN AS PREPARED BY THE GREATER RIVERSIDE L.itTS FOUNDATION. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. E. LETTEP. OF P.ESIGNATION FRC.'L? ER'IC A.= JOHNSON FROM THE DESIGN c c V, Rec: Accept with regrets. F. PETITION FROM SHADOW MOUNTAIN ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS Requesting the City s Arrangement or an Assessment District to Finance Curbs and Gutters in that Area. Rec: Refer to Staff for processing of the formation of an Assessment District. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MR. FREDERICK THON, 45-390 Garden Square, Palm Desert addressed the Council and gave an update on the Palm Desert. Seniors Associa- tion. He detailed their goals and objectives and announced that the following had been named to the Board of Directors: Mr. Hank Clark, Ms. Jean Jollenbeck, Ms. Jean Anne Hirschi, Mr. Duke Baker, Mr. Joe Benes, and Mr. George Sweet. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS ; A. CASE NO. TT 14997, T & D INVESTMENTS/PRO-CON DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: CONSIDF,RATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN I8-M N T{—TIME EXTENSION FOR A 24-LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 20 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, RECREATIONAL AREA AND COMMON OPEN SPACE ON APPROXIMATELY 4.5 ACRES WITHIN THE PR-5 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, 5 D.U./AC.) ZONE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF HOVLEY LANE, 2,500 FEET EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz reviewed the report stating that the request was in conformance with both City and State requirements. Staff recommended approval of the request. Mayer Wilson invited input from the applicant. MR. ED YEAGER, Wagner Stanford & Associates, addressed Council on behalf of the applicant and stated their concurrence with the Staff Report. MINUTES , REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEr-iiNG VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) B. CASE NO. GPA 01-80, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT: CONSIDERA- rMON QF CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRON.IE@ITr1L IPII'r1CT REPORTS AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's Report. Mr. Diaz reviewed the report in detail, outlining all of the proposed changes and Staff's justification for recommending them. He noted a letter from Desert Peoples United wherein they indicated a concern for a shortage of water becoming a problem in the Coachella Valley as development continued. Mayor Wilson asked for an explanation on why the zoning on Deep Canyon had been revised to straight commercial from Deep Canyon east to the City limits, why there had been a reduction in size and designation o= the sand dung park, and why Cook Street north of Country Club Drive had been changed to reflect a higher density. Mr. Diaz gave Staff's justification for such changes. Mayor Wilson invited input from the public relative to the pro- posed changes. MR. BERNARD SOLOMON, 73-185 Irontree Drive, Palm Desert, addressed the Council in support of rezoning the property at Deep Canyon and Highway 111 to straight commercial. MR. JEFF GARY, 74-880 San Simeon, addressed the Council relative to property at Painters Path and requesting that it be rezoned straight commercial. MR. JOSEPH E. RAMKIN, 73-700 Duvall Road, Rancho Mirage, addressed the Council as one of the property.owners of the acreage located at Deep Canyon and Highway 111. He requested a zone change to commercial for.that property. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing closed. Council discussed the changes. At the request of Mr. Solomon, Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open again. Mr. Solomon outlined the improvements of major cost that .the developers would be required to make if the Deep Canyon and Highway Ill property were developed.. Councilman Puluqi stated that he desired more time to. review the proposed amendments. Council agreed that the document was lengthy. Councilman Puluqi moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to continue t o Public Hearing to the meeting of Mnrnh 9A ioo, .T_-._ IX. RESOLUTIONS (Continued) A. RESOLUTION NO. 81-41 (Continued) of March 26, 1981. Councilman Puluqi moved and Mayor Wilson seconded to continue the item until the meeting of March 26, 1981. Motion carried on a 3-1-1 vote with Councilman Newbrander voting NO and Councilman McPherson ABSENT. B. RESOLUTION NO. 81-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE 1980-81 BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE INTERSECTION OF COOK STREET AND 44TH AVENUE. Mr. Bouman reported that in cooperation with the City of Indian Wells, street improvements were being made at Cook Street and 44th Avenue. The City's share would be approxi- mately *600.00, and the proposed resolution.would authorize and appropriate such expenditure. Councilman Snyder moved and Councilman Puluai seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-42.. Motion carried unani- mously with the members present. X. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE N0. 249 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R1, 12,000 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY ZONE) TO R.M. (UA) (MOBILE HOME PARK AND MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, UPON ANNEXATION) AND PC (2) (UA) (DISTRICT COMMERCIAL CENTER, UPON ANNEXATION) AND APPROVING A.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 646 UNIT MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT THE SOUTH- EAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE (EXTENDED) AND FRANK SINATRA DRIVE (EXTENDED) (NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, T014NSHIP 5, RANGE 6, EAST SAN BERNARDINO BASE). 'CASE NOS. C/Z 03-80 AND CUP 17-80. B. ORDINANCE NO. 250 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107 fE;' , TPALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-1, 12,000 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY ZONE) TO R.M. (UA) (MOBILE HOME PARK AX,D MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, UPON ANNEXA- TION), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE (EXTENDED) AND FRANK SINATRA DRIVE (EXTENDED). CASE NOS. C/Z 04-80 AND CUP 18-80. Mr. Bouman reported that these were both planning matters and that no further input had been received since their f;'r¢t voanA;T,., LI y LIU A."J F , R.`:CULAR CITY COUNCIL 2°.L.dTING � � .�. :�: :: :� � .: .• n i�: i• .. a ): is .• S4. .. ii •• ): is .. n .• .• T: :: ii •• .• :�: .0 X. ORDINANCES (Continued) C. ORDINANCE NO. 251 (Continued) Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 251. Motion carried on a 3-0-1-1 vote with Mayor Wilson ABSTAINING and Councilman McPherson ABSENT. XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MASTER STATE AGREENENTfor Federal Aid Projects and Supplement No. 1, for Emergency Relief. Mr. Bouman reported that this was a bookkeeping matter in connection with federal assistance. In this case, it will enable us to be reimbursed $9,400 in federal aid from flooding almost a year ago. Councilman Puluqi moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-43. Motion carried unani- mously with the members present.. B. REQUEST FOP. AWARD.OF CONTRACT for the Abatement of Public .I Nuisances. ,IA � "�� t ; ..- }• its �• 7 Mr. Bouman reported that this contract would allow the'.City.:��;:' to have lots cleaned that have been declared a public nuisance,',:. or hazard. Bids were received and Wm. A. Huxley, Jr. was the low bidder. c Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to award the contract to William A. Huxley, Jr., low bidder. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. . XIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS - None XIV. OLD BUSINESS - None XV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION NO. 81-44 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR 1980 STATE GRANT MONEYS FOR THE PALM DESERT SPORTS COXPLEX. Yr. Bouman reported that this resolution authorized staff to submit an application for park bond funds from the 1980 x o: v: x s s a .. :. .c :: .a z: :: .. .. W .. .. .. .. 1. :c .. X 7a .. 1, .. .. ;. * .. .,: "ic XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS (Continued C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Councilman Puluqi asked about the acquisition of the gas station at the corner of Portola. Staff advised that it was being worked on. Mayor Wilson noted that there would be a Study Session of - the City Council at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 19th, in the Administrative Offices. He asked that everyone note the other Future Meetings listed on the Agenda. XVII. ADJOUPUNMENT Councilman Pulugi moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITx CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CRIFORNIA r. r ?"TNUTES ` t RE,-ITLAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING %�: �C .. 'iC n n' ii n '`.: :C :C .. .. ., n .. .. .. '.P .. .. �. :: .. .. .. �: .. .( :: .. •. •. is :�: VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) F. RESOLUTION NO. 81-45 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PiZ DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF FILES FROM THE DEPART`NIENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY THAT HAVE BEEN MICROFILMED. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. G. RESOLUTION NO. 81-46 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 591 AS INTRODUCED BY ASSEMBLYMAN COSTA. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. H. PETITION FROM PALM DESERT PROPERTY O'vNERS ASSOCIATION Requesting the City's Formation of an Assessment District to Finance Curb and Gutters on Pitahaya Street - Unit 9. Rec: Refer to Staff for Processing of the Formation of an Assessment District. ----------------.- I. - REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF BONDS FOR TRACT NO. 11791 McBAIL CO.------ Rec: Accept the Work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to xelease the bonds and accept a Maintenance Bond. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MR. WILLIAM SHIELDS, 3715 Ocatillo Court, Palm Desert, addressed the Council, stating that he is in disagreement with staff on City -imposed requirements for off -site improvements to his propert: on Sun Corral and Sun Lane. After much discussion, staff was di- rected to prepare a report for presentation to Council at the meeting of April 9, 1981. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE NO. GPA 01-80, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF PAL14 DESERT. (Continued from meeting of March 12, 1981.) Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff': report. Mr. Diaz reviewed the Staff Report (on file and of record in the City Clerk's Department), noting that additional cor- respondence had been received in favor of General Commercial zoning, in particular, a telegram from a property owner of 17.5 acres at southwestcornerof Highway 111 and Avenue 44, P?IaUTES - REGULAR CITY COUN- MEETING n i�: •C n iL'''. X •�Y is S: ): .. is $: �: �. ,. o; VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) MR. JOSEPH E. RAPKIN, 37-700 Duval Road, Rancho Mirage, .:)ted uses permitted in Resort Commercial Zoning include retail type development. He urged the Council to consider the possibility of a supermarket as a lead store. MR. JIM WOODS, 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 215, Long Beach, addressed the Resort Commercial Zoning, re- questing a roll back of zoning on the 17z acre parcel at the intersection of Highway 111 and Avenue 44 to Core Commercial as before the General Plan Amendment of 1975, or to rezone to District or Regional Commercial to at least have the property taken out of the approval process and re- ferred back to staff for re-evaluation. JERRY HENDRICKS, Ron Martin Associates, 74-335 Candlewood, Palm Desert, addressed Council to make them aware of Mr. Charles Gibbs' desire to have the area around the Industrial Park and Sand Dune Park made available -for affordable or subsidized housing. 14R= AL GRAZIOLI;- Coldwell Banker, 533 Fremont, L.A. 90071, representing owners of the property at the intersection of Highway 111 and Avenue 44, stated their desire to have the property rolled back to more core commercial zoning which would be more flexible for development that would enhance tax revenues for the City. There being no further input, Mayor Wilson invited comments from the Council. Councilman Newbrander stated she was in favor of retaining Resort Commercial zoning for the present and that a super- market was her main point of objection. She favored the Sand Dune Park being designated as Open Space to preserve the land there is left. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson stated he had no disagreement with staff's recommendation. He favored General Commercial De- signation, noting that a PC-4 Designation would be restrictive. Councilman Snyder reviewed the General Plan process, noting that all changes have been made in conformance with the desires of the people - restrictions to protect the property and the viability to become what the people want the City to be. He stated he was in agreement with staff's recommendation. Councilman Puluqi stated he favored the PC-4 Designation and Open Space or Park Designation.. Noting that 85% of the land along Highway 111 is commercial, he stated he is not willing to sacrifice more open land to commercial. Mayor Wilson supported most of the staff's recommendations, but stated he had a philosophical difference with PC-4 De- signation which would be more restrictive. He concurred with staff and Councilmembers that he favored Open Space Designa- "ion for Sand Dune Park anti Daf'e Palm Procnrvc hilt- 44,n- hn ' .. •ii3!'�C`7.•%`wtrl yi"i !. } r§'��q �5-ii:, .���i,".i�` i'+..5 .Y�..�R;4s'+<tin:4431*ia+sy.:iNas�i�id.`2N�+ ` I-jINUTEs RIEr;ULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ., n >;' .. i': :: x .. .. k :�:'. ir: .. .. .. .. :�: :: .. .. :': :: :�: n n is k •;: ., n :: .. .. .. 1 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Dave Erwin explained the process required if any changes were to be made would be to submit back to the Planning Commission for further comment. Mr. Diaz requested a consensus of opinion as to what matters should be referred back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Puluqi moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to retain the entire site as PC-4, with clarification of the corner lot at Highca y Ill and Deep Canyon. Motion carried on a 3-2 vote, with Council- men McPherson and Snyder voting NO. Councilman McPherson moved to refer back to the Planning Commission the issues of Dual Designation for Date Palm Preserve and Sand Dune Park, and to re-examine the issue of the Resort Commercial Land Use Designation, to be continued for decision at the meeting of April 9, 1981. Councilman Pulugi seconded. Motion carried unanimously. B. CASE NO. TT 13881, DAME' CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPLICANT: Consideration of a Request for Approval of a Tentative Sub- - - -- -=— division Map (Phases III and IV of an expired Tentative ----_.-- - Tract Piap) to allow 294 dwelling units on approximately Ill acres within the PR-5 (Planned Residential, maximum 5 d.u./ac.) zone located on the west side of Portola Avenue and north of the Whitewater Storm Channel. Mayor Wilson declared the Public Bearing Open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz stated the applicant had requested continuance of this item to the meeting of April 9, 1981. MR. IRVING LUBE, Dame' Construction, stated they had asked for a continuance to resolve some differences regarding Phases 3 and 4. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved to continue Case No. TT 13881 to the meeting of April 9. 1981_ Councilman Ne_whrander seconded_ Motion enrried -:+.i. to �. '. f.. •v?ci`swP � ':'�' Y'�':"��s+t'+'['-k�AIAN,.�i - ti,:: �3."6!C.�.Sz'< - "4�.`5.-:MX�?.S,i��i3r.4: VIII. PUBLIC }IEARIN(:S A. CASE, NO-+',2A 01-80, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT: CON- SIDEP.W-TION OF APPk6-7AL •OF GENEE_,1- PLAN UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. (Continued from meeting of March 26, 1981 Mayor Wilson noted that the Public Hearing had been closed at the meeting of March 26th. Mr. Diaz reviewed the Staff Report in detail, indicating that on referral from City Council, the Planning Commission had reviewed the dual designation of public parks and the resort commercial designation at their meeting of March 21, 1981. The Commission unanimously supported staff's original recommendation for dual designation of public parks and residential. The Commission felt that due to the limited number of times the City can amend the General Plan per year, the dual designation is important. Because of interest in long-tcrm impacts of the resort coi-iunercial designation, the Commission wished to have additional time to study the entire resort commercial issue. According to City Attorney Dave Erwin, the Council can adopt the General Plan indicating that the resort com- mercial site as depicted in the amended 1975 General Plan is still under study. Therefore, Staff's recommendation was to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 81-40, approving the General Plan Update with the exception of the resort commercial. designation.... Mr. Diaz -pointed out- that ------------- consideration of the resort commercial would be held at the Council Meeting of May 14th at which time the Planning Commission recommendation will be made.' Considerable Council discussion followed relative to approval of the dual designation. Councilman McPherson stated his preference for concurring with Staff's recommendation in that it would allow a more comprehensive review of the resort com- mercial designation at.the meeting of May 14th. Councilman Puluqi stated that it was his preference to delete the dual designation from the General Plan completely. . Upon question by Mayor Wilson, Mr. Diaz responded that three General Plan Amendments were allowed in a one-year time period. However, the likelihood of three amendment requests was minimal. CITY OF'PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: General Plan - Resort Commercial Land Use Designation DATE: May 5, 1981 At the last regular meeting of the Planning Commission, staff was instructed to prepare a written report to examine the entire issue of the Resort Commercial designation. HISTORY: The Planning Commission in reviewing the General Plan, recommended to the Council a land use plan changing the Resort Commercial designation in the easterly boundary of the City on both sides of Highway 111, to General Commercial. During the hearings before the City Council, property owners on the west end of the City requested re - designation of their properties. Basically, the testimony on this issue centers on the viability of Resort Commercial as a designation. Staff subsequently amended its recommendation to delete the Resort Commercial designation and informed the Commission. An addendum to the original staff report was submitted to the Council outlining the reasons for the modified recommendation. (Addendum is attached as Exhibit 1) ANALYSIS: In analyzing the issue of whether or not to delete the Resort Commercial designation, some questions which should be examined are: 1. Are the sites presently designated Resort Commercial appropriate for hotel development? 2. Is there a market demand for additional hotels in the area? 3. 'Is financing available for hotel development? There appears to be a demand for "destination" type hotels, that is, resort oriented complexes which are an end or "destination" point. The other type of facility could be termed "transient" or "traveler" oriented which is a facility generally directed at the overnight traveler. The additional need for destination hotels in the area is predicated on build -out occurring in Palm Springs and the increasing cost of land in that area. This coupled with the success of the Marriott in Rancho Mirage Would. appear to make it inevitable the decentralization of hotels from Palm Springs to Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and Indian Wells. In the case of "destination" hotel locations on major highways is not a critical factor as long as easy access to these highways is available, along with easy access to shopping, restaurants, and recreational amenities.( The Palm Desert area would appear to fulfill these requirements. The attached map (Exhibit II) identifies those sites that are presently designated and zoned Resort Commercial. The sites in question are appropriate for resort tl-+-1, 41 ___ L_ _____u_A _._I ', - I . RESORT COMMERCIAL L...._ USE DESGINATION MAY 5, 1981 Page T:ro CONCLUSION AND RECOiMENDATION: Staff would continue to recommend that the "Resort Commercial" designation be deleted as a designation land use within the City's General Plan. The reasons for this recommendation are: 1. The sites zoned and designated Resort Commercial by the 1975 General Plan Amendment, with the exception of Las Sombras Village Restaurant Complex, remain vacant after six years. 2. It is an unfair burden to continue to ask the owners of these properties to hold their land by essentially limiting development to uneconomically unfeasible commercial activities. 3. The viability of the Redevelopment Project Area and Program depends on the increment which can be generated within this project. Most of the large tracts of vacant acreage which can generate this increment are designated and zoned Resort Commercial. 4. If financing is available for hotels the General Commercial zoning would not preclude their development. 5. Based on testimony received at Commission and Council hearings, it would appear that general Commercial Centers or uses allowed in the General Commercial zones can assist in hotel development. This is due to the ability of those uses (i.e., Markets, Financial Institutions, Home Improvement Centers, etc.) to offset high land acquisition and public improvement costs. 6. Along with the General Commercial zone, hotels are permitted within the City's Planned Residential and Multiple Residential zones. Allowing uses other than hotels along Highway Ill would not, therefore, preclude their development. However, the options are to either eliminate the Resort Commercial designation entirely, partially, or leave it. Staff would recommend that in the event the designation cannot be eliminated totally, as much as possible should be eliminated. Beginning with those sites that do not presently have an approved Development Plan for Resort Commercial development. (see map Exhibit II) While, as indicated by some Commissioners previously, it would not be desirable to pick and choose; if this is the only course available, then it must be taken. By deleting those sites which do not have an approved development plan, this would: 1. Facilitate development of those sites for which a plan presently does not exist. 2. Would not penalize those owners whose sites have approved develop- ment plans. 3. By facilitating development, this action should generate increment. TRANSMITTAL LETTER CASE NO: GPA 01-60 ` March 26, 1931 PAGE TWO B. Use of landscaping with drought tolerant vegetation and preservation of native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Examine and encourage the use of reclaimed water. 3. Cooperate with Coachella Valley Water District and other agencies in establishing water conservation information for local homeowners. Traffic is discussed in the Transportation/Circulation Element. The Elenent recognizes the need to develop alternate east/west routes, such as Country Club Drive, 44th Avenue (Fred glaring Drive), Frank Sinatra Drive and 36th Avenue to serve as Highway Ill bypass routes. Sand Dune Park: The dual designation of "open space" and "low density residential (3-5 du/ac)", for the proposed Sand Dune Park, does not preclude the City from developing the park. Rather, it allows the City the option to acquire the property at the time the property owner wishes to develop the land. Futhermore, the dual designation determines the density and intensity of land use compatible with the surrounding area, should the City be unable to purchase the park land. Finally, it saves the City time and money since a General Plan amendment and subsequent Environmental Impact Report would not have to be completed if there is a single designation and a later desire to change that designation. Resort ComiTiercial Designation: A. Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road Intersection: Council also discussed the redesignation from existing resort to core area commercial for the property located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. This redesignation to core area commercial would not prohibit the development of hotel and related uses along Highway 111. Hotel facilities are currently permitted in the C-1 ZGeneral Commercial), R-3 (Multi - Family Residential) and PR (Planned Residential) zones at various densities. Also, approximately 700 condominium units available for short-term rental purposes, have been constructed since 1975, based on an informal telephone survey conducted by Staff. B. Western End of High:•iay 111: The Council also heard testimony from a representative of a property owner regarding the Resort Commercial designation at the western end of Highway 111. He stated that "The parcel is not large enough to profitably develop the site as Resort Commercial". The representative in- dicated that the property owner would like to develop a com- mercial center with a supermarket as the primary tenant on the site. He requested redesignation to a more appropriate com- mercial designation. C. Tax Increments: A final consideration is the property tax increments the Redevelopment Agency receives when development occurs in the redevelopment project area. Tax increments are the major source of revenue for financing the redevelopment program. The Resort Commercial designation restricts other commercial uses from being developed that enables the City to Pr T T CITY OF INUIA.� WELLS C.., P.R. 51 . N. (D.P. 091- 7) Cot., EGC OF THC r7 'R-1 LLZ OF HE DESERT P 13iD'-' PR.-5,N is th-AVEN S. P. 31 (777: G H WAY 111 STATE H I Glh AY rip I 7�t C-I. 1,S!Jj S; 3 (4 j\ MRI P.R.- MP 11-77) C, R. R-1 I! Jiro lco �TCA� R'oer PR.-4 (CUP-01-74 P +1 STATE 0 1 Cb 144 RT, R -FIVR7 QJI-i W009 11 ZUTLO 5'jC' IR E=Ul WELLS CITY LIMIT. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 5, 1981 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Cpmmission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Kryder III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner McLachlan Commissioner Richards Chairman Miller Staff Present: Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services .Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Steve Smith, Associate Planner Linda Russell, Planning Secretary Others Present: Barry McClellan, Director of Public Works Bob Hardy, Associate Civil Engineer IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the meeting of April 15, 1981. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve the minutes as written. Carried unanimously (5-0). V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 03-81 - JACK WISE and WALLING AND MCCALLUM ASSOCIATES, Applicants Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 14,844 sq.ft. private racquetball and health club on approximately 1.1 acres in the R-3 (4) (Multifamily Residential) zone, located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and San Carlos Avenue. Mr. Sawa presented this case reviewing the staff report and referring to the Exhibit. He stated that because the project abuts -residential uses a buffering wall would have to be provided. He showed the proposed accesses and indicated staff's concerns of the vacant portion of the project. Mr. Sawa also pointed out that since the City would not need a portion of the excess right-of-way, corner of San Carlos and De A.nza Way, it could be vacated and used for parking lot improvements. Staff reco;-randed approval. Commissioner Kryder asked what kind of landscaping would be provided around the vj;?11 n^-xt to the residential area,. Mr_ Sawa rpnlied that there would he a r 1-11NUTES +- PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1981 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) MR. JOHN WALLING, of palling -McCallum, stated there would be cherry tree shrubs along the wall as a screen and explained the changes of the design concept. Chairman Miller asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 705, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (5-0). B. Case No. DP 04-81 and TT 15634 - SAN CLEMENTE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION, Applicants Request for approval of a Residential Development Plan and 9 lot Tentative Tract Map (original approvals expired), to allow .construction of 51 condominium units on approximately 10.5 acres within the PR-7 S.P. (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre, Scenic Preservation) zone, generally located on the south side of Parkview Drive, west of Fairhaven Drive. Mr. Sawa presented this case reviewing the staff report and described the project location and design. He indicated one of the features of the project was water throughout. tie stated staff's requirement that Fairhaven Drive continue to Parkview Drive. He indicated that the findings and justifications can be met and therefore recommended approval. He noted that this plan would have to go to Design Review Board prior to building permits being taken out. Commmissioner McLachlan asked if the secondary access had been satisfied for the Fire Marshal. Mr. Sawa replied that it had. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. BOB KRAUSE, Representative, San Clemente,.stated he would answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Krause if there would be any problems with staff's recommendation of Fairhaven Drive continuing to Parkview Drive. Mr. Krause stated that there would not be. Chairman Miller asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to recommend approval to the City Council of Case No. TT 15634 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 706; and, approve DP 04-81 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 707, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (5-0). C. Case No. TT 17725 - JANICE SCHOEN and ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Applicants. Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create a 11INUTES .�. aPALM DESERT PLANNING COIIP•IISSION May 5, 1981 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont;) 1.1S. PAT BAKER, Representative of ASL Consulting Engineers, stated she would answer any questions the Commission might have. Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public 'Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to recommend approval to the City Council by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 708, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (5-0). D. Case Nos. DP 05-80 and 207 MF - LEWIS HOb1ES OF CALIFORNIA, Applicant Request for approval of a 12 month time extension of 'an approved Development Plan and related Design Review case, to allow construction of 282 single family and duplex units and associated recreational facilities and a public park dedication, on approx- imately 70.3 acres, in the PR-4, S.P. (Planned Residential, 4 d.u./acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, located at the northwest corner of 44th Avenue and San Pascual Avenue. Mr. Diaz presented this case stating that the applicant's reason for the delay in initiating the project is th,� depressed condition of the local housing market. Staff recommended approval subject to the original conditions. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. STAR MORSE, 73-255 E1 Paseo, Consultant Engineer, stated he would answer any questions the Commission might have. Chairman Miller asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to approve the extension by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 709, subject to original conditions. Carried unanimously (5-0). E. Case No. DP 02-80 - DAVID MOSS, T&D INVESTMENTS and WAGNER-STANFORD CONSULTANTS, Applicants Request for a 12 month time extension of an approved Residential Development Plan to allow the construction of 24 condominium units on 5 acres within the PR-5 (Planned Residential, maximum density•5 d:u./acre) zone, located on the south side of Hovley Lane approximately 1,700 feet east of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz presented this case stating that the original considerations remained valid and, therefore, recommended approval. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. I •MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMIMISSION May 5, 1981 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) Page Four ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * F. Case No. PM 17452 - ARLE CORPORATION (Charles Gibbs) and RON MARTIN AND ASSOCIATES, Applicants Request fo approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the creation of industrial lots within the S.I., S.P. (Service Industrial, Scenic Preservation*Overlay) and O.S. (Open Space) zone, located at the southwest corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street. Mr Diaz presented this case stating that due to the revised mpas not being submitted, staff recommended continuance to May 20, 1981. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to continue the case to May 20, 1981. Carried unanimously (8-0). G. Case Nos. DP 15-79 and 200 OF - MAYER GROUP, INC., Applicant A request for a 12 month time extension for an approved residential Development Plan and related Design Review case, to allow construction of 264 condominium units and a 9 acre public park on 39.1 acres within the PR-7, S.P. (Planned Residential, maximum density 7 d.u./acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz stated that a "letter was received from Dan Salceda, Mayer Group, requesting a continuance to June 30, 1981. Staff concurred with the continuance. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR, or OPPOSITION to this case. There was none. Ilotion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to continue this case to June 30, 1981. Carried unanimously (5-0). H. Case No. ZOA 04-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of change in City parking requirements. Mr. Diaz requested a continuance to May 20, 1981, for further study. Chairman Miller opened the hearing and motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this matter to May 20, 1981. Carried unanimously (5-0). VII. OLD BUSINESS A. GENERAL PLAN - Resort Commercial Land Use Designation, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Mr. Diaz stated that this matter was referred back to Planning Commission to •, ItlUTES ALtl DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION tday 5, 1981 Page Five VII. OLD BUSINESS (cont.) Commissioner Kryder asked host it would affect those who have submitted plans. Mr. Diaz stated that if the plans have been approved, it would not affect them. He added that all uses in the Resort Com,aercial zone are permitted within the General Commercial zone. Commissioner Richards felt that the sites mentioned that would be affected would be suitable and asked about the Deep Canyon site. Mr. Diaz explained that the City Council policy on that site had been determined by the denial of the proposed zone change. Commissioner Berkey agreed with staff's recommendation, therefore, made a minute motion to delete all Resort Commercial uses. Mr. Diaz noted an additional justification should be added to the staff report: That the future market might limit development to hotel and motel uses anyway and that discrimination of these parcels was unnecessary. The Coii-.mission also wished it made clear that their recommendation included the Deep Canyon and Highway 111 site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kryder and carried unanimously, (5-0). VIII. NEW BUSINESS - NONE IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Preliminary plan approvals by the Design Review Board at their meeting of April 28, 1981, requiring Planning Commission confirmation. A. Case tlo. 146 C - A-1 SURVEYING B. Case No. 120 C - MAY COMPANY C. Case No. 224 14F - TED PEARSON Mr. Smith reviewed the Design and elevations of these cases. He stated that Design Review Board reviewed and approved. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Berkey asked for the square footage of the May Company. Mr. Sawa answered 124,000 sq.ft. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to approve the Design Review Board actions by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 711. Carried unanimously (5-0). X. DISCUSSION ITEMS - NONE XI. OPAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE X11. COMMENTS Mr. Diaz introduced Steve Smith, Associate Planner, and Bob Hardy, Associate ('i vil Cnn?n-cn �n'�{,.� Dl�nninn rnmmiccinn .. n }�• :: .. ,. .. }: }! .. i. �: � }•C is is BUSINESS UEST FOR CREDIT ON RE( AINAGE FEES, CHAPARRAL C.C. / Upon mction by McPherson and second by Puluqi, a $3,700 per acre drainage fee was imposed on 80 acres of the proposed development and a credit in the amount of $36,620.66 for storm damage reconstruction plus $3,693.97 for construction of storm drains, totaling $40,314.63, was ,ranted. The motion carried on a 4-1 vote with Councilman Newbrander Ivotinc, 1\70. 1 B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PERMIT EXTENSIONS FOR TRACT NO. 13�VISTA DEL MONTANAS. Mr. Hill indicated that the developer had made .payment to the City Clerk that afternoon of one-half of the fees as required per ordinance. Therefore, the request was auto- matically extended for a four -month period. The applicant, however, requested that the extension be granted through October 17, 1981, which Staff recommended approval of. Upon motion by McPherson and second by Puluqi, the request for extension for building permits for. Tract No..13407-1.through October 17,- - 1981, was unanimously granted. XIV. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR AWARD OF BID FOR SAN PABLO DRAINAGE SYSTEM NORTH OF HIGHWAY CONTRACT N0. 040 . Mr. McClellan reported that five bids had been received for Contract No. 1040 and that A. J. Construction Company had submitted the low bid in the amount of $21,946.00. Upon motion by McPherson and second by Snyder, Contract No. 1040 Jvas awarded to A. J. Construction Company, and the Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to sign said contract. Motion carried unanimously. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN RESORT COMMERCIAL Mr. Diaz reviewed the Staff Report. He indicated that the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of May 5, 1981, unanimously passed a Minute Action recommending that the Resort Commercial Land Use designation be deleted totally. The Commission based their recommendation on the six points raised by Staff. In further support of this recommendation, the Commission cited the fact that the market in the future may limit the uses on existing vacant sites to hotels and motels and that unduly restricting these -sites with the Resort -Commercial Designation was unnecessarily discrimi- nating. - Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to retain the Resort Co=ercial Land Use Designation. Councilman Snyder stated that the Dui-nosp of rho ,,��, REGUi_,':R CITY COUNCIL 'AZ- ETLNG n :: .: :C n X X .. .: n ,: SC ): :: �C $: '•.0 :C 'f: S: :C .. . :: .. i I: �: n .. . '. C iC XVI. OLD BUSINESS (Continued) B. GENERAL PLAN RESORT CO`,24ERCIAL LAND USE DESIC'•.�7AT70N (ronti:nued) Councilman McPherson pointed out that there were several letters included in the Staff Report which indicated that no developer was going to build a hotel on Highway 111 and Deep Canyon. He felt Council had sent this back to the Planning Co,m:ission for their recommendation, and they had come back with a strong reco.m. endation (a 5-0 vote) to delete this specific land use designation.. He stated he felt that the motion on the floor was both emotional and political. Councilman Newbrander.said her motion was neither emotional nor political.. The letters pointed out in the Staff Report could have been solicited from anyone supporting the deletion. Mayor Wilson reiterated his points about long-range planning. He reminded everyone that at one time a regional shopping -center designation on the General Plan had been said to be not eco-om_caiLy feasibla. The land was ^._ald in t[.s` zona --- and today the Mahn Center is scheduled tobe built on it — - He also pointed out that a 454 unit hotel complex was being built on Highway Ill in Indian Wells; thus Highway 111 is not a deterent for hotel development. He agreed with the routine review and update of the General Plan, but felt that changes were not required but made only if needed.. MR. BERNARD SOLOMON, 73-185 Irontree Drive, Palm Desert, addressed Council in support of the deletion of the Resort Commercial Land.Use designation. He stated that financing for such hotel complexes was almost impossible. At this point, Mr. Diaz asked for clarification of the motion, asking'if it included the expansion of the Resort Co*-!mercial l designation to the corner of Deep Canyon and Highway 111. Mayor Wilson responded that all areas presently zoned PC-4 should be designated Resort Commercial. Mayor Wilson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried on a 3-2 vote as follows: AYES: Newbrander, NOES: McPherson & ABSENT: Prone ABSTAIN: None XV. ORAL CO:, UOICATIONS - B None XVI. RZPORTS AND REMARKS Puluqi & Wilson Snyder A. CITY T',ANTAGER 1. P.ESOLUTION NO. 80-76 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HE GIlY OF PALM DFSFRT r.AT.TvnRNTA C_RA1JTTTTC A vAT?TArarr. • Pil_i�; D'--SGRT PLA-NR1ING C ISSION MC1� 5, 1961 Page 7�•ro k ak * * * * * * * * '* * !: * *• * * * *r. * * * •F. * * * F' * * * *3' * err. * * * 'k VI. PUBLIC IiEP,P,INC,S (cont.) i•iR. JOHN I;ALLING, of Mailing -McCallum, stated there would he cherry tree shrubs along the gall as a screen and explained the changes of the design concept. Chairf:,an Hiller asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. i•1ot:on was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 705, subject to conditicns. Carried unanimously (5-0). B. Case No. DP 04-81 and TT 15634 - SAN CLEMEiITE DEVELOPi1ENT CORPORATION1 and ENG111EERING SERVICE CORPORATION, Applicants Request for approval of a Residential Development Plan and 9 lot Tentative Tract Map (original approvals expired), to allow construction of 51 condominium units on approximately 10.5 acres within th- PO-7 S.P. !'l a rai! It3sldential, r2aX t?'!•il 7 d.u./acre Scenic Preservation) Zone,g i,erdlly 1JCd"bed Qn ti: Soli to Si'u'. of Parkview Drive, west of Fairhaven Drive. Mir. Sawa presented this case reviewing the staff report and described the project location and design. Fie indicated one of the features of the project was water throughout. He stated staff's requirement that Fairhaven Drive continue to Parkview Drive. He indicated that the findings and justifications can be met and therefore recommended approval. He noted that this plan would have to go to Design P.ev"iew Board prior to building permits being taken out. Commissioner McLachlan asked if the secondary access had been satisfied for the Fire Marshal. Mr. Sabra replied that it had. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant dished to make a presentation. MR. BOB KRAUSE, Representative, San Clemente, stated he would answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Krause if there would be any problems with staffs recor-mandation of Fairhaven Drive continuing to Parkview Drive. Mir. Krause stated that there would not be. Chairman Miiller asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. i4otion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to reco:^mend approval to the City Council of Case No. TT 15634 by adoption of Planning Coir:missicn Resolutio:: No. 706; and, approve DP 04-81 by adoption of Planning Commissio Resolutio,i No. 707, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (5-0). C. Case No. TT 17725 - JANICE SCHOEN and ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, APpliCants. - T_-...,_. r,,,,. -�.... �,,...�1 .. f' n 7....+�F {.. �. T.-�..+ lA �.. +.. .•v.c,�ta, n PII,.UTES P'! " D'-SERT PI ANNI'G CwwiISSION •N�y 5, 1981 Page Three VI. PUBLIC FEARINGS (cont.) i•iS. PAT BAKER, Representative of ASL Consulting Engineers, stated she would answer any questions the Commission might have. Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed - Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to recc^.,end approval to the City Council by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 708, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (5-0). D. Case Nos. D? 05-80 and 207. HF - LEWIS HOPIES OF CALIFORNIA, Applicant Request for approval of a 12 month time extension of 7an approved Development Plan and related Design Review case, to allow construction of 282 single family and duplex units and associated recreational facilities and a public .park dedication, on approx- imately 70.3 acres, *in t}; PR-`E, S.P. (pi nn& Residential, 4 d.u./acre, Scenic Preservatian Overlay) zuna, located at the northwest corner of 44th Avenue and San Pascual Avenue. Mr. Diaz presented this case stating that the applicant's reason for the delay in initiating the project is the depressed condition of the local housing. market. Staff recommended approval subject to the original conditions. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. STAN MORSE, 73-255 E1 Paseo, Consultant Engineer, stated he would answer any questions the Commission might have. Chairman Miller asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to approve the extension by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 709, subject to original conditions. Carried unanimously (5-0). E. Case No. DP 02-80 - DAVID MOSS, T&D INVESTMENTS and WAGNER-STAHFORD CONSULTANTS, Applicants Request for a 12 month time extension of an approved Residential Development Plan to allow the construction of 24 condominium units on 5 acres within the PR-5 (Planned Residential, maximum density 5 d:u./acre) zone, located on the south side of Hovley Lane approximately 1,700 feet east of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz presented this case stating that the original considerations remained valit aad, therefore, recommended approval. Ch.a rman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. •,.�. 'filrauTEs ,PALi-1 DESERT PLANNING C�.,.IISSION i•lay 5, 1981 Page Four -k k k -k k PUBLIC HEARINGS (cunt.) F. Case No. PP1 17452 - ARLE CORPORATION (Charles Gibbs) and RON HARTtri AND ASSOCIXI-ES, Applicants Request fo approval of a Tentative Parcel hiap to allow the creation of industrial lots within the S.I., S.P. (Service Industrial, Scenic Preservation' Overlay) and O.S. (Open Space) zone, located at the southwest corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street. tir Diaz presented this case stating that due to the revised mpas not being submitted, staff recommended continuance to May 20, 1981. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to continue the case to May 20, 1981. Carried unanimously (5-0). G(as" 105.n.lJ,_79 c...r 200 Y,P_P, GDO) D. , Tin., Applicant A request for a 12 month time extension for an approved residential Development Plan and related Design Review case, to allow construction of 264 condominium units and a 9 acre public park on 39.1 acres within the PR-7, S.P. (Planned Residential, maximum density 7 d.u./acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz stated that a "letter was received from Dan Salceda, i•fayer Group, requesting a continuance to June 30, 1981. Staff concurred with the continuance. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There was none. notion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to continue this case to June 30, 1981. Carried unanimously (5-0). H. Case No. ZOA 04-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of change in City parking requirements. Mr. Diaz requested a continuance to May 20, 1981, for further study Chairman Miller opened the hearing and motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this matter to May 20, 1981. Carried unanimously (5-0). VII. OLD BUSINESS A. GENERAL PLAN - Resort Commercial Land Use Designation, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant t1h:U FES „ APAU-1 DESERT PLANNING CV:u•IISSION I -lay 5, 1951 Page Five VI I. O!-D BUSINESS (cunt.) Commissioner Kryder asked how it twotrld affect those :who have submitted plans. Mr. Diaz stated that if the plans h: - been approved, it would not affect them. Ue added that all uses in the Resort Co;;:!;�ercial zone are permitted within the Gen>ral Commercial zone. Co=issioner Richards felt that the sites mentioned that would be affected 1,ould be suitable and asked about the Deep Canyon site. Mr. Diaz explained that the City Council policy on that site had been determined by the denial of the propos-c zone change. Co-missione'r Berkey agreed with staff's recommendation, therefore, made a minute notion to delete all Resort Commercial uses. F:r. Diaz noted an additional justification should be added to the staff report: That the future market might limit development to hotel and motel uses anyway and that discrimination of these parcels was unnecessary. ..... t•J�: Cl: ,il.`�r sl so ':rl C,", IL I:'.... .. .l ��.•. t, i•^:_� f�. ..1 '.. On lil... tha L'_ep Canyon and Highwdy III site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kryder and carried unanimously, (5-0). VIII. NEW BUSINESS - NONE IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Preliminary plan approvals by the Design Review Board at their meeting of April 26, 1961, requiring Planning Commission confirmation. A. Case Ito. 146 C - A-1 SURVEYING B. Case Ito. 120 C - MAY COMPANY C. Case No. 224 HIF - TED PEARSON Mr. Smith reviewed the Design and elevations of these cases. He stated that Design Review Board reviewed and approved. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Berkey asked for the square footage of the May Company. Mr. Sawa answered 124,000 sq.ft. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan., to approve the Design Review Board actions by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 711. Carried unanimously (5-0). X. DISC SSION ITEMS - NONE COMMUNICATIONS - NONE Y.I I . C': . ,_ S i". tiaz introduced Steve Smith, Associate Planner, and Bob Hardy, Associate f 1USINESS J-'FE0UP.ST FOR CREDIT ON REQUIRED mAINAGF. FEES, CHAPARI:AL C.C. / Upon motion by McPherson and second by Pulugi, a $3,700 per acre clraina,�e fee was imposed on E0 acres of the proposed developent and a credit in the amount of $36,620.66 for storm damage reconstruction plus $3,'093.97 for construction of storm drains, totaling $40,314.63, was — ,ranted. The r_.otion carried on a.4-1 vote with Councilman Newbrandcr 1votir_ ; FO. B. REQUEST FOR ^APPROVAL OF PERcIIT EKTENSTONS FOR TRACT NO. Mr. Hill indicated that the developer had made _payment to the City Clerk that afternoon of one-half of the fees as required per ordinance. Therefore, the request was auto- matically extended for a four -month period. The applicant, however, requested that the extension be granted through October 17, 1981, which Staff recommended approval of. a �Phrson asecond by Pulg, Lheq�siiip_zo.r ex=eraion for building permits for. Tract No... 13407-1- through October. 17, - - 1981, was unanimously granted. XIV. OLD BUSINESS A.• REQUEST FOR AIJARD OF BID FOR SAN PABLO DRAINAGE SYSTEM NOPTH n'W LiTC:+i1— V I I I—T!'!l`T-q- \'!`T rTn n 1.n Mr. McClellan reported that five bids had been received for Contract No..1040 and,that A. J. Construction Company had submitted the low bid in the amount of $21,946.00. Upon motion by McPherson and second by Snyder, Contract No. 1040 �aas awarded to A. J. Construction Company, and the Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to sign said contract. Motion carried unanimously. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN RESORT COMT RCIAL A'D USE DESIGNATION. Mr. Diaz Diaz reviewed the Staff Report. He indicated that the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of May 5, 1981, unanimously passed a Minute Action recommending that the Resort Con—mercial Land Use designation be deleted totally. The Commission based their recommendation on the six points raised by Staff. In further support of this recommnendation, the Commission cited the fact that the market in the future may limit the uses on existing vacant sites to hotels and motels and that unduly restricting these. sites with the Resort Commercial Designation was unnecessarily discrimi- nat_c o. - Counci'-- n Newbrander moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to retain the Resort C•___:_rcial Land Use Designation. - Snyder stated that tha illlYiln CP of rf,� f W.::..::_ :x::.::::.W:.:.: 7;;tl. OLD BUSINESS (Continued) + )3, IZAL PLAN RESORT MvDTERCIAT. LAIID USE DES f.c%i TTON Co.al:c11aian McPherson pointed out tI!at the re w: ,rc s^ "eral letr-_ i:s included in the Staff Report which indicated that no d€.veloper was going to build a hotel on Highway III and Deep Canyon. II•t felt Council had sent this back. to the Planning C0:i=.;1ssion for tl.eir r.ecoiratendat'ion, and they had come back: with a strong reco-_cendation (a 5-0 vote) to delete this specific lard use designatio:. He. stated he felt that the motion on the floor v-as both e.-.otional and political. Councilman Ne:abrander.said her notion was neither emotional nor political. The letters pointed out in the Staff Report could have been solicited from anyone supporting the deletion. 1,ayor Wilson reiterated his points about long-range planning_ He reminded everyone that at one time a regional shoppinU center designation on the General Plan had been said to be n0.. e.:0:`GiE?:r_a L.�y .T.'ea'_i ib12. is?e laa'd' S:a3 hz!ld in thz_ zon? ..- .. anc i:o^ay th�:! [!"an Ceater is scha&,I.2d to be built- on if_- He also k ozn_ed out that a 454 unit hotel CO-1 is woes being built on Highway Ill in Indian Wells; thus Highway 111 is not a deterent for hotel development. He agreed with the routine review and update of the General Plan, but felt that changes were not required but made only if needed.: tIR. BERNARD SOLOMON, 73-185 Irontree Drive, Palm Desert, addressed Council in support of the deletion of the Resort Commercial Land -Use designation. He stated that financing for such hotel complexes was almost impossible. At this point, Mr. Diaz asked for clarification of the motion, asking it included the expansion of the Resort Commercial designation to the corner -of Deep Canyon and Highway 111. I✓ayor Wilson responded that all areas presently zoned PC-4 should be designated Resort Coamercial. 1:ayor t'?ilson called for the vote on the motion. notion carried on a 3-2 vote as follows: AYES: Newbrander, NOES: McPherson & ABSENT: gone ABSTAIN: Done XV. ORAL CX1-.N"LF:ICATIONS - B Nnn•e XVI. P ?G._ S AND REMARKS A. CITY t2%NAGER Puluqi & Wilson Snyder RESOLUTION NO. 80-76 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 11t GITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A VARIANCE. .-.n .r-.ro no /nnnverev...+ �... nn�� ... ...........-..-... .�......_ �._..._..-._ CITY OF PAI_11 DESERT STAFF REPORT 10: nN: SUBJECT DATE: Planning Commission Director of Environmental Services General Plan - Resort Co!ranercial Land Use Designation M.ay 5, 11,161 At the last regular meeting of the Planning Commission, staff was instructed to prepare a written report to examine the entire issue of the Resort Commercial designation. HISTORY: The Planning Commission in reviewing the General Plan, recommended to the Council a land use plan changing the Resort Commercial designation in the easterly boundary of the City on both sides of Highway 111, to General Commercial. During the hearings b=fore the City Council, property own-rs on the west end of the City requested re- :_'•sic':Iatlon of their proprr`ies. Basically, the testimony on this issue cent-'rs of) t1:8 vlai)lllty of Resort Comin-rclal as a dasigna-tlon. Sta'i"r SUbSegUantly aM".f'"1-d its recommendation to delete the Resort Commercial designation and informed the Commission. An addendum to the original staff report was submitted to the Council outlining the reasons for the modified recommendation. (Addendum is attached as Exhibit I) ANALYSIS: In analyzing the issue of whether or not to delete the Resort Commercial designation, some questions which should be examined are: I. Are the sites presently designated Resort Commercial appropriate for hotel development? 2. Is there a market demand for additional hotels in the area? 3. Is financing available for hotel development? There appears to be a demand for "destination" type hotels, that is, resort oriented complexes which are an end or "destination" point. The other type of facility could be termad "transient" or "traveler" oriented which is a facility generally directed at the overnight traveler. The additional need for destination hotels in the area is predicated on build -out occurring in Palm Springs and the increasing cost of land in that area. This coupled with the success of the Marriott in Rancho Mirage would appear to make it inevitable the decentralization of hotels from Palm Springs to Ranch Mlirage, Palm Desert and Indian Wells. In the :act of "destination" hotel locations on major highways is not a critical factor es long as easy access to these highways is available, along with easy access to sc^ ping, restaurants, and recreational amenities.i The Palm Desert area would appear to fulfill these requirements. The map (Exhibit II) identifies those sites that are presently designated and 2�?sort CoT-ercial. The sites in question are appropriate for resort RESORT C0:" 1EP.CIAL LAND USE DESGIi1ATION 0AY 5, 1981 Page Two CO„CLL'SION AND RECOialENDATION: Staff would continue to recommend that the "Resort Co;nrercial" designation be deleted as a designation land use within the City's General Plan. The reasons for this recosrendation are: 1. The sites zoned and designated Resort Commercial by the 1975 General Plan Amendment, with the exception of Las Sombras Village Restaurant Complex,.remain vacant after six years. 2. It is an unfair burden to continue to ask the owners of these properties to hold their land by essentially limiting development to uneconomically unfeasible commercial activities. 3. The viability of the Redevelopment Project Area and Program depends on the increment Which can be generated within this project. Most of the large tracts of vacant acreage Which can generate this increment are designated and zoned Resort Commercial. 4. If financing is available for hotels the General Co.:e,,ercial zoning would not preclude their development. 5. Based on testimony received at Commission and Council hearings, it Would appear that General Commercial Centers or uses allowed in the General Commercial zones can assist in hotel development. This is due to the ability of those uses (i.e:, Markets, Financial Institutions, Home Improvement Centers, etc.) to offset high land acquisition and public improvement costs. 6. Along with the General Commercial zone, hotels are permitted within the City's Planned Residential. and Multiple Residential zones. Allowing uses other than hotels along Highway Ill would not, therefore, preclude their development. However, the options are to either eliminate the Resort Commercial designation entirely, partially, or leave it. Staff would recommend that in the event the designation cannot be eliminated totally, as much as possible should be eliminated. Beginning with those sites that do not presently have an approved Development Plan for Resort Commercial development. (see map Exhibit II) While, as indicated by some Commissioners previously, it would not be desirable to pick and choose; if this is the only course available, then it must be taken. By deleting those sites which do not have an approved development plan, this would: 1. Facilitate development of those sites for Which a plan presently does not exist. 2. Would not penalize those owners whose sites have approved develop- ment plans. 3. By facilitating development, this action should generate increment a TWUNSMITTAL LETTER CASE NO: CPA Ol-SO March 26, 1931 PAGE T,10 B. Use of landscaping with drought tolerant vegetation and preservation of native vegetation to the maxi:aum extent feasible. C. Examine and encourage the use of reclaimed water. 3. Cooperate with Coachella Valley plater District and other agencies in establishing water conservation information for local homeowners. Traffic is discussed.in the Transportation/Circulation Element. The Element recognizes the need to develop alternate east/west routes, such as Country Club Drive, 44th Avenue (Fred Haring Drive), Frank Sinatra Drive and 3Gth Avenue to serve as High -way III bypass routes. Sand Dun* Par;: The dual designation of "open space" and "lovi density residential (3-5.du/ac)", for the proposed Sand Dune Park, does not preclude the City from developing the park. Rather, it allows the City the option to acquire the property at the time the property owner wishes to develop the land. Futhernore, the dual designation determines the density and intensity of land use compatible with th. st:rrounding ar^a, should the City be unahie to pure:. e the parr: land. Finally, i t S11 L. - l.� Ly L': - alp.. ;ley is a General Plan amendment and subsequent Environmental Impact Report .•could not have to be completed if there is a single designation and a later desire to change that designation. Resort Commercial Designation: A. Highway lll'and Deep Canyon Road Intersection: Council also discussed the redesignation freo existing resort to core area commercial for the property located at the northeast corner of Highway III and Deep Canyon Road. This redesignation to core area commercial would not prohibit the development of hotel and related uses along Highway 111. Hotel facilities are currently permitted in the C-1 (General Commercial), R-3 (tlulti- Family Residential) and PR (Planned Residential) zones at various densities. Also, approximately 700 condominium units available for short-term rental purposes, have been constructed since 1975, based on an informal telephone survey conducted by Staff. B. Western End of High;•ray 111: The Council also heard testimony from a representative of a property owner regarding the Resort Commercial designation at the western end of Highway 111. Fie stated that "The parcel is not large enough to profitably develop the site as Resort Commercial". The representative in- dicated that the property owner would like to develop a com- mercial center with a supermarket as the primary tenant on the site. tie requested redesignation to a more appropriate com- mercial designation. _ C. Tax Increments: A final consideration is the property tax increments the Redevelopment Agency receives when development occurs in the redevelopment project area. Tax increments are the major source of revenue for financing the redevelopment program. The Resort Commercial designation restricts other rnx:norrial ucac frnin hn"inn flnvPlnnP!r that nn;vhlnc tho rite to • RANCHO MIRAGE C17Y LIMIT � � • • �.. II T Or VP Om A�1/ LJw 7 R R: 7, SA • (D,P.04-76) `: �wve [j .. i1I' } to �• T �; ��• M404MAP Ul_ S , I r" I M ! I• _- e•)`6�IY 4f P:yL1 NLlli G, lrn I;r' '•"__=-1"r 1� I P,R:7, W [ • 4 tI� �• f S.P �HL d� •w VILYa•-CArvL F OIL RR. n2�� — r-7 COF C^^+T$C zoo _ - R•2 (SI,S.P. COLLEGE Ot I NE DESEF - T P 1. IT T T:t(? P.C.f3), S. P 1�.)- �I a .ggr •J.3. QC-11� .13.-5,N G HyJ A Y i t 'ATE Fllihn S_P C-1 rC I. 3 l4) C • .I I P,R.-G - ` I I i ='Isi '(aP11.77)1. •�C NII L1 1 1 I 'I Lh I I i0 �„I ��_I 11I 0 P. R 4,{ . Mf I- (CUP -CI 4 PD) -r 1. 17 FI I II -1 I I TTL' • —I' : -Y . l_t_'r ,La"i-1- �i—Lr .. �t r; H i Fr%I R"?I'�'t ;Ij. ly `I ic•�_3'J:�00 _t! f 's j "I•,t„�.,[ J (0 1t WELLSCITYE L IT v r tIINUTES 4 DESERT PLAti3ING CO,`,NISSIO3 I ING TUESDAY - MAY 5, 1931 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning CQrinission vias called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Kryder III. POLL CALL V.-embers Present: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner McLachlan Commissioner Richards Chairman Miller Staff Present: Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services .Stan Sawa, Principal Plann_r Steve S:ai'h, Associate Plannr-r Linda Russell, Planning Secretary Others Present: Barry McClellan, Director of Public Works Bob Hardy, Associate Civil Engineer IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the meeting of April 15, 1981. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve the minutes as written. Carried unanimously (5-0). V. WRITTEN COMIMUNICATIONS - NONE VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 03-81 - JACK WISE and WALLING AND MICCALLUM ASSOCIATES, Applicants . Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 14,844 sq.ft. private racquetball and health club on approximately 1.1 acres in the R-3 (4) (Multifamily Residential) zone, located at the northeast corner of Alessandro Drive and San Carlos Avenue. h:r. Sawa presented this case reviewing the staff report and referring to the Exhibit. He stated that because the project abuts -residential uses a buffering wall trould have to be provided. He showed the proposed accesses and indicated staff's concerns of the vacant portion of the project. Mr. Sawa also pointed out that since the City r-.,auld not need a portion of the excess right-of-way, corner of San Carlos and "_ AQza Way, it could be vacated and used for parking lot improvements. Staff reco--a- e' approval. Commissioner Kryder asked ►•ghat kind of landscaping would be provided around e '"% ��Lt n OO ff zPa, 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 December 31, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE . A'REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FORA PORTION OF 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 and•EIR 80-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a re uest by C;.ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. ?Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres).to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P. and for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact*Report as it pertains thereto for - a portion of. 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway Ill and Deep Canyon Road more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006,'625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 rc !L£6£NO 6]a mmmmmmmmrm,n„rnr O oI i i p PR._3 _1 f F PR.5, N �— o V 6E 3 a c w Case m. C/Z 01-80 CUP0720 DP 07-80 P.R.-5, N t.........�.................. � 1 ., S.P. I r C. G )' Alessandro Drive _ R P0.(g1, S.P I �' ( }. ^ I %i J.P. L�J I 1 P.C.{41 N, SP � Fran- Road ..... I , —B--S TATF—HIGHWAY--111—�- -- • -------- (Zp$'iw' ®:ff alDsaTl nm lmm=m1Pla5 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE. PALM OE9ER7, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 II- semc.cH� FAD Alex & ea GrePnbergr- 44-5 Baden Ct. Pa Desert, CA 92260 01981 ENVIROWVIENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT I* t Oo ,..L 1pmn-n= TM<Dz:—x 0-a 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 December 31, 1980 1931 CITY OF PALM DESERT ENViRONidiiNfAL SERVICES LEGAL NOTICE a 'v of PALM DESERT A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FORA PORTION OF 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 and'EIR 80-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to cbnsider a request by C- ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres).to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P. and for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report as it pertains thereto for a portion of, 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, V5-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 2 LEGEND -63V mmmmmmmmn,mmm,m 1 a - i i PR_3 —� q i eF� P.R.-5, N F..._ M•11n. psa-R o a � ' Case M. •4n? S F°c C/Z 01-80 ' a!y ?c a i..r...—r..r'=i•.rr..rir....rsgr, CUP07-eO OP 07-80 P.R.-5, N 1..... _. ..................:1` --S—P a C-1 Ai "i ,, IS Alessandro Drive a P.C.(4),S.P. 1 1".1.;. (4) N, .3.P. I i I [CA141 N, S P traniaae koatl ` .... ... ..... .. —'": —6--STATE—HIGHWAY--III— --- • ------ r i 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 December 31, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LESAL ITOTiCE A REQUEST FOR APPVMA1 14', :"NE AltD .. Y� 'r � SlI.A;...•V :i :. M.� _"T :'11 ..�kMiV nt ,NPACT •^'.E!MgT Ai PLRTA;XS T1 A17 s x :."i .f 30 ACRES LOCATE') AT It K'IRT► VT rr urr,MAY ill MD DEEP CAti10A e(SRl). CASE VI S. Cti 01-AO aea l NOTICE 1S KMI1 G101a c . a :... - 'oaring will be held before the Pala Desert Cft7 Cc ,-t: - ,!er a revuest by C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a C or %. ^. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ ac.. eiaaiaaaa da•nitr Wt.•+' ratr1cted Development and Scenic Preservatice 0"wlafi ta.o acre:, -1 'A. S.P. (General Commercial natural F&Ctw N. S.F.l ape froe FC (4). S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial S.P.) (7.3 azrsil to ' 4. '..P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC (4) N. S.F. anal Ism w•s s rt ,tryst to C.I. N. S.P. and for Certification of a 11-41 t!rrtra*,.- 1 *v.*t -e - •T-,ertains thereto for a portion of 30 *trim iccatwo at ten• ...-•• w2tt ar,•o. n. �+^star 111 4r4 :;"o Canyon Road ""If MerticufAwtT atn:• - % Q4.-;kk-LKA. 62$-100-ow QS-10D-wq. a2S.100-01S thru b25.100-022 PR-5, N tk o v I a a FF )r Ig1e � Fc • � ... I IE .. L-) N , . v.t. P.C. M, S.P. I h i4) N, S.P. Cme m. CFZ OI-60 CUP07-eo OP 07-60 b —r--RTATc— 1r. mil.-`. c-�1 �'�:�I�nw �Ua--�«:--�F•1 43.275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (TIQ 346-0611 p£TUP TD SENDER �� ti OCCUPANT 44-489 So rento Ct. Palm Des` rt, CA 92260 Np SiFF�`'FrT`70;1AI? Jr N kr AVAC+iyT �'yUArp oC�`�SS �� 'sea �a 'IT�� r•��;i V 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALL FORNIA 92280. TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 , MOVEO L LEFT NO ADDRESS . OCCUPAP�T 44-695 M aco Cir. Palm De ert, CA 92260 STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Planning Connission REPORT ON: Chang of Zone, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permits and Environmental Impact Report APPLICANT: C. R0BERT HUSBARD, J.E. P.AP'(,IN, B. SOLOMON 74-133 El Paseo Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Representative: BALLEW-MCFARLAND 18025-k Skypark Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 CASE NOS: C/Z 0 S , DP 07-80, and CUP 07-80. DATE: December 30, 1980 I. REQUEST: Applicants are requ-�!;ting a zone c"n-nne, Development Plan-appr0v,'1, and CV permits to pp-rili t the cons truetion of a hotel /CCnC'a;nini um/cowmiz!rcial project on a 30.5= acres, %" shaped site located at the northeast corne`rll of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, n LOCATIONAL MAP: p�p' �OIL ' tFcrxp II. BACKGROUND: . ....- S C f �•P?-3 Fa-%N P.R. ,+• vza-eo ...—r«..v:.cc ... c COPOT:A . f • J, GG • ' ' <_�- Op OT•3O � P.P.'S. el SP. l �p NI,SP, f nC.. !til j 1 1 iPQi4) N. S P. i I T% s matter was before the Planning Commission for hearing on June 3, 1.980. T:le matter was continued because of the concern voiced over the project's . design, impact and problems of notification of the hearing. Subsequently, - tce applicant was informed that an Environmental Impact Report would have to be prepared on the project. Tn_ applicant has modified his proposal and an Environmental Impact Report Staff Report a C. Robert Hubbard '.. Aece;aber 30, 1980 Page Two , III. DATA (cont.) Overall Setbacks: 30 ft. front required 35 ft. on street pr 15 ft. side required 20 ft. side provide A. Residential Site - 13.0 acres in the northeast portion of the site. - Dwelling units/density_ 65/5.0 units per acre - Parking 163 requires! 189 proposed (130 covered; 59 open) - Building coverage 40% permitted 20% proposed - Common open space 50% required 57% (7.37 acres) proposed - Perimeter setbacks 20 ft. -required = 20 ft. on ed5•`, pr.avid=3 30 ft. on nor•-h providad 50 ft. on west Provided B. Resort Tenter'Site PC-4 - 4.8 acres on the southeast portion of the site 1.. Hotel - units/density 144/30 units per acre - Parking 249 required .249 proposed (215 subterranean) - Landscaped open space 40% required _ 48% proposed 2. Restaurant - Size 5000 sq.ft. - Parki_ng .75 required 75 proposed - Landscaped open space 20% required 28% proposed C. CoTmercial Site (C-1) - 11.91 acres adjacent to Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111. - Square ft. buildings = 110,000 sq.ft. = 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket 70,000 sq.ft. Ancillary Coimner Uses - Parking 534 required 534 proposed — On?n mare NnnP ramiirarl Staff Report C_ Robert Hubbard December 30, 1950 III. DATA: D. IV. (cont.) rroundinn Zonina and Lard Uses of Entire Site. Page Three 1. *North a. Zoned PR-5 N (Planned Residential Development, 5 units per acre, Natural Factors/Restricted Development). b. Land Use - Condominium Residential Development. *also west side of residential portion of project 2. West (across Deep Canyon Road) a. Zoned 1. .R-1 13,000 2. R-3 (4) Multifamily residential, 1 unit per 4,000 sq.ft_. (equals 10 units per acre) 3. South of Alessandro, C-1, S.P. (General Commercial) b. Land Use : 1. single family residential 2. south of Alessandro - smz11 corrnercial complex ANALYSIS: -- A. Zone Change 1. Residential Site - The residential site does not require a change. The present zoning is Planned Residential Development, 5 units per acre and the proposed use is permitted by zone. 2. Hotel Site - 'Is presently on land zoned partially Planned Residentia Development, 5 units (PP,-5) per acre, and predominately Resort Commercial. In order to be developed, the 36,000-sq.ft. zoned PR-5 must be rezoned to Resort Commercial. 3. Restaurant Site - Presently zoned Resort Commercial, a change of zone is not required. It is a permitted use in the Resort Comrercia' zone. 4. Commercial Site - Presently zoned partially Planned Residential, 5 units per acre (4.7 acres f) and Resort Commercial (7.2 acres f)_ The entire 11.9 } acres would have to be rezoned to permit construct of the commercial portion of this project. In addition, a condition use permit is required to permit the development of the supermarket - acility on the commercial site:---::--.---- ----- �- - 5. Present General. Plan Designation - Core Area Commercial Planned Commercial Resort Medium Density Residential 5-7 dwelling units per acre There are certain specific findings that should be made prior to approval of a change of zone. These are: 1. There are changed conditions since the existing zoning became effective to warrant other or additional zoninn: Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1920 Page Four •I•:. ANALYSIS: (cont.) c. With the corresponding increases within the region, the need and demand for additional commercial services has increased. These services should be kept onmajor arterials_ 2. The proposed change of zone will not adversely affect adjoining property as to value or precedent and will not be detrimental to the area:' a. The change of zone actually involves only 11.91 acres of the 30.5 ± acre site. Of that 11.91 acres, 7.2 acres are already zoned resort commercial. b. The impact on adjacent properties of the changa of zone will be mitigated through conditions imposed on the development: c. Similar zoning along H:•ry III has not adversely impacted. adjoining properties as to value, or been detrimental to the area when properly planned and dev lop=a1. 3. The proposed change of zone will be in the interest of furthering the public health, safety, and general welfare:' a. It will enable the entire site to be developed in a unified manner, and provide additional commercial services into the area. b. Through added commercial development residents of the community will have greater variety of choice. c. When the development of the entire site, particularly its commercial portions, is completed, more jobs will be created for the region, increasing its economic viabil-ity. d. As stated previously, when the site is developed in accordance with the appropriate conditions imposed via the City's Planning process, potential impacts on adjoining properties should be mitigated. .4. The approval of the proposed change of zone is consistent with the City's adopted general plan: a. The City's adopted Land Use Element of the general plan shows tf site designated as general commercial. The issues must then be as to the depth of the commercial area north of Hwy 11' b. The Land Use Element should not be used alone in attempting to determine general plan consistency. In looking at the City': adopted noise element, further insight is given as to the site' suitability for residential development. (Let us clarify that we are just speaking of the area to be rezoned). As stated previously, the noise element of the general plan establishes criteria which should be utilized to determine a site's suit— ability for residential development. Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1930 Page Five, IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) e. The key question.is the depth of the zoning along Deep Canyon Road. The central issue is the method in which the development will occur, and can it be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties. The develop;---^_nt plan as proposed through design does mitigate potential" impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties. B. Deyelopmert"Plan The development plan itself can be divided into three principal sections: 1. The Co.-nercial facility 2. The Hotel Complex and Restaurant 3. Residential facility 1. Commercial facility - As previously stated the commercial facility encompasses 11.91•acres of the site. It is composed of a 40,000 sq.ft. supermarket and 70,000 sq.ft. of various shops, offices and financial institutions. - Access to the commercial area shall be from Deep Canyon Road and a future public street from Hwy 111. The access drive from Deep Canyon Road is 520 ft. from the centerline of Highway 111. As previously stated, the proposed development meets or exceeds all Palm Desert requirements for building coverage, parking and lands - caging. 2. Hotel Complex and Restaurant - The hotel and restaurant facility covers approximately 5.8 acres of the site. The hotel trill contain 144 units and provide 249 parking spaces, while the restaurant will be approximately 5000 sq.ft. and provide 75 parking spaces. Access to this facility will be from the public street extending " north of Highway 111. ; As with the commercial center all City requirements be met or exceeded. .3. Residential Development - The residential porti-on of the site is 13 acres. .It will contain 65 units at a density of 5 dwelling units per acre. Access will be from the future public street extending from Highway 111. As shown in the data portion of this report all local ordinances have been complied with. Differences between previously submitted Development Plan: Certain concerns raised at the previous public hearing concering this developmment have brought changes from the originally submitted developme; plan (Alternate I in Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 'Page V-46). The previously submitted proposal contained a 57,000 sq.ft. superrarket Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1480 Page Six IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) The deletion of the east -west road -.,jay, the reduction and relocation of the supermarket, and expansion of the landscape buffer and movement of the Deep Canyon driveway southerly was done to address the concerns of the residents voiced in the previous hearing.. The hotel complex previously located on the northern portion of the property, abutting the Hidden Palms development to the west, has been relocated southerly to abut Highway 111. In its place a 65 unit condo- minium development is projected; thus, abutting Hidden'Palms to the west will be residential units at a density of five units per acre. The size of the hotel complex has been reduced to 144 units from 220. The number of access points to Deep Canyon Road has been reduced from two (a driveway and public street) to one (a commercial driveway). C. 'mConditional Use Permit The present Municipal Code requires that a conditional Use Permit be approved for a supermarket use. The required findings necessary for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the zoning district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the condi- tions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.- 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's general plan. Staff believes that all required findings can be met:':. .. .1. As stated previously, under the findings 'for the change of zone, particularly as it relates to consistency with the adopted general plan. The site is suitable for the development of a commercial center. Commercial centers,' by their nature, usually require type of -"anchor" or large commercial attraction, (i.e., a -- food market, drug store, home improvement center, etc.). A 40,000 sq.ft. supermarket at this location and developed as part of an overall shopping center, would not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties and thus, meets the intent and purpose of the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance. 2. As part of an overall commercial site plan, with controlled points of ingress and egress, and properly buffered and distant from adjoining residences, a supermarket will not be detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements.. In this case, while access Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Seven IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) • 4. As stated under the general plan consistency findings of the zone change analysis, the proposed use meets the goals and objectives of the City's general plan. D. Environnental Impact Analysis 1_ Drainage - According to the environmental impact report, the drainage plans as prepared ensures "that the proposed development is adequately drained". However, the report continues "the facilities are designed to accomodate the present volume of stor•..ater entering the site from upslope areas ... The drainage facilities plan is not designed to accomodate any significant increases in storm.iater flow onto the site from.the upslope areas". Since the City's master drainage plan includes plans for eventual increased storm;aater drainage to the site, provisions should be made to assure that the site's drainage facility can accomodate this added drainage. - In addition, the City of !i: ian hells hc:s expres.ed c^.ncarn o`/?i' the impact or the project at the intersection of 44th Avanue and Cao Street. . Conditions of approval - a. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance 213 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director- b. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; 'said additional stone drainage construction shall be designed to protect the . site from storm water flows. These conditions should mitigate potential drainage problems. 2. Traffic and Circulation - The majority of the development's traffic is expected to utilize Highway 111. According to the Analysis of the Environmental Impact Report, 65% of the traffic generated by .the site would utilize Highway 111. While, the traffic volume on Highway III may exceed the design capacity, the traffic service will still fall within the good and acceptable level at the critical intersection of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon. -- - _.Potential mitigation measures for any significant adverse impacts on Highway 111 must be imposed by the California Department of Transportation.. The proposed public street which will provide access to the development at Highway 111 must have intersection design approved by Cal Trans. - At that time, Cal Trans will impose what they deem appropriate to facilitate traffic flows on Hrfy Ill - In order to assure smooth transition along Deep Canyon. Road, the following conditions should be imposed: .a. Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep ram....,.., o—,r _A4----� — Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Eight IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) The conclusion of the Draft Environmental Impact P.eport is that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment- V. REC0,MMENDATION: Staff reco,-,=ends that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt findings as recommended by Staff; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution P;o. recommending to the City Council adoption of Change of Zone 01-80 and certification of -the Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. 3. Approving Case Pros. DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , and certifying the Environmental Impact Report as it pertainns thereto. e C 'i�G cow 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR. LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIt'ORNIA 92260 ITELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 Decet ict ; 7�J3ii CITY OE PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF (1) A CHANGE OF ZONE, (2) DEVELOPi•tENT PLAN, AND (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND (4) THE REVIEW OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, TO ALLO.1 THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COvi?1=2CIitL/RESORT/P.ESID=i!T AL DEVELOPriENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY Ill AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. "CASE NOS. -C/Z 10-80; CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 NOTICE: IS HE 7-3Y GIVEN that a Public Hearing twill be held becor> the Palm Desert Pfa rainy C IiStC tO cons t.._. a Y_1l b, !i . C. 03 1 HUo15ARO et al (1) Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S-P. (Pfanred Resid_ntiai, 5 d.u./ac., maximu,"T density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 P1, S.P. (General C=,-aercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial. S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC(4) N. S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, 11, S.P; (2) Development Plan; (3) Conditional Use Permit; (4) Review of Draft Enviror mental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominis a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. comi.ercial financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway Ill and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: %n„ JLJ-A[r-'UVT, VLJ-IV-VVV, 625-AV VVV 625-10-009, 625-10-015 thra 625-10-022 • s - t [ 1 1 S.P i' C. (t-) ty' -941 N. S P. C/Z Ot-30 i CUP07-eO DP OT-80 a c i —4-ST.3TE—HIGHWAY--111 � December 311, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT ' LEGAL NOTICE A- REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FORA PORTION OF 30 ACRES - LOCATED Al THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY III AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. - CASE N; S. C/Z 01-80 and* EIR 80-01 . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by C;.RO3EP.T HUBBARD et al for a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S-P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./. - ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres).to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N'(1.3 acres).to PC (4) •N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44-acres) to C-1, N, S.P. and for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report as it pertains thereto for a pbrtion o acres located at the northeast corner of Highway Ill and Deep Canyon Road more particularly described as: _ j; APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-003 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 •moo •'_ _.Z �•. a `-1 __ o . i P.R.-S,N _ Case m. i C11707 0 . r• ( ; P.R-5, F{ �.._._......_.-{ - • S.P I i` • - q,.,-sa: J•o Un�e P.C.(4),5.P.' I I !P.Cr141 N. SP IiI'1 � _c_ _CTrt rc _ HIGHv/dY--m- T.. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 667 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO„?IISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFO"NIA, RECOUMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE PAD CEP.TIFICATIOit OF At! EtIVIROiliIEilTAt IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOS•I THE CONSTRUCTIOif OF A CO?MiIERICAL/ RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80, EIR 01-8O WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 1980, hold a duly noticed Public .Hearing and continued Public Hearing on the 30th day of Decerber, 1980, to consider a request by C. P,OSERT HU33APD, J.E. RAPKIN AND B. SOMMON for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 PI, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor II, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Comma—arcial, S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PP.-5 N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P; to allow the construction of a cor:rercial/resort/residential development on 30 acres located at the north- east corner of Highway III and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 tbru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, said application his complied with the requ i reiiian is o i the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution Plo. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been .complete in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WKEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo:i and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Ccr•aissi did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Change of Zone: ' A. The Land Use resulting from the Change of Zone would be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses. [ B. The Con.-nission has determined that.the proposed Change of Zone would be compatible with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan and General Plan of the City. C. The proposed Change of Zone confo mis to the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance. D. Findings as eiscussed in staff report dated 12-30-80. 2. Environmental Impact Report: - -A. - The EIR has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQM^. B. Any potential adverse. impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. 00'A, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning-Coamission of the City of. Palim Des>_rz, California, as follows: 1. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City PLANNING COMi•IISSION ')OLUTION NO. 657 Page Two A. Comments received on the draft EIR and related responses by city. B. Public testimony regarding the EIR during the Public Hearings and related responses. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission held on the 30th day of December, 1930, by the following vote, to.wit: AYES: BERKEY, KP,YDER, RICHARDS, HILLER. NOES: NONE ABSENT:! MCLACHLAN ABSTAIN- NONE C A L_S -MILLER, Chair.,an � - ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary INNING Co%NISSIM RESOLUTION I 663 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PAL14 DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELONIEHT PLAN, CONIDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CERTIFYING A FINAL EHVIRONIcHTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALL041 THE CONSTRUCTION OF r1 COtiiERCIt,L/?.ESCti/RESiD'citTIAL DEVELOPr.E?IT Ott 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORi1ER OF HIGH:IAY Ill AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE 1105. CUP 07-80. DP 07-80, EIR 01-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Co:,imission of the City of Palm Desert, California, _ did hold a duly'noticed public hearing on the 3rd day of June, 1980, readvertised and continued the public hearing to the 30th day of December, 1980, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HU86ARD, J.E. RAPY.IN AND BERNARD SOLOMON for approval of a Develornent Plan, Conditional Use Penit and Certification of a Final Environmental Ir..pact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominiva, a �-9,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. Restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. cox"nercial/ financial co:,-,plex located at the northeast corner of Highoay 111 and Deep Canyon Rd. more particularly described as: _ APH 625-10-004, 625-10-006, 625-10-003 625-10-009; 625-10-015, thru 625-10-022 WHEREAS, said application ha-7 complied with the requirements oF -the "City T Paim D?s:'r� to the California Envlrclim• #T�, U,-ul It;' Resolution No. No. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been couylai;+ in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimoi and arguments, if any, ofall interested persons desiring to be heard, said Ca,-Ilis did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Environmental Impact Report:. - a) The EIR has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. b) Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. ! 2. Development Plan: __..a) The proposed project conforms with the intent and purpose of the PR and PC-4 Zones. b) The proposed project as conditioned is well suited for the specific site and is compatible with the existing and proposed development in the area. to the Health, The proposed project will not be'detrimental Safety, and General Welfare of the comriunity. 3. Conditional Use Permit: a) The proposed project . as conditioned would be adequately suited for the subject property and ►•:ould be compatible with existing and proposed development in the area. b) The proposed Supermarket as conditioned generally conforms to the intent and purpose of C-1 Zone District, Ytu;itli;S CONMISSION ft j A ION No. 6b3 Page t::o 1 . NO'...% THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Comimission of the City cif Palm Desert, California, as follows: I. That the above recitations are true, correct and constitute the Findings of the Co.r-ission in these cases. 2. That t}:e Planning Commission does hereby certify the final EIR as complete to include: a) The draft EIP,; b) CoTc3nts received on the draft EIR and related responses by City; and, c)I' Public Testimony regarding the EIR during the Public Hearings and related responses. 3; That the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Pe;lmit and Development Plan subject to those conditions labeled Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, AP PO'/_O aril. ADOPTEn at =ti, »'`ing of tn? Palm Desert Piann:(al r• c•:J .��'^%�>i, 19-E0, by thz iuI 10Yi11-,g VC; U; WI AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, RICHARDS, MILLER NOES: NONE ABSENT: PICLACHLAI ABSTAIN: NONE CHARLES NILLER, Chairnan ATTEST: Pvti A. DIAZ, Secretary /1r 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 December 12, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF (1) A CHANGE OF ZONE, (2) DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND (4) THE REVIEW OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL/RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 10-80, CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MR. C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a (1) Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial. S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC(4) N. S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P; (2) Development Plan; (3) Conditional Use Permit; (4) Review of Draft Environ- mental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium, a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. commercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-10-004, 625-10-006, 625-10-008 625-10-009, 625-10-015 thru 625-10-022 LEGEND 630'� Inmmmmmmmmmmmr �� F---- P. R: S,N I rr-R:- N P.R.- , pEe 1 E Case M. -eas' C/Z 01-80 CUP07-60 ic OP 07-80 ........ PA-S, N y..-._..................... S.P. ' i PCA4),SP. I 1 RC.(4) iR. 1P.C.A41 N, S.P �( j .......................A......... ,... ._... CURLYo' oil nPm mm 77���x;�{� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 December 12, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF (1) A CHANGE OF ZONE, (2) DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND (4) THE REVIEW OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL/RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 10-80, CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MR. C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a (1) Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial. S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC(4) N. S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P; (2) Development Plan; (3) Conditional Use Permit; (4) Review of Draft Environ- mental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium, a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. commercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-10-004, 625-10-006, 625-10-008 625-10-009, 625-10-015 thru 625-10-022 i; .j - 630'- TRA1,rt,,.R,�,,,t,T P. R: 5, N r Rj-5 iv P.R.-5, N S.P. P. C. t4) N' :1. P. (4) N. S.P —(L- -STATE—HIGHWAY--III-- LEGEND I �mrq s,Mw' .......... i .......... .-.«.i Case m. C/Z 01-80 CUP07-J DP 07-80 b SAID Public Hearing will be held on December 30, 1980, at 7:06'p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pearl Lane, Palm ❑PCPMt_ ralifnrnia- at uhirh Limn and nlarn all intnrnetad nnnenne a,.c in,.;+A `1 t �3. `® a 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CAUFORNIA 92260 J - TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 - i OCCUPANT 44-695 naco Cir. Palm D sert, CA 92260 d i d m ti %F( �, 09ZZ6 t/0 `�aas wt¢d 68b-1 *40 04uaa.4 bb - 1NVdf10o0 1 ' 1190-9i£ (W) 3NOHd3131 - 09ZZ6 VINHOAnv31N3S30 WlVd'3NV1 )JV3d hlH01Nd %LZ-4/ 'mom Z(�D -1'q}'ggD .�=� {S-TT! MIRLT PEAR LAME, MLY CmCRT, GNFOAEA. 210 TELEPWNC I7111 346-0411 Jean L. Scudamore " - 1666 Kingspoint Dr. W Walnut, HCA 91789 W p®4m� m>Q SiRDIl.r� b-LTy HICKEY TEAR LANF MLY OFJ[Rf CW FORMIA P!!!0 iELLINLWF ITH) J{1-0611 Ruth Ruth Wolfe ETor GN�KTI io"*St Homestead �o palm Bert, CA 92260 {J.LTJ F11 V PEAR LANE, pLLY lEJEgT.fJyFMRM!!Lq TELEPNME LTI{L U"111 i Hary F. Hartneii 7019 hurchill St. w z o Vanco er, B.C., CANADA g� eFu W M3S30 Enna dO "0 MIAH3S 3VIN3WNOHIAN3 f 1 �fW J =o �o 0 ti AI �§ a.g ' b N ry mm ( �C WNY a £ c � ■OT � 30 GG J v Igiii Z i �z ? oi. N �'r fiai 3ai u- o r- ii e� b u• J JC N /...�� . NCn • O^ UI Y MAY 1? 1912 # itE.:t1Yi:✓ MAY 1 ]578 ENLXRONMENT/J. DESErt P,iAY 1 191ii ENVIRONMENTAL $EflVICE$ CRY V/aM CM OF PALM DESERT I ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES --- CRY OF PALM DESERT <_ b-2741s PALM ME, ,U,o .IA 92mo IIILXp PEAR 4XE. r 9 T LEMME I>IA) 344-01 l -t O In �5 c� re Et al Hazel/A. 2 P• 0, CA 92260 Pal c18ne$r ®s dmn..._. �....�_ I b-1)p MIULY H{R L1Nq MlY OCREI,UL/Fpryq C1M0 iELERNIIC Illq NC-p{II w tE ' 1 /Maria E. Cossid fAsp nRf � 'M72 Desert, S9 t Unit !3 *L45-2?5M7IICKLYPfAft0 4HC, MLY MfFRT GNFMfNM iIMO EIU,{H tELEPNM11i111 NEWaII ASADDRfSS� :J 1 Lawrence F. MurP r W d 72601 Bursera t /4 2 0 (\ Palm Desert, g 6p v. N-210 MICNLY pENfl L.LME, MyY pELFFf, GIIFgiNIN PFMp LTCLEPMONC (111)N{-a{II c David C rk �� �, ff 72619 T rush Unit /4 W �4. § I� f p ffi Palm De ert, CA 9226 1 930 EINd f0 =0 23OIR83S WIH3NNOS1RN3 Lo i AVW «o 2 N M Q V1U y�Y u m s vyl 4 G mi. E uni ®LRD�r oEnff rcl..n� lISJsowm�O R5411 PRIUL1 PEAR LARE, PALM OF]ER[ UIIIORMIR ARM --TIELE'"I IiIO 34a-0611 4 _ Hami1 n Lowe ') >' 72701 W In, St. Unit M2 Palo Dese , CA 92260 W o o YC 10-RM PRIULr PEAR LANE, PALM EtlERI,GIIfMNM fEEIO �' �Pxoxe (n.) asaroLRl NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED - UNA13LE TO FORWARD Santee, ;\ 6 C I4 � op W Rg _. e Ae-m ERlcxtr TEAR ux[, nLM mENf.Gur011RY1EeaEp TELEPHONE UNI NYOEII R NO LE dt ... o[CcFO' LAK 00 32102621 RcTJRN TO SENDER NDC DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSEOJ i LINABLE TO rORNARD N i Robert A. Lake Et al 1300 Quail Newport Beach, CA 92260 ul z o 1n3S34 WNd UD W3 � 5391AH35 N1N3WNOtlIANa ^�AH i t-at ` aako 6 T2 J9 - 4 5 »� � a l 1 1 M NICNLY KA* uN[, M R W..GUFMNIA 9¢HO - v rzL[rNOx[ I1N/ 516O911 1 h v c I 1 V W a2 1 T �� Chris Hansen tV � °i00aL I 1501 Chelsea Palos Verdes Est., CA 90271 j s C5846a' ®S raa..n...�. Idmoos�0 ,. I +s-¢n N¢xa RAp uxF, NLN Maem, uuropxu 9[[90 - ' - I rzLFNM[ pu) w-am UND Irma G lber 1 IIi gt 72-494 itch a b II Palm Be rt, 92260 5 10 CiBffRa ®S Ii<lnIl»sm +Sil3 NICNLY rENp LANF. NlN OESFNF, LW FMN4 S¢YMI iFLFVNONe I>wl MG-oFN ..f6aF.55ED EE �Y�P- Ii ^ TO FRRWd RD MAY 11 ru N°TVpR43 Rg S6" -; " IV GE _ ABt. p 17i F ARw RDSFD :V S.Mari lou gu riteOr Z 708yrguerit Mae Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 'Hum RWa f0 Aw MAN39 1VI93MNONNN3 0: W f� i lu y o ? V N N M_ u JUI J Y6 S'� '1 2t_l � J I J 0 - R� U MI pYMNL•r+n. . 9 i 111T530 W1Yd d0 AL5 / $3DUN35 1V1N3WNON1AN3 ./ LY3'i~y!`L'J i1 r.Nvo81AelnN3 251 :C S AVW --IA A I -J �N P • s F 2 1� 6 hhh ✓' p' ♦♦ / i g 3p d NO G .e..e dN' �♦ J y � 3 u �. y Z O � 14 W t� it 6�;Jfi i V L ., MAY 11"190, EfM MENTAL SERVICES CRY Di PALM DESERT w pp 16-EHMICNLYK*AUNE. p4MOfEER UUIONNN9SID0 p 16EMONE(III) U"Ill S � i $ Og fy.� I ~ N Willia P. Rigsby 72654 W 11D St. Unit A4 Palm Des rt, CA 92260 a :6, nval-- 1 m _ ! � o P n N N• Q N o s KL:rIVL. MAY t pEyybN11ENTAE SEP ES COY OF PAW om" `-' ZOZl6 V9 'alepual9 Yo ;` 7saaalllH CSCI ° � a xaul33W 'l saweE tna h 6WPP': ppv ug1. 0L,1 i WJf:fo �p sq IIfO-1K IYILI IXJN<]l]t ^ 09tE6 tlIXXOdIIYJib34L41GlVd']XY1 tltl3d AlN'JIW 9(E'GY 1 T �04dI E® d94@J g 16ZO6 VO 'Aa la0 0XVL oq.Ee® 922 $ m ui1L 'a Ala. A �` - IUo-fK IHL13Xpinl3l OKifflMlbd[IYJ yY343C IIlW']A1 W]d AINAW OLE-GY 09Z06 VO '8129 41E1o5 '1S alel OZE6 t LaMP}M eluol . Ilia-fK (Ylal 3NOxa3lEL La OWIf tlIXW!!RJ'1M]G3011•W']XYl V131 I.NWW.91 � MI.O� V u 9 AMI �NItltS — 1-.'Q`:.,,,,:':Fw.!'�..Rl;,sS:!.yn',r�`,h7J,�6 I 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE PALM DESERT, CA ' LIFORNIA 82260 TELEPHONE (7141 346-0611 AMff6iEp;NOf kNOWN IYSUtFttdjENT ADOPESS '°� uliCfl NUMBER 6;?C4NT tffUSEp OCCUPA T 44-598 o ip Palm Des 4 :I naco Cir. rt, CA 92260 i > ♦ay�y ..,..- � r^"` � Q , .r, .��..^}' . _. ,..°a135 .. ..F�F�"7. 'dj4YlA F-1 December 12, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A0110 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF (1) A CHANGE OF ZONE, (2) DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND (4) THE REVIEW OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL/RESORT/RESIDENIIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 10-80, CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MR. C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a (1) Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N. S.P.) and from P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial. S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC(4) N. S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P; (2) Development Plan; (3) Conditional Use Permit; (4) Review of Draft Environ- mental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium, a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. commercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-10-004, 625-10-006, 625-10-nn8 625-10-009, 625-10-015 thru 625-10-022 P.R: S, N r:R !V P 1(c}} PC.-(4) N. S.P LEGEND PR.-O Case m. C/z 01-80 CUP07-eo 0 OP 07-80 0 ay 09226 V3 'Oua a0 mlad b ...d .43 oluauuoS� 629-tt •M7 _... 1wdom n1 Q3Ss. �db l) YFr•�=ASd 31843A1130N11 ILp...G iaA) 3XpW3,3. MbAI3Y OOSR YIXb]fN'O'Jtl363'J 1G1N'3Xf1 Y13A AlY11W GR-GI / ®s n-mnmm »gym K ISpaMXxtxFEUIIAME, FAIII CfBEM.f41FOXxu Xi3X0�'y.� AEEyyy R 79(714) EGE-OXII To GENDER �L�JS`�' UNDEI.I'JER�BLE AS A ^' 1981 DuncaNED 1AN13 ✓ �""'ENTAL s'VICLS OESLRl Ben 5hysh A 72-757 Ha stack Rd. tt ne PµM Palm Des t, CA 92260 srl� Avirus_ rA csaaib� ®s sE�Tffi 16-M HIGHLY FEAR L Xf. MLY M M."UFMWIA12 0 WLEP.ME (114) 34"SII ��• 333��G...,,, & G Marcus CoastXiCWO ' 777 ECo-nsin Ave. #3600 MilwaI 53202 e Pim+� CG O �^ iFSn_YI al �?5 MICXLY PEAR LANE, M� DOEV.CAUI.RNIA M NER An. "I - AS ADDRESSED Yos 's C4 44-1 9 Vents Ct Palm es rt . CA 92260 0 OR PROOF OF PUBLICATIDN I (20101 2015.5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF CHANGE OF ZONE C1 10-800 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. T am the principal clerk of the printer of PALM DESERT POST, a newpaper of general circulationt printed and published daily in the city of Riverside, County of Riversides and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under date of October 59 1964, Case number 83658; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: 12118 ,1980 I Certify (or declare) under penalty of 'Perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated December 18, 1980 at Riverside, California ----------- ---------- CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF (1) A CHANGE OF ZONE, (D D (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND (al THE REVIEW OF A IMPACT REPORT, TO ALLOW ACRESTDEI �.%it LOCATED AT THE REBY GIVEN n to rnnslder a nvrronmm'Iiu- „ ),000, so ft Supermarket, 5, Sa ft.restaurant, an sq. icated at the northeast corner of Highway III and Deep Canyon -ribed as: PN 625-10-004, 625-10-0(I6, 625-10-008, 625-10-009, 625-1"15, thru 625 --L-STATE "HC.H'NAY- III- f----'--- �' Dese in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 nck tri Coc SAID Public Hearing will be he'd on*45-420 place all interested persspprrl5 qce Invited Report ore ovaFto le i. City HY rdrrmenl Impact CouMV Library (Palm D¢e rt Branch) venue, Pc RAMON A DIAZ, SOC+ TV 'PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT OF JANUARY 22, 1981 DATE: February 12, 1981 CONCERNING THE FOUNTAINS' C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 and EIR 80-1 As Council will recall, the January 22nd Public Hearing on Change of Zone 01-80 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report was continued to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of February 12, 1981. The reason for the continuance was an appeal filed on the Planning Commission action of December 30, 1980, approving Development Plan 07-80 and Conditional Use Permit 07-80. It was the feeling of the Council that all testimony pertaining to the project should be taken at one hearing, and avoid possible confusion. The Council will note that attached to this addendum Resolution 81-10 certifying the Environmental Impact Resolutions pertaining to DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: is a revised version of Report, as well as appropriate The Staff recommendation is also revised from that contained in the previous staff report as follows: Waive further reading and based on the justification and findings in draft Ordinance, pass Ordinance No. 241 to second reading; adopt Resolution No. 81-10, certifying the Environmental Impact Report; adopt Resolutions 81-17 and 81-18 , approving Development Plan 07-80 and Conditional Use Permit 07-80. CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ac., maximum density natural factors/ restricted development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, Scenic Preservation Overlay) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and Certification of a final Environmental Impact Report as it pertains thereto for a portion of 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Hwy 111 and Deep Canyon Road. (See attached legal notice) III. APPLICANTS: C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, B. SOLOMON 74-133 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 Represented by: BALLEW-MCFARLAND 18025-K Skypark Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 IV. CASE NO: C/Z 01-80 V. DATE: January 22, 1980 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Resolution No. 81-10, and Draft Ordinance D. Planning Commission ild notes involving Case Nos. E. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 667 and 668. F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December G. Related maps and/or exhibits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No. 241 C/Z 7r--W,—DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 30, 1980. Waive further reading and based on the justification and findings in draft Ordinance, pass Ordinance No. 241 to second reading, approving Change of Zone 01-80 and adopt Resolution No.81-10 , certifying the Environmental Impact Report as it pertains thereto. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission at its regular meeting of December 30, 1980, reviewed the requested Change of Zone in conjunction with Development Plan 07-80 and Conditional Use Permit 07-80 and a Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 667 and 668 recommending the City Council approval.of the Change of Zone 01-80 and approving Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit 07-80 and certifying the Environmental Impact Report as it pertained thereto. TRANSMITTAL LETTER C/Z 01-80 January 22, 1981 Page Two The reasons set forth in that report are: 1. There are changed conditions since the existing zoning became effective to warrant other or additional zoning. 2. The proposed change of zone will not adversely affect adjoining property as to value or precedent and will not be detrimental to the area. 3. The proposed change of zone will be in the interest of furthering the public health, safety, and general welfare. 4. The approval of the proposed change of zone is consistent with the City adopted General Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 81-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 80-1 FOR A PROJECT DESCRIBED AS CHANGE OF ZONE 01-80, DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-80, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-80 AS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIF- ORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of February, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider certi- fication of a final Environmental Impact Report, herein after referred to as EIR 80-1, for a project commonly referred to as The Fountains; WHEREAS, said project encompassed an application for a Change of Zone, herein after referred to as C/Z 01-80; a Development Plan, herein after referred to as DP 07-80; and a Conditional Use Permit, herein after referred to as CUP 07-80; encom- passing approximately 30 acres generally located at the northeast corner of State Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert had previously scheduled and advertised a Public Hearing for its regular meeting of January 22, 1981, to hear testimony pertaining to Draft EIR 80-1 and C/Z 01-80; WHEREAS, an appeal was filed with the City Council from the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission approval of DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 at its regular scheduled meeting of December 30, 1981, per Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 667 and 668; WHEREAS, said appeal was scheduled for Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on February 12, 1981; WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently opened and continued said Public Hearing on C/Z 01-80 and EIR 80-1 as it pertained thereto, to February 12, 1981, the date set for the duly advertised hearings on DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 and EIR 80-1 as it pertains thereto; WHEREAS, the City Council did receive and review copies of EIR 80-1; WHEREAS, the City Council did receive and review staff reports, public comments and responses to said public comments, all minutes and resolutions pertaining to EIR 80-1; 1 WHEREAS, the following potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures were identified either within EIR 80-1, or testimony, staff reports, or comments and responses pertaining to EIR 80-1: A) DRAINAGE Impacts The site is adequately drained, however, the site's drainage facilities plan is not designed to accomodate any significant increases in storm water flow onto the site from the upslope areas. Mitigation Measures Provisions should be made to assure that the site's drainage RESOLUTION NO. 81-10 C) NOISE Mitigation Measures Page Two a. The California State Department of Transportation shall impose measure to reduce or mitigate potential impacts of Highway 111. b. The proposed public street into the project from Highway 111 must meet California Department of Transportation standards and requirements. c. Additional dedication and improvement of Deep Canyon Road adjacent to the site will mitigate any signifi- cant adverse traffic impact on Deep Canyon Road. Impacts There would be noise during construction and operation of the commercial center. Mitigation Measures Existing state and local regulations would mitigate potential noise during construction. Limiting hours of delivery to the market as well as proper design of the loading area would mitigate noise impacts. WHEREAS, conditions of approval set forth by Planning Commission Resolution No. 668 did implement those mitigation measures recommended in EIR 80-1 as follows: A) Special Conditions 1 and 2 - Drainage 1. "Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No 218 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director. 2. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm water flows." B) Special Conditions 3, 4 and 7 - Traffic and Circulation 3. "Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep Canyon Road, adjacent to the property, to coincide with the existing curb, gutter, and paved roadway abutting subject property to the north. 4. Applicant shall dedicate sufficient parkway to assure that the ultimate improvements of Deep Canyon Road are provided for in a manner to coincide and be uniform with existing improvements north of the subject property. 7. Street improvements along Highway 111 shall be made as required by the State of California Department of Transportation." r\ c --- t-i r--A444--- 0 c--J n nl-:-- RESOLUTION NO. 81-10 Page Three WHEREAS, said Environmental Impact Report 80-1 concludes that the project described as C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this matter. 2. The Council does hereby certify the final EIR Text has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended; and, State and City guidelines implementing said act, with the inclusion of the following attached hereto: Exhibit "A", draft EIR 80-1 Text; - Exhibit "B", comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR during the public review period; - Exhibit "C", listing of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; - Exhibit "D", authorized response to significant envir- onmental points raised in the review and consultation process; - Exhibit "E", minutes of City of Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting of December 30, 1980; - Exhibit "F", minutes of City Council meetings of January 22, and February 12, 1981; - Exhibit "G", Environmental Services Department staff reports dated January 22, and February 12, 1981; and, - Exhibit "H", City Council Resolutions and Ordinances approving C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on this day of 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: S. ROY WILSON, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 81-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONS- TRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL/RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NO. DP 07-80 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on the 12th day of February, 1981, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN and BERNARD SOLOMON for approval of a Development Plan to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium, 5000 square foot restaurant, and 110,000 square foot commercial center at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-10-004, 625-10-006, 625-10-008 625-10-009, 625-10-015, thru 625-10-022 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon evaluating staff reports and Planning Commission minutes and upon hearing and considering all testimony of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Council did find the following facts to support their action: 1. The proposed project conforms with the intent and purpose of the PR and PC-4 zones. 2. The proposed project as conditioned is well suited for the specific site and is compatible with the existing and proposed development in the area. 3. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the Health, safety, and General Welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true, correct, and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That the City Council of the City of Palm Desert does hereby approve a Development Plan subject to those conditions labeled Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, on the 12th day of February, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: S. ROY WILSON, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 81-17 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. DP 07-80 Page Two STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. City Council approval of Case No. DP 07-80 is subject to Change of Zone 01-80 becoming effective. 2. The development of the property shall conform substantially with Exhibits "A" thru "E" (Case Nos. DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80) on file with the Department of Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses con- templated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural rquirements of the City which include, but are not limited to Design Review, subdivision process, and building permits procedures. 4. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each phase as a single project, and have specific approval from the Planning Commission. 5. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 6. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing to these conditions of approval. 7. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all Municipal Ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 8. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed. 9. All requirements of the City Fire -Marshal shall be met as a part of the develop- ment of this project per attached letters dated 5/22/80 and 12/11/80. 10. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until completed. 11. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works. 12. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required by the Director of Public Works. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: RESOLUTION NO. 31-17 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN May 22, 1980 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Reference: Case No. DP07-80, C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80 Gentlemen: Page Four P.O. BOX 268 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE 17141 657-3183 c; Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions must be met: 1. Install a -water system capable of delivering 5000 GPM fire flow for, a five (5) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in -the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 150 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed), shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Case Number DP07-80, etc., is in accordance RESOLUTION NO. 81-17 Page Five 6. All buildings shall be fully protected with automatic sprinklers. 7. Fire lanes may be required for access to buildings. Very truly yours, David L. Flake :Fir 1 Chief "tt �° Eric L. Vogt Fire Marshal ELV:dt CC: CVCWD; J. Zimmerman f..- RESOLUTION NO. 81-17 4 cocvrr ,?1; R IVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN December. 11,-1980 Philip Drell Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert ENOF.IFAQ SERVICES CITY 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert, CA 92260 Page Six P.O. BOX 248 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3103 Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Report on "The Fountains." Gentlemen: In viewing this Draft EIR of "The Fountains", fire protection is only slightly mentioned as "adequate and no negative impacts are predicted." I feel very concerned that fire protection and life safety be given a higher priority and be provided for by the developer. In order that the developer adequately contribute towards the City of Palm Desert's responsibility for fire protection, the developer must provide built-in fire protection. This built-in fire protection ( includes Automatic Fire Sprinkler systems, Automatic Smoke"and Il Ventilation Control systems and a Fire flow to meet the demand of the development. These fire protection systems must be imposed at the initial development stages if the project is phased so that the entire project is provided with adequate fire protection. If you have any questions or need further information, please call me at Rancho Mireage Fire Station. Sincerely yours DAVID L. FLAKE Fire Chief j ERIC L. VOZ Fire Marshal RESOLUTION NO. 81-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET LOCATED GENERALLY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NO. CUP 07-80 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did hold a duly noticed Public Hearing on the 12th day of February, 1981, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, AND BERNARD SOLOMON for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 40,000 square foot supermarket at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road; more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, there was filed, in conjunction with an application for approval of Development Plan 07-80, an application for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a supermarket as part of said development; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing upon evaluating staff reports and Planning Commission minutes and upon hearing and considering all testimony, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Council did find the following facts to support their actions: The proposed project as conditioned would be adequately suited for the subject property and would be compatible with existing and proposed development in the area. The proposed supermarket as conditioned generally conforms to the intent and purpose of C-1 zone district, Redevelop- ment Plan and City's General Plan. The proposed project as conditioned would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. _ The proposed use complies with goals, objectives and all policies of the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true, correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. That the City Council of the City of Palm Desert does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit subject to those conditions labeled Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the meeting of the Palm Desert City Council on the 12th day of February, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. 81-18 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 07-80 STANDARD CONDITIONS: Page Two 1. City Council approval of Case No. CUP 07-80 is subject to Change of Zone 01-80 becoming effective. 2. The development of the property shall conform substantially with Exhibits "A" thru "E" (Case Nos. DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80) on file with the Department of Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses con- templated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural rquirements of the City which include, but are not limited to Design Review, subdivision process, and building permits procedures. 4. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each phase as a single project, and have specific approval from the Planning Commission. 5. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 6. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing to these conditions of approval. 7. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all Municipal Ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 8. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, whichare adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed. 9. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as a part of the develop- ment of this project per attached letters dated 5/22/80 and 12/11/80. 10. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until completed. 11. Traffic control.provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works. 12. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required by the Director of Public Works. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: RESOLUTION NO. Rl-1R Page Three SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director. 2. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm water flows. 3. Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep Canyon Road, adjacent to the property, to coincide with the existing curb, gutter, and paved roadway abutting the subject property to the north. 4. Applicant shall dedicate sufficient parkway to assure that the ultimate improvements of Deep Canyon Road are provided for in manner to coincide and be uniform with existing improvements north of the subject property. 5. There shall be no night deliveries to the supermarket between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 6. All mechanical equipment associated with the development shall be equipped with manufacturer supplied noise control devices and screened to satisfaction of Design Review Board. 7. Street improvements along Highway 111 and at the intersection of access "A" and Highway 111, as well as Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111 shall be approved as required by the State of California Department of Transportation. 8. Landscape plans submitted for review as a part of the Design Review process shall include special details related to: a. Preservation of Date Palms. b. Treatment along Deep Canyon and Highway 111 relative to mounding and landscape materials. C. Interior perimeter particularly adjacent to the existing condo development in terms of mounding and landscape materials. d. Commercial center parking lot particularly in terms of the relationship of landscape to lighting. e. On -site water retention. 9. The supermarket loading area shall be enclosed by a masonry wall or an equivalent combination of grade differential and masonry wall as approved by Design Review Board. 10. Parking lot area next to supermarket shall be modified to delete some of the ingress and egress points to diagonal circulation aisle between Deep Canyon Road and new public street from Highway 111; said modification shall be subject to approval by Design Review Board. 11. Traffic signal at northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111 shall be relocated to satisfaction of Director of Public Works and Environmental Services. 12. Height of windows of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be limited RESOLUTION NO. 81-18 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN May 22, 1980 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92250 Reference: Case No. DP07-80, C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80 Gentlemen: Page Four P.O. BOX 248 210 'NEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183 �w se6:'rIts rz Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions must be met: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 5000 GPM fire flow for, a five (5) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.- 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 150 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed), shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and'the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Case Number OP07-80, etc., is in accordance RESOLUTION NO. 81-18 a Page Five 6. All buildings shall be fully protected with automatic sprinklers. 7. Fire lanes may be required for access to buildings. Very truly yours, David L. Flake FG1 Chief Eric L. Vogt Fire Marshal ELV:dt — - CC: CVCWD; J. Zimmerman RESOLUTION NO. 81-18 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN December 111-1980 Philip Drell Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 ENVIkUMVILN1AL SERVICES CITY OF PAUd DESERT Page Six P.O. Box 245 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183 Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Report on "The Fountains." Gentlemen: In viewing this Draft EIR of "The Fountains", fire protection is only slightly mentioned as "adequate and no negative impacts al-e predicted." I feel very concerned that fire protection and life safety be given a higher priority and be provided for by the developer. In order that the developer adequately contribute towards the City of Palm Desert's responsibility for fire protection, the developer must provide built-in fire protection. This built-in fire protection includes Automatic Fire Sprinkler systems, Automatic Smoke'ind Ventilation Control systems and a Fire flow to meet the demand of the development. These fire protection systems must be imposed at the initial development stages if the project is phased so that the entire project is provided with adequate fire protection. If you have any questions or need further information, please call me at Rancho Mireage Fire Station. Sincerely yours DAVID L. FLAKE Fire Chief ERIC L. VOZ Fire Marshal ORDINANCE NO. 241 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE IN SECTION 25.92 ET SEQ, BY CHANGING THE ZONE DESIGNATIONS FROM PR-5 N, S.P. TO C-1 N, S.P. (4.6 ACRES); FROM PC (4), S.P.TO C-1 N, S.P. (7.3 ACRES); AND FROM PR-5 N TO C-1 N, S.P. (.44 ACRES) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NO. C/Z 01-80 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day of January, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by C C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND B. SOLOMON for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P; to allow the construction of a commercial/resort/residential development on 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a Final Environmental Impact Report has been certified in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; 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 Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Change of Zone: A. The Land Use resulting from the Change of Zone would be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses. B. The Commission has determined that the proposed Change of Zone would be compatible with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan and General Plan of the City. C. The proposed Change of Zone conforms to the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance. D. Findings as discussed in staff report dated 12-30-80. THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 25.84.080 and Section 25.80.020, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1: That the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.92, et. seq., the Zoning Map, is hereby amended to change the zone designations from PR-5 N, S.P. to C-1 N, S.P; from PC (4) to C-1 N, S.P; from PR-5 N to PC (4) N, S.P; and PR-5 N to C-1 N, S.P. on property illustrated on the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A". SECTION 2: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, 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 certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and the same shall be in full force and effect (30) days after its adoption. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) B. Case Nos. DP 07-80, C/Z 01-80, and CUP 07-80 - C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, B. SOLOMON, (BALLEW-MCFARLAND, Rep.), Applicants Request for a Zane Change, Development Plan, and Conditional Use Permits to allow construction of a hotel/condominium/ commercial project on a 30.5* acres, "L" shaped site, located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Diaz presented this case stating that this project was continued because of concerns expressed from the public and a request to prepare an EIR. Mr. Diaz stated that the EIR was now prepared and needed certification. Mr. Diaz then reviewed the residential, resort center, and commercial sites giving the proposed data and what was required by code, noting that all the sites, as proposed, did meet the City requirements; and that the zone change was consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. He reviewed the zone changes proposed: A portion of the hotel site was to be rezoned to resort commercial; Commercial site to be rezoned to general commercial, and a CUP was required for development of a supermarket in this area. Mr. Diaz also noted several findings that warranted the proposed project. He described the development pointing out that the market has been reduced to 40,000 sq.ft. (from 57,000 sq.ft.) and relocated further south; the proposed road, running east -west from Deep Canyon to Cook, has been eliminated. Mr. Diaz stated thaP a 60 ft. wide landscape buffer strip was provided adjacent to Hidden Palms, which addressed one of the concerns expressed at the last hearing. He then described the hotel complex relocation and stated that a condominium complex was being projected to be developed abutting Hidden Palms. Mr. Diaz stated that, in terms of the CUP required for the supermarket, Staff believed that it would not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties, will not be detrimental to surrounding properites, and it would meet the goals and objectives of the City's Genral Plan. Mr. Diaz reviewed the Environmental Impact Analysis which included drainage, traffic and circulation, and noise. He concluded by giving Staff's recommendation for approval. Mr. Diaz also noted the mitigating measures set forth in the EIR were imposed as conditions of approval as part of the Resolution. Commissioner Berkey noted that Standard Condition No. 9 should also include the Fire Marshal's letter dated December 11, 1980. Mr. Diaz noted a concern was made in regards to privacy, therefore, he recommended an additional condition, which would assure privacy to surrounding residents, to read: "Height of windows of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be limited to 6 fvpt from grade." Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MD DCDR14Dn en, _.MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) OPPOSITIONS: MR. BARRY WOODS, 44775 Deep Canyon, stated he was told this project was defeated at the previous hearing. He stated that he was not opposed to the development but was opposed to the supermarket and commercial site; he felt that the property value would be affected and he would have a problem selling his home in the future. JAN KOPIC, 44079 Oran Court, stated that she received notice on Christmas Eve and felt that since property owners were gone for the holidays, she requested a continuance. Chairman Miller asked staff when the notices were mailed. Staff replied that they were mailed and published on the 18th of December. ELIZABETH BARLOW, 44685 Monaco Circle, stated that there were many people who did not receive notice and that there was insufficient time given to review the EIR. She noted that the EIR did not give any elevations for Hidden Palms on Deep Canyon. GARY GOUDSWAARD, 44-755 Deep Canyon Road, stated that the market would create a traffic problem on Deep Canyon. He felt that there were too many markets, banks, etc already, for this City He further noted that currently the City does not have any fire protection. MARYANNE KENNY, 44835 Deep Canyon Road, felt that the buffer was added for the benefit of the Hidden Palms residents but nothing was done for the residents on Deep Canyon Road. She felt that the market "sticks out" too much. She also felt that the City has sufficient commercial development. Chairman Miller noted that Deep Canyon Road would be widened when the proposed project is developed. MR. DOUGLAS RICHARDSON, 44665 Monaco Circle, asked for clarification on the commercial building locations and the height of the buffer. After some discussion on the height of the buildings Mr. Diaz stated that a condition could be added to limit the height of the buildings adjacent to the Hidden Palms residential area to 18 feet. GWEN CARTER, 44-379 Cannes Court, also felt that there were traffic problems and this development would add to those problems. W.D. SMITH, 44-379 Baden Court, stated that the lights from the development would have a great impact on the residents. He questioned the drainage and stated he needed more information of the overall development. He objected to the rezoning of the residential zone to commercial. Chairman Miller briefly explained to those concerned that the lighting would be reviewed by the Design Review Board to assure there would not be any problems. Chairman Miller called for Mr. Solomon to give a rebuttal. Mr. Solomon stated that he met with Pat Reed, Rev. Smith, and Mr. Razella, of the Board of Directors for Hidden Palms. He pointed out that the EIR was completed LA J_.. -1 _ - - . _J 1_ I._ n_._I-. RI t l J 1_J L MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Page Four VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) Mr. Goudswaard again stated that there were several traffic problems and maintenance of vacant lots. He strongly opposed the project. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Richards felt that the public did have valid complaints as to information availability and knowlege of the City's code requirements. He pointed out that some of the problems raised would be taken care of through the Design Review Board process. Commissioner Berkey agreed with Commissioner Richards and asked staff if the building locations of the proposed development were definite. Mr. Diaz stated that there were comments regarding the location of the market and other buildings and asked for a continuance in order to give staff the opportunity to address these concerns. He indicated that EIR copies would be available and in t;1G Environmental Services Department for review and requested that comments from the public be submitted in writing. Commissioner Richards moved to continue this matter to January 14, 1981. The motion died due to lack of a second. A 10 MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:35 P.M. Chairman Miller reopened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wish(::-, to speak. Mr. Solomon stated that there was a time element involved. He stated that everything had been done that was required by the City code and by law, including the EIR. He felt that the EIR has been available to the public and everyone had been aware of this. He did not feel there was any basis for a continuance and requestr for a decision tonight. Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Berkey was concerned with the legal procedures and asked Mr. DiN./ what could or could not be done tonight. Mr. Diaz stated that the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit would only be valid if City Council approved the Change of Zone. He indicated thott Staff would respond to the comments on the EIR. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Diaz to explain to the public what the procedures were and then respond to the comments. Mr. Diaz stated that the next Public Hearing would be before the City Council for the approval of the Change of Zone. He explained what would be reviewed at the Design Review Board and asked if anyone who wished to be present for that meeting may request notification. Commissioner Berkey noted that there is an appeal period also for any decision reached by the Planning Commission or City Council. Mr -Diaz rocnnnHPd to rnmmnntc nartaininn to Fnvirnnmantal rnnrarnc is fnllnwc� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Page Five VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) Commissioner Berkey noted that the question of the economics of another market in the City was raised. Mr. Diaz stated that the EIR showed there is sufficient demand for this additional market. Chairman Miller reviewed the added Special Conditions, which were as follows: "12. Height of windows of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be limited to 6 feet above grade." "13. Height of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be a maximum of 18 feet." The Commission agreed to these additions. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to recommend approval to the City Council of a Change of Zone and certification of the EIR as it relates thereto, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 667; and, approve Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and certification of the EIR as it relates thereto, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 668, subject to conditions as amended. Carried unanimously (4-0). The Commission informed the public that the hearing for the Change of Zone would go before the City Council on the 22nd of January, 1981. C. 05-80 and ZOA 06-80 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant \MrDi ndment to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.20, regarding conditionally mitted uses in the R-3 zone (Multifamily Residential District). ndment to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.18, regarding conditionally mitted uses in the R-2 zone (Single Family Residential District). reviewed the staff report and recommended approval to the City Counci Chairman Ijiller opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. Mr. Dean Col 73-144 Catalina, gave the present zones in his area and stated he would eventually 'ke to convert his home into an office. He encouraged approval. There was dicuss'on on the matter of the properties abutting the proposed regional center on Monte ey, since the properties also abutted R-1. Mr. Diaz indicated that as long as a parcel abutted the regional commercial zone it could apply for a conditional us permit for office purposes. Additional discussion occurred concerning propert zoned R-3 or R-2 which are across a street or alley. from commercially zoned pro erty and the Commission concluded that such parcels could also have the right to ply for a conditional use permit for office uses. Therefore, the Resolutiok ZOA 05-80 - (N) Professional off c across street, or alley, from a P residential development standards ZOA 06-80 - (K) Professional offic Arrncc ctroot nr olln.. frnm . Dr Exhibit "A" , were amended as follows: es, provided property to be developed is abutting, (3) zone or existing professional office use; be used to insure compatibility. n e , provided property to be developed is abutting, vnno nr ovictinn nrnfne cinn�l nffi�n nc STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Change of Zone, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permits and Environmental Impact Report APPLICANT: C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, B. SOLOMON 74-133 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 Representative: BALLEW-MCFARLAND 18025-k Skypark Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 CASE NOS: '"t/Z 0 DP 07-80, and CUP 07-80 DATE: December 30, 1980 I. REQUEST Applicants are requesting a zone change, Development Plan approval, and CUP permits to permit the construction of a hotel/condominium/commercial project on a 30.5± acres, "L" shaped site located at the northeast cnrngr of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. LOCATIONAL MAP: 0 ' a LEGEND i 0 z E P2 1 1 r oe o u case ^° CUP07-W DP 07-80 a j S.P. ! i,-I '� All ssandr° Drive R I � LC. ([}) I! . P.G141 PI, SP _ Frnn taae Road .. --STATE—HIGHWAY—III--- II. BACKGROUND: This matter was before the Planning Commission for hearing on June 3, 1980. The matter was continued because of the concern voiced over the project's design, impact and problems of notification of the hearing. Subsequently, the applicant was informed that an Environmental Impact Report would have to be prepared on the project. Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Two III. DATA (cont.) Overall Setbacks: 30 ft. front required 35 ft. on street provide( 15 ft. side required 20 ft. side provided A. Residential Site - 13.0 acres in the northeast portion of the site. - Dwelling units/density 65/5.0 units per acre - Parking 163 required 189 proposed (130 covered; 59 open) - Building coverage 40% permitted 20% proposed - Common open space 50% required 57% (7.37 acres) proposed - Perimeter setbacks 20 ft. required = 20 ft. on east provided 30 ft. on north provided 50 ft. on west Provided B. Resort Center Site PC-4 - 4.8 acres on the southeast portion of the site. 1. Hotel - units/density 144/30 units per acre - Parking 249 required 249 proposed (215 subterranean) - Landscaped open space 40% required _ 48% proposed 2. Restaurant - Size 5000 sq.ft. - Parking 75 required 75 proposed - Landscaped open space 20% required 28% proposed C. Commercial Site (C-1) - 11.91 acres adjacent to Deep Canyon Road and Highway ill. - Square ft. buildings = 110,000 sq.ft. = 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket 70,000 sq.ft. Ancillary Commercial Uses - Parking 534 required 534 proposed =4 Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Three III. DATA: (cont.) D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses of Entire Site. 1. *North a. Zoned PR-5 N (Planned Residential Development, 5 units per acre, Natural Factors/Restricted Development). b. Land Use - Condominium Residential Development. *also west side of residential portion of project 2. West (across Deep Canyon Road) a. Zoned 1. R-1 13,000 2. R-3 (4) Multifamily residential, 1 unit per 4,000 sq.ft. (equals 10 units per acre) 3. South of Alessandro, C-1, S.P. (General Commercial) b. Land Use 1. single family residential 2. south of Alessandro - small commercial complex IV. ANALYSIS: A. Zone Change 1. Residential Site - The residential site does not require a change. The present zoning is Planned Residential Development, 5 units per acre and the proposed use is permitted by zone. 2. Hotel Site - Is presently on land zoned partially Planned Residential Development, 5 units (PR-5) per acre, and predominately Resort Commercial. In order to be developed, the 36,000 sq.ft. zoned PR-5 must be rezoned to Resort Commercial. 3. Restaurant Site - Presently zoned Resort Commercial, a change of zone is not required. It is a permitted use in the Resort Commerciai zone. 4. Commercial Site - Presently zoned partially Planned Residential, 5 units per acre (4.7 acres ±) and Resort Commercial (7.2 acres ±). The entire 11.9 ± acres would have to be rezoned to permit construction of the commercial portion of this project. In addition, a conditional use permit is required to permit the development of the supermarket facility on the commercial site. 5. Present General Plan Designation - Core Area Commercial Planned Commercial Resort Medium Density Residential 5-7 dwelling units per acre There are certain specific findings that should be made prior to approval of a change of zone. These are: 1. There are changed conditions since the existing zoning became Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) Page Four c. With the corresponding increases within the region, the need and demand for additional commercial services has increased. These services should be kept on major arterials. 2. The proposed change of zone will not adversely affect adjoining property as to value or precedent and will not be detrimental to the area: a. The change of zone actually involves only 11.91 acres of the 30.5 t acre site. Of that 11.91 acres, 7.2 acres are already zoned resort commercial. b. The impact on adjacent properties of the change of zone will be mitigated through conditions imposed on the development. c. Similar zoning along Hwy 111 has not adversely impacted adjoining properties as to value, or been detrimental to the area when properly planned and developed. 3. The proposed change of zone will be in the interest of furthering the public health, safety, and general welfare: a. It will enable the entire site to be developed in a unified manner, and provide additional commercial services into the area. b. Through added commercial development residents of the community will have greater variety of choice. c. When the development of the entire site, particularly its commercial portions, is completed, more jobs will be created for the region, increasing its economic viabil-ity. d. As stated previously, when the site is developed in accordance with the appropriate conditions imposed via the City's Planning process, potential impacts on adjoining properties should be mitigated. 4. The approval of the proposed change of zone is consistent with the City's adopted general plan: a. The City's adopted Land Use Element of the general plan shows the site designated as general commercial. The issues must then be resolved as to the depth of the commercial area north of Hwy 111. b. The Land Use Element should not be used alone in attempting to determine general plan consistency. In looking at the City's adopted noise element, further insight is given as to the site's suitability for residential development. (Let us clarify that we are just speaking of the area to be rezoned). As stated previously, the noise element of the general plan establishes criteria which should be utilized to determine a site's suit- ability for residential development. Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) Page five e. The key question is the depth of the zoning along Deep Canyon Road. The central issue is the method in which the development will occur, and can it be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties. The development plan as proposed through design does mitigate potential impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties. B. Development Plan The development plan itself can be divided into three principal sections: 1. The Commercial facility 2. The Hotel Complex and Restaurant 3. Residential facility 1. Commercial facility - As previously stated the commercial facility encompasses 11.91 acres of the site. It is composed of a 40,000 sq.ft. supermarket and 70,000 sq.ft. of various shops, offices and financial institutions. Access to the commercial area shall be from Deep Canyon Road and a future public street from Hwy 111. The access drive from Deep Canyon Road is 520 ft. from the centerline of Highway 111. As previously stated, the proposed development meets or exceeds all Palm Desert requirements for building coverage, parking and lands- caping. 2. Hotel Complex and Restaurant - The hotel and restaurant facility covers approximately 5.8 acres of the site. The hotel will contain 144 units and provide 249 parking spaces, while the restaurant will be approximately 5000 sq.ft. and provide 75 parking spaces. Access to this facility will be from the public street extending north of Highway 111. As with the commercial center all City requirements be met or exceeded. 3. Residential Development - The residential portion of the site is 1,4 acres. It will contain 65 units at a density of 5 dwelling units per acre. Access will be from the future public street extending from Highway 111. As shown in the data portion of this report all local ordinances have been complied with. Differences between previously submitted Development Plan: Certain concerns raised at the previous public hearing concering this development have brought changes from the originally submitted developme;,!: plan (Alternate I in Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Page V-46). The previously submitted proposal contained a 57,000 sq.ft. supermarket ..r Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) Page Six The deletion of the east -west roadway, the reduction and relocation of the supermarket, and expansion of the landscape buffer and movement of the Deep Canyon driveway southerly was done to address the concerns of the residents voiced in the previous hearing. The hotel complex previously located on the northern portion of the property, abutting the Hidden Palms development to the west, has been relocated southerly to abut Highway 111. In its place a 65 unit condo- minium development is projected; thus, abutting Hidden Palms to the west will be residential units at a density of five units per acre. The size of the hotel complex has been reduced to 144 units from 220. The number of access points to Deep Canyon Road has been reduced from two (a driveway and public street) to one (a commercial driveway). C. Conditional Use Permit The present Municipal Code requires that a conditional Use Permit be approved for a supermarket use. The required findings necessary for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the zoning district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the condi- tions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's general plan. Staff believes that all required findings can be met: 1. As stated previously, under the findings for the change of zone, particularly as it relates to consistency with the adopted general plan. The site is suitable for the development of a commercial center. Commercial centers, by their nature, usually require some type of "anchor" or large commercial attraction, (i.e., a food market, drug store, home improvement center, etc.). A 40,000 sq.ft. supermarket at this location and developed as part of an overall shopping center, would not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties and thus, meets the intent and purpose of the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance. 2. As part of an overall commercial site plan, with controlled points of ingress and egress, and properly buffered and distant from Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Seven IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) 4. As stated under the general plan consistency findings of the zone change analysis, the proposed use meets the goals and objectives of the City's general plan. D. Environmental Impact Analysis Drainage - According to the environmental impact report, the drainage plans as prepared ensures "that the proposed development is adequately drained". However, the report continues "the facilities are designed to accomodate the present volume of stormwater entering the site from upslope areas... The drainage facilities plan is not designed to accomodate any significant increases in stormwater flow onto the site from the upslope areas". Since the City's master drainage plan includes plans for eventual increased stormwater drainage to the site, provisions should be made to assure that the site's drainage facility can accomodate this added drainage. In addition, the City of Indian Wells has expressed concern over the impact of the project at the intersection of 44th Avenue and Cook Street. Conditions of approval - a. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance 218 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director. b. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm water flows. _ These conditions should mitigate potential drainage problems. Traffic and Circulation - The majority of the development's traffic is expected to utilize Highway 111. According to the Analysis of the Environmental Impact Report, 65% of the traffic generated by the site would utilize Highway 111. While, the traffic volume on Highway 111 may exceed the design capacity, the traffic service wild still fall within the good and acceptable level at the critical intersection of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon. Potential mitigation measures for any significant adverse impacts on Highway 111 must be imposed by the California Department of Transportation. The proposed public street which will provide access to the development at Highway ill must have intersection design approved by Cal Trans. At that time, Cal Trans will impose what they deem appropriate to facilitate traffic flows on Hwy 111. In order to assure smooth transition along Deep Canyon Road, the following conditions should be imposed: a. Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) Page Eight The conclusion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report is that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt findings as recommended by Staff; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to the City Council adoption of Change of Zone 01-80 and certification of the Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. 3. Approving Case Nos. DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , and certifying the Environmental Impact Report as it pertains thereto. C:3t:�oZ7 (Z O - Tl Tn h, 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 _Decem CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF (1) A CHANGE OF ZONE, (2) DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND (4) THE REVIEW OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL/RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 10-80, CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MR. C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a (1) Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial. S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC(4) N. S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P; (2) Development Plan; (3) Conditional Use Permit; (4) Review of Draft Environ- mental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium, a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. commercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APP; 525-1C 004, 625-i0-006, 625-i"u-^v"uu - 625-10-009, 625-10-015 thru 625-10-022 o i I o i LEGEND 600" R++nmmmmmmmmin,r . O a P.R.-S i-----� a u i PR.-5, N f a o j pp Case M. 6s. F C/Z of -so CUP07-e0 DP 07-60 P.R.-51 N S.P. �_ I .............._:' YY - , C P.C.f41, S.P. } s P. C. (4) P.C.-M N, S P •� ond i_............ .................... I,Lc_c•_suauz•.v �;t� I twlG. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-061I December 31, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE . -A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FORA PORTION OF 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 and'EIR 80-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by C- ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres).to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P. and for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact'Report as it pertains thereto for a obrtion of. 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru P.R.-5, N S.P. i 625-100-008 625-100-022 P.R.-5, N PR-;T.'4) R (4) N, `.F. P.C: M) N, 5 LEGEND ........... -..... ... Case M. UZ OI-80 CUP0720 OP 07-80 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 667 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERICAL/ RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80, EIR 01-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 1980, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued Public Hearing on the 30th day of December, 1980, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND B. SOLOMON for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P; to allow the construction of a commercial/resort/residential development on 30 acres located at the north- east corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been completer in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimoyly and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commiss::!, did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Change of Zone: A. The Land Use resulting from the Change of Zone would be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses. B. The Commission has determined that,the proposed Change of Zone would be compatible with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan and General Plan of the City. C. The proposed Change of Zone conforms to the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance. - D. Findings as discussed in staff report dated 12-30--80. 2. Environmental Impact Report: A. The EIR has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. B. Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Counril annrnval of n rhnnno of 7n.., f..-- nn a ni c n a_ n 1 .1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 667 Page Two A. Comments received on the draft EIR and related responses by City. B. Public testimony regarding the EIR during the Public Hearings and related responses. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission held on the 30th day of December, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, RICHARDS, MILLER NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCLACHLAN ABSTAIN: NONE HARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL/RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. CUP 07-80, DP 07-80, EIR 01-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, _ did hold a duly noticed public hearing on the 3rd day of June, 1980, readvertised and continued the public hearing to the 30th day of December, 1980, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND BERNARD SOLOMON for approval of a Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium, a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. Restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. commercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Rd., more particularly described as: APN 625-10-004, 625-10-006, 625-10-008 625-10-009, 625-10-015, thru 625-10-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been complefe,i+ in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, saitl Commis'AF-. did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Environmental Impact Report: a) The EIR has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. b) Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. 2. Development Plan: a) The proposed project conforms with the intent and purpose of the PR and PC-4 Zones. b) The proposed project as conditioned is well suii:ed for the specific site and is compatible with the existing and proposed development in the area. c) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the Health, Safety, and General Welfare of the community. 3. Conditional Use Permit: a) The proposed project as conditioned would be adequately suited for the subject property and would be compatible with existing and proposed development in the area. b) The proposed Supermarket as conditioned generally PLANNING COMMISSION RE! TION NO. 668 r0 Page Two 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, correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby certify the final EIR as complete to include: a) The draft EIR; b) Comments received on the draft EIR and related responses by City; and, c) ' Public Testimony regarding the EIR during the Public Hearings and related responses. 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan subject to those conditions labeled Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission on the 30th day of December, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, RICHARDS, MILLER NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCLACHLAN ABSTAIN: NONE CHARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 Page Three EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Planning Commission approval of Case Nos. CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 is subject to City Council approval of Change of Zone 01-80. 2. The development of the property shall conform substantially with Exhibits A thru E (Case Nos. DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80) on file with the Department of Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the City which include, but are not limited to Design Review, Subdivision process, and building permits procedures. 4. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each phase as a single project, and have specific approval from the Planning Commission. 5. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 6. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing to these conditions of approval. 7. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all Municipal Ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. - 8. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to the.property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed. 9. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as a part of the development of this project per attached letters dated 5/22/80 & 12/1-1./80. 10. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until completed. 11. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works. 12. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required by the Director of Public Works. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain Dermits and/or clearancp PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 Page Four SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director. 2. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm water flows. 3. Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep Canyon Road, adjacent to the property, to coincide with the existing curb, gutter, and paved roadway abutting the subject property to the north. 4. Applicant shall dedicate sufficient parkway to assure that the ultimate improvements of Deep Canyon Road are provided for in manner to coincide and be uniform with existing improvements north of the subject property. 5. There shall be no night deliveries to the supermarket between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 6. All mechanical equipment associated with the development shall be equipped with manufacturer -supplied noise control devices and screened to satisfaction of Design Review Board. 7. Street improvements along Highway 111 shall be made as required by the State of California Department of Transportation. 8. Landscape plans submitted for review as a part of the Design Review process shall include special details related to: a. Preservation of Date Palms. b. Treatment along Deep Canyon and Highway 111 relative to mounding and landscape materials. C. Interior perimeter particularly adjacent to the existing condo development in terms of mounding and landscape materials. d. Commercial center parking lot particularly in terms of the relationship of landscape to lighting. e. On -site water retention. 9. The supermarket loading area shall be enclosed by a masonry wall or an equivalent combination of grade differential and masonry wall as approved by Design Review Board. 10. Parking lot area next to supermarket shall be modified to delete some of the ingress and egress points to diagonal circulation aisle between Deep Canyon Road and new public street from Highway 111; said modification shall be subject to approval by Design Review Board. 11. Traffic signal at northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111 shall be relocated to satisfaction of Director of Public Works and Environmental Services. 19 Nainht of winrinwc of ratail chnnc_ arliarant to Hirirlan Palm zhall ha limitpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN May 22, 1980 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Reference: Case No. DP07-80, C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80 Gentlemen: Page Five P.O. BOX 248 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183 fNL7RC ti:fvi�a �!� �� Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions must be met: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 5000 GPM fire flow for, a five (5) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 150 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed), shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 668 Page Six- 6. All buildings shall be fully protected with automatic sprinklers. 7. Fire lanes may be required for access to buildings. Very truly yours, David L. Flake �Fir Chief � e. ,-/- Eric L. Vogt Fire Marshal ELV:dt CC: CVCWD; J. Zimmerman 1 -page 2- h /.10x U V TECHNICAL PLAN TABULATION PR-5 RESIDENTIAL SITE PUBLIC ROAD GROSS ACRES 13.0.c ACRES DWELLING UNIT$ 65w DENSITY 5.0.,. PC.' C•1 DENTIAL ..t« . EL ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN ■ :1 n PJ_ANNING COMMISSION RE ITION NO. 668 Page Seven DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE OCNTY >>! --' CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY RIVERSIDE: `.: DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN December 111-1980 Philip Drell 4I-�I11ggp Assistant Planner ENVIRUIq Fdti7iAL SERVICES City of Palm Desert CITY OF PALM DESERT 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 P.O. Box 241) 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (7741 657-3183 Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Report on "The Fountains." Gentlemen: In viewing this Draft EIR of "The Fountains", fire protection is only slightly mentioned as "adequate and no negative impacts are predicted." I feel very concerned that fire protection and life safety be given a higher priority and be provided for by the developer. In order that the developer adequately contribute towards the City of Palm Desert's responsibility for fire protection, the developer ( must provide built-in fire protection. This built-in fire protection C includes Automatic Fire Sprinkler systems, Automatic Smoke and Ventilation Control systems and a Fire flow to meet the demand of the development. These fire protection systems must be imposed at the initial development stages if the project is phased so that the entire project is provided with adequate fire protection. If you have any questions or need further information, please call me at Rancho Mireage Fire Station. Sincerely yours DAVID L. FLAKE Fire Chief ERIC L. VOZ Fire Marshal r�. Irs. Carlene 44 755 Deep Palm Desert, RECEIVED. January 15, 1981 45I'SAW 20 IMAM Lane. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260; CITY CLERKS OFFICE Re: A zone change for a portion the northeast corner of Hwy. 111 Dear Counctl, H. Goudswaard Canyon Ro^d Ca. 92260 of 30 acres 1oc^.ted at and Deep Canyon Road. I would like to be heard on the above mentioned zone change but find it difficult to speak. at the actual meeting. The planntng commission meetings pertaining to this issue have been full of hostility, and I don't believe that any sense can be made of this situatton with all the shouting going on from both sides. I hope all members of the council will take time to read this letter as I feel a goodly part of my life and that of my family will be affected by the decision on this zone change. Y y family and I are completely against zoning this property for commercial use. It would be so completely opposite from what it is zoned for now. I have no knowledge of envirnmental impact studies and alot of the other legal type terms that have been used to dtscrtbe the reasons why this property should be zoned commerctal. I only know that 11tve.in a house that my husband and I built 12 years ago in a district that contained only single family homes and date groves. Xe also own the vacant lot next to our home so I feel we have a double interest in the proposed project. 17e have to be realistic about the circumstances of living here. .Te knew that we would lose the groves someday. That comes in the name of progress. Not many years ago the first grove was taken and the Hidden Palms condominium community was built. This we accepted. Not ha,optly but never the less we knew it was inevitable. ye have since felt that the same thing would takecpince with the prove across the street from our house. Te think this would be fine as Hidden Palms is certainly not an eye sore. Imagine the total .shock we felt. when they proposed a supermarket, shopping center, bank, hotel, and restaurant directly across the street'from us. "e don't understand how this can possibly be considered. After hearing the decision of the planning commission I wis appalled. 2. Aside from the fact that I don't want to look at a sho^ping center or a hotel from my ,front window,I know that Deep Canyon Rd, cannot handle the volume of traffic that this aroject would generate. You don't have to be an expert to see thzt it already carries an excessive amount of through traffic.,ie find it difficult to back out of our drive way at peak hours now. Ahen services are about to take place or are over at Sacred Heart C�tholtc Church tt is tmposstble to enter or back out. What will it be like with a shopping center? 411 of the other markets and shopping areas in Palm Desert are accessible by Hwy. 111 or El Paseo. These are both commercial streets so that is +ine.They are meant for this type of traffic. The proposed project would funnel most of the traffic onto Deep ^,anyon. Where does it go from there? It will go onto other residential streets. Deep Canyon dead ends north of Ave. 44 at the wash. It will never be a through street as the land across the wash is developed. It amazed me at a planning commission meeting th^t Charlie Ntller mentioned the idea of Deep Canyon going on across the wash when traffic control was discussed. He didn't even know that it couldn't. This leads me to believe that maybe there are other very necessary things that the commission didn't know. Time and time again the Zack of fire and police protection comes up. I agree with this but feel it will have no effect on the proposed project. I feel nothing short of our own city departments will help us. Another of my concerns is air and noise pollution. My baby sleeps in a room very near the street. Can I open her window and subject her to the fumes and noise ? Te already no how much pollution will be gener^ted from the Hahn Center. Councilman Puluqi gave those facts and figuars at the Hahn hearing. :'ie realize this would be on a smaller scale but its also a much smaller area. If we need another market and the other facilities that are included in the proposed project, and of this I cannot be the judpe,let them build it on property that is already zoned for comm,erctzl use. Just get it out of a residential area. I have been very worried by the reaction I ,get from members of our community when I mention the name of Robert Hubbard in connection with the zone change. They ,generally say " If Hubbard is involved with this you don't have a chance." I personaly know of one tnspdent where his underhandedness won and I certainly hope that he being who he is will not have any effect on the dectsion of this council. 3. Ny neighbors and I overheard him saying very loudly " this is what you get when you deal with white trash". This was after he lost the first round with the planning commission. chat kind of people are we de -ling with? I must mention that the planning commission made a guarantee when they approved this project nt the last meeting. They said no deliveries would be made to the market after 10:00P.N. Go to any big market in Palm Desert and you will find them receiving their deliveries after 10:00 P.N. and on into the early morning hours. This is the time the trucks are on the road. This is a fact of life. Even if it came to pass, whois going to enforce it? You can't get a sheriff in this town when there is a crime let alone a report of this nature. Ny last but very real concern involves the future. If this proposed zone change takes place what is to prevent someone at a much 1�7ter date from deciding the whole area between Deep Canyon and Po rtola should become commercial? We only live three houses and a vacant lot away from Alessandro ,Street. It is commercial now. I saw this same thing happen to my family home as a teenager in Los Angeles. You have no idea how it feels when they tell you that you must leave your home. They ma ke a n offer. If you don't accept they condem your property. Either wa y you lose. I know this sounds far fetched but I've seen it happen in similar circumstances. We are depending on you the council. You are the people we elected to act for us. Plea se be fair. Come stand on Deep Canyon in front of the homes of myself and my net.ohbo rs. You can tell by looking and watching this area is not designed for commercial use. As a young city I'm sure we could use the revenue ,generated by a project like this. Fine, but have them build it there tt belongs. Not on Deep Canyon Road. Sincerely, IG�-<,4-iE:-CC'L��{ij'.e/\ Carlene H. Gou�Hswaard ROY ROTTNER & ASSOCIATES 9ZZ NORTH VINE STREET, SUITE 200 • Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90038 • (213) 455.2125 Commission Chairman Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert, California re: Hubbard Development Dear Sir: February 6, 1981 I am -a resident of the Hidden Palms Estates and reside at 44-269 Nice Court, Palm Desert, California. Having purchased my property as both a vacation home and of that as a potential investment in September 1979. I chose the community of Palm Desert to invest in because of the mode of life expressed in the area surrounding the Hidden Palm Estates and felt quite comfortable initially. I have been informed of the Hubbard Development of late and of some of the situations going on which could hinder not only my investment but that of how I feel in the area and its future, my wife Gerlinde L. Rottner is of the same opinion. I am deeply concerned of facts related to me in which one Mr. Solomon knownonly to me as a developer in the Hubbard Development and the attitude of the Planning Commission have been with relation to representitives of Hidden Palms Estates and their counsel Mr. Tom Winfield. The objection I currently observe of the Hubbard Development is that a common ground cannot be reached with respect to the needs of the community through its representitives and Mr. Solomon and the Palm Desert Planning Commission. I do not feel it fair or democratic that the views of the local residents cannot be considered with the future plans of the Hubbard Development. I am not denying the Hubbard people their right to develop but feel the rights of the local residents must be respected and that fair treatment of all concerned be accorded. Since I am a member of the Community and am concerned for its future, I insist and demand that the Planning Commission live up to its responsibility to hear fairly ALL SIDES concerning this vital issue. Respectfully, Roy Rottner February 8, 1981 Mr. Paul Williams Palm Desert Planning Commission 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Williams, This is the second letter I am writing to you regarding the proposal of a development adjacent to Hidden Palms_ Condominium Project. The case numbers as stated in your notice to me are CUP 07-08, DP 07-80, E.I.R. 80-01. I stated in my letter of May 29th I was opposed to the development as proposed as it would not be in accord with the existing residential. I am most concerned that the developers have made no effort to meet with our committees to review plans for the proposed project and that they also have made 'tio efforts to assure the residents of Hidden Palms that their homes would not be surrounded by trash receptacles, loading docks and subjected to commercial noises. There are quite a few children living in Hidden Palms and I am also concerned about the attractive nuisance being behind such a development would cause to the children. I would very much like to attend the meeting on Feb. 12 but cannot due to previous commitments out of town. I wish to go on record as a home owner opposing any zoning change. Sincerely, Beverly Ann Clark 44-671 Monaco Circle Hidden Palms Palm Desert, California 92260 February 12, 1981 Mr. Paul Williams Palm Desert Planning Commission 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Williams: I am a homeowner in the Hidden Palms development. "My address 44-711 Monaco Circle. I am most concerned about the proposed zoning changes and the impending plans for development of the corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon backing up onto the Hidden Palms project. Until there is further clarification of what exactly the developers intend to do, and how they intend to construct a buffer zone between the residential area of Hidden Palms and the backside of their development I wish to go on record as being opposed to any zoning changes. I have written you before that I am in opposition to this project. Thank you, �ti Ann Macomber 44-711 Monaco Circle Palm Desert, Ca. OS, Shapell Industries, Inc. February 10, 1981 The City Council City of Palm Desert P. 0. Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Wilshire -San Vicente Plaza Suite 700 8383 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211 213 655 7330 Bernard E. McCune Senior Vice President Re: Case #C/Z 01-80; DP 07-80; CUP 07-80 Honorable Council: It has come to my attention that subject zone change is being considered by your Honorable Body. As an owner in Palm Desert I am interested in the welfare of the Palm Desert area. I would respectfully ask you to consider the approval of subject Request for Zone Change in the de- velopment plans as well as the development plans. I do not think there is any question that the project will be an asset to the City. It will provide funding for City services, which is needed very badly. It will offer conveniences and advantages to all residents in the area. Respectfully; I.- i ' & S798310 4110 Bernard E. McCune BEM/hs £ 0 Z Wd £ 1033 186 03Ai30318 S9L000 a -ad, D l- C 14,10 40 7- Gpo E 0 1 Rd E 1833 184 a3A13038 I. TO II. IV. V. P!i CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER Honorable Mayor and City Council REQUEST: Approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ac., maximum density natural factors/ restricted development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial) and from PC 4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, Scenic Preservation Overlay) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and Certification of a final Environmental Impact Report as it pertains thereto for a portion of 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Hwy 111 and Deep Canyon Road. (See attached legal notice) APPLICANTS: C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, B. SOLOMON 74-133 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 Represented by: BALLEW-MCFARLAND 18025-K Skypark Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 CASE NO: C/Z 01-80 DATE: January 22, 1980 CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Resolution No.81-10, and Draft Ordinance D. Planning Commission iTT`nui:es involving Case Nos. E. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 667 and 668 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December G. Related maps and/or exhibits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No. 241 C/Z T3-8b, DP 07-80, CUP 07-81 30, 1980. Waive further reading and based on the justification and findings in draft Ordinance, pass Ordinance No. 241 to second reading, approving Change of Zone 01-80 and adopt Resolution No.81-10 , certifying the Environmental Impact Report as it pertains thereto. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission at its regular meeting of December 30, 1980, reviewed the requested Change of Zone in conjunction with Development Plan 07-80 and Conditional Use Permit 07-80 and a Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 667 and 668 recommending the City Council approval of the Change of Zone 01-80 and approving Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit 07-80 and certifying the Environmental Impact Report as it pertained thereto. TRANSMITTAL LETTER C/Z 01-80 January 22, 1981 Page Two The reasons set forth in that report are: 1. There are changed conditions since the existing zoning became effective to warrant other or additional zoning. 2. The proposed change of zone will not adversely affect adjoining property as to value or precedent and will not be detrimental to the area. 3. The proposed change of zone will be in the interest of furthering the public health, safety, and general welfare. 4. The approval of the proposed change of zone is consistent with the City adopted General Plan. ORDINANCE NO. 241 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE IN SECTION 25.92 ET SEQ, BY CHANGING THE ZONE DESIGNATIONS FROM PR-5 N, S.P. TO C-1 N, S.P. (4.6 ACRES); FROM PC (4), S.P.TO C-1 N, S.P. (7.3 ACRES); AND FROM PR-5 N TO C-1 N, S.P. (.44 ACRES) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NO. C/Z 01-80 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day of January, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND B. SOLOMON for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P; to allow the construction of a commercial/resort/residential development on 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a Final Environmental Impact Report has been certified in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; 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 Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Change of Zone: A. The Land Use resulting from the Change of Zone would be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses. B. The Commission has determined that the proposed Change of Zone would be compatible with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan and General Plan of the City. C. The proposed Change of Zone conforms to the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance. D. Findings as discussed in staff report dated 12-30-80. THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 25.84.080 and Section 25.80.020, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1: That the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.92, et. seq., the Zoning Map, is hereby amended to change the zone designations from PR-5 N, S.P. to C-1 N, S.P; from PC (4) to C-1 N, S.P; from PR-5 N to PC (4) N, S.P; and PR-5 N to C-1 N, S.P. on property illustrated on the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A". SECTION 2: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is T— hereby direct 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 certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and the same shall be in full force and effect (30) days after its adoption. W RESOLUTION NO. 81-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING A FINAL EIR AS IT PERTAINS TO A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR A PORTION OF 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 AND EIR 80-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day of January, 1981, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Certi- fication of a Final Environmental Impact Report as it pertains to a Change of Zone for a portion of 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road; WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 80-81 establishes procedures for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared observing said procedures in conjunction with the request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND B. SOLOMON for a Change of Zone, Development Plan, and Conditional Use Permit; WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has considered the draft text, amendments thereto, suggested responses to comments received, and recommended certi- fication of a final EIR along with their action on the project; and, WHEREAS, mitigation measures recommended in the EIR have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit 07-80 and Development Plan 07-80. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this matter. 2. That the Council does hereby certify that the final EIR text has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and the State and City guidelines, with the inclusion of the following attached hereto: - Exhibit "A", draft EIR text; Exhibit "B", comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR during the public review period; Exhibit "C", listing of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; Exhibit "D", authorized response to significant environmental points raised in the review and con- sulation process; and, - Exhibit "E", Minutes of City of Palm Desert Planning Commission of December 30, 1980; - The administrative record for Case No. C/Z 01-80, incorporated hereto by reference and made a part of RESOLUTION NO. 81-1Q AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /lr Page Two S. ROY WILSON, MAYOR MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) B. Case Nos. DP 07-80, C/Z 01-80, and CUP 07-80 - C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, B. SOLOMON, (BALLEW-MCFARLAND, Rep.), Applicants Request for a Zone Change, Development Plan, and Conditional Use Permits to allow construction of a hotel/condominium/ commercial project on a 30.5# acres, "L" shaped site, located at the northeast corner of Highway III and Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Diaz presented this case stating that this project was continued because of concerns expressed from the public and a request to prepare an EIR. Mr. Diaz stated that the EIR was now prepared and needed certification. Mr. Diaz then reviewed the residential, resort center, and commercial sites giving the proposed data and what was required by code, noting that all the sites, as proposed, did meet the City requirements; and that the zone change was consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. He reviewed the zone changes proposed: A portion of the hotel site was to be rezoned to resort commercial; Commercial site to be rezoned to general commercial, and a CUP was required for development of a supermarket in this area. Mr. Diaz also noted several findings that warranted the proposed project. He described the development pointing out that the market has been reduced to 40,000 sq.ft. (from 57,000 sq.ft.) and relocated further south; the proposed road, running east -west from Deep Canyon to Cook, has been eliminated. Mr. Diaz stated that a 60 ft. wide landscape buffer strip was provided adjacent to Hidden Palms, which addressed one of the concerns expressed at the last hearing. He then described the hotel complex relocation and stated that a condominium complex was being projected to be developed abutting Hidden Palms. Mr. Diaz stated that, in terms of the CUP required for the supermarket, Staff believed that it would not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties, will not be detrimental to surrounding properites, and it would meet the goals and objectives of the City's Genral Plan. Mr. Diaz reviewed the Environmental Impact Analysis which included drainage, traffic and circulation, and noise. He concluded by giving Staff's recommendation for approval.. Mr. Diaz also noted the mitigating measures set forth in the EIR were imposed as conditions of approval as part of the Resolution. Commissioner Berkey noted that Standard Condition No. 9 should also include the Fire Marshal's letter dated December 11, 1980. Mr. Diaz noted a concern was made in regards to privacy, therefore, he recommended an additional condition, which would assure privacy to surrounding residents, to read: "Height of windows of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be limited to 6 feet from grade." Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant wished to make a presentation. _.MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Para Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) OPPOSITIONS: MR. BARRY WOODS, 44775 Deep Canyon, stated he was told this project was defeated at the previous hearing. He stated that he was not opposed to the development but was opposed to the supermarket and commercial site; he felt that the property value would be affected and he would have a problem selling his home in the future. JAN KOPIC, 44079 Oran Court, stated that she received notice on Christmas Eve and felt that since.property owners were gone for the holidays, she requested a continuance. Chairman Miller asked staff when the notices were mailed. Staff replied that they were mailed and published on the 18th of December. ELIZABETH BARLOW, 44685 Monaco Circle, stated that there were many people who did not receive notice and that there was insufficient time given to review the EIR. She noted that the EIR did not give any elevations for Hidden Palms on Deep Canyon. GARY GOUDSWAARD, 44-755 Deep Canyon Road, stated that the market would create a traffic problem on Deep Canyon. He felt that there were too many markets, banks, etc already, for this City He further noted that currently the City does not have any fire protection. MARYANNE KENNY, 44835 Deep Canyon Road, felt that the buffer was added for the benefit of the Hidden Palms residents but nothing was done for the residents on Deep Canyon Road. She felt that the market "sticks out" too much. She also felt that the City has sufficient commercial development. Chairman Miller noted that Deep Canyon Road would be widened when the proposed project is developed. MR. DOUGLAS RICHARDSON, 44665 Monaco Circle, asked for clarification on the commercial building locations and the height of the buffer. After some discussion on the height of the buildings Mr. Diaz stated that a condition could be added to limit the height of the buildings adjacent to the Hidden Palms residential area to 18 feet. GWEN CARTER, 44-379 Cannes Court, also felt that there were traffic: ;problems and this development would add to those problems. W.D. SMITH, 44-379 Baden Court, stated that the lights from the development would have a great impact on the residents. He questioned the drainage and stated he needed more information of the overall development. He objected to the rezoning of the residential zone to commercial. Chairman Miller briefly explained to those concerned that the lighting would be reviewed by the Design Review Board to assure there would not be any problems. Chairman Miller called for Mr. Solomon to give a rebuttal. Mr. Solomon stated that he met with Pat Reed, Rev. Smith, and Mr. Razella, of the Board of Directors for Hidden Palms. He pointed out that the EIR was completed MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 30, 1980 Page Four VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) Mr. Goudswaard again stated that there were several traffic problems and maintenance of vacant lots. He strongly opposed the project. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Richards felt that the public did have valid complaints as to information availability and knowlege of the City's code requirements. He pointed out that some of the problems raised would be taken care of through the Design Review Board process. Commissioner Berkey agreed with Commissioner Richards and asked staff if the building locations of the proposed development were definite. Mr. Diaz stated that there were comments regarding the location of the market and other buildings and asked for a continuance in order to give staff the opportunity to address these concerns. He indicated that EIR copies would be available and in the Environmental Services Department for review and requested that comments from the public be submitted in writing. Commissioner Richards moved to continue this matter to January 14, 1981. The motion died due to lack of a second. A 10 MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:35 P.M. Chairman Miller reopened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak. Mr. Solomon stated that there was a time element involved. He stated that everything had been done that was required by the City code and by law, including the EIR. He felt that the EIR has been available to the public and everyone had been aware of this. He did not feel there was any basis for a continuance and requested for a decision tonight. Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Berkey was concerned with the legal procedures and asked Mr. Diaz what could or could not be done tonight. Mr. Diaz stated that the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit would only be valid if City Council approved the Change of Zone. He indicated that Staff would respond to the comments on the EIR. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Diaz to explain to the public what the procedures were and then respond to the comments. Mr. Diaz stated that the next Public Hearing would be before the City Council for the approval of the Change of Zone. He explained what would be reviewed at the Design Review Board and asked if anyone who wished to be present for that meeting may request notification. Commissioner Berkey noted that there is an appeal period also for any decision reached by the Planning Commission or City Council. &I- !1I__ STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Planning Commission REPORT ON: Change of Zone, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permits and Environmental Impact Report APPLICANT: C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, B. SOLOMON 74-133 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 Representative: BALLEW-MCFARLAND 18025-k Skypark Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 CASE NOS: C/Z 0 DP 07-80, and CUP 07-80 DATE: December 30, 1980 I. REQUEST: Applicants are requesting a zone change, Development Plan approval, and CUP permits to permit the construction of a hotel/condominium/commercial project on a 30.51 acres, "L" shaped site located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. LOCATIONAL MAP: o I LEGEND .1� ee oemm� o z eE 1 P.R.-S PFt-5.iv o. C. na aza-so CUP0790 L . OP 07-80 .P I L� ' r C-1 N, C.P I 41n 5sonEro I 0.ive PC.141,S.P. 1 F. C. (s}} I: j IP.C.14) N, S.P —Q-STATE—HIGHWAY—III II. BACKGROUND: This matter was before the Planning Commission for hearing on June 3, 1980. The matter was continued because of the concern voiced over the project's design, impact and problems of notification of the hearing. Subsequently, the applicant was informed that an Environmental Impact Report would have to be prepared on the project. Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Two III. DATA (cont.) Overall Setbacks: 30 ft. front required 35 ft. on street providf 15 ft. side required 20 ft. side provided A. Residential Site - 13.0 acres in the northeast portion of the site. - Dwelling units/density 65/5.0 units per acre - Parking 163 required 189 proposed (130 covered; 59 open) - Building coverage 40% permitted 20% proposed - Common open space 50% required 57% (7.37 acres) proposed - Perimeter setbacks 20 ft. required = 20 ft. on east provided 30 ft. on north provided 50 ft. on west Provided B. Resort Center Site PC-4 - 4.8 acres on the southeast portion of the site. 1. Hotel - units/density 144/30 units per acre - Parking 249 required 249 proposed (215 subterranean) - Landscaped open space 40% required - 48% proposed 2. Restaurant - Size 5000 sq.ft. - Parking 75 required 75 proposed - Landscaped open space 20% required 28% proposed C. Commercial Site (C-1) - 11.91 acres adjacent to Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111. - Square ft. buildings = 110,000 sq.ft. = 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket 70,000 sq.ft. Ancillary Commercial Uses - Parking 534 required 534 proposed -c4 Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Three III. DATA: (cont.) D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses of Entire Site. 1. *North a. Zoned PR-5 N (Planned Residential Development, 5 units per acre, Natural Factors/Restricted Development). b. Land Use - Condominium Residential Development. *also west side of residential portion of project 2. West (across Deep Canyon Road) a. Zoned 1. R-1 13,000 2. R-3 (4) Multifamily residential, 1 unit per 4,000 sq.ft. (equals 10 units per acre) 3. South of Alessandro, C-1, S.P. (General Commercial) b. Land Use 1. single family residential 2. south of Alessandro - small commercial complex IV. ANALYSIS: A. Zone Change 1. Residential Site - The residential site does not require a change. The present zoning is Planned Residential Development, 5 units per acre and the proposed use is permitted by zone. 2. Hotel Site - Is presently on land zoned partially Planned Residential Development, 5 units (PR-5) per acre, and predominately Resort Commercial. In order to be developed, the 36,000-sq.ft. zoned PR-5 must be rezoned to Resort Commercial. 3. Restaurant Site - Presently zoned Resort Commercial, a change of zone is not required. It is a permitted use in the Resort Commercial zone. 4. Commercial Site - Presently zoned partially Planned Residential, 5 units per acre (4.7 acres ±) and Resort Commercial (7.2 acres ±). The entire 11.9 ± acres would have to be rezoned to permit construction of the commercial portion of this project. In addition, a conditional use permit is required to permit the development of the supermarket facility on the commercial site. 5. Present General Plan Designation - Core Area Commercial Planned Commercial Resort Medium Density Residential 5-7 dwelling units per acre There are certain specific findings that should be made prior to approval of a change of zone. These are: 1. There are changed conditions since the existing zoninq became C r- Staff Report C. Robert !fubtard December 30, 1980 IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) Page Four c. With the corresponding increases within the region, the need and demand for additional commercial services has increased. These services should be kept on major arterials. 2. The proposed change of zone will not adversely affect adjoining property as to value or precedent and will not be detrimental to the area: a. The change of zone actually involves only 11.91 acres of the 30.5 ± acre site. Of that 11.91 acres, 7.2 acres are already zoned resort commercial. b. The impact on adjacent properties of the change of zone will be mitigated through conditions imposed on the development. c. Similar zoning along Hwy 111 has not adversely impacted adjoining properties as to value, or been detrimental to the area when properly planned and developed. 3. The proposed change of zone will be in the interest of furthering the public health, safety, and general welfare: a. It will enable the entire site to be developed in a unified manner, and provide additional commercial services into the area. b. Through added commercial development residents of the community will have greater variety of choice. C. When the development of the entire site, particularly its commercial portions, is completed, more jobs will be created for the region, increasing its economic viability. d. As stated previously, when the site is developed in accordance with the appropriate conditions imposed via the City's Planning process, potential impacts on adjoining properties should be mitigated. 4. The approval of the proposed change of zone is consistent with the City's adopted general plan: a. The City's adopted Land Use Element of the general plan shows the site designated as general commercial. The issues must then be resolved as to the depth of the commercial area north of Hwy 111. b. The Land Use Element should not be used alone in attempting to determine general plan consistency. In looking at the City's adopted noise element, further insight is given as to the site's suitability for residential development. (Let us clarify that we are just speaking of the area to be rezoned). As stated previously, the noise element of the general plan establishes criteria which should be utilized to determine a site's suit- ability for residential development. Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) Page Five e. The key question is the depth of the zoning along Deep Canyon Road. The central issue is the method in which the development will occur, and can it be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties. The development plan as proposed through design does mitigate potential impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties. B. Development Plan The development plan itself can be divided into three principal sections: 1. The Commercial facility 2. The Hotel Complex and Restaurant 3. Residential facility 1. Commercial facility - As previously stated the commercial facility encompasses 11.91 acres of the site. It is composed of a 40,000 sq.ft. supermarket and 70,000 sq.ft. of various shops, offices and financial institutions. Access to the commercial area shall be from Deep Canyon Road and a future public street from Hwy 111. The access drive from Deep Canyon Road is 520 ft. from the centerline of Highway 111. As previously stated, the proposed development meets or exceeds all Palm Desert requirements for building coverage, parking and lands- caping. 2. Hotel Complex and Restaurant - The hotel and restaurant facility covers approximately 5.8 acres of the site. The hotel will contain 144 units and provide 249 parking spaces, while the restaurant will be approximately 5000 sq.ft. and provide 75 parking spaces. Access to this facility will be from the public street extending north of Highway 111. As with the commercial center all City requirements be met or exceeded. 3. Residential Development - The residential portion of the site is 13 acres. It will contain 65 units at a density of 5 dwelling units per acre. Access will be from the future public street extending from Highway 111. As shown in the data portion of this report all local ordinances have been complied with. Differences between previously submitted Development Plan: Certain concerns raised at the previous public hearing concering this development have brought changes from the originally submitted development plan (Alternate I in Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Page V-46). The previously submitted proposal contained a 57,000 sq.ft. supermarket Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) Page Six The deletion of the east -west roadway, the reduction and relocation of the supermarket, and expansion of the landscape buffer and movement of the Deep Canyon driveway southerly was done to address the concerns of the residents voiced in the previous hearing. The hotel complex previously located on the northern portion of the property, abutting the Hidden Palms development to the west, has been relocated southerly to abut Highway 111. In its place a 65 unit condo- minium development is projected; thus, abutting Hidden Palms to the west will be residential units at a density of five units per acre. The size of the hotel complex has been reduced to 144 units from 220. The number of access points to Deep Canyon Road has been reduced from two (a driveway and public street) to one (a commercial driveway). C. Conditional Use Permit The present Municipal Code requires that a conditional Use Permit be approved for a supermarket use. The required findings necessary for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the zoning district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the condi- tions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's general plan. Staff believes that all required findings can be met:' 1. As stated previously, under the findings for the change of zone, particularly as it relates to consistency with the adopted general plan. The site is suitable for the development of a commercial center. Commercial centers, by their nature, usually require some type of "anchor" or large commercial attraction, (i.e., a food market, drug store, home improvement center, -etc.). A 40,000 sq.ft. supermarket at this location and developed as part of an overall shopping center, would not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties and thus, meets the intent and purpose of the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance. 2. As part of an overall commercial site plan, with controlled points of ingress and egress, and properly buffered and distant from Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Seven IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) 4. As stated under the general plan consistency findings of the zone change analysis, the proposed use meets the goals and objectives of the City's general plan. D. Environmental Impact Analysis 1. Drainage - According to the environmental impact report, the drainage plans as prepared ensures "that the proposed development is adequately drained". However, the report continues "the facilities are designed to accomodate the present volume of stormwater entering the site from upslope areas... The drainage facilities plan is not designed to accomodate any significant increases in stormwater flow onto the site from the upslope areas". Since the City's master drainage plan includes plans for eventual increased stormwater drainage to the site, provisions should be made to assure that the site's drainage facility can accomodate this added drainage. In addition, the City of Indian Wells has expressed concern over the impact of the project at the intersection of 44th Avenue and Cook Street. Conditions of approval - a. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance 218 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director. b. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm water flows. These conditions should mitigate potential drainage problems. Traffic and Circulation - The majority of the development's traffic is expected to utilize Highway 111. According to the Analysis of the Environmental Impact Report, 65% of the traffic generated by the site would utilize Highway 111. While, the traffic volume on Highway 111 may exceed the design capacity, the traffic service will still fall within the good and acceptable level at the critical intersection of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon. Potential mitigation measures for any significant adverse impacts on Highway 111 must be imposed by the California Department of Transportation. The proposed public street which will provide access to the development at Highway 111 must have intersection design approved by Cal Trans. At that time, Cal Trans will impose what they deem appropriate to facilitate traffic flows on Hwy 111. In order to assure smooth transition along Deep Canyon Road, the following conditions should be imposed: a. Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep Staff Report C. Robert Hubbard December 30, 1980 Page Eign� IV. ANALYSIS: (cont.) The conclusion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report is that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt findings as recommended by Staff; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to the City Council adoption of Change of Zone 01-80 and certification of the Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. 3. Approving Case Nos. DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , and certifying the Environmental Impact Report as it pertains t ereto. Q:F:M�� o:ff 1pma= =)cDgm;orra� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 --Decemtrer-rZ i980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF (1) A CHANGE OF ZONE, (2) DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND (4) THE REVIEW OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL/RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 10-80, CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MR. C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a (1) Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial. S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres) to PC(4) N. S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P; (2) Development Plan; (3) Conditional Use Permit; (4) Review of Draft Environ- mental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium, a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. commercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: A^": 625-iC0 , 625-10-00£, 625-10-000 625-10-009, 625-10-015 thru '625-10-022 o Z m,n�tm,mnrtmmmrt 7 � PR.-5,N b a I �7 S.P. i • r•.y I , P.C.(4),S.P. I tvl, IP.CA4) tl, S.P. LEGEND 14M14�. Coe M. i C/Z 0I-80 I CUP07-eo DP 07-80 i �,. C.,.. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-06II December 31, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE . -A-REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION -OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FORA PORTION OF 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 and•EIR 80-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by C_ ROBERT HUBBARD - et al for a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./: ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres).to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P,) and from PC (4), S.P: (Planned Resort Commercial S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres).to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (,44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P. and for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact•Report as it pertains thereto for a portion.of 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road more particularly described as: _ APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 LEGEND —SSW $Pj PR-5, N o w , o y c _ C/Zol 1.' ....T:..I.. ...—rj� Q°F CUP07.20 OP 07-80 R P.R-5, N �Ii».. S.P. F._.-._...........».._I� I C—I N, P Sandra Drive R P.C.m.S.P. I :, ..r. , �nntana. Road ` i I ................................. .P.C: f4) N, S R li PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 667 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERICAL/ RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80, EIR 01-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 1980, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued A. Public Hearing on the 30th day of December, 1980, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND B. SOLOMON for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P; to allow the construction of a commercial/resort/residential development on 30 acres located at the north- east corner of Highway Ill and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; 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 Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Change of Zone: A. The Land Use resulting from the Change of Zone would be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses. B. The Commission has determined that,the proposed Change of Zone would be compatible with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan and General Plan of the City. f C. The proposed Change of Zone conforms to the intent and -" purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance. - - - - -- D. Findings as discussed in staff report dated 12-30-80. 2. Environmental Impact Report: A. The EIR has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. B. Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council aDDrn Val of a rhanno of 7n.,o F,e _ DD C M c n s., r , ., PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. E47 Page Two A. Comments received on the draft EIR and related responses by City. B. Public testimony regarding the EIR during the Public Hearings and related responses. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission held on the 30th day of December, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, RICHARDS, MILLER NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCLACHLAN ABSTAIN: NONE CHARLES MILLER, Chairman �. ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COhM4ISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL/RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY III AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. CUP 07-80, DP 07-80, EIR 01-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did hold a duly noticed public hearing on the 3rd day of June, 1980, readvertised and continued the public hearing to the 30th day of December, 1980, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND BERNARD SOLOMON for approval of a Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium, a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 6,000 sq.ft. Restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. commercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Rd., more particularly described as: APN 625-10-004, 625-10-006, 625-10-008 625-10-009, 625-10-015, thru 625-10-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; 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 Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Environmental Impact Report: a) The EIR has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. b) Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. 2. Development Plan: __ a) The proposed project conforms with the intent and purpose of the PR and PC-4 Zones. b) The proposed project as conditioned is well suited for the specific site and is compatible with the existing and proposed development in the area. c) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the Health, Safety, and General Welfare of the community. 3. Conditional Use Permit: a) The proposed project as conditioned would be adequately suited for the subject property and would be compatible with existing and proposed development in the area. b) The proposed Supermarket as conditioned generally PLANNING COMMISSION I TION NO. 668 r� Page Two NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Coi-iirnission of the City or Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true, correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby certify the final EIR as complete to include: a) The draft EIR; b) Comments received on the draft EIR and related responses by City; and, c) Public'Testimony regarding the EIR during the Public Hearings and related responses. 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan subject to those conditions labeled Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission on the 30th day of December, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, RICHARDS, MILLER NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCLACHLAN ABSTAIN: NONE -- r CHARLES MILLER, Chairmzn ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 Page Three EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Planning Commission approval of Case Nos. CUP 07-80 and OP 07-80 is subject to City Council approval of Change of Zone 01-80. 2. The development of the property shall conform substantially with Exhibits A thru E (Case Nos. DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80) on file with the Department of Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the City which include, but are not limited to Design Review, Subdivision process, and building permits procedures. 4. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each phase as a single project, and have specific approval from the Planning Commission. 5. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from .the date of final approval otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 6. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing to these conditions of approval. 7. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all Municipal Ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 8. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to the -property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed. 9. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as a part of the development of this project per attached letters dated 5/22/80 & 12/11/80. 10. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until completed. 11. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works. 12. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required by the Director of Public Works. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by +1,4, ennw.. •.mil ♦1_ ......1C --- 4 _L_11 rL.__i. _u___ __._-_i_ __1._.. _1. _ - K PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 Page Four SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the master drainage plan to the specifications of the Public Works Director. 2. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the applicant's engineer; said additional storm drainage construction shall be designed to protect the site from storm water flows. 3. Applicant shall dedicate and improve that portion of Deep Canyon Road'} adjacent to the property, to coincide with the existing curb, gutter, and paved roadway abutting the subject property to the north. 4. Applicant shall dedicate sufficient parkway to assure that the ultimate improvements of Deep Canyon Road are provided for in manner to coincide and be uniform with existing improvements north of the subject property. 5. There shall be no night deliveries to the supermarket between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 6. All mechanical equipment associated with the development shall be equipped with manufacturer -supplied noise control devices and screened to satisfaction of Design Review Board. 7. Street improvements along Highway 111 shall be made as required by the State of California Department of Transportation. 8. Landscape plans submitted for review as a part of the Design Review process shall include special details related to: a. Preservation of Date Palms. b. Treatment along Deep Canyon and Highway 111 relative to mounding and landscape materials. { C. Interior perimeter particularly adjacent to the existing condo development in terms of mounding and landscape materials. d. Commercial center parking lot particularly in terms of the relationship of landscape to lighting. e. On -site water retention. 9. The supermarket loading area shall be enclosed by a masonry wall or an equivalent combination of grade differential and masonry wall as approved by Design Review Board. 10. Parking lot area next to supermarket shall be modified to delete some of the ingress and egress points to diagonal circulation aisle between Deep Canyon Road and new public street from Highway 111; said modification shall be subject to approval by Design Review Board. 11. Traffic signal at northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111 shall be relocated to satisfaction of Director of Public Works and Environmental Services. 12. Height of windows of retail shops, adjacent to Hidden Palms shall be limited PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN May 22, 1980 Page Five P.O. 8OX 248 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS• CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (7141 657-3183 Paul A. Williams 2 <: Director of Environmental Services f^+yrrtCrvrv'-. - City of Palm Desert cis, e; 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Reference: Case No. DP07-80, C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80 Gentlemen: Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions must be met: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 5000 GPM fire flow for, a five (5) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 150 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed), shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be sinned by a registered civil engineer, and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 Page Six' 6. All buildings shall be fully protected with automatic sprinklers. 7. Fire lanes may be required for access to buildings. Very truly yours, David L. Flake Fire Chief Eric L. Vogt Fire Marshal ELV:dt CC: CVCWD; J. Zirtmerman 1 -page 2- If , PJ_ANNING COMMISSION RE$ ION NO. 668 Page Seven " DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION COOPERATION 0A I C L'NTY �TY-� s CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY RIVERSID`E:�� DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN December. 11 , -1980 P t � Philip Drell Assistant Planner ENVIHUIjTIci7tAL SERVICES City of Palm Desert CITY OF PALtA DESERT 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 P.O. Box 249 210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3103 Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Report on "The Fountains." Gentlemen: In viewing this Draft EIR of "The Fountains", fire protection is only slightly mentioned as "adequate and no negative impacts are predicted." I feel very concerned that fire protection and life safety be given a higher priority and be provided for by the developer. In order that the developer adequately contribute towards the City of Palm Desert's responsibility for fire protection, the developer ( must provide built-in fire protection. This built-in fire protection C includes Automatic Fire Sprinkler systems, Automatic Smoke and Ventilation Control systems and a Fire flow to meet the demand of the development. These fire protection systems must be imposed at the initial development stages if the project is phased so that the entire project is provided with adequate fire protection. If you have any questions or need further information, please call me at Rancho Mireage Fire Station. Sincerely yours DAVID L. FLAKE Fire Chief ERIC L. VOCYT Fire Marshal � 2: [ -.rVA 9 \\R , n � � ■ � = f $y am tx s 2Pola 0 04 /r."# aƒ ,% 4 �! S� ! 24 .: &.- , b / r I ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN cc s ~ w M12 X}X"—;f%4+^.r.+n"iai wiVs,.gdt:'sa `:w,4 K'S t4:«`+2', Q�ftZ� Off 1PDM1 I1 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CAUFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE January 7, 1981 APPLICANT(S) C. Robert Hubbard, J.E. Rapkin 74-133 E1 Paseo Palm Desert. CA 92260 CASE NO: C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 B. Solomon 3140 E. Willow Long Beach, CA 90806 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of December 30, 1980 CONTINUED TO DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. X APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 667 & 668 X PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL January 22, 1981 , FOR PUBLIC HEARING. - Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environ- mental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the dat6 of the I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 667 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERICAL/ RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80, EIR 01-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 1980, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued Public Hearing on the 30th day of December, 1980, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND B. SOLOMON for approval.of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial, S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (.44 acres) to C-1 N, S.P; to allow the construction of a commercial/resort/residential development on 30 acres located at the north- east corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; 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 Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Change of Zone: A. The Land Use resulting from the Change of Zone would be compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses. B. The Commission has determined that,the proposed Change of Zone would be compatible with the Adopted Redevelopment Plan and General Plan of the City. C. The proposed Change of Zone conforms to the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance. D. Findings as discussed in staff report dated 12-30-80. 2. Environmental Impact Report: A. The EIR has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. B. Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. to C-1 N, ( C D• Dr !A\ C D +n r 1 nl C n. n❑ C nl +_ nr /A\ hi r n __J ABSENT: MCLACHLAN ABSTAIN: NONE 9 CHARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr f PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 668 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL/RESORT/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. CUP 07-80, DP 07-80, EIR 01-80 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did hold a duly noticed public hearing on the 3rd day of June, 1980, readvertised and continued the public hearing to the 30th day of December, 1980, to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN AND BERNARD SOLOMON for approval of a Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report to allow construction of a 144 unit hotel, 65 unit condominium, a 40,000 sq.ft. Supermarket, 5,000 sq.ft. Restaurant, and 70,000 sq.ft. commercial/ financial complex located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Rd., more particularly described as: APN 625-10-004, 625-10-006, 625-10-008 625-10-009, 625-10-015, thru 625-10-022 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; 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 Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. Environmental Impact Report: a) The EIR has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. b) Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as a part of the EIR submitted. 2. Development Plan: f a) The proposed project conforms with the intent and purpose of the PR and PC-4 Zones. b) The proposed project as conditioned is well suited for the specific site and is compatible with the existing and proposed development in the area. c) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the Health, Safety, and General Welfare of the community. 3. Conditional Use Permit: a) The proposed project as conditioned would be adequately suited for the subject property and would be compatible with existing and proposed development in the area. b) The proposed Supermarket as conditioned generally conforms to the intent and purpose of C-1 Zone District, CITY OF I'ALM D1i0I;l1T P.O. BOX 1648 PALM DE'SliRT , CA. 92260 APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF TIIE planning rnmmiccinn TO TIIE+' DPO 7-80; C/z0 01-80 City Council ON CASE NO. _CUP 07-80 Gwen A. Carter;. Douglas Richardson; Wayne and Elizabeth Barlow 3y: THQMAS F_ WTNFTFT.n ITT Attnrney at Law Name of Appellant .Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. 615 South Flower Street. Suite 1201. Los Angeles, CA. 90017 (213)624-1001 Address Phone Appealing decision of (date of meeting) . December 30 1980 regarding application of (if same as Appellant, ,rite Same) Hubbard, et al. for (description of application) zone change, development plan and condi- tional use permits to allow construction of hotel/condominium/commercial project on.30.5 t acres at Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Roa . Reasons for Appeal: Inadequacies of EIR and notice, impro ri.et of action, denial o due process, questions regarding esira i ity 0 proposal and conditions thereon, other proce ura an substantive irreqularities. Appeal ir1.,I a an ved : I 'CA lic. hearing set - for ctor of Envir cc: Appellant Planning File 19&_. 19. tal Services BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI, INC. B Signature of Appe lane Date THOMAS F. WINFIELD, III For Appellants Gwen A. Carter, Douglas Richardson, Wayne axed 1'y�aljeti4 ow JAN 1 LI 1981 .nnnnr n ce r.I occv C;E (Complete and distribute after public hearing) rCITY OF PALM DESERT COUNCIL ACTION 000395 RECEIVED I I JAN 14 PH 3 3 7 CITY CLERKS OFFICE 7' :. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 December 31, 1980 CITY OF.PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE . A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FORA PORTION OF 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 and'EIR 80-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a re uest by C.ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres).to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P. and for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact'Report as it pertains thereto for a portion of. 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 ¢ L£G£NO -63T rtm,mmmmmmmmmmr �_� O . z RR-5 I a ( P.R-5, N--.____ a � r Cot no. Qat 5 F F C/z 01-80 a o ...rrmri rsm..r...rr Ir CUP07-e o o I Ig DP 07-8 1 o_ C-I N, SR Alessandro Orive _- R P.C.(41,S.P. I F'. C. (4) i PC (4) S.P.S„ Fronraae Road .... .... ..•y,F —9--STATE—HIGHWAY--III----- • --- 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 C-- • I TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 TO �U SENDERO ATTEMOTM.NnT KNOWN _ 4 YS's IN�I7H:' ",�{ A.' RESS 44s-319 Venis f,t. No"7^�INU5IUER_ Palm Desert, CA 92260 — REFUSLU RTB 13 TIALS " C i l.l' c� l- �'�.■ inn )gam tic. �.4. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 • I TELEPHONE (7I41 346-0611 U TO .y SARKIS & SU KITSINIAN-SEMOFR 44-751 Mo co Cir. Palm De rt> CA 92260 MOVED (EFT NO ADORED C�ss� o:ff 2:FMnz . =)�Dg'rc=�-Cro 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 December 31, 1980 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE . A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO FOR PORTION OF 30 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80 and'EIR 80-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a Change of Zone from PR-5 N, S.P. (Planned Residential, 5 d.u./ ac., maximum density Natural Factors/Restricted Development and Scenic Preservation Overlay) (4.6 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. (General Commercial Natural Factor N, S.P.) and from PC (4), S.P. (Planned Resort Commercial S.P.) (7.3 acres) to C-1 N, S.P. and from PR-5 N (1.3 acres).to PC (4) N, S.P. and from PR-5, N (.44 acres) to C-1, N, S.P. and for Certification of a Final Environmental Impact*Report as it pertains thereto for a 'portion of 30 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road more particularly described as: APN 625-100-004, 625-100-006, 625-100-008 625-100-009, 625-100-015 thru 625-100-022 ¢ LEGEND 630' rr m,n,m, mmrtnVmf Tn,T —, C , F P.R.-5, N Case M. -nay' l C/Z 01-80 CUP0760 I c OP 07-80 P.R.-5, N ._ ._—_. -- r - C-1 N, C%P I P.C.141,S.P. (4) I 1 iP.CA41 N, S.P. —B--STATE — H IG H WAY --III — pironmentalAuditors Since 1967" Atlantis ,Scientific 9 01 5 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 1 1 Telephone (213) 274-2211 November 3, 1980 City of Palm Desert Planning Department 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: Phil Drell Assistant Planner Dear Mr. Drell: We are submitting ten (10) copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the development plan known as "The Fountains" in Palm Desert. One additional copy has been supplied to the project pro- ponent, BPS Development. These reports were reproduced via the xerox process, due to the time constraints involved. The remaining seventy-four (74) copies are being printed and will be forwarded as soon as available. Please let us know when the public hearing for this project will be held and what sort of presentation you would like to have us prepare. We would appreciate receiving copies of any written comments on this document, as you receive them. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely yours, JJM/sg Ref :Al 083 ENCLS. ` -.:ironmeraul Auditors Since 1967" At1 ants Sc;ent;f;c 9015 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211 Telephone (213) 274 2211 l .. ci October 27, 1980 City Of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Phil Drell Assistant Planner Gentlemen: The following professional fees and associated expenses are due and payable upon presentation of billing representing a partial statement of work completed to date on the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed development at the northeast corner of Highway 1.11 and Deep Canyon Road, Palm Desert. This billing conforms to the progress schedule designated in the contract for services for submittal of the predraft materials, which was accomplished October 25, 1980. Total Amount Due: $ 2,935.00 Sincerely yours, ATLAOTI SCIENTIFIC • H. C. Hansen HCH/sg Accounting Ref:A1083 r1ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC A , �,j �/S7pICS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, PRESIDENT LOWELL O. WEEKS, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY C. J. FROST DENNIS M. HACKETT, AUDITOR PAUL W. NICHOLS December 3, 1980 REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS STEVE D. BUXTON Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert P. 0. Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: File: 0163.11 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report on "The Fountains", NE4, Section 21, T5S, R6E, S.B.M. 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. CS:lh Very truly yours, !L/ I t �i lowell,Weeks eneral Managerr -Chief Engineer cc: Riverside County Department of Public Hearth 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 Attention: Don Park CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Authorization to execute a Professional Services Agreement for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for a Commercial/Hotel/Condominium project located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. III. APPLICANT: BPS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Bernard Solomon, Robert Hubbard) 3140 E. Willow Street Long Beach, California 90806 IV. CASE NOS: DP 07-80, CUP 07-80, C/Z 01-80 V. DATE: September 11, 1980 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Copy of Proposal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion, authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Atlantis Scientific of Beverly Hills. B. DISCUSSION: At the meeting of June 26, 1980, the City Council by its adoption of Resolu- tion No. 80-82 required that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared on a proposed Commercial/Hotel/Condominium project located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. Five consulting firms were contacted and two EIR proposals were received. Atlantis Scientific, a consulting firm located in Beverly Hills, was selected based upon the quality of the proposal and their estimated fee for preparation. Their not -to -exceed budget estimate was $11,740.00. This amount has been deposited in a Trust Account of the City of Palm Desert by the applicant and will be used to pay for all services in connection with this contract. WESTEC !Prvices, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 556-9350 NN100 Mr. Murrel Crump Principal Planner City of Palm Desert P.O. Box 1977 Palm Desert, CA 92660 1675-TCR510.02 August 14, 1980 Re: RFP for Proposed Supermarket - Hotel Complex Dear Mr. Crump: WESTEC Services, Inc. wishes to be considered for preparation of the environmental impact report on the subject project and respectfully requests that a copy of the•RFP be sent to us when it is released. We offer the'following material as evidence of the firm's broad experience in environmental management and analysis. WESTEC SERVICES. INC. - PROFILE WESTEC Services, Inc. was established in 1972 to meet the growing needs of government and industry for environmental analy- sis and planning services and specialized forms of engineering services. The firm presently has three major service divisions and consulting revenues in excess of $6,000,000 annually. The firm's corporate headquarters are located in San Diego, California with regional offices located in Santa Ana, Brawley 'and Sacramento, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Projects requiring environmental impact analyses, resource surveys or environmental planning are assigned to the firm's Environmental Division. Of the firm's 215 full-time employees, 45 are assigned to the Environmental Division. The division's in-house staff possess the full range of capabilities needed to prepare comprehensive environmental studies, including the capa- bility to conduct all forms of biological and archaeological/ cultural resource surveys. Since 1972, the Environmental Division staff has prepared over 700 environmental studies in the western United States. Mr. Murrel Crump August 14, 1980 Page 2 The types of studies prepared by the firm focus principally on baseline/inventory studies and environmental impact assess- ments, reports and statements prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environ- mental Quality Act. Additionally, WESTEC Services has conducted environmental studies in compliance with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Rare and Endangered Species Act and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Series 60 rules which guide the preservation and registry of prehistoric and historical resources. The firm's extensive job resume has provided a broad base of knowledge of the multitude of federal and state regulations which influence project planning, development and implementation. RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE WESTEC Services, Inc. is thoroughly familiar with the full range of issues surrounding commercial development, including some of the unique problems posed by hotel development. These issues have been successfully analyzed in the commercial develop- ment projects briefly described below: Koll Center Newport Applicant: The Koll Company Agency: City of Newport Beach WESTEC Services, Inc. recently completed a three volume draft EIR to assess the impact of constructing a 12-story, 400,000-square foot Hyatt Hotel on 5.76 acres of land within the Koll Center Newport Development. The hotel design included 440 rooms and a three -level parking structure. Specific concerns centered around traffic circulation impacts, air quality impacts, noise impacts and visual/aesthetic concerns. The EIR also addressed the impact of developing an additional 325,000 square feet of commercial office space on land adjacent to the hotel complex. Orangefair Mall, Fullerton Applicant: Fullerton Redevelopment Agency Agency: City of Fullerton This project for which WESTEC Services prepared the draft EIR was a redevelopment action involving 600,000 square feet of commercial space. The project was highly controversial and involved close coordination with Williams-Kuebelbeck, the economic analyst for the project, as well as with the applicant. Focused issues were noise, air quality, traffic, energy consump- tion and public financing. The noise and air quality sections involved extensive onsite model and computer projection of project impacts. IN Mr. Murrel Crump August 14, 1980 Page 3 o Irvine Center. Irvine Applicant: The Irvine Company Agency: City of Irvine Billed as the largest shopping mall in the western United States, this mixed use center was designed to contain a total of five million -plus square feet. As a consultant to the City, WESTEC Services critiqued the originally -prepared EIR and subsequently prepared draft and final EIRs for the center. Issues of critical importance included circulation/access, air quality, energy consumption, noise and conversion of prime agricultural land. WESTEC Services has prepared several environmental studies in the project area and is familiar with the desert region. Recent project EIRs prepared by WESTEC Services include: o An EIR for an equestrian center in the City of Palm Springs. o An EIR for the specific plan of land use for the 230-acre Vista Montana planned community near Cathe- dral City. o An environmental assessment of archaeological, paleontological, biological and meteorological (including blow sand) factors related to the Seven Palms Ranch development south of Desert Hot Springs. KEY STAFF WESTEC Services, Inc. will commit to manage and conduct the environmental project in the event of contract award. the following individuals studies for the proposed Michael W. Wright, Principal -In -Charge - Mr. Wright is Vice President of WESTEC's environmental i sion and has over eight years of experience in environmental consulting. He oversees all staff operations, coordinates client liaison, conducts contract negotiations, establishes project scope and provides expert testi- mony before public agencies. Thomas C. Ryan, Project Manager - Mr. Ryan has a strong background in environmental planning and analysis with over seven years of professional experience. Mr. Ryan will contribute his expertise in land use planning and environmental analysis to the study team. �Mr. Murrel Crump August 14, 1980 Page 4 Diane Schmidt, Environmental Analyst - Ms. Schmidt conducts studies related to natural resource management, including water and air quality impacts. Ms. Schmidt's participation will include analysis of public service and utilities affected by project implementation. John Westermeier, of Life Sciences - Mr. Westermeier has over seven years of professional biological consulting exper- ience and oversees or conducts all biological studies prepared by WESTEC Services. Mr. Westermeier has managed large-scale biological studies for the Department of the Navy in the Mojave Desert. Hans Giroux, Senior Meteorologist - Mr. Giroux oversees or conducts all large-scale air quality analyses and meteorological studies for WESTEC Services. Recent experience includes baseline CO modeling and impact assessment for a convention center expansion and transit center construction project. Otto C. Bixler, Jr., Senior Acoustician - Mr. Bixler is presi ent o Bio-Acoustical Engineering Corporation and will contribute his thirteen years of professional experience in the assessment of project noise impact. Bill E. Darnell, Transportation/Traffic Engineer - Mr. Darnell is a principal with the firm of Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. and is a registered traffic engineer in California. Mr. Darnell will be responsible for estimating project related traffic distribution and recommending circulation system improvements to mitigate identified impacts. Other members of WESTEC Services' full-time staff can be made available if the study scope requires. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our qualifications and please call if we can provide any additional information con- cerning our environmental studies capabilities. TCR:pc Very truly yours, Thomas C. Ryan Manager, Environmental Studies INNS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAN COMPANY 3700 CENTRAL AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA R. W. RIDDELL Eastern Division Distribution Planning Supervisor Mailing Address P. O. BOX ZW, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA W516 December 29, 1980 City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 Location of Nearest Gas Main: 4" in Deep Canyon �liz, DEC 3 01980 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT 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 provided 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 contractual 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 service 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 this office for assistance. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 TO: State of California The Resources Agency Secretary for Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, California 95814 NOTICE OF COMPLETION Project Title The Fountains Project Location - Specific Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Rd. Project Location - City Project Location - County Palm Desert Riverside Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project The project consists of a 144 unit hotel, a 65 dwelling unit condominium development and a 110,000 sq.ft. of general commercial space in three distinct areas of a 28 acre site. Leao Agency City of Palm Dessert Address Where Copy of EIR is Available City of Palm Desert, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Riverside County Library (Palm Desert Branch) 45-420 Portola ew Period November 3, 1980 to December17, 1980 ntact Person e I Phone Philip Drell 1 714 1 346-0611 1 51 nsion May 15, 1980 G�t�� oil11 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUC- TION OF A COMMERCIAL CENTER TO INCLUDE A SUPERMARKET., RETAIL SPACES, SAVINGS AND LOAN AND A HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WITH RELATED RECREATIONAL AMENITIES LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS: C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MR. C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a Change of Zone from P.C.(4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay), and P.C.(4) S.P.N. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors/Restricted Development Overlay) [approximately 12 acres] ; PR-5, S.P.N. (Planned Residential maximum of five dwelling units per acre, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors/Restricted Development Overlays) and PR-5, N. (Planned Residential maximum of five dwelling units to the acre, Natural Factors Overlay) [approximately 19 acres] to C-1, S.P.N. (General Commercial, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors/Restricted Development Overlays) [approximately 12.6 acres] ; P.C.(4), S.P.N [approximately 4.4 acres] and PR-5, N [approximately 14 acres]; Conditional Use Permits and Development Plan to permit the construction of a 57,000 square foot market, 45,570 square feet of commercial shops, 8,000 square foot savings and loan and a 220 room hotel/condominium complex with related administrative reception building,restaurant and related recreational amenities, generally located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-10-04, 625-10-06, 625-10-08, 625-10-09 APN 625-10-15 Thru 625-10-22 LEGEND \\ t�a �€ PRr5,N cos. no -.., azoi-eo irz,0E 90 --^—'- o OP 07-80 C-1 N. S.P. PuasP [�C. (4) C 19 I N S.P I C.AC N. S.P. -4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSI, TUESDAY--JUNE 3, 1980 7:00 P.M. --CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Berkey III. ROLL 'GALL Members Rresent: Commissioner Berkey Commissioner Kryder Commissioner McLachlan Commissioner Richards Chairman Miller Staff Present: 'Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Linda Russell, Planning Secretary Others Present: L. Clyde.Beebe, Director of Public Works IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of May 14, 1980 Mr. Williams noted some corrections on page four: Last paragraph, under Item C of DISCUSSION ITEMS; should read: "After some discussion on that matter, the Commission determined that the proposed program provides for the mitigation measures and conditions as approved by the Commission when the project was reviewed." Paragraph under COMMENTS; second sentence should read: "The Hope Lutheran Church parking lot is in sequence with the approval of Planning Commission." Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve the minutes as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams indicated that there were several letters received pertaining to public hearing cases; they would be discussed at that time. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case Nos. /Z 01-80 DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 - C. ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPK-SOLOMON, APPLICANTS, (Representative - BALLEW-MCFARLAND) Request for Change of Zone from PC(4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay), and PC(4), S.P., N (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors --Restricted Development Overlay) [Approx. 12 acres]; PR-5, S.P. N (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. per acre, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors --Restricted Development Overlay) and PR-5, N (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. per acre, Natural Factors Overlay) rADDrox. 19 acresl. TO C-1. N (General Commercial. Scenic Preservation and RA .t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Page 2 --------------------------------------- Mr. Williams began his presentation with an illustration of the proposed zone changes and development at the corner of Deep Canyon Drive and Highway 111. He described the applicant's proposed size and locations for the market/drugstore, commercial shops, hotel/condominiums. Mr. Williams indicated that there would be a proposed new street running east -west, in the center of the project, from Deep Canyon Drive to Cook Street. Mr. Williams then gave a short description of what had previously been considered by the Planninq Commission at this particular location in terms of zoning and land use. He described the issues that staff felt needed to be carefully considered which were: Commercial zoning next to residential zoning; traffic impact at the intersection of the proposed new street and Deep Canyon. He described the concerns expressed by the City of Indian Wells, ano read a number of letters received by individuals opposed to this project, summarizing their reasons for opposition. The majority of the letters were received from residents at Hidden Palms opposing the proposed change of zone. Mr. Williams stated that the Planning Commission had previously discussed the zoning on this property on three previous occasions but this was the first time that it would be reviewed with a specific project being proposed. He stated that the applicants had made several studies which included a Traffic Study, Economic Feasibility Study, Analysis of Fiscal Impacts and an Evaluation of Natural Factors overlay zone. Mr. Williams concluded giving Staff's recommendations as follows: Approval of the change of zone to C-1; approval of the market/drugstore and commercial shops; hotel/condominiums; and, future planned commercial resort development. These recommendations were made subject to the following revisions: Scaling down of the market/drugstore and commercial center and relocating; filing of an amendment for full details of the design of the project; signalization at the intersection of the new proposed street and Deep Canyon; access points off of Hwy 111 to be limited to right turns in and right turns out; extending the new east -west street to Cook; drainage installation conforming with City's Master Drainage Plan; and, Bicycle and pedestrian paths relocated to run on the new public street on the south side. Commissioner Kryder asked what study indicated a need for a traffic signal on Deep Canyon. Mr. Williams replied that the applicant -prepared traffic study showed the signalization would be needed during peak hours of the day. Commissioner Berkey asked Mr. Williams how the developers felt about the relocation of the commercial area. Mr. Williams stated that the devleopers did not feel it was feasible. Commissioner Kryder asked if the PC(4) zone area would be unavailable for development. Mr. Williams replied that presently that area is proposed by the applicants to be the final phase, therefore, availablefor future development. Chairman Miller reviewed Staff's suggestions and recommendations and opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. ROBERT HUBBARD, 22 Standford Drive, Rancho Mirage, introduced the following individuals related to the project. MINUTES - PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 ------------------------------------------ VI. PUBLICS HEARINGS (continued) Page 3 -------------------------------------- MR. CLIFF YOUNGMAN, employee of Albertson's, 250 Park Center Blvd., Boise, Idaho, described what the market would consist of and why they chose this area for the market after a research study by Albertson's, and, Lord and Associates. He also pointed out what improvements would be provided upon completion of the market. Mr. Youngman indicated that a survey had been done in the area and the result of the survey indicated that 95% of the people sampled were in favor of the project. He provided a list of those residents in the area in favor of the proposed development. He then briefly reviewed all -the conditions stating his approval and objections. He concluded his presentation asking for approval of the plans as submitted. MR. BERNIE SOLOMON, developer, 48-842 Cassia Place, Palm Desert, stated that the market study determined chat this type of development was viable. He opposed the suggested relocating of the market and requested approval as presented. MR. STEVE-FLESHMAN, 74-241 Highway 111, original designer of the plan, addressed the Commission on two items which he felt were not appropriate requirements, the suggested reduced size and relocation of the buildings: He suggested some problems that would occur, if it were developed as suggested by Staff Chairman Miller asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There being no one, he asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in OPPOSITION: 30 -`igi9 MR. WAYNE BARLOW, Attorney, 44-685 Monaco Circle, Hidden Palms, stated that his property immediately boarders the proposed development and strongly objected. He pointed out that proper noticing was not received and requested a continuance on this case for an opportunity to research the matter. He also felt that it was not appropriate to approve the project without an Environmental Impact Report; he believed there would be a tremendous impact on the community. Mr. Barlow asked for necessary information and forms to appeal this case. He also gave a number of reasons as to why he and residents of the Hidden Palms area felt the'proposed project should not be approved. He concluded stating that residents at Hidden Palms intend to live in that area for a long time and had moved there with the understand- ing that the vacant'property next to it would remain as residential. The following is a list of residents of the Hidden Palms area who voiced their opposition to the change of zone and did not receive legal.notice: TOM SCHULTZ, 44-681 Monaco Circle ELIZABETH BARLOW, 44-685 Monaco Circle BOB MCGUIRE, 44-099 Bygo Court GERRIE.SHERMAN, 44-656 Monaco Circle LOU JONES, 44-691 Monaco Circle ROGER BAILEY, 74034 San Marina Circle (Not Hidden Palms resident) CHRISTINE JONES, 44-691 Monaco Circle KATHERINE SMITH, 44-379 Baden Court (purchasing home) NICK BATLEDGE, 44-289 Portofino Court MR. G. BRUTAN, Southwest Engineering, Baden Court, Hidden Palms, believed that some of the problems could be resolved in joint meetings. He requested a continuance for this purpose. MR. GARY GOUDSWAARD, 44-755 Deep Canyon Rd., also stressed his opposition MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1980 Page 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Hubbard stated that he would agree to a continuance. CHAIRMAN MILLER CALLED FOR A SHORT RECESS --THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:30 P.M. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to continue this case to July 1, 1980. Carried unanimously (5-0). Case No. DP 06-80, GERALD CHAZAN, APPLICANT. Request for approval of a Development Plan to allow the construction of 71,200 square feet of commercial space on approximately 7.23 oss acres within the PC(3), S.P. (Planned Commercial, Regional C ter, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of E1 Paseo and Hwy 111. Mr. Williams stated that the applicant had sent a letter requesting for a continuance. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being no one, motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this case to June 18, 1980. Carried unanimously (5-0). C. Case No. CUP 03-80 - MARIE ELAINE MALONEY, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a pre-school at an existing church within the R-1 9,000 (Single family residential, minimum 9,000 square foot lot) zone located on the northwest corner of Deep Canyon Road and 44th Avenue. Mr. Crump presented this case stating that the pre-school would accomodate 20 students. He proceeded to review the staff report which indicated that staff felt there would not be a traffic impact, and that the location was acceptable for the intended use. Mr. Crump reviewed the design features and recommended that a 3rd Special Condition be added to read: "That the total number of pupils shall be limited to 20. An increase in the number of authorized pupils shall require an amendment to be filed for consideration by the Planning Commission". Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MARIE ELAINE MALONEY, 1900 East Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, briefly explained when the school would open and that the school hours would be from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. She added that the children's ages would range up to 5 years of age. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to approve this case by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 599, as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: CARLOS ORTEGA FROM: STAN SAWA SUBJECT: TENTATIVE SCHEDULING OF HUBBARD PROJECT DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1980 Pursuant to your request, I have prepared the following tentative schedule for the processing of the Hubbard project. 1. Receipt of EIR 2. 45 day reviewing period required by law 3. Planning Commission Meeting 4. City Council Meeting October 28, 1980 Would end December 12, 1980 December 30, 1980 at 7:00 p.m. January 22, 1980 at 7:00 p.m. The above schedule would be accurate provided we receive the EIR from the consultant on October 28, as promised. The one item I would note is that the Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for the day before New Year's Eve and it would be good PR to set up a special meeting for this item or reschedule to a regular meeting after the holidays. Any rescheduling of the Planning Commission meeting would add to the processing period. If you have any questions, please feel free to see me. TAN MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 1, 1980 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The reqularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called tb,,order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Miller in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGrANCE - Commissioner Richards III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissi er Berkey Commission Kryder Commissioner Lachlan Commissioner Ri ards Chairman Miller Staff Present: Paul Williams, DiXPlanr ental Services Stan Sawa, AssociLinda Russell, PlOthers Present: Eric Vogt, Fire M IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of June 18, 1980. Mr. Williams noted one correction: Chairman Miller's absence was excused. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the Minutes as amended. Carried unanimously (5-0). V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos C/Z 01-80 DP 07-80, CUP 07-80 - C.ROBERT HUBBARD, J.E. RAPKIN, B. SO p icants (Rep. by: BALLEW-MCFARLAND) Request for Change of Zone from PC(4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay), and PC(4), S.P., N (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors --Restricted Development Overlay) [Approx. 12 acres]; PR-5, S.P. N (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. per acre, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors --Restricted Development Overlay) and PR-5, N (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. per acre, Natural Factors Overlay) [Approx. 19 acres], TO C-1, N (General Commercial, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors --Restricted Development Overlays) [Approx. 12.6 acres]; PC(4), S.P., N [Approx. 4.4 acres]; and, PR-5, N [Approx. 14 acres] on approximately 31 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development of a proposed Supermarket, on property to be designated as C-1, S.P., N, containing approximately 12.6 acres. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 1, 1980 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) Mr. Williams stated that the City Council requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for this project, therefore, recommended that the Commission leave the Public Hearing open and continue this matter either indefinitely or to November 4, 1980, at which time the EIR should be completed. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Williams if there were any adverse reasons for setting a specific date. Mr. Williams replied that it was more procedurely. Commissioner Berkey asked if Legal Notices would still be sent out. Mr. Williams replied that Notices would be sent out in any case. Chairman Miller stated that the Public Hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. ROBERT HUBBARD, 22 Standford Drive, Rancho Mirage, stated he had no objections to an EIR but would like to complete the project as soon as possible. MARIAN KENNEY, 44-835 Deep Canyon Rd., felt that more markets and shops were not needed in the City. Minute Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this case indefinitely, until completion of an EIR. Carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Williams explained that upon completion of an EIR, Staff would notify Commission and set a date for the hearing. Continued Case Nos. DP 03-80 and VAR 03-80 - STEIN-BRIEF/VISTA, Applicant vised request of a Development Plan to construct a 390 unit hotel/ co ominium complex with a maximum yield of 780 hotel rooms, a 35,7 square foot racquet club/convention facility, two restaurants totalin 13,000 square feet, as the major site uses, with a Variance to allow ditionaI ingress/egress points from an adjacent street; and a 2.54 re future phase not being developed at this time, on approximately 29 gross acres within the PC(4), S.P. (Planned Commercial, Reso Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone generally located at the sou west corner of Highway 111 and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams presented this�case giving the location and reviewing the revisions made by the applicant since\\ he first hearing. He stated that a variance was required (1) for the number of acce points to Painter's Path, (2) for setbacks, and (3) for parking spaces for the stadiu which a TUP could be pursued by the applicant for each event. Mr. Williams also"stated that the convention facility was integrated in the Racquet Ball facility. Mr. Williams suggested an additional Special_ Condition No. 14, to read: "The management contract for the hotel shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney to verify its compliance to these conditions:" He recommended approval subject to those conditions. Chairman Miller stated the Public Hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to cnaak in FAvnp nr nDDnCTTTnN fn +hie rnco Ga .-Q�� o:ff n� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALI FORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July 2, 1980 C. Robert Hubbard, J.E. Rapkin, B. Solomon 74-133 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80 Gentlemen: As the accompanying Notice of Action indicates, the referenced project has been continued for the preparation of a draft EIR. This action was based on City Council determination at their June 26, 1980 meeting, to require an EIR in connection with said project. To receive further City consideration of your request, you must submit a check payable to the City of Palm Desert in the amount of $550.00 to satisfy the required City EIR review fee. Upon receipt, this department will contact consulting firms relative to the document preparation, to arrive at an estimated fee for the services to be performed. You will then need to deposit with the City the estimated cost of preparation, before a contract is executed. Any funds not used will be reimbursed. You may contact Mr. Murrel Crump, Principal Planner, for further detailed information on the EIR preparation and processing. Very truly yours, PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP Director of Environmental Services PAW/ 1cr cc: Ballew-McFarland MW 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION July 3, 1980 APPLICANT C. Rbt. Hubbard, J.E. Rapkin, B. Solomon 74-133 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80, and CUP 07-80 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at is meeting of July 1, 1980 XX CONTINUED TO Indefinitely, for preparation of EIR DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. 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. cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. Fi1ew' PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Ir 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July 1, 1930 Mr. Wayne E. Barlow Attorney at Law 2049 Century Park East Suite 870 Los Angeles, California 90067 Subject: REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF ADOPTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT IN CONNECTION WITH CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80, AND CUP 07-30. Dear Mr. Barlow: At its regular meeting of June 26, 1980, the Palm Desert City Council did approve the subject appeal and ordered a full Environ- mental Impact Report for the subject cases. Said action was taken by a unanimous vote of the Council. I am enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 80-82, Alternative "B", for your records. If you have any questions regarding the aforementioned, please do not hesitate to call me. 1 i ;R. yours SHEILA LIGAN CITY CLERK /m Enclosure (as noted) CC: Planning Department ALTERNATIVE B _ RESOLUTION N0. 80-82 I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING AN APPEAL FROM THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DETERMINATION ON THE TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED DEVELOP- MENT PROJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 80-01 Ref Cases: C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of June, 1980, hear the appeal of WAYNE E. BARLOW from the determination of the Director of Environmental Services, to adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, said appeal being filed in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 78-32, for a proposed development project requiring discretionary City approval of a Change of Zone, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to facilitate construction of a commercial complex and hotel/condo- minium on property generally located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon considering all data and information prepared in connection with the environmental assessment of the said proposed project, and the stated grounds of appeal, the City Council did find the follow- ing facts to justify their action, as described below: 1. Significant public controversy exists regarding the effects of the said development project; 2. Additional information, in the form of an Environmental Impact Report, is necessary to adequately assess the effects of the said development project, and to provide public confidence in the decision to be made on the discretionary applications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and consti- tute the findings of the Council in this appeal; ' 2. That it does hereby approve the appeal of WAYNE E. BARLOW, and instruct the Director of Environmental Services to prepare or cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report in connection with the considerations on Case Nos. C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80 and CUP 07-80. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 26th day of June, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, Puluqi, Snyder & Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None �// INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: PLANNING'COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: CONTINUED CASE NOS C/Z O1 DP 07-80, DATE: JUNE 27, 1980 AND CUP 07-80, HUB AL, APPLICANTS The City Council at their June 26, 1980, meeting, requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the _ subject cases. Therefore, the Commission should leave the Public Hearing open and continue this matter until a draft EIR is ready for review. Hearing notices will be sent in connection with the continued meeting. Before an action to continue, the Commission may want to receive or offer suggestions on the impact subjects which are felt to be most significant and deserving of special attention in the EIR. investigation. PAUL A. WILLIAMS DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IAO Albertson June 5, 1980 Mr. Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickley Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Proposed 28 NEC Highway Palm Desert, Dear Mr. Williams: acre Development 111 & Deep Canyon California oUN 10198Q Et jT'( oT CPALM EIKI iT( OF Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our zoning request at the June 3 Planning Commission meeting regarding the referenced property. Although they did get a little excited, some of the points brought to our attention by the opposition were well taken. As a result, we are going back to the drawing boards in an attempt to satisfy as many of the concerns as possible. When our revised plans are complete, we will plan to meet with you for a review. Also, upon completion of our revised plans, we will meet with the concerned homeowners group. At this writ- ing we have a tentative meeting set up with Mr. Barlow, the attorney for the homeowners group, on June 16. Again, thank you very much for your consideration and we will keep you advised of our progress. Very truly yours, ALLBBER N' , INC . `, . Cliffo A. Yo gmaiffi n Corporate Property Director CAY/br ALBERTSONS, INC. GENERAL OFFICES: BOISE, IDAHO 83726/ BOX 201 1623 WASHINGTON/ 208-344-7441 AVON Albertson June 6, 1980 Mr. Jim Richards 74-470 Abronia Trail Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Proposed 28 Acre Development NEC Highway 111 & Deep Canyon Palm Desert, California Dear Mr. Richards: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to request at the June 3 Planning Commission the referenced property. RFCEIVFD JUN 1 01980 :_,1', present our zoning meeting regarding Although they did get a little excited, some of the points brought to our attention by the opposition were well taken. As a result, we are going back to the drawing boards in an attempt to satisfy as many of their concerns as possible. When our revised plans are complete we will not only meet with the planning staff, but will meet with the concerned home- owners group. At this writing, we have a tentative meeting date of June 16 established with Mr. Barlow, the attorney who is representing the majority of the homeowners. We will keep the members of your planning staff advised of our progress. Again, thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, ALBBEER , INC. l.. CI� Clif£or' A, Yoyalq CAY/br cc: Mr. Paul Williams Director ALSERTSONS, INC. GENERAL OFFICES: BOISE, IDAHO 83726/ BOX 20/ 1623 WASHINGTON/ 208-344-7441 IAO Albertson Mr. George Berke Sr. 73-625 Joshua Tree Palm Desert, California 92260 RECEIvED JUN 101980 June 6, 1980 ENNINONMtNIAL SLnVICES C%>I11 OF PALM DESERT 4 RE: Proposed 28 NEC Highway Palm Desert, Dear Mr. Berke: Acre Development 111 & Deep Canyon California Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our zoning request at the June 3 Planning Commission meeting regarding the referenced property. Although they did get a little excited, some of the points brought to our attention by the opposition were well taken. As a result, we are going back to the drawing boards in an attempt to satisfy as many of their concerns as possible. When our revised plans are complete we will not only meet with the planning staff, but will meet with the concerned home- owners group. At this writing, we have a tentative meeting date of June 16 established with Mr. Barlow, the attorney who is representing the majority of the homeowners. We will keep the members of your planning staff advised of our progress. Again, thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, ALBBEERT N' , INC. C. Cliffor Yo an Corpora e Prope ty Director CAY/br cc: Mr. Paul Williams ALBERTSONS, INC. GENERAL OFFICES: BOISE, IDAHO 83726/ BOX 20/ 1623 WASHINGTON/ 208-344-7441 IAO Albertson Mr. George Kryder 44-850 San Pablo Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Proposed 28 NEC Highway Palm Desert, Dear Mr. Kryder: ENVIRONMENTAL SthV3cEs June 6, 19 8 6" OF PALM DESERT Acre Development 111 & Deep Canyon California Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our zoning request at the June 3 Planning Commission meeting regarding the referenced property. Although they did get a little excited, some of the points brought to our attention by the opposition were well taken. As a result, we are going back to the drawing boards in an attempt to satisfy as many of their concerns as possible. When our revised plans are complete we will not only meet with the planning staff, but will meet with the concerned home- owners group. At this writing, we have a tentative meeting date of June 16 established with Mr. Barlow, the attorney who is representing the majority of the homeowners. We will keep the members of your planning staff advised of our progress. Again, thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, ALBERTS ,LINC. Clifford Youn an Corporat Property Director CAY/br cc: Mr. Paul Williams N ALBERTSONS, INC. GENERAL OFFICES: BOISE, IDAHO 83726/ BOX 20/ 1623 WASHINGTON/ 208-344-7441 IAO Albertson REC dV i) JUN 10 1980 CNVIRON'i""'At 4L1,'viCES June 6, 1980 CITY OF PALM OESERT Dr. Robert McLachlan D.D.S. 74-075 E1 Paseo Building D Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Proposed 28 Acre Development NEC Highway 111 & Deep Canyon Palm Desert, California Dear Dr. McLachlan: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our zoning request at the June 3 Planning Commission meeting regarding the referenced property. Although they did get a little excited, some of the points brought to our attention by the opposition were well taken. As a result, we are going back to the drawing boards in an attempt to satisfy as many of their concerns as possible. When our revised plans are complete we will not only meet with the planning staff, but will meet with the concerned home- owners group. At this writing, we have a tentative meeting date of June 16 established with Mr. Barlow, the attorney who is representing the majority of the homeowners. We will keep the members of your planning staff advised of our progress. Again, thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, ALBERT80N'Sl INC. Cliffo:)A( . Y ngman Corpor e Property Director CAY/br cc: Mr. Paul Williams N .ry ALSERTSONS, INC. GENERAL OFFICES: BOISE, IDAHO B3726/ BOX 201 1623 WASHINGTON/ 208-344-7441 AA# Albertson Mr. Charles Miller 73-526 Little Bend Trail Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Proposed 28 NEC Highway Palm Desert, Dear Mr. Miller: June 6, 1980 Acre Development 111 & Deep Canyon California R IE CEIVED ENViRONlNENiAL SERVfcES c1TY Or Pqm OESENT Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our zoning request at the June 3 Planning Commission meeting regarding the referenced property. Although they did get a little excited, some of the points brought to our attention by the opposition were well taken. As a result, we are going back to the drawing boards in an attempt to satisfy as many of their concerns as possible. When our revised plans are complete we will not only meet with the planning staff, but will meet with the concerned home- owners group. At this writing, we have a tentative meeting date of June 16 established with Mr. Barlow, the attorney who is representing the majority of the homeowners. We will keep the members of your planning staff advised of our progress. Again, thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, ALBER N' , INC. Cliffo A. Y gman Corpo to Property Director CAY/br cc: Mr. Paul Williams ALBERTSONS, INC. GENERAL OFFICES: BOISE, IDAHO 83726/ BOX 20/ 1623 WASHINGTON/ 208-344-7441 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE June 4, 1980 APPLICANT C. Robert Hubbard, J.E.. RAPKIN, B. Solomon 74-133 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: C/Z 01-80, DP 07-80, and CUP 07-80 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at is meeting of June 3, 1980 X CONTINUED TO July 1, 1980 DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. 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. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File MINUTES DESIGtt REVIEW BOARD MAY 27, 1980 Page Three Case No. 133 C - POUL MOLLER AND JOHN OUTCAULT - Preliminary approval of plans to add second story to a commercial building located at 72-055 Painters Path; Poul Moller and John Outcault were present. The Board reviewed the submitted plans for the second story addition. The applicant submitted a revised plot plan as suggested in staff comment number one. The Board discussed stucco pop -outs around the windows with the applicants agreeing to provide them. On a motion by Holden, seconded by Barton, the Board granted preliminary approval of the submitted plans, subject to the following revisions: 1. Windows in addition to be framed out 10" from wall. 2. New parking area to be paved and double striped per City requirements. 3. Final plans to reflect revisions required by this approval. Carried 5-0 (Barton, Cook, Holden, Jackson, Martin) IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS Case No. CUP 07-80, DP 07-80, and C/Z 01-80 ✓ C. ROBERT HUBBARD - Construction of commercial center to include a Supermarket, Retail Spaces, Savings and Loan, and a Hotel/condominium complex at the northeast corner of Hwy 111 and Deep Canyon Road. Applicants and Representatives were present. The Board reviewed the plans on a conceptual basis and felt that based on the Exhibits reviewed the project was architecturally acceptable. Case No. ZOA 02-80 - Amendment to Sign Ordinance for courtyard directory signs. The Board reviewed the proposed ordinance and felt that the following would be acceptable: 1. Top sign to be 2 sq. ft. 2. Tenant signs to be 1; sq. ft. 3. Maximum height to be 6 feet. Case No. DP 06-80 - GERALD CHAZEN - Contruction of commercial center at the intersection of E1 Paseo and Hwy 111. The Board felt that the project was conceptually acceptable. They commented on the possibility of flipping bank locations, squaring the commercial complex, and providing underground parking. Screening of the project from E1 Paseo was determined to be important. V. ADJOURNMENT - 4:25 P.M. c tjjj o JBDS:jn=n1 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 14, Div. 6, Article 7, Sec. 15083, of the California Administra- tive Code) Case No.: C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80, DP 07-80 Common Project Name (if any) Applicant/Project Sponsor: C. Robert Hubbard Project Description/Location: Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road; Construction of a commercial center to include a supermarket, retail spaces, savings and loan and a Hotel/Comdominium lex with related recreational amenities. The Director of the Dept. 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 poten- tially significant effects, may also be found attached. r our ate. nirrrw+..�, ni�.r Dir. of Environmental Sery NOTICE OF DETERMINATION (Negative Declaration) TO: (X) Office of the County Clerk From: City of Palm Desert County of Riverside 45-275 Prickly Pear Ln. 4050 Main Street Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Riverside, Ca. 92501 { ) Secretary for Resources 1416 Ninth St., Room 1311 Sacramento, Ca. 95814 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 15083(f) of the State EIR Guidelines. Project Title/Common Name C. ROBERT HUBBARD (C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80, DP 07-80) State Clearinghouse Number if submitted to State Clearinghouse Contact Person Telephone Number Area Code (714) 346-0611 MURREL CRUMP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER Project Location NORTH EAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY III AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. Project Description COMMERCIAL CENTER INCLUDING A SUPERMARKET, RETAIL SPACES, SAVINGS-4 LOAN:' A This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project has been approved by the City; 2. The project ( ) will (X) will not have a significant effect on the environment; 3. An Environmental Impact Report was not prepared in connection with this project; and 4. 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. Dated: 1 CU$.'IWM OO i rLTl rrs rs� �C?�C@S3o� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A "DRAFT" NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the following listed projects will not have a significant adverse impact on the envir- onment and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted: CASE NOS. C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80, DP 07-80 A request for construction of a commercial center to include a supermarket, retail spaces, savings and loan and a hotel/condominium complex with related recreational amenities located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. CASE NO. ZOA 03-80 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment relative to Real Estate "Open House" Signs. CASE NOS. CUP 04-80 and VAR 04-80 A Rehabilitation of existing building and con- struction of an off -site parking lot located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Portola Avenue and North Palm Desert Drive and the northeast corner of San Jacinto Avenue and Alessandro Drive. CASE NO. ZOA 04-80 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment relative to permitted uses in the PC (4) Zone District. continued... Page Two CASE NO. ZOA 02-80 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to the criteria for Directional Signs to be used for commercial buildings with courtyard or plaza tenants. An appeal from this determination may be made to the Planning Commission within eight (8)days of the date of posting of this public notice by filing an appeal in accordance with Resolution No. 78-32, with the Department of Environmental Services located at 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California. If no appeal is filed within the said time, this determination shall become final. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP Director of Environmental Services Date of Public Notice Date of Appeal Period Expires METHOD OF NOTICING: Posting "A Mailing to owners of property within 300' Publication in newspaper Other mailing (agencies and other persons requesting notice) May 15, 1980 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUC- TION OF A COMMERCIAL CENTER TO INCLUDE A SUPERMARKET, RETAIL SPACES, SAVINGS AND LOAN AND A HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WITH RELATED RECREATIONAL AMENITIES LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DEEP CANYON ROAD. CASE NOS: C/Z 01-80, CUP 07-80 and DP 07-80 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MR. C. ROBERT HUBBARD et al for a Change of Zone from P.C.(4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay), and P.C.(4) S.P.N. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors/Restricted Development Overlay) [pproximately 12 acres] ; PR-5, S.P.N. (Planned Residential maximum of five dwelling units per acre, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors/Restricted Development Overlays) and PR-5, N. (Planned Residential maximum of five dwelling units to the acre, Natural Factors Overlay) [approximately 19 acres] to C-1, S.P.N. (General Commercial, Scenic Preservation and Natural Factors/Restricted Development Overlays) [approximately 12.6 acres] ; P.C.(4), S.P.N [approximately 4.4 acres] and PR-5, N [approximately 14 acres]; Conditional Use Permits and Development Plan to permit the construction of a 57,000 square foot market, 45,570 square feet of commercial shops, 8,000 square foot savings and loan and a 220 room hotel/condominium complex with related administrative reception building,restaurant and related recreational amenities, generally located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, more particularly described as: APN 625-10-04, 625-10-06, 625-10-08, 625-10-09 APN 625-10-15 Thru 625-10-22 1 t 0 c GEGENO c a e( .w.. .. o, a • w 9gro Fc o UZ01- g Qe ORBO i _ I OP0107�0 EPA-5,N I\^�, - I &P. I T.. �! C-I N,S.P. x _ Pc(40-P I RC. (4) 11 11 iPt:ril N, SPP. § I&QQM9014�SUMW n�OOmw ***CHANGE OF ZONE*** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION C • &bsr+ hV66-Wid Applicant 1 please PnM) 74. 1433 g%_ %-bec Moiling Address State REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) 344o-7 Telephone q2z&'C-> Zip -Code �� 2=„a -�cbM t�'G��-�,-`J.� 4� �ar+lit PR.-S,�►,`�P PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. EXISTING ZONING aS -A" . Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE IZATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION. J1 - OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR- DATE AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO NY DEED RESTRICTIONS. I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE TH ITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES- TRICTIONS T MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. :�Iyo-5 J Applicants Signature (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. ❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION n,'- SIGNATURE 31UrvN1 Utt[ ,47,�g0 DATE ga DATE ACCEPTED BY CASE No. so Supporting Data: 1. Name of Applicant G. r f ilkl?3n 2. This request is made for property described as: Exact legal description 3, Total area of site: aZ8 ArRES ti 10 "pb 'RZ6 ^- IbOMS if more than �1yz�o,}ne requested, give su otal for each jja1'q 4. Existing Zoning: FG�/-�'��.Ies-F ��SP_ � � ./ N2 -6ti<c or attach map 5. Proposed Zoning: r 2-.' koescrioe nere or attacn map) - 6. Assessor's Parcel No.: ao' g A 7. The property is located at (street address) between and street street 8. The present use of the property is A ijA 'pP�LIJ� t�hli: 9. General Plan Designation: fn�' rpme -_ a 10. The applicant offers the following reasons to justify the request for a Change of Zone: 46 11. 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 writing (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 application I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at this day of , 19 Ill CITY OF PALM DESERT CHANGE OF ZONE The Zoning Map may be amended by changing the boundaries of any district in accordance with the procedures described in Section 25.39-8 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Procedure: DEPARTMENT OF PLAN N I N G CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APPLICATION SERVICES RECOMMENDS APPRO- APPROVES OR VAL OR DENIES DENIES REQUEST REQUEST Applicaticns for a Change of Zone are accepted only on the first working Monday of each month. The staff will investigate the request, prepare a report and recommenda- tion, publish legal notices, and notify the applicant and adjacent property owners of the public hearings. Since a public hearing is required before the Planning Com- mission as well as the City Council and since the Zoning Map can only be amended by ordinance, the average review period for a Change of Zone application is 7-8 weeks. If a request is denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant may appeal the case before the City Council. If denied by the City Council, no similar Change of Zone application may be filed for one (1) year after the date of denial. INSTRUCTION FOR OBTAINING PROPERTY OWNERS NAMES In order to expedite the processing of Changes of Zone, Variances, and Conditional Use Permits, all applicants will furnish the Department of Environmental Services with a list (in duplicate) of the property owners and their addresses for all parcels within 300 feet of the application. Said list shall include the owner of the property under consideration. These property owner names may be obtained in one of the two following manners: A. Contact a title company and request that they furnish you with a list of names, for which there will probably be a charge. B. You may obtain them yourselves in the following manner: 1. Secure from the County Assessor's Office parcel maps covering your application and all lands within at least 300 feet. 2. Indicate the area of your request by a red outline on the parcel maps. 3. Delineate, in red, all property within 300 feet of the area of your request. 4. From the parcel map, make a list of book, page, block number, and parcel number within the above 300 foot area. 5. Using the Visual Numerical Index File, which is to be found in the Assessor's Office, place the name and address for each parcel opposite the number described in No. 4 above. 6. Sign Affidavit attesting to name list. 7. Return this list with your application to the Department of Environmental Services. CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST AFFIDAVTT 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) (date) (Sample Assessor Is cap) 00-`2 f3 12 17 16 ry 15 14 11 10 9 8 0 10 7 II 6 12 5 13 12J j 4 14 1{j 15 1 16 14 17 13 10 19 SUBJECTS 1 2 PARCEL 11 10 9 8 15 1 14 1 3 12 1 21 7 20 s 6 \ 9 10 NOTE: THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND THE THREE HUNDRED FOOT PERIMETER LINE ARE TO BE OUTLINED IN RED. NAME AND ADDRESSES OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. JOB NO. PARCEL NO. NAME ADDRESS C i� i II CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANTS' GUIDE TO PROCEDURES FILING PROCEDURE: Prior to submittal the applicant shall discuss his pro- posal with the Planning staff to determine whether or not the proposal is in conformance with the General Plan and to determine zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or other requirements. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Meetings: 1) City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursday of each month, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane. 2) Planning Commission meetings are held on Tuesday, nine (9) days prior to the first Council meeting of the month, also at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers and Wednesday, eight (8) days prior to the second Council meeting of the month, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chambers. 3) The Design Review Board convenes on Tues- day, a week before the Planning Commission, at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers. Public Hearing: Public hearings are held when the City considers re- quests for a change of zone, variance, conditional use permit, general plan amendment, etc. Legal notices for these hearings are published in the Palm Desert Post at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Public hearing items before the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency are published in the Desert Sun. Appeals: Where the Zoning Ordinance provides for appeal to the City Council or Planning Commission, the appeal shall be made within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision by filing an application of appeal with the Director of Environmental Services. Fees: All required fees are listed in the Fee Schedule, as approved by the City Council. Building Permits: Building permits are issued by the Department of Building and Safety and are required before any new construction, re- construction, plumbing, mechanical work is commenced. Business License: Prior to engaging in an enterprise for profit, zoning and building code clearance for the proposed use is required and a city business license obtained. Application should be made to the Code En- forcement Supervisor. Private Deed Restrictions: Many parcels of land in the City of Palm Desert are subject to private covenants, conditions, and deed restrictions which may conflict with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is responsible for resolving conflicts with deed restriction requirements. -2- III. DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS AND REQUIRED FEES: ACTION REQUESTED GENERAL INFORMATION PLANNED DISTRICT -PD Provides detailed information on new DEVELOPMENT PLAN development in the Planned Residential (PR), Planned Commercial (PC), or Plan - (Planning Commission and Council ned Indistrial (PI) zones. Action Required) A lication Fee: PR Zone with C/Z re- quest 450 + 2 DU - $1,000 Max. No C/Z request $325 + $2 DU - $1,000 Max; PC or PI Zone with C/Z request $650 without C/Z request $550. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -CUP Where certain uses may create potential problems, the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Planning Commission Action Required) provides that conditional use permits shall be required "so that they may be located properly with respect to the ob- jectives of the zoning regulations." Application Fee: A, RE, R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1, SI, P & OS zones - one acre or less $140, one acre plus $250 + $10/acre. D, S, N, SP, H overlays - same unless base district requires CUP + 50%. ADJUSTMENT -ADJ The Palm Desert Municipal Code provides for an adjustment to the terms of the (Approval of Zoning Administrator zoning ordinance to allow minor reductions Required) in yard setbacks or parking requirements. Application Fee: $30 VARIANCE -VAR A variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance may be obtained only when, be - (Planning Commission Action Required) cause of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, or topography, the strict application of the Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Application Fee: $50 residential lot; other. CHANGE OF ZONE -C/Z A change of zone request may be initiated by the owner or authorized agent of the (Planning Commission and Council owner of property. All zoning designations Action Required must be in conformance to the General Plan or any specific plan for that area. Application Fee: $325 -3- ACTION REQUESTED GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -GPA Amendments of these plans are processed in REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT -RPA conformance to State Law and the ordinances SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT -SPA and resolutions of the City of Palm Desert. (Planning Commission and Council Application Fee: $500 Action Required. Redevelopment Agency Action Required) TEMPORARY USE PERMIT -TUP To regulate temporary uses such as art sales, Christmas tree sales, garage sales, subdivi- (Approval of Zoning Administrator sion sales office, and model homes so that Required) they will not be detrimental to surrounding property. Application Fee: $10 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT -HOP To regulate the use of business activities in residential neighborhoods. (Approval of Zoning Administrator Required) Application Fee: $0 CERTIFICATE OF USE -CRT A use certificate insures that each new or expanded use of a structure or site complies (Approval of Zoning Administrator with all applicable provisions of the Palm Required) Desert Municipal Code. Application Fee: $0 SIGN PERMIT -S Regulates the size, color, and location of (Approval of Planning Disision signs throughout the City. No sign may be erected without an approved sign permit. Staff Required; Design Review Board/Planning Commission Action Application Fee: Staff Review - $0- Required for Large Signs - See (less than $100 in value) ORB Process) $10-($100 - $500 in value) ORB & PC Review $15 TIME EXTENSION Where permits or approvals have been granted for a specific time period, time extensions (Depending on use, may require ap- may be granted by the appropriate agency or proval of Zoning Administrator, Plan body. ning Commission or City Council) Application Fee: $50, if public hearing is required. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Assures flexibility of the City's regulatory PLAN, CUP, VARIANCE, PLOT process due to unforeseen problems. PLAN APPROVAL Application Fee: $50, if public hearing is (Anprovine body varies with nature required. of -4- ACTION REQUESTED GENERAL INFORMATION DRB PROCESS -SF Review of landscaping, architecture, colors -MF and materials, and other zoning requirements (Requires approval of Planning -C prior to submittal for a building permit. Division staff or Design Review Board and Planning Commission) Application Fee: Single family $15 Other $50 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP -PM To regulate the subdivision of property involving 4 or less parcels. (Review by Planning Commission) Application Fee: $50 FINAL PARCEL MAP Final adoption of plans and performance bonds on required subdivision improvements. (Approved by City Council) Application Fee: $100 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP -TR (Review by Planning Commission and City Council) To regulate the subdivision of property involving 5 or more parcels. Application Fee: $250 + $2.50 per lot FINAL TRACT MAP Final adoption of plans and performance bonds on required subdivision improvements. (Approved by City Council) Application Fee: $100 + $6.00 per lot REVISED TENTATIVE MAP To provide for flexibility in the sub- division process necessitated by unfore- (Review by Dir. of Environmental seen circumstances. Services, may be reviewed by Planning Commission) Application Fee: $50 + $2.50 per add. lot APPEALS - ALL TYPES -APL The Palm Desert Municipal Code establishes the appeal process for various types of (Appeal agency based upon nature projects to insure maximum consideration of project) of individual applications. Application Fee: $50, if public hearing is required INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 requires an assessment of the impacts (Submit to.Planning Division Staff) of proposed projects which require a dis- cretionary approval by the City. Application Fee: $30 -5- ACTION REQUESTED EIR REVIEW (Requires Planning Commission action, may require City Council action) OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION Detailed environmental posed impacts resulting which may have adverse sequences. Application Fee: $550 analysis of pro - from a project environmental con - Nlf 00111 "Of"0 BI N L01 to 1la rryad TWIN l' 'SST-i�Y '3h995Y 0i-l0-LO n YMr� 'S�Y"TA tF I P-L 1060 19610L A]YQ7 / OS(IC pppp-� IOLL6 Y Wit 09901 9-%O-OM-on 000(1I L O113 0 N16 13YI1 6(0/660 6Y 99 111 ILI" 491190L A31VW �� SL90C y.p 'i 10(L6 52902 )0001 5-940-OM-9L9 906-010 0091L1 L 7 0 /Y ILI 11111p N16 L71y 401K0 it N Ion 6,160 L%90L A3wW /711 iv4 JIM ] 0006E 0%11 OSOOI a-6S0-OM-9H 90a0-99Ii0 0009!1 10(L6 Aff a 1 q$ 3 Y N16 .]Yy 6L0,660 IM C9 LO7 pp 7� 1060 L%902 A3NYTJ p�QA�)s q�/� �1 �%1 WW 00001 1-M-OL(•-ull f00-�10 W92C1 10(L6 �741Y] OWNS all 3: 13N WII&W3 JOW St36 All LLS OIM7 ON Imw VA. AJ NOIiGttl')Si0 '933M '33SS3YTI 9SYOY 3%4 (O(Llretld) 11-09 NIL 341 MA 11O0-110mg S.Y _ M !0-.0 utly-tltltltl ,ala L7Yt1 40/KO y LS L(" 9006E oppD 99 ]] a/C. 9NI50 A3YQ` /7Y ]�' i1YMG 0969i 09001 N:6 17M 401660 111)1 IS L", 41a0 ..%WL IOLLt 4YOM 11�0 .Il111ja� 0CL cow pppp 0S61: 01001 1-190-0M-9L9 900-l10 10A 1} "I& INN, u01444, uldA'Ua[s III, 6(1:1 1701W lV r 09L�[4L{i[{I 1 :000C OSLI >� OCLR Not 0-090-0M-9L9 Alto 00421} ' Alto 161y h17 Nit 1]Y61 4016W y N ,170011 a.10'. N9t:2 +316D- I,711LAYlp 099t6 ' L Oit11 ppp yy ]] OtMI o-aN-OM-929 t00-1'0 }q9?' �t11A3.1Y�1�RQQ1��d 1111 , ro:AYO 416A, 1 ^ Nla Illy t1016t0 94 F LO7 "Jill a/lil U,tev 13A m p{ 415 0:L OOL pppp ��LL owl 6-M-OLA-919 900-i10 It/Lil YYA1 'll OW 4114r N16 I7IY( 61YIt60 IN q a- Will Will %Oell m a y� ` r 1 01006 l Y�(1 MIN 0 9N• 0.1'l -(N Oh•Nf It6 I111 0M tat lr ' C: ISO Wlin7 AN "W All tit r7M1 OY LIMN WA N 0101.6111F700 nm 111196 (OtWNi) It•M M Dll vu 74F11MIRM11 -to-lo I LJT a' TK 4„1e10 VA llN bowl el-aly i � 1C MIOIIO. 1� KKIKIOt'pt t level mw:v moll Mlle LOT M A „``Nmma/0 T(eC` 91% ,M T 11>01 W Camel ae/xl ell,e to n IK 011/e79 Toxy etw Icl.a e. M. LM OSall 0omo" il{nl ltln LOT 00 IK monvo IY(T 91M IteI60 C01rt+ 761664 ;v» LT {I • O!f•On TbILt f:M ilMO M { aY M T U wit III fM69 'W6 QO64:1 iM.A/ II/n -M it M Wilton TIMET 91M O1-01-10 MKSWa M[l16. OMMIPTtoM WT OILED su Moll TAMS WO MDT 6:LED SIX lab T6600.E QXL WT OSUED IFI Ip TMMIE MU MUT MILLED OQ mm TbuaE: NOLL M/ a E 4M ppT { I^ f6 UE /Kr Ni/ Cl1{l' 20aa01 „/l/ 1-74 fiM Pm i I6 LOT a is e„/0n TRACT Lo CA you COKr 2MM1 10/79 LOT i M tol/NI TMET Itna-2 ..11et... I,peIK1 -nu m be TEM 14-11 (PIOIry1e) PINK Mw, h ip MI111 M0 Ao In tlr 04 e{00 Epttm or t0 R Il{•MI r•611'111N IIMe 11a00 317% lk „ Ola•MO OiK .w-lw* Iff" t0{t6 3562% ItleM OIaMf ii•WMI-0 low ll0 213R 465Eb611Elt-1131L FOR THE TEM e0-11 N 160 6611I1 No LNO IC 3-M 625620063-2 TL 3-0 6254~-3 Tc 3.M 62562065-4 TL 3-00 6204200663 TL IM 611.0� 626-420.061-6 25 (PM11210) P66E 6MM STl T/r PEOE PF-P ERIiTIOMS MEl 'o Ta000 011.0 1 623-63a-MI-1 lilt 31t 25 also (eE nlRi n/ LCI 1 M OT/Oi P61 EMrd000m J. (geD w/ u JlT ♦ A Oil/OS{ CI6 ��I1I �t�0 r[i,'r110�6. MQC Mt{6 L L LOT S A MT,036 Prl �LIIII, qb.' �PRO E 8F ¢l/isS: XT 6 A e2,/O.l{ Ptj O1.01-00 taw M/1 F Ot IT1lE0 �'��yk M PIO - I w u u (erg 1.01 1 A 027/036 byw 0 M/. I N PQgT ! Y ni CA LOT E me Mlml, P" LIP7M, {6 'K KR w 6M LOT 0 on wm% OtiA .tM0 01}-Opl 621.62p-MI-1 lam ]M W Pow 6OTA P EVRPTIO M ov TC '9/. t36:6 :`50 ll l ... C-Oa... OM LOT t A OaVOU PMORRM YAmcm RV, c or o 1 QN NIN9 Ibn 9q Lot ; A lallr /MIMM MIDI PL WRiii all eR Y IIIYI trill cow 1%011 oil's Pa LOT IT 0 601M PM W$ M MANN CR 9NV lift% mMtr ales 01116 1.Y KM IN ON LOT t A Oi9/0N P40WA MM 011-M GH-Itl-M-a I"" e,,, r I6'te0 011:99 611.111 009 A I"" 31%w .,•,y,6( NMI WM WIII-M-t U31, .e:1,e "1 ...c-�s... Ol-Cl w 155FSVOT-ROLL FCM :WE YEN 10-81 (PRPIE17n) PAW ~ m6culE. OUMM, IEMRIPTIOR FV ;aA NW 10 LAND 5TR TIV FIX PVO EEWI:OM VET 10 'O4�Y. I D.I O'Nt AN71R�-I Was 9 016 123714 It, R%ftWYA _aoRE 16E Cl/iLEI CCHw Isso" 17/'s iiPppplQQ'Lt C WM pitIM po"upM Rmcm Ifltfl V LL M L. 14 1IUr�T�TT16 MI lV RARE /�6 r/ colo1002]r 1sV9!N ians ./p 1® M/L IN PM LOT : 1M O 300u P��dPPPNTi IIIOI FRANK O'' W1A61L T C. 9Vwl M LRE Ii! Cl/6LS COWEr 071 TLi 01/19 Pai 07 a AS on1OB] PAM W RMG1 P1110L M IN ELfi;Y'Ci1 mi c/o o WIM IPLi Tcl/ ak%V 1313Ts III" PON LOT O .M O231012 PAMMAMA RRICN P1T F.$T5 I 07-01-N PTICK TR TO '=M[bbtE, ADDR956. LWIPTIOW eTT CA 9m" C COVF1'V ?"1" 11/71 ML SY POR L01 R 1M 023naa 10.4,16 011:019 M-i71-01.-I 25969 I]56h 010:Oo 675-I21-001-6 10531 20'M SC501 RI0-00 S- 625-IU-003-1 1313 San 2'T63 !lc MB' ...0-05... A65L361EM-ROLL FOR THE YEAR 10-41 (PRPRRTO) PAM 6090 FV IRA AIimml no LRO bTR T14 KRE P" _IR1iTIO* WET TO 1159610THI 6t6-M-00-1 INO1 um J va IS LC P ■ LC ri a LL 11/T P�JtfM0 1 PfQ 14i Jr I P1�0 1 MT RIC RAT I4 LYE War, PTT _OT WT RIL Pm Lmg! YSKWl Jbt RPn PM ,CT "A -W 4mclolM-tiDL, FOR TIC T[1q 611-11 (irl►!To) PAK "@I$ 0•-C.-so AMOEBIC. 1004lp. onalP,IOI 99 INA "! 1m LAND ST6 119 14 Pwp cAmy:am Ir * 10tweer. • °;�5, ;—k10.-t_6.�U-._.. 1 — 9-DI.616i'; law 1100 nee M17jn5xM � xlge ln,w n.n .CT A a la]0ft to to "Pow ,gIICT flwa q{ •l•' le II�M1 40-391-C1t-1 10000 low ]y0, .]T ,iT �it ,C -M Ml. 401 11 A Q10169 Tg1CT 9IM-3 .A, n A ;Wow 1. 111�0 OU`MI {i1-.A,-Ol1-T l0050 if 110 ]q-p,C Opl 0.- MI Ih Lll R 00-MMiOIP, I�10� fI a 90L,f LOT 12 a MIAMI^ ,i1CT 91M-3 JeE qv i9! • •LOOE, S a l04 W F 11fp6 a ,,. 1+7610 OIa�, Yf•Sri ,cl,!O ]6]90 m � LOT IS A 0901O `aK` 91M-3 Ki 21;L TO DIM4M.3914;9 9 :0550 MIS ]`N'- I -OT 39 ON 106r� M q1 LOT i9 A O9fI0M iWlt fiM-5 - 16 s1 C cM1,� b[ Sp Cr �• 90 1q :06;:53 9M1-02m 99.9: cv 470) PAM 6C1:9 1111LSSM 1mgb6, DESMIPTICM 1Y Ta1 16101T W) L11O 5T6 !I9 Kb PROP ENEWT106 0fI TO I i 1ill=ifF� _. 10566 19600 Ica 1150 nest C�4C 0T_.-- r :1 COKT Id,]]C 0714 1 IS s MiD64 INK, 9199-3 9 BILLED 91 1O1 TAXABLE NO-L TC 3-00 UlJ91C l' T BILLED SU AM TA{la[ WL TC 5-00 6]6391011-] T 6ILL D ha LOI TAXABLE 6R, ,C 5.00 625"1011-3 1 all= SS[ AM TAME a0.L TC 5-00 626391019.4 ad-4 1- .L ioo OIM 686-3h-g1.9 zs n IK OWM '/'// G aww 16I066 07„9 0'-01-K 1M061>':. 1q :�A u LOT 91 16 IO 463 1 C CA 0 11TQ go 1049y T 1T1IT yM M0606�t1NO �q AC T ) 0 r, w/ 6�F �fffnnnl{[ L1 COMIC, 6VITf IV ICY 6 A 090166f 16E1 91M-3 Mr, r;-.[C 6G 16Jr T60RE W., rol Yum aft "a T6rFSJ 6q. MT rt.\m M IOI Tmw a. wr Nx: 'dlel I,11MT anf \YI ON 6Y9re60 Iucl flMa a Tr.fcr wl COMr IWAR own Icy 1+ w 699/6w T%KT f:M-! T`,cc c.I w ul-W al 6 T( 3-04 6"106.9 tc J-M 6a1N016-e 67Uo101.1 IINM $11V 68-wN w+i 2! woo 1%" I}o1.M 611266M.11I-OM-3 I.W. Il6» I' 7f6en 716R ..e . (.2... �T It 6 R' WYi• If \Of H Is Iwou mx- 1a1 /r GI� u �WJ, cow M .Ol 6e Ioi/M6 lrl[T 1a on � u[ a[ A :ore. :r LOT M a MVou rrr• tax an qJf Y[ w X :4IL SK rR TyyOY[MI 41 , 1J[ :I[ � X i161f U COMIC, yy''Ii X :. Ie l"19--3 76c. law I 01-01-60 I\1CVAW-QOL toll Tie ICU 60-11 cP1YMryTot D Ia ran: lDDMII .mcaln:a N TM AMrT IU UIf STY 'IV DE$ DrL COWTIM Kl TO E. 6�]b. E�ABBIMSCE. f�7! - 1` 1-i low lf600 spit :ooc ]67co p�TIEp��1CM TPp+fTaC�4c6p[jG - 56..fYtlC3pflSti �'•: ti,iE^L941% r 17! ME K./1 COWRY 1l/TM elln .6E LO! l6 Ii eM10N Tgl[T 91N-3 -C- 9: IB 1e405S T61[T :25^ •Q It, YR 7y114I)r E ATM T C l�-�''A1-0JlJ 11150 16/T! 7T.F rSTTw 19�fI.{�i�_YIFIIKT1ilE IK •.l M�/YO^{!Yi 1141 j RTO: - U ful MrH T SEC K Y8 Trl �1 UbE it COMAE,99f E• ]00H/ti R 060! S�tfJV I� 1• •E6>QW: :Y LO '11T If Is eMIw TMCT 91w-3 101 Y Iw C. 1`` 060 61 67-M7-031-6- -IMiy E�E'Tp� 1e91T[Or INC qT l0fe t� ONe IT900 7.q.6 eM Ol G Rl f�� :EE WIY6 TS/ .9YF�' :R -- i01 93 R 1weS3 TY6CT L&M live :ff Wa MCI COII[r IS'1M 01IT9 rL T0o0 ^� �� IK LOY 70 A mtw TMCT f100-! •It SI61 Of G R:• iEE WAR* 9T Clfw y IA Of r, SKYiN. D7lYf _ I ,6�Y6 ei�-Ale4$-6 IOMO Y�•M 71m T_ c DOI Lm " If 1"165! qwl Iasm , oil twors Ci U � �T'JE IK w %MMo WAN iN%MY� COWRY 212- 7:»9T 10179 60 D c ,Y�C6 RI: SOT n a eM/w TWO f;N-s w 6�t1 IfE 47 fe/ (X KV lt7m NOWWi.. lj0 M n6.01i 06-MI.434.1 IWO HO ]e:So '< .... LOT o7 R lM tot,. Tw :T t79.x rely 90A9 yiw+G�1 T 1!E COWRY 2t7f.16 ""I R0. LOT 77 A OAIOK TRXT 91w-3 pf ��PY�y�6�0.1a t!F IY'rYO /^ -nrE, 255( l01 SJ m 106 m Twv ;7Sq 0" 47-Cl-0 660CE61[11-20" FOR TIE ICU IC-11 ;i 6DIi710) D9Q 60n7 o'-OI-60 jmom= gnin6. [tb miam rI TEA UNIT No clop 6T6 III PM D00r CIM-104 K1 TD 66acm, AGOSYM. OSC6lvrc 0 ` w}[�yr1,W A 9t T15 CO N" {{7Nl 6VN L.C• M A OMlON IWI 91M-3 IVT IfT low Illtr M-M-O o lom IMM 96690 tC TEb ,M A wbow MCI 01% 3 4M414M-o 10010 I1f60 Yr , 13/e0% e•/N LO i A MOM "KT 91%-3 I�IM 1ge«-iel-O,M-1 IMM OOile .Dt {+Sc Ma. FM CAGY e3M19 1 iv, lM M A AMOM %KI 91N-3 "Am". TM 011_tt6 68-391.ON-e IOW :%50 29:oc 00 � M6e91 M!N 1DI el A O" VA TOKT 91M-3 ...Y-02... V-01-Ao A55LS51EM,-AID'. T6 TE TEAe 80-31 (Me1e'210) GAfi. "W A , PDOME 6, CESO M171 N ra A191T K LAID 5Te Ill rE% -WF EMFI 1OM 1E'T TC 1�e/I ViA �:Q-JfI-OAO-2 OC IGSM I1715 30,125 AOi 9A1i3b6. G I40 McT3R f0iE4 CI CONEY IlNl6 M!N Lot a A OMfl TRACT 914,4-3 E Alrt.opr 111e1 IG 17d10p 91FMf 575-391-041.3 lE 0-00 MW M115 yT A" Wlwrs CJI 900y PK/1 IH IO6 iC COMFY IM515 M/N IAT�a A OMlW TORT 9:M-: w/t MI [ LTD sT ITC?j00 mj� 625-3-:-0e7-4 10050 16TSc CA92701 ]ado WI�15WAA I- - own" C(MfT ] 09:T! LOT M AA O ,W Ty ' 9:M-3 NTMa63 b Sr MM I�C 01�-�b 4a-391-043-5 IM7'- :%21 a K5C G 9710E ��S,pA��VITI�AApVAIA IR A►!Ob qFw COMFY OITT30 C1,60 'AT 31 A 0"l WppVMKT 91 W 3 ��FiM OII:OM 6ii-391.1N-6 C UO 10000 2C:'S ,x;x FS7�*Eb, CA wAs pp2/. cavxY IMM'. 0901 ;-OT 32 A OAIa AOKT ^IA,-3 I Y dR lN1^ -0, M IO IMIrU %K. ;IM m4w-.. �,�OATT w: cee►t, Ire LID, M A lwm ,eK, I AOI NID w: COR, IA 10, Y A IM/en MKT IAM AO A. 1 V TObA 0 Ifl GGrIK, 020 LOT e1 A IN/4W i 1 izW Ad V. o. 1 T f n G AM fOMf, 0.1X '�,,T M A IMIC.53 TWI :Gp AOE 01-61-e0 fC NUMbbE.Ei5. Aoawri'.. JL• P1:0 pKAIIN�e1w0f'iM1i CA iFE IEE mil• 0 :abE :ra .C- 59 A ;M10[[5.1 Ti K• :2 AIOO ±M MTS1i56j/Il I1FL 5' AIE11 06EA7, G 92X m 1A9 c' LOT 60 A .M/Oe3 TWT Ia" ,Yp4 V!t iel0 ^ r 6AEM E iK �MOOIE.G G .211 PK1A , IiE /O$ qI COMFY :92e iL0Eii66! a 1,M�5'O" t6,T lamp Opp WED' YMW�GC'LNE iK EA10' G a2;? WyII T m 137b0 IK x! owE. :4e L07 6e A IM/053 TWT :i5M AAOCF JE Dow: D Alt 6 AIR. A2o6 WI t �'• ill aXi CUM !1141- LOT 63 A 1M16M TPA-! :a33 A,,M ... %-02.•. el-01-M A65E5 WMT-eOl OM TV rru _C XX ME list W IMA' eih 1 UK W' 'nQK7-- 111"Ir O117ft -01 St to m-en iMKI 91N-1 ACIM L. nj�^ U & U +NI+ 0319, Ie1D', M+n WT MI A MO IMKT +iN-1 V cl-K — McMO1EE, AW4ab, r.rT 1011 �a 9..M KO cRM9EY IT6N5 a+n �0• J0 A O»/On --%KT 91N-3 Asa iv/1Le MC+ ofty t6T59T 01/n ^/i T_�54ta aA U %%/I at -E11TI CN\ +iTt' •4 +'E I1/MA CM•ET KSH9 o+ne WT K A e»/en TMK1 91N.-T WARA K+ oONCI ITKT 01/79 Y. If 099/06. TRACT ^1N-3 l INI%T C/o A AA.AMI IMN1M r1E 1 U A 911449 Iqw 011196 INN% IKK AT9•,. 11Mn0 OII.OM IOeN KA MI" ..A )b.. GICBW \T-Ipl fq NE YOM 0-11 01OW276) GAK 0". ry TWA moo MD ZINC STIR I/Y 9ERO Pro EO.•1:016 Not To 1640 e11:OM 611-Tl-0410 IOOK 11111 ]TIED 1010C films a11•a9l•uM•1 low !"Is ]OAK IO+IK Ol1_� Ne-TI-a T.9 IONO Iwr wr 1]L90O eT006 6111-AI-04e-0 IOESO 19TTE wa 11Nee +if-+O(f]O-AI-ON•; IOOK :+05C 2-woo ...0 O]... 0•-0I-K 4 MMQ. NVM6. aocu"D :ei ��•IuMEr o.»A COT MM iiW0e1 tW IEfl AR9B T'11eI 'H;W" UK pNM,N . a CA vita:lH MEi - :DYES :+M1• !_01 a .11 !Ulm TOPIC Irs Cc ESUEi R:]: +TM V4N-. COMET 'SIT 1K OIbM�0DI -CIMEY WilliWWEM TW I�b M92W JJOEr Iqe,- {10T 6p•Et! IWW TWIT 16fl -+E1ME M/T T090 IMI:AiA, so�•9E :K Sao CA .CT W ME S'lAT6` -RAC' :tr •+PRE; rA �1 26'1S I 01.01 .M0 AUMMRM1-BOLL 90M TIC TEAR 10-11 (P"210) PAW "w 90lE52aE, AOMC51, 0ESC4IP Id ry 'I6 654IT A LAID all TI9 PEM PQM COVJl t MET 10 / P1N �� I�M Ol�•Mf p•bl-MO•f :0690 2103 11625 :01MC1 iYDOI: 10,19 LO' 3M M 099/064 TWT fIN-J �N 1177MM IlM-OOf fi1•391-I6I•2 IOOOO 21915 AY I/50 Mm y6OC.-. TRC 0-MI M / COMET 29101E 11119 LOT 39 A H9/IW ygKl 91M-J I IOgW OI!_0446 6n-39: 45.-J ICO?S I16i5 L9iE W/g116 MCI COMET 199W 0909 LOT YO M 699/OM TWY 91Nq IF-1 WTwi J. t�60C 00 016.40� 6 6tF-J9I.OS00Jo �00 �t 1150 32cot . 2J'Su 00 C (FlB'�NgALJTtf19�{p iNAWIpE KI ,.OIIET 03T5p' 02re( LOT ' l A 099/00 TW7 9144-3 N/T 'I" ST O10-o 625-391-054-5 IC:00 CA 9270: Sf Wl" TV CbMEr n9/19 LCT 6 A 099/W Tg j 91N-J 9ETPCBILLM SEE WIN 'AR921.E NELL IC 3-00 625391055-6 p0E N1, 2110 E -IN 5I TCIOC 010.0,E 625-391-056-' 2S z. pl/Bj5 t CE y2 �1 04 O6E CO9D C9/1S POg LOT B A 0 IC0 MALT 91N-3 +n6-C1+r+ III oT-C: 60 6S5ES. T-gq'- FOR TIC YEAR /0-11 (fMW21O) PA2 60826 MET TO MSP656EE. AOIl35. OESCJIIPTION N TM6 651MT N0 LEA SIR TIT PER5 PKF CIEW110G NEI -C 26325 ^�--wa1 wuw IK 104Y00 Ol0_&0i 625-Y00-601-Y 4250 T 040 22/50 2110E CA 92121 aNLN�,�jt 26p H / (31IET 192111 09i 1/ -07 1 A 106/O53 TNKI 12533 MODEO IAE IK Wrw ^ / �C 011:001 625-Y00-502-5 4250 2?475 6,25 I 9212, 0 P4�1T 12 .TBMC/ COWRY t92077 09111 _OT a 11 !06IW TMJ 1253J 61i*)M N/i 1090 IK Ci 9-t 12'. 96,E TC 0;6_041 625-Y00-%3-6 42% to 19625 2.�... Y,f IOI VNLN 9zw ram-wI COMET 192911 09110 LOT 3 N I%IW TWI 12533 M061CL N/7 MMNgOATU� IK .09900 016:w1 625-w-w--, Y2s, ti t 23110 2,350 2Y:2J 92121 UW 0'-6i 6t IMMESEEE, MR •Ii1109r nl� Y9M9F PNL21 bb[E 1p I 1L0�6$1M! T .Ii ,m g'MMMf 1 ,Y99jRT 0�• C MU_ 6LN 1!E IC/ LOT To NB AJVr T. -„ETcma Nib R1/• NIT I09C .[RIPPi W 14"s TW -A1NU IbE WIEI6 g(� LOT 11 M 106.053 If Ti�J{pp N -,5 RW 9l 10X IIANNIA W 74"2TTWIDE OI CIRCA bC W2MTgC92W� -01 112 M IOt/OSJ 'l 1 10901gC MµR,'N16pp�l,,��,q0 C q•Y raw W, OF 13 A 106,063 '4 0'-0:-K /T MI1690 ��YN91G @J A910 T 0p�9t2{76.OE P�LN 4 !E q• LOT '%16 106/c53 Tg, FL M,JT,4fe efNW AC x4C LOT 15 IS I05'W3 ITa 8[ I flu NC/� LOT 16 A 1V10" TNN W IL lvA 1Mma 21 1 �k 0,-01-t0 +9eEa9EE. AMM9ta6, asaltvTla T V E. n/UI�r K16C N ViIiAG 'x 91/ COAFr 26.1N5 l0/tt LIT 15 KO 093106, 191C+ Big- i ! ToibwTN E. np ,Q97 "� 9260 JF �`�1/ it CO1 VEV M36" 10/77 LOT 16 nP OW/007, TMAET 62A-1 5! 11" ID/iETN E. 9VWt .pY O ti AM A. 0O9 Y 6VMT•Qfi 9A6LT)1 �,EM�{QY1 lbE 9v/916,91" CpNEv 2ry569y 10/1+ OMIOOT T9ACT An,-1 N E. A M HK NN IN Ai � PL CA 900N9 ALn �{p 92[60 12[ 9V/ibT all r 2:p90 IC/A LOT 19 V 0113/00, T9ACT 6229-1 M90MOT-9U_L vO' 'K TfM to-SI (PAN 290) PANIC AM N Tq A61MT NO LAIC SIR TIV PE95 PAOP EITi71OM NET To 10 m 0T00t 6M-M-015-5 as" 2235 IWI 11A0 23321 11ff2A 01 9-096 630-390-016 6 2996 2_270 AOK t750 21A06 7t2M 1111_� 6JO JPO-011-! 2t91 16671 Ig562 I11JOo 630-390-019-9 $3, 30000 5ryuc ...A-03... 01-01 AO NAMEE. WiNeEk.. DmAIP' SiDNO, 999fTgN DDIS I^IiAAT,AV TEvµMw0C5f2f1 92M0 �.K li/91b 9.I ;DMA 23 A5 Pie 092/010 T9 9;29 6 W ;N A bmw TT 'L IKSABEte E. '9 IA E n/ N A/T A6 M G.RM I. CA 92 V6190 AI i IbE qP/0E 911 C0A£• 05. LOT • AB 092I010 T4 9:2. A W IN AREA STO T ISAWNLC. TN k:6 1 11OEEAOI, CA fY pALrn60pAp'1dNt 92M0 IbE 9F/Mb 91l COWEr 27' WT 5 AM 092/01C TN 9129 A INI IN AMA Uff TEVW: 4I NTII E. Ar�PA IA A. fit 2525 V AE9LL�yv A CA 92A GAL!�NCOIi�01i1pA Npµ, 2E W/Bf6TN1/92�6Calm, 22, .AT 6 AS 092/010 TN 9129 6 IM IN A I 07-01-90 WA06W%i7-MOLL EID THE YEAS so -AI (P9PK270) PAM Aim C!-01.90 1 AVC'{f. AOO166. COCRIPTIOC N !9A IVYT No LAIC 5TM T/V PEA6 PUP EXOW11O6 SET TO AB6LSSEE, AOOR55. OLSCL::': -2w I,w 20720 g' ! 1N E. TN Is 1 IL NOW IiE !NI/ :LMKY a5A 0l CO NF PM95 IOM LO!a+ A 092,010 TN 9129 6 INT ;N LOT 21 A 0MV907 TRACI ND-: !NAN-�+— --'�--- N� R T 4 N E. - I7Yy1LMA 630-7f6-Ml•1 d19, T:Sne SJTOS n/»04 ,YVI[K� E. 924, INT M�.1O,4_4TK !RC EE OeGG �f tpMA I/ G UMVE�' 2" I'm�t All R O1010 '9 9129 N INI :"I tMKtE21 1�-0! A 91 0 COWCY 691,29 02V19 01,1PWw VI IM DpA. A LC' 32 A t93/407 T%X1 Ni-1 S1191IT � L y OR PA RIMaiN r I109Y 01� 610-JIO-OA-2 N21 W325 a/'0+ 11E i CA COAL, om !E Q A 9 AM M1010 IN 9:29 6 IN, IN C q Ue A, 911 �� NiiO COY sum W09 61VM1 4{OWTN E. 19 0 .01 M NR OW/Oil TRACT 67A-1 01-01-10 kl"V5. DESCRIPTION RILLm SEE MN TUPA E ROLL 00 IAIN '. EC 1R 11 { II L ICR 6ow { R11 CUI47I 0Sno 0I7e L 10_W/061 TRAC- 6ii9-2 A INi IN I E. IN I RIMY E0111EY MITI 63111 TRACT 4W-N A TNT ;N aftKne oft= a/» TWO 67i9-7 A IW IN ASSE551ENT-RULL FOR THE YEAR l0-el (FR01E210) Phi 61905 EV IRA *AWT w LNU sit T/V PEAS ARCa EOVTIOE NET TO TC 3-00 63039DOM-5 :}file 01e_006 AM-40-001-0 M2 25500 :»}] 1f7196 oll-o 6M-WO-M-3 7A22 2w, cc 111Aee 011_H 6]O-WO-OAI-A 7W 1560R MDT( 17" Mill R 0R A 11TMG I M V :DINE' VwHai . .OT it -6 0121010 Ti 9129 6 :N- ;N A 01-01 /0 Me[LbFi, NXIO[[ORetpp. �GYfitvT:r I raw pAIT A {TMCMA6R1�990[ IbE iv 91, JJKT 2?" 15 1% M10I0 IN 9:29 A :I,' IN ST�ppAI MINI r« E KORI ALTp1R1. ;/(iJf)l19 M R dy ICN IK /9E a COY 0453 LCl A 16 M M1010 TR 9129 l IM IN STE MTV.W. 6. TR N�' 1 ITMRiF NIT KN RLL® A/T L172 RVE A�LMN��QRi U1 900. tE oPWI NJ/ UNMET 0521! .OT 1. M 0921010 IN 4129 a :W IN NE5 5TEAVT ELIS0BET11 E. -R y q��NCy�MMTT G. vmi vT RMIWISSiGN6 «IL3 66i0e 1]N6,6Ns9`pfoS (l( DR lE O 4, RI/ C OKI 2280 DTAIll ABM 09210:0 TR 9129 l IM IN C 01-01-M A66ES5EE, NXAM. 0F5CRIR110N $I I ELBIAS 1 I� N^Ai iRRMFIN `A[ ! r1TN MI WE I.36" y�,eyCOCM�A 06CIM6 TEE TRl/ COMFY p3"1, V;A:9 RD 092/010 TN 9129 A INT IN CI � E. Ta � A. R 1l1m CMQI RA6a76 LOT M 16 M1010 TTTR{ 99:29 11 ((INT IN ;C *1'jEIIsm `cw L, ni1G, LOT !) NA aniCIO IN 9129 A INT IN co ,fie �� �yt�l ',I COK+ NqY N111 OU tk 111 .01 1 I./ 1 A Wfoll Iff mu, !. Lot � �/ • Ok LVN, PL Il11! 4!4 Fall! an w I " J A N0/641 1T011 A �1, iNR-Ml11�7.11N6 LOT N is "loft *%M OtLIK MIT Wry" Is CO 41NN CaKr 101N7 Ism Lot 1! A NI10611 PkL ,(ll4t UNIT 1 toilet RD amt TSO 11l COIMCr N1'NI 01169 LA, lr M N11051 ft^ 9IUAW UNIT 1 T( 01e-001 615-ON-04A.I Ldr) ,,;, TCIN 011.M! 1r.41%.W.1 Cl �i1t/11MiiF'i - too K9W slur {N-471 SN-1 16a tC N 11!•MI�'914w!•! IYc 6J I1 70r1 1750 r56' N 16N to" h' t IMF P f yi 9d,LO+ lalaary(91F A a W, M7V91`1� .1I am Wo XLr uu4■WIN PIS e� ar MtLr III u N • NMN 2% in � tam LOT a aO J a 00 mal ft IF 1. CDee LOT 5 to J Ill OLrwi PIE 07-01-N e65ONU1T-0pu TIME :1E TCM N-ei (P4P1►070) PPQ 60561 45NSSEIL. Imllow ClSCRIP11oll n IN 4IeM1 NO LAW ST4 1// PEt6 PEOP r&WTIC96 IEl 7O . '1aimm4 a 004. �IN flFMI {N-076•tN-0 1,171N SSv, Wifin":" 175004- 0000 oilP1WS ��1 rOi4fcalfum, AltJn�•0 KOM 11E ell/ M mYkr 0.320 W69 SEE JA , CA14 -01 111' to 02114" PIIM VILLAGE INII D W7 iptLX J 1I OA/N; PMJ �pre41� T 1N. rCiN Otl•N2 NS-576-ON-r 1"5 ;06' Is p[gpp1l 1, Y. „I ' CA COMWI 00N00 661 r 410 n 11151 M170 nF1Y LOT 1{ A Alum PRIM 9ILL0i' UNIT 1 t!( GOP LA C,M A.A�/tJ1 IIE� y�jp_J,. 16 OUR 40-075-006•5 ;:e' 97" M0c 1750 9;6. LO' 5 90.1t1J IM c10/pt4Ll P so iM[ 6I�R1/ CQYEY M.1 14 05,69 tt E Y LOT 17 • 22110M P'R/M 1IL.ME UN71 0 M , t 4 All '1 , ro 40aN1 k e01LI11 E. T`7l4 51/-007 6i5-on-oc7.n :.:' eala Flu 1^sc ^6Ta uE v/10 1 cow »e�t1�i e/N 11 CA 97N0 T( 4-00 LOT 4 " J IY NOIN1 P" li[ r l/ CONY, 006%6 OIJ74 LOT 10 A NIION PRIM VILLW UNIT 0 �• 1p11o,� 1C� � -00 646-0e1-001-9 ISCG Jt6' 411 746i1 _14 K M cow 11 CaM, LOT 7 1LY J A N1/al P4110 ;.o^ • u t 00 019,010 P47JM n;L.4lc un 1 ma an410 ,01 0 J M Oi01N: P4LN Yd 'wo" Y M X\ t mr Q NAM Yd ISO M t1 At Y11 L 30l WO 3YY Yyl /111 AVONY p r. 9 S,330" '3Y sam Ad :W/Oz0 W N XB 9 101 0^ lttl 9l1/dtl� 36Y Y{IIII Y11N9 Y: 1dAY Id 190/0L011111WYY N " 9 101 RI low ICd)<W11 3300 N lftloft fill N XNI Y Lin m 'IN 9110/dN 3811 3AwYfm +tI♦MyyY� N M r 0®B DO 911W 01WO 4 5 XE Y In, eim m /tJ �il 1 �ogru 19 31Y:A 91, L/N 1111,1 O/010 M I Yffi Y 1011N rl D �3 C f Yd 11 3 DLO I ♦ 1� '9fl100Y '339939W i0A M-I4-LC 9m 09L1 Ra 61% i991 1-900-CLO-in z00-110 KIN L911 Lott L-900-CLO-9z9 1410 t9Mrt OL ON 94111403 dDNd 903d All big 0"1 ON LAM WILL A! 699" 304d (OLi.W W) 11-DI 543A 311 mi l'ne-LIL3119.M aaaCO-lAaa 094s1 moll OCLC 9-000-C40-09 10"0-110 000i4 2111 CIII ,_C• 410�5l9 _Z 440 O9LI ROM SCOL 6141 I-CIU-40-99 900110 1014 Stfol Osll YUI 9Csol ""I 0-Izo-zL0-9z9 zW-. " MIh 914n Dill 10l L.69 d491 6-I0-ho-9f9 z00 B10 %"o .n69 )4LI 9p4 C016 Ol 13N %011*W dWd 913d All Olt DMYI ON 111KY YNI A! W" 3ftd coif MAd) It -Of W13A 3NI VO! IION-IN1K1'31W AaaCO-9Au 0 R O9MI MLC 1-410-ta-us 4-110 ooth ml fool •410-I/O.2W 100-110 out, DOoti 0%1 pu oODtl me V-110 f1D YN 101-Ito 04 u0/hOMY Q 0 � 'I 9lMIMI VY �IYwh u/90 46L%0 A3Wm ♦ �( �1 limn 3DVIIIA YN711 t10/4tO a M X7 NI L0� LOU 4Fin A309P 1_ _. _ / pl 10I1d107930 '9SN. '3399399Y 9 limn 350111A wvd IW/0It eX N X11 91 101 6L/11 1661Yf A3Alm /10 Moot 3. mil ID4f6 90�a'I&,d1 6 1141 3WTLIA W1Yd 060/110 IN Iz LM 9L/60 90A3N0I" Mh� 3Y I N7/t 3OW 6 limn 2MTI1A "d 0 011" tN IZ IM 60% LCLM A3AMW if 99LL99YY�Y It � 1 U1W 6 Lin 30Y111A YNIYd no/R0 tM Cf JOl I060 t/t9Ol A30030 le wwdh3gl ON Y9Q6 ll�p NVd 6 limn 30711A YN3dJ IOW//�MIt]tt61 Vol llIt Ill A309m IN as1 Y slot 6 limn 35VT.1. W1M o1011f0 OW Oz IJl 6Ll90 219011 AYAW W Willy y 10IldIMM 'S4NIWd 1331OM W-14-i0 6 "M 33Y"1A W*d Mjl1D 1; 41 IV /w ncllo nm� 6 limn 3111111A IN\10 M144 111 II 40, 1Nt03 9.01f gTw9701fa0 `13 6 1141 30d •I, W'NJ Ml ltO r U 101 6,41 IORIl6MK LW,Np 7 6 1110 30911IA M'A9 001,to 91 0t LO` P J 0 w p 0-it-M "Now. 41W1, OIEN0m UK W=" V Coll" OIM1 LOT 106 A am rot loqM 01U6 ®t61E6 ue vw ry a m,o, "m LOt La A OJI MI r1oN Mh A NT61p W OILC,m 0m to TIMrIE E04. W Nua 0m ro6 101" W., UK Mt64 C'r/ p COKr INI Ill? 00 LOr 1 M 671/001 00Vw "iLLt c}ivm Om cmw 1000M 11/12 E Mt �� lw J Co6Et I1 L Kill Lot IS A 071/'+-I SWAM 41, PI6TP 0,-0:-w 6II,, ASSEam. 100071B. oFEC11ETlcu INC MR rC"?36r g76p I M Zme. 1t1060 oils L0+ 16 awl IONI swm ffi b PT6TP i r QE"E I pwgN, W V (IIPrf 9qm�{pp ME WMA 'I G ipM,Y 111060 06I71 Lot 17 to 0111/601 SHIM "ILA PTOTP C r 6 - pimrMr IK OrT M�CL7t OV WI{P Ort 1�7) rAIt • �m{p IK i / � COOCT '. 17060 W/11 XT IE A NI/001 Yr10or Hiub PT6TP Milor II¢M 9726p IK T/ COW" IE.71,16 01/lt MIOIpt-WA 111 M vM 0-11 h ty wo ■ Lin q1% 611•116 O0-141.011.4 $no kwts 01126 N1.161 6!I-► 710• TC :-M 61111161011.6 Tc : ec 61616{017-+ 7TM• oirr q1-I6E-NI-f 6%'. IMe " 0 prt M611 IA r. I pY cimm or •c 0' moo. I'% 3#61M e1_029 6M-161-401-1 20T•1 •]6e: '.:rt j0,01 OlIZI 611-I0-016.1 26„ 2•+, 610P11E AD-L FOR -.E TCQ 00-11 (POW V) pill 60613 0' C:-M E. •m mw 10 Lin 5t1 T// PENS POW Ei1OTIO6 PC'C 456CN5 . 111036. J iCm 011-41 616-162-011-. Jq, .•.-. 00 6 OF5 T 6 T EV 3fY -CT IC 6V C• a 0 in'% F T 7166 Ol�_Ocii 625-i6i-Ol1-S ]0.n .O.a C 00 F EII 113100 LOT / " C%in6m.0o pq 09�".QA71 O l .���11 OWA.oT E ILA C• A IFm 011.001 625-161-Ot•-6 1123 U2J C0 /0tl0 Y0�6,1N1�Mb LOE0 EI/ COM LO• + ILp p 16 oat/al• h Gt E 16 #1166 011_pC01 675-162-012.1 30" .rya wi y� CC C0 pti0 lY ❑/ ipN Z Lot 1 EL/ ? 7 0m'oM "lA W d 9CO11L0 A3rm Y3 ' 131. YMlyd 9M/d0 91 NI 10 +3pam 0p79Q2+/�Itl 341 Jaw wwd 3Y SYY.07 Wk. 1] a Mold WLM r 3 a old Ile Y.9`rd 9MIL16 M 01 LW ary /1B Al 3Av11)i71 Moa1Yd Im YOVtll9) V�yII'2'pp1IW19'11 LY '9,W71'i1M A I�WON -11 W'Wd 9M/I20 M OSI IM arm ! 3m 191 I Lim 81 :1. Wryd 9MIi20 M 191 Lm QiVIK0 3- (AaM 1�yy]��i►111l 0 Yl6M .9C '9®00Y 133093111 01-10-L0 '�VrpW 1 9M/d0 M Lyy9111 10, � 1Y ;. Mf1W 9M1111 M nl 6m 3 r0: 1 y3.11 SLOLC0.L04� MAY Y _6 J-6S0009SL9 00 [ it 6-PS000Y9L0 J9-C A P-L900CKL! 00-C :1 OSC2 SLC kil I-M-ON-99100-110000]61 OSLL SIC 9L11 9-920-00 929 100-I10 o00a1 ME SIC S411 9-4SO-Oh SZ9 100-110 coal 01 131 9011,"3 dOW dDd "I tl19 0111n M LOCI Yet A3 69109 3BYd (OLIAWW) 11-04 WA 3141 ell-011-Ab m11Y 0011 C61 411 .•C10-o11-Uv Ally o90{1 9LC 911i 9-LS0-oCr3t9 100-I10 00061 MI 1]re) 980101 91 ' !0 • Wd 41110 93MV WE lu 01 lawaA3 , 911111MM3CiM Ila&. ITY 3911IY1 IKA 3T, 0m1e IN ,AM TRA0"i iq 339 amle ION I'M 39Y1Y1 tU 33s 03T11e IN 2i1011 13"1 110401 M 99 101 "to: I99fiOL a391(n "0 4 ��a ] 99[06 r]311SN% M90 l.1/Yi I -mil 13W1 1101101 M N Im 61/01 1.1601 .A3YL^. I o6c9Y M06 �Y]. v IUly M A3�1 7*4 a 1-M111 1]WI 1101101 M M lm 61101 199602 13Mm 3pI Maf In I FM 00 Ai g 13 . Wid11L W `.1M .338499M 01-10-Lo 0'M11 I]Wa LO/10I M C4 1p 61101 119601 ANNW it 1 Mo[ 173�Y AaC.v W low 13WL I911101 M 11 Lm 6001 I"m a30000 1yL� MO<MIi I)-01-M awotl, � �0`P}IOII UI@t "m g0'�RIN •1La1t 1r�lau a w ap9w, Its um1 I taNlT INfM I/I71 i c IVA" IN lAI 1 lR { NO Lo 1 NT M1am III tt I I U (may fuss" .N 00 VA to Lm I u I A UMU f= �/Y ice/ � � mI[T N►t i{ NIY LIt 1 to w/r "L,,'I'ma A;T I v%A7v ' 11Iu low It 1f c3w Iawl ILY ,at 6 46 NIfNa PALM ,rwai AIT I OT-0I-OL 46fiC44EE. WoR55. 110311,11ow It • C1/IliU COW" 1P]f0 OIL* is =10,15 t 2-9071/050 P A u 11qq MT , A0 umw pp n, , u mw 1pvT ;r�INI s�;1/m CO 1V tY 0 �. { -ataal g r M s IN[p (Y /�� ��rlapcTS[�o�e� ^,so IIO OR m01 rAl IQ a1M.1016mwy Iffi tt J. Coll t 0 N/V ,Pt l'M,M 009MY+40a IBI III RM Is fl (NIM/N) Mf +NYo tv tM tit to LNG Oft Ip ROD POP OWTIOM W IO Rim 411 V NI-MPSIf.f hN 064 3NI01 4I1-alt 4N•wolf-1 MN wt, 14y0 IOF1010-N/f21-ON•011-! ,ail WORM ft'MM44 11491 ra00 fWWW 0-W- fN TIC YEW N-II n TYA OGW MO LYO) 1I16N "m 4314WON-6 I"" W" Otl_07f 6a5-100-",o ae% 6^. F.� tMfl naMT�. (PINr'210) PAa 60641 ST4 Tlf PM PAS CIDCTJO ACT TO IM06 ]O.TiC lICO.M 011.001 6a-lo0-m-a �.OT 1152 r770 01�. 1 62V IN-0o1-6 16" !( 0; 1.001 fIp'100-DOf-S .L9 E0 0000 CITALa MT a% an In, Am Io fT OPM ARNIM Assume, a0. 171N► NCO 9mw At AM III ■ M 1 III VW^ Ida VA . 4 amv ."NINO III MrN IMas, K 11[ 1Lr/ �� Y I RI1 Lm , M 6N/0f5 mm, 0111110 MP 11T CT VV.mO IIIIT U lti AC Ali: CAat} 1m a 11 "SM* ImT GRIM A Al. a AV (1n1FT .CT 5 R =/Of5 DE5W GONNA � "i-or M AR �a tH I all Let: WT a0 A WWI%:1ow Let PT °IK tN[ it f1/ lLV[T' 01 11 TN GW M MKV )MM 10 N 0 Y. CA f LOT 16 10 AWN& ®®T Alert in tlaa a. 0 al �nf/ c LOT IS A O.VIOM Una! a%wl). �1-Ii311u1 u LL `� .. '% IR cosh %%" I1/» List /" J M /N/MI "us WILLOW WAIT 1 UN INNILM E. p 1 � Oft" IMM it Is 11 4 J A *w"I Mum Wtufa MI NEAR A a MM 11 IS MNMt OM M WINA M MAY t p tiam M �Y�`� IR amistv 1I179 NI a A M PMt " WPLJIt[ WIT 1 „t111 ElP ]� "sit 'kv&awp san"OII?9 r 9. t 11 w MIAU PIM. 11"PM All t9il-R u�. 6®y MYi:PTiry Aw";M4 �1J tnu[. i1'Ki1' a/.1 to 6 M PMJM W:1aw� I.MIT / r. \ 0. PR TO MI6M LOT 6a 6]t/0o1 P.LPM rILOW Ulti 1 IJLIMT SMIE L. w1« 111•W 60-1040-1 IN► MM 11Jt I»1 1«T iWr�Ipy not ICM TE•tlt^�rMMM•7 _ NM 10M 11ZIN$ado-m-so" MM JT«• 3600 %ati ... (A... 156E•a'IEM*-1RI, Will THE Tdll 141-11 1P1PIr270) » :/ •� MI1M 1b LMO JIt T/9 PIX POW Ci9PT;0.t: 1[T To qM 1IM 616-0/3-644-0 Tb I - um GYM` 1 1'.9: ow T IpT FM Ip�� T I ' JE EfI CO►4Y i11:'i ^c . LOT ]}m0 M 0 ;Y 1061 I" WILLOW IM:• v /CT luI .40Gilkilk A. 16V0 111,00 176-610.00/-] iOK U[ /10.i-m amw 2%1 1 10/T' LAN if a��p�11({/«1 wW YILLOM' :MIT 1 6i I�NO1T�t«TM ME EMLS C.'/r T {� 1)3KY 1�'lmJ I2163 b LOT 6 iJ G Ii OJO/01: P" YI__9M i%00 01/-6 ; 6m-O9.-00.1-1 L.60 CC a-00 37J0 wx ;•x Iu' 2010 •IN *1 , F a u ENE• n aT . � «v«, TOW• >s aromwbwm ORA' tw M A wwm 1M01 31111 Own I 7W to J A 600OP1 "W Dlt 9&81 cam• LOT 1] -9 Waft 01P omw 0•-cis-« L"T' Am pp�M LAE JM niL0. CakV �T 17 .S 631Y/611 4'" DEW I Y. IAM/ I(AO MliI Fb 'n/iA C01IET .OT J Is 0.920.] TWICT MIS a. icqm iiIN' " Mrt Lis M rot loot UK i b .eii stow LOT J A 449/oN TIPL;T AM A&ff mM L. Ni �l� .CLL :KirW i. pItAw I96�T p 'X l mQ mM.El LOTD is V. 14 IM OXIO 1 PYLN C ] 1. 2C l 4a / cmnw PAW 60566 EMMTICf6 MV ToI 1150 PAGE 60569 EXEMPT 1016 NET TC 2966 !:96 20910 ram ANi 'TC aY/QTp 11- 01%lplp 0�Q0(I' � I!E t 1� 11-16'J9f •'0176 qE Ki rri�iLl•'fIIV�:d�F(t M6EbaLrA OT-01-Iq 6ys[561Eyt-gqy FUR THE TE62 we (PNVMI70; Pg 606PJ �ESO[S. ASOtOb. O0tl1IPT 10N Ev IRA 65YMT w LAND 5TR T/V PER6 PquJ EXE PTIM IV T( T 2� 0{MW 6t6.100-OtFJ 512J 7009 1.•.J 12192 NiT v Yule �p / 9P a55n6 � �l II[�5 P� [ ( p{ 5EC gl[ IUi TOT6L1°�(YIVTI69 SEE E5(4E`M ^MPISM�� __ Olg-OOl i2i-100-Ci9-6 t2s54 0-10 t6E2 i2941 LLK 6N qEYJa00 C V(' 2 E WKIY Y SJ202 ; a,.t, N'I�5 �TouiL�xx�ulv�Ia stC �svda¢� 1 / gW1(M 0a -if'�C1a-t29 imm-:00-B M-1 %Y2 O.Og 6J2 .R. rY 1�(,{p N/t 1 Y �Y06K qa(4/0 l E NAPKIN JJ202 LE POt fOtM.IRLUt1dT 112 SEESM TM 2 gIC1WD L. T70S0 Olt -OM 6M•100•021-5 520 ceC n/I 1 PI(D �eD 9006r LINE 6(p/9�6 YLY/ CKI cCOI9Ef y2[56Y 12177 EOI TOTN_ Z*5CAIP4IONOSE2 mM-pao. 01-01-50 A56EMEE. ACONt35. OLIQIPTICI2 A�OMWX;� 1 6L i'Sl' 1 PP ki OaA upl • LINE ila,902i$%111 [CDKT NA IN qiE ' a NA IN POCCA IP4&OFK1E(ASSISSORs pM61PpS STY Ylta INN Y/T P 0 1rAptMC pNIIIII Hlala"y III C6 AIM LE[ �/P40 ACUT Cl/ CAX.EEY 06652b 0176 LOT I A O"JOA TR/tiT X:2 NOMYdTY rILLIMA i �0 �9N000. UM NE C1Ev 0606" : TIN OS TT LOOpp210 W/I�SCLT2KT N12 Y/T 9IND WELLS, 629i PAPimYS CIA CO6i7 Am9t � P 6$01 I9I MfT K •WNE11%p0o IiE i LOT 7 Ifils MIT IN 7r1a6 I VKV DI H W STAINS Piero F MIT C i M/1 N6: fE5 KE` n AS.SES51Er7-ROLL FOR THE YEµ SC-61 (PgPNP270) PAW 605n 4 PV TR ASMT IC LAIC SIR T/N PENS PES- EI. i710k 1EI TC A ISJOC OltGG_ebi 625-100-022.6 Jags J66 TTCC E0 n/I a7N6 CI10X9 q� LINE NP1 I* 205JJ2 01OJI 63-:11-401-1 210M 30056 ESS is OC ,SE E 6W%I nP/Rm PYIX LINsn Jalu Ola-OJ: Bb-14-OC74 9547 96Y7 PAL) won .17 KM urT2 01a-_WOI 62s-li: Ml-J Will 1064 %E n NAPS u V P 014r, 66S wff. AMR M. 3031prow ara��Toaw ACM160 6�1/� �M vrunzk UMIf 9 1 6 t I� OxlroMMIN XKPW M '�1�wu ry�at� U �Y Wan ^, 6��'Tp99.X0T�g1pf�(�7�yMe�yW1Ol Cn u[ �MIT�A�i ICMI/ •1�19 6�y.p�p� PIT �" Y I yl M AVEOF t 0_NypQ�Ei COPOEE`E(�O�OT 1M 01160 I.W TOeK OOQI�IPrIOIl M0Es0006 WA j. w m1 CgYEr ! PiM 01/16 01-0!-10 �NNAC56i, e00RE5. OESCRIPTION TEJIC 5 CRATER W K /1�1��-6�:000Ii-0000 F7Tv116 TI9�11 lM CLlOE1 068M 01/69 M[~ POp TOi�L A0(amul SEi ass MLESSWWI-00L'. FOR TIE TENT 10-11 (PWW270) PARK 60611 N T6/ NOT w L61C M TOY PR5 PK6 E0EI9l1OIe MET T( I too 01!_A7o 666.096-M.6 191% IOM9 "0 ipN o1j jr 6x6-too-0 A-1 2M TIM 011_001 f66.100-006•E 107 I152 TC1)01 611M1 W-100.001-e 1leS rc100 011: al 6x5-IM-009-5 01l" CITR1.6 PEST 2" 29% 1rM-(:1.1 .---•--��.. -... — -2 IL— .`.P tPIW9270) PAGE 60012 N IRA 45114T Ip LAIC SIR !/Y PM PR00 E1EOPTIO* NET TO TC656 01a.019 625-100.OH-6 107 SI IS! 1Tr Olg-0OI QS-I00-OIS-1 06965 •I92 2911 :00 CC 0 0000 CJT" PST 1030 /kolt-{{]5�(N��(6OM�pMIY�pL1,IM1[(I 6� 6Dp 0W6 01j_00! +-:00.015.0 09x5 Sim 6% N�E IpIBIE Mx/ L p� NC[RnF, p�x50L0.1 09r TO 1E MP6 EQI TOIA, 0E541AIch SEE M.Y]00IL+S 1� IiI/E�R r'9`/u p� Ec(MEY x0]I(0 o9ne /pq roil+-I"aLSCA1CT ;a or SEC it 'S6 Ii nISK15 011 COPKV tali" 11% 9.a1rW1. i o00 oll_Ox9 W-;00-016-1 1w C:1_00..x-lao-olTa CIT" P;.-il c .W, :wi ev0 T 1 :LCTTII�� I.I/yT OR PIK w�/pll{II~f 1�.01 16 NO 0 p" lE I t![ 0 41i CLOT 15ps OSIM G MD c {E., Sn�i 501 Ir MIE16 U5E WOPNrs; III 19ie ,UT to R WJIO95 LESS 01-01-10 MLSUMEE. e(IORE`I:. JESCR:I L gar, L ILI: NWIWNC50LµE so A 9xM Rv :.avE• re:,, LOt 13 NO OW1095 WSW GMLky rq �iMI, tppp p0 wTE9. C1 "M NfEi30RO IN.l cMYEr o,9; LOT 12 li WJrO96 0CI@t CllppNIl AM NIT it 1 i15 5T CT I RIr EllwE'r, orLe: LOT I I MG 0-D/O90 OESMi a,,,,ErM,.}F u' yjwT5('O60 2PE R11 CONYEr o16`I LOT 10 4 WS/M DeSa GeR0E, .6DK 10�1 5E.5x)�66 IE[ L Rl/ Cpl.Er LOT 9 PG OM1095 g3ERT GAIM TOCS ram. VIE Aw, �•' �ci'a tiic�.P�aVI��y 0, 01-N NNW m"t"m N,, 6warltllli CO v C4 Il[ "YT cl�luN m Mary tlORr NI9t w .0, lM A OetIN MNOOO TRUA tram oil. Wm'Itti m w c/k M May{et .i s •/ 7wR, MIT N/,1 04 �• !•6 TM u11w; eTMooT N;LL1 pt6tp 4± l0'r R WL� �^ 9N 11 CONIC, IN1:4111,9 .JT IV A 83110/1 WAN NIL! Own LM IOT• ?_WLdUA42 Okr 1crN R -o< 141 m OJi/w: 6TMOOI N:.,S t5TA?o VAi-t0 lfYEE. 6001M26, 1iCi:P*IJN 6 L Mr Y 10'N R • 90117 G �Mb 14411411/19 LOT :V is 69110pi 41mm HILLS 6TNTE5 tt6 e I,YN MT In M.Y IOTN rL }p�{. I!t G lrr wh, 109 LOT IN • 111100I OWN NIL,§ 6T6T' 6 t. NN%1r r� WIN F. 001It i[ G Oi;v NNI I611/79 rP . •hope -WA /a ITK " w-II N VA NMI w At V6 7io•141.0*1 I&M jw am YPNI••r•t IIJis owl"911 0e MYO_. VIN T/1 0a1 Pro [WWII*& 191 IL9k T" 61 -010 41.101.0 %.9 Y46 10216 IF" O:E_601 6t0-16I-006.0 rSOO :w,c M*w 1 .4� .,, ny 06... 41.4 t " 40VMt, 400M. AKA 0t •=111. 6. �. CA .T 70 MJ►•O000%M!I i �0 IRaY s .W:9 as tY 7 111j10II P"r :;'6iotd 2i ` tl tt/ :/fiC• -0 to tV w on 03210T, NIP 0 N/, TtTET4r'M a-; UIM MT 0 0 sm �p6,0� FOt/ MWA wtaimp,i, 6• r0 IM/ pCA�'19: /�fY '0� .Or IT V w rb On O,r 4- O X:6w N 6Tt5. .6 Ali p*�i0lH •OT 16 Tow R-1010?, GV 7 66ECWOT-NOLI to Tlt YEIA 1C.11 (PWW 101 Pg 606:t V-01-00 PY i16 4w NO LM61 SIR III PM POOP CXDVT;O6 Nti TO 666 AU. 6LOM3t. JB:i:1 100�C6M Ole_00! 65-101.006-: 4690 i:IM 16ry 0 00 iiDlr� e i�ml LOT 16 MJI w IM 0a10% PN,r It N/N/i676-161-00,-1 95$0 µ', Si75 2�yp1Ni1S PRVt�O ZOIMIti i LOT 14 tL• w A OIb: . Ptn p( Np111.L rMtLMI Y. 01. NPetol M1�i(Y�.^'�Y r110 OIE.00I 61P-{61-001-J rJIS :9110 9°°�' CCt6 Yt N1/ c„]0eY 0 LOT lJ &K M IM Ui/ON Pk1. DR IWpTdtalUn eQ Nm rN I. �»I-M Mom IwlrFA� aw"M W*N ' NIM1 Ion LO' 70 0\ 40W#t1 WKT Olw NMI t�T T N/tS up N A NOPSN MKI PtN Ir" N �� COKt NMI N/� LL`T s A 00Or0T0 imi 01OM 4ENW41LL w 1* IEN M•SI CPU"") INN O0011 !I WA ow to Lin EN T/+ me 00 OWTIOO 0D to 4110 r E8•NE•NI.I INN /wN N0S Ivw 0 j.W do-w4wo INS I'M 110600 clur LW IOe7! VIVO 000 WAR W-1 low 21M CAOE`1 NOT.J M- UFF ae A 070H19 T00C1 01" NwI 11OOS0 el�_�0 f7b-w-al-I lode :Inc LOW el A ON0/0 TKT III% I". r01 II c JO00C K: a --C' M O)♦ te'rai 'CR' ST•SI -0 1 4010& NwrE w w caw OOT • w uTINi 'A[' It* cc MOWoorc LOT w w WOW TOIL, its O[ cc .O wA 6OT S: A 101/00. INC? IL! SR wt ar Mljw OL a0C .8T N A 141100I TSOC IN `WI NL rasa .0' SJ Ii :S11": -W- :lw 0"I-w IME psi-0IL, FOR THE YEAR 00-I1 (KM270' POW "Oh V ca-1, WQfEL OTgN„ 0wl"IM ry IRA l"T IU LAO SIR TIV IY$ Pq'i OMT:016 1E7 TC AMNIbL. OOSSCc, '11 ��{0y8q (Ibw 07Ow Ni•w•W-0 IOW IWS J06I5 � rc/ 070R1' Alou II///TC LO1 e3 w S00/OH MCI 01M!�T lC' r N I0.1w1 INK, Ila I1Tw 01d_�0 ue-w-aa•e Iesbc aim Ji,t( toDO -:It , :L A dKT IJO010 IO119 1 LOT r w M/On TWI fPS ;nj C/ a7A(ti • ipT S A UVwl NOCt :l>♦ 1. 1776w 011:006 676-HO-OM-b IM00 IOOif� C`"_o(J^]j' 0.- W P. Ti 0 00 If 00 4 iC COME, I0U67Ti Ofi T9 1 J 0111119T LOT M A M/109 MCI 910e LOT SO N IOYIwI 7SK1 l:M T i}w00 Olt•w0 N{-W-W-4 Iww law i•(00 110i IM-M SIZ V f1`01 E Oi1 ICi SIu6 1*T 1p (d a= t9—' corm K1n+ ol. *o 40• ! N 949,09 ME, 11% 11i9y0 MOM MtM. OaComm IMI m NpM OaN1tT 1 N/10 NO A M"V* vw, gm aaINDwi aarl gala 11/`1 a a IN"% WAV 91% R Nfa WWI" P1a+1 wn ar w NTwa +ac, sla U Ocomm,arM1 N/10 N a 49ta/1 MET IT" qwf�NM our• NBfb+ N/10 31 A NM019 ,OKT ftw rinl (�Zf- our. leSxT »nP LOT D! N /NM19 MT III" 0: . OwC aN360MT N/10 Lff 7 Na ON/M TWT 91M or 4 l f0 if. N Mi 10 01119+ a1NT a/N tot a+dumv 1w 51M a owanrl! m un! �ML 1w hE TtN N-al (Pt1yaN1 Mt NNI 11 M 411111 N LPR 11! Uf oft PW ta1�11Oa Ia, ro ILIN um m %N•1il•1 INM IN11 nbN INrM II�-IN �i-�!b M•I tom MRS Irk low 411-Oo1 s11-V1-olf ! .NN i%r Ma e I10010 a1321 a1+N•aal a low :am MN IlllN llr'}�l +Oi •Nla IINO 2:1N 31IN5 fMCM W-al IN TIC 15/a N-II (POK711) PPT 50154 " ,b/ '(l1MT No LIM bT! III PENS PaOP EADVIV36 NET TO TOGS b11:196 ca5.11o�OJ]-♦ loon 0350 1"15 I170N O1S:ON yb-1l0-OJJ-b IMN !l!N I+NN 011.011 69-•20-o5Y-5 INN :P15J R 011_01 626-120-on.1 low 11100 517" moo 5:150 LOT If In u+/NI TMC•.lM-: 0.4111 41omm. PaA► asol -la G G 101MN C/IR+ NMl LOT W fe lalrl Wx- IIM4! ;auv (a G "M Mal LOT a N 101/111 lur IINO.1 a �WCOM!, MPa r�NMI LOT N A WMM umv ILma-a 6/f .n CA gemaw, arml LOT V a NAB 111MT Iwo-! JP n ! CA "M oa1a1 aa1a1 L0, V No AT/al TWO 1i012 11-01-00 +u+ p a t G MaN COPR ?6MI LLyO�T1 .h 18 111IN1 15MC1 unSJ a VT rN(N� cc !A 1NY OK Nab•: �y1 �0 N7 1'6 A 111/Nl woo 111163.7 M (A smj [CA MN1COPR1 Mal LOT Y N Wilill T(rET Ilab-] 1w�GGO f111t Mot, NMI I Lot Ill a IfvmI MWT 1a1-1 M,1 J900I c-90D-Os6-R9 900.110 mill 2-1MIt .70A1 1/01161 Y 61 '01 60t �aAD' ORT •�r � ,IM —_ 10-10-10 2-61011 .mil 1901101 Y 6: ,J }r 6619�p� y�rA30 913:1 w KRI M WA e,00111 .ht- :001101 ad .1 ♦01 A2 •70D: 1-1!1�LL�MAP Wm 34 q6 Y � .flOfM V= 906��1w1/Y J: A30 9[kMI tp471M rA ±-9N1: lift :601101 Y 91 .01 91! 13AQ. Awwgo jr 0. r-}la3iw 'wr Inh 9631r11 62% iW Z-Mlt I]Nl 1001.21 Y 91 1T 4 1bAC: SOrA9y}I c Oe ry ��rtrxxi�.lfl���66M r- r]Cvs[ m WOO /7ly93q 1pp Y�-h 91390)r 'MRII' 9r ni;lll Ulml .1001 101/161 t ,3IDc ila n3r 07 A71 1 9) Al0 iYi 1 i)N1 IM/U1 Y'1 •O' "061 0001 "Ool 2 100-oc.-920 99:110 omit, 01 ON g.0:,d1(a13 /Obd 9I3d All 119 0", ON II6199 rtl 'A 1S9)9 3Nd (O12f 5 1/-06 w3A all IDA T IKW1939w OS(iS Will 09*1 : 900 021-929 AID Oo0(C, SHOC 9efx o0601 0' 0-:0o-x6-29 speo-flo oo9i:1 O9[Ol 09001 a +U'1-029-@f 90p-Ito 041 ,.r.e ,'I 0r'u! wool 4-m-eft-mg Al l, *241 4fa2 mil WWI (-200-Oh-tn 9M-t'9 "ski Ol .31 91011dw loadSlid AAl 4S iw.'. of .19Wv Al .1 9N09 IDrd (00236dad) 11-04 w31 34 WA 11w,I13 wmV .99at .aL ?y AM /pad ow 9.1"-wo mw tla= on 1Y61 -190 010.119 14110 6c(16 tm ) w f-MO.916-t19 IM-o'.0 WA a W vHr. M16 1J911 6(01660 61160 (M90! 13ID] i�p IO/26 \Lp ID4dTVW '9Sigw 'ZOOM I / N".6 1 l 40/Go Y 9 10' 0//0 :C06S0 13mr 092ri V11fIIO 7q1 Gt926 1J.11 f6gYr all IYIA'A A9:6.711."01661) Y S I01 min :wkw 13aK0 /3 WWA w "t6Y IOP.[{ M��6Y11 i 3a9 latwu I'O/l�n. rr16 INM 6(9/660 Y r 1®!P Ot/tD 692K0 139D] %16 of H9A699 Y 9 iT 10 J(966 Y'`nODtl l/Y .I+O M16Oft 4016"YI an PLCJ O6prp 40� lY6Ci / 3� ID1:d:o.x -993m '3N',Nb )0-10-10 FSq!I 17101 1411441 t11 a 101 +10[D AW ''fM'! l7M1 Iq/UI Y /C tOt 1 1f7A1 90106 p]�Ii 74N M W WA tialt Oft 180401 Y 0t IM .-MR 11AW ]t1 }t 00�1K" till06 S+ 1t� I�IIM MM t-rMI L31! TWJII as LRI as6t 1x= ]n PIM 10 1L06 0 w e-Otte .ill 1q/L01 a 61 101 aw 130M on" I/J7�t M M 63C Ia-:0-to 001: _ltl.:q/c0: Y K 10 61wW y/ Ot.��1 e-I 7ft OWL" so Ott[ Uitf17 1O n a M t-/11 am fatal a Of to not Al alb a L/1 so a 0-001 AIM "Walt a a so 4,0" n a 10 F fAI: 17M1 14604" a a .el 41005 .,.W4 In Octet W00'• 1Ml 00011 00161 6-110-at6-stl 110-fto o9+4t �7LL SLC1t /: owl! S"Ol iStO-Ot6-9t1 900:110 alai OQFAt Oil: tY ,rWI 09Wt L-6tO-0t6-it0 f00-tl] 00A RM WWI o-as-M-M I"O 00*1 iillf Welt not O^a►at W 4"19 MbI 01 ;31 910:14W d W 993d i/1 519 01001 Y LW t11 1.1 ailliv Slid (OL1Ll1) 11-M MIA 3I 00d 70-100 DW MU L"IM1 Fla 60 a W Wn 6.u6o L:LIx ,v W 1 . 17A 'D 1 Y1"FM 6616 13ML G0/0641 a IS to 6/f0 L60Me +30W L1e16 M16 1]ll 60/661 Y 6t to 4160 221161 13M17 OWN 13 W6 17M1 "elm a a an Wu Loom 130W �1 ifAO IOLM 1 aim 6616 13ML 6.1/660 Y Is 10' G/u Elton t01Ot 131W -_ i} �tw M1 1jf�.tillj��;0�M7N / l 4011411OW '0171a1 '9003ai aF16-to M16 L7Mt 6L0/g0 Y It L01 N'16L 76661 MHz pppp 6-:t1-Ot6-911 1q-it0 q0{t_ 4/q i161a 1GO6 1300VJ 1 W, M14 Oft G004111 OLL a W qa..0O 77 Gull %%It 01M AD= 9LfLt IaLt a011 f•0q^M•a0 fai10101t�'. " 431K 00Ma1 a it W 4/N L1aa &am W"C W" 10a1 qa.. ��tt "Is-M•a0 1a-�to "A IGq MN aft &LWM1 a at 0�1a V G]N tF11t 1>•i7 .QkJU WGI Oail owl qq.- yt 1•IU-M•tq 0a-l10 Nwl fly N a 1tl>at MI6 Oft 6ttlla Is', wh 16Nt 611111 1Gt6 40M w Y6w 9rh; 0000'. pp111 771. 1 1', o-Oh 9t6 tOp-/10 "ok 1 0't a, N14 CAufl Nf110 firh moo• f w ftMYOM fub• n« N/11 .a110V IM• fNlf LOT 0 w MA" ME"I" � � mi CMrjr NtyO IHM .01 tow aflfT TWT 11« level .'LMr a0%` H(n 1c, I: w 011910111 111K, Y« OI-OI-a w�. �4 mR2PT/111 01M tfC w1 w/ UPC, 261110 Mill 1bTf1 mfil oNlal 4/n 11M 16 af,0-I1 TO 11« Ci�i3 I!141 It 4 Mryp 9M °IL"fPIY d Car., am, os/n ,cT 14 w MIOTs TQKT •;« W141, I>f MI I@ Ml Curr ]a116 I01l1 LOT 15 w 0A1019 TNK' 91« 0 CLNIIT _ 2 2161 mbc. ]"aT, aro Will u on 0A10T TVCT 11« -Nw 43N .n-NC-64-S INft i.100 Ia000 01'-010 Nf-64 .. 1 Ifa1 ".1a ten 111126 f811-N1-fu-0 I"" N4'r, IMM 4116 4164Mh4114 Ian I"M 11oM dx :TM ilfl0 I' M oho ngm-au IM TK T[Y "-$I (PfHI210) Fla cow CI '66 low No :MC 5.0 in KM PROP cowl:01b Be 10 IIMa 411116 46A1f-61" IqM :M50. ]p66 IRM 6:16l 6z-%K 1 1-/ tom t735C ]TJ>< 1 1iaft 511vil H6-W-014.8 I0000 N625 3062' If1a0 all_00 ia-•70-Ot5-9 105� :. i'.. 1:1T{ {Ofba o:l_W 6]5.620-0:6.0 :wr 11J60 e'3" ... -CV... tsr fb I/T n w MINI IMC• 1100E i A m u N 0�1!• w U1 It is wow UK? I mo-o a ;W:rlwor f11 IN, 11I1 U w W1411 4K• IWO f m # N7 CAR+ off LON 110411 101111•fIr• ::gn-t 61-01-a aOfa. MMMOSf. 3EIMI': IW�IMFao ;A(, oa I.DT 1A w llllai TAT 111111.2 :K ��00 CD1f1/�fi1 ?fi �R CUME` ]0f V�61TI IWIp4w rw ibY M �1,�''Dc `' M[n as u "fi�aT a.r an .w i w MISS: TOKl ILowa go LO, MP "Canr fflf LOT of w I571a1 TbKT i"110-0 Vr IRI M or CA MLTO Ni COW, 2M PKR T .Ol N is :ollal TWCT l;w.] 07-01-010 NA06PM-QUIL FOR TIC TCMI 80-9; ;Ii1Pwpo) PMi 600%1 4ugum 4211M. OCDIPTTa1 /V tell Af1Fi NO lMM STi Iri PfM P60P CVETstlab OCT TO RO'CAF4 �l v Ii�a6 na 61fir•6n-017.1 1N00 aw 306" 01-0:-!M Vp�M Ifiavow. 1ry66ami . luml IIC Nrl 76N ylK! fR m