HomeMy WebLinkAbout81MF MORGAN MITSUBISHI DEVCITY OF PALM DESERT
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS
Design Review of:
CASE NO.
Small lot subdivision
TYPE OF PROJECT
•^n
Morgan Mitsubishi Development Company
By: Eagle Development Company
APPLICANT
STAFF USE ONLY:
DATE I ACTOR (Staff. D.R.B.. P.C.. or C.C.
The Design Review Board
reviews detailed design
permit.
I
process is the method by which the City of Palm Desert
and construction plans prior to the issuance of a building
OF LESS THAN 25% OF FLOOR AREA SIGNS UNDER 500
FENCES, POOLS a
TENNIS COURTS
DEPARTMENT
DESIGN PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRON-
4PPLICATION MENTAL
REVIEW COMMISSION
BOARD (APPROVES OR
t
I—\ BUILDING AND
L� SAFETY
SERVICES
DENIES PROJECT)
STAFF
(ADVISORY)
INTERIOR REMODELS, MINOR ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, OR PLUMBING PERMITS
CONSTRUCT
ION
Department of Environmental Services Form 1: Approved by Planning Commission on
CITY 0 '/ELM DESERT
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR Li 'ALM DESERT CA. 92260 (714)D46-0611
�� �J GS� rXlr v •. LY 0�ma
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
APR. NO.
DATE REG. _
(DO NOT wmrE yN T/!/S. SPACE 1
APPLICANT (Please print)
(NAIA E)
�b� _•
(MailinggaddEre�ss�)�%� �
TGlophona)
(City)
State (Zip -Code)
If
Request: (describe /specific nature oLoppprrolvallrreequested)
^
Property Description:
Assessor Parcel No.
EXisting Zonin
C P
Existing Gen. Plan Designation
Property Owner Authorization: The dersi gnAd states that they are the owner(s) of the property described herein and hereby give
out o ' atio for the filin this application.
Agreement Absolving the City of Pbim Desert ova I liablIfties relativo to any Deed Restrictions. �
DO BY MY SIGNA11TU ON THIS AGREEMENT absolve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed
n A ,* /- � restyicjions that may be applicable to the property described herein.
Applicant's Signature
ignat a Dat
(for staff use only) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Accepted by:
❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No-
❑ CATEGORICA EXEMPTION
5
❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION ❑ OTHER CASE 5 N O•
_ CA IV
NOTE' APPLICANT MUST ALSO COMPLETE RELATED SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION. Reference Case No.
HUBERT F LAUGHARN III
PRO.£Ci5 COORONATOR
[T4] 557 2001
EAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
4262 CAMPUS DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92SSO
cK:,qarfi1r off nnm
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT
Date: July 13, 1977
REPORT ON: Condominium Project
CASE NO.: 81 MF ZONE: P.C.(4), S.P.
LOCATION: South of 44th Avenue and West of Highway 111
APPLICANT: Morgan Mistubishi Dev. Co.
NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final Construction Drawings
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by
the staff and by the applicant, the DRB
this project, subject to the attached condi ion .
Date of Action: my 12, 1977
Motion Made By: Hobbs
Seconded By: lnhncon
Vote: n_0
Reasons for Ne ativ(s):
theabovAn appeal o e action may be made in writing to the
City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days
of the date of the decision.)
STAFF COMMENTS:
: July 28, 1977
Condominium Project
C. 81 MF
P.C. (4), S.P.
South of 44th Avenue, West of Highway ill
Eagle Development Company
Final Construction Drawings
July 26, 1977
Urruti a
Hobbs
Approved 4-0
SCAI-F flt"
continued to August 9, 1977
�arc� oc seas . u"a�,OMAQ, C.LMv'i IAA '32?.0 , Tosara o:a� s;e�as:
sai¢+�o a w'acre.�ay wctea�aa!r
4 C u'+aRm17
t A FZ7.T
ftx ar 19, i-71
River;il&lCc!:enty Planning CQ
4M L*mA Street
Rlvorslde, California 4,"5n1
Attn; Vill;m P. Padavich
Gent)nw�sen:
LM" Zs F� o-h m• s
Was a WA.
-Mev aLv
file: M63.11
Re: Stormoater Conditions
Tunct 1489. "c 19 T4S• RbE
The above tract Iles on tha Dead Indian Canyon and Deep Canyon debris
cone. This are@ Is protected frw starrmester flows by a s•,utcm of
chanmis and dikes built and maintained by this District. This tract
may be considered safe from stormwatar flows except in rare instances.
The Nterior drainage shall Cenfora to the provisions indicated in
"Comprahenuive Plan for Surfer Water Drainage for Palm Desert" approved
by tho Voard of Supervisors in 198.
The Coachella ;alley County katar District Is able and willing to furnish
d44UStlC water and sanitation service to said tract in accordjncr with
the eurrantly prevailing Regulations of this District.
We hmvo plans to extend a seater 1ln® along the north 0-14a of thiz progvrty
,zn,j will require an aaseimnt for this purpose.
Very truly yours
LeweV 0. Weeks
General Massager• -Chief E
iC :I pas
i nscr
! .0
i a„ is!72
r.
Planning Commission -2- January 3, 1972
7 act 4489
Tids Department will ptimit domestic sewage disposal from the individual Iota in
this subdivirzion as per a percolation report aucritted by Beotachnical Consultants,
Inc, as follows: For each 100 gallons of septic tank capacity, 20 sq. ft. of
bottom area o; leaciaina line only. Than abmsa soil Info-Zmaticn is an indication
of tiie type of seva;,a disposal system based upon ground elevation; at the time
the testa Vera cor4ucted. Any grading, compection, cutting, etc. could materially
change than above rates, therefore, if any gs"ing, compaction, cutting, etc. in
done, additional sewage disposal infor^�tion will be required.
The size of the septic tank and affluent disposal area shall ba fletera:ined, based
upon the occupancy of each individual lot. More shall be an unoccupied area on
eacl. lot Where sewage disposal, as required above, may be installed in confo%mance
with tie current uniforms Plumbing Code. There ehsll be an additional uraccapled
area equal to 50% of the above -requited sewage disposal systems for sewage disposal
installation in case of failure. However, savage disposal systems are considered
temporary and if sawago lines of a sager district bacome available, connection
to the syst.m should be made at that time.
It to our understanding that rice aewaya disposal system for lots within this sub-
divimion will be installed in the common areas. Aa w-ceptable covenant having to
do with the maintenance, and operation of sewage dispor.aai installations and recre-
ational facilities twat be filed with this Departout. "u'e will accept this
covenant as a tentative agreez-ant and it will be, necessary to 'record all covenantu
or agreemenra, etc., 'Involving the recreational and sanitation facilities with
tae 4ecorder, County of Averside, anul a copy of tua recorded agreement filed with
this IIapartmant concurrently with the recording of tine final nap of thim sub-
division.
Very truly yours,
P.AROLD 14. k:3ZCKS'il23,
Director. of Public health
J. Paul Ba;leq, ".S., Rss't. Director
Environmental Realth
JPB: tag
cc: Water Quality Control. Board
r
F Iv
I
January 3, 1972
kiverside County Plaming Commission
4080 Lei= Street
hiv,nsida' California
Attention: Willi= r. Pacrsvick, msoeiate Planner
fe: TRACT NO. "S:? (Planned Lnit levelopment); Titat certain property si'iown on
Record of Survey filed in CM 41(61, aico Parcel 2, eecord of Survey, Pool: 41,
Page 49, izeco;ds of Riverside County, uali<orniai 292 Lots.
Gentlemen:
Thee Jepartma-Ft of Puillic health leas reviewed lentative Amp cio. 4489 arnd recommend::
tinat.
A Water system ohall be inslnUed according to plans and spen_ifi-
cations as appro%led by the water company and tine jealth jepartment.
Permanent prints of tiie plans of tare water systera sicall be submitted
in triplicate, with a minimum "ale not less than one inch equals
230 feet, along with tite origival drawing, to the County Surveyor.
iica prints shall show tine internal pipe diameter, location of valves
and fire hydrants, pipe and Joint specificaticus and the size of file
maiu at the Junction of Lice nee system to tee e::istinv syst-m. Tile
Inane shall comply in all reۥpects with viv. 5, Part 1, Cheater 7 of
tae California Iiealt4 and Safety Cr>de, Waterjorks Standards (A.W.W.A.)
and G- nPda1 Order :io. 103 of tae Public utilities Commission of tilt:
State of CaliEo€nla, waen applicable. Tice plans shall be signed by a
registaxed euZineer and eater co;apany with Cite following certification:
'I certi`y toU t;ie design of the water system in Tract sin. 443) is
in ac-cordance with ti:e water system expansion plans of the Coachella
Valley County Water aistriet and that the water source, storage, and
distributions syeteriss are adequate to covoly with riverside County
Ordinance :u;. 460.' lids certification sicall be silimed by a re-
sponsible official of tue water company. lue plans mast be submitted
to the County Serveyor's office to review at least two weeks prior
to the request for titca recordr tiou of tale final asap.
Tuia Japa„tuent has a statement from tiie Goachella Valley (:aunty Vater Ilistrict
agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on dertand
providing satiofartnry financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider.
It will be neeesaary for the financial Arrangements to be made prior to the recor-
dation oZ the final map.
�CO~'➢S5Z'P�= 0.7 lSb i'H V i6il
a m k-A89
Page -2-
8. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision m* tivT arniicast shall sot pit to tta
Ccnissicn the follmiing dos:}Fwals c&ieh shall demnstreca to the satisfaction of the
Cca¢sission that the total project 'ill be cyzvelopeed and saintained in € Aare vita
the int&nt and UmTos93 of th2 *TproTma
&. Tho dc.! jut to aciavey tit` .
b. Covenentb end restrictions to 'as recorded.
a. P• lizZe art and mArtenewe rgra; int to be entxred into with the owmrs of the
units of the proyect.
The approved domimaty sh?M. be r.=OrAled at the sam Mira thvt tl*e subdivision
is recorded.
9. A raanapeapnt company -firth the un uraifled right to assess the omm m of tbft individual
units for m msomable Ealate-,.mce €.00ti ahall be astimblizzed and Contier,Q.aaly maintained.
The mardge nt eoF-paay sixOl 1 .e the right to lien the units of the CvWirs who default
in the payxmit of their wssssTmilha. Sash lien shall not be otscordinste to my
emumb-mmee other th-m a first deed of Uras> provided z uch de-4 of trust is sty in
good faith and for vaavne my is of reecr1 1xvioa to the lien of V* mawgesent comppay.
10. Provide eaves:its for drainrgo fscili les and utilities and delicate on the final r
If *.d hin txact houni&ry.
11. In hard to flood cnatral protectilmo the Mquireimats as outlined in t1W Coe0l411a
Valley County muter'.District le„tern dated Dveed—bar 292 19"iq alvill ripply.
12. The subdivide` shall provide Schadula W fir& +protatetion. T'r_e California Divivi"n
of Forestry s ,*all ivoviev avid spprme the water plasm €oaq ralative to locat1m, settin3o
sparing and installation of fire hydrate prior to recordation of the final subdivision
mv.
13. A valid variance Shall ba its affect sat tha time of rocordation of the final a*.
lk. A valid conditimul uua eeea r3haSl be in *ft%A-t at the tirm of recordation of tte f'.rsl
•
15. An s"Mention shall bra procceead txuoug,h for a ragm County Service Aim or
for a Antics to wn existing ea vice uma if str-2*t lighting is raquiied.
SWt too. 4489
1. All impxrovemen3 shall cvr.Yoa2 crith Ccamty Su'edi.visioa SBkind�,rds Schedule "A" unless
md1fied by these conditions.
2. a. All stm,&t ih .remnts s 3i.1. be dzsi�pvd and conatructed it, confonmme wish
Ri,,vroido County Road ftaprov nt Stx'tr;rrds.
b. Othvr street im l roveia, t s and reguimmnts slia l be as foilms:
1. Rdnter s Path sh:hs3, be imrar✓ed 6rLtz € atch-up ovncro"a rvivi:ig 2,nd mn*retc
curb end gutter located 32 fit from Uhe coa'terlivis arithin re 44 foot ha -If width
dedica?,ed right of way.
2. Access to lots r; nns State rxigbmmy III s YAU be restricted and at) not ted on
the, final asp.
3. 44th Aveam shall be ia�ro.ed with sr.pnsl.t asm*rete nmirg and conorete curb
and guvter located ?,2 feat frm the i-interlire witUi a 69 root dedicated right
of way 4s r®md by the Rear] Cccv%nsicner. The centerline of ,Ath Ave. ar511 be
I*W,,ad rp;uo :de ' ly 15 fc `v acuth of the north bodandary of Section 19.
4. State i? ghwty M shall 4-e :L-+-drr., rod with c onamte curb and gutter loeated
43 fit frcu ecmterl_i ne with ra+Wh-ia p ;wing within a 55 foot hz1f width
dedica sd right of tea r.
3. If the subdividar does any lot geading !A shall rUbT1t cry rWodLAeible brownline and
four prints of a cv-7,ge'remsi,r3 grading plum to the Rilmrside County Smr-myor°s Office.
Prints of the g:t irg plea Will subsequssaatly be t-m itted frc S the S•arveyvrrs office
to the Flood ODatrol District end DLTmgUURnt of Building and Safety for nevi" and
apprmrvl and shall be in ea:V'Uaime with the Uniform Building Cods, Ch,%rfter 70, as
ameadad by Ordita"ce 457,
4. The subdivider shall aiLlimi.t for approval a sails rek-oxt for stabiM-ty and CoologiceA
study to the FV rsnida County Sturveyor°s Office, s,rior to recordation of to final rap,
unless Fradiv*d by the Oir®ator of Building and. Safety,
5. At the time of first fillag of the final pxp fog cY k3pa in the cfrice of to
County SurFroZr�ar, , the scabdi•riuzsr shall mOsA amlicatton for clzangv of soma to Conform
with the pmDored lsead nae and cot size. Tte enrrvaaal of Ulo teatztive ngvT dues not
include Mmval of sa chAn a of zone, or izply tbz q;%rWml of euy gccpmedi chfinge
of zono sheen one the ter:.tfiadtive mg.
6. Street rim far the proposed vubdiviaton shall be sarbj* t to %pravral by the
County Road Co=di.aaicneer.
T. Water and domstic syswage dV.posal for indddividcbl, lots shall be Imtolled in woccrCAac*
with the provisions set forth in the Riveraide Cos:nty Health Depv,-tmmt let;:9r datcd
dWWQrY 3. 19r2, a copy of which is enolosedl.
r
Tract No. 4489
Board of Supervisors
_2.
The subdivider is further advised that road improvement standards have been
adopted by the County. These starrsd3 are on file in the office of the
Coammicsion, the Surveyor, and with various engineers and contractors through-
out the County. Before entering into any contract or performing any vork,
the subdivider should review the current standards. The subdivider Is further
advised that no improvement work will be approved except as it is executed
according to specific plans and filed with and approved by the Road rocnissioner
prior to the commencement of any work.
Very truly yours,
RIMSIDE CO m"T FW;,MiG COMMISSION
Hrn. R. Livirzntont Flennir.3 Director
HRL:es '
cc: Supervisor McCandles
Subdivider Ea3le Development Co.
Engineer Jennings-Halderman-Hood
St. Div. of Forestry
St. Div. of Peal Estate
F. Stout (2)
Riv. Co. Health Dept.
Riv. Co. Bldg. Dept.
Riv. Co. Land Use Div. (3)
Title Co.
Flood Control C.V.C.H.D.
Clerk of the Board
Board Agenda Copy
File Copy
Desert Office ✓
• DT
PLANNING COMMISSION
.�J:�EWER 11. KATZENSTVMA, rJ:elc0w, R,Wd"%,, .MAUPICE A. PEPPY, V:re-Chin., "a *IA, f„ KEITN, Ccunh Swvgr MI
„�� i JFSS E. LILLIBRIDGE, Coro— ReedJF.AY N. OLCSFN, Pd+. Oecen FPAHX C. SEELEY, Ceunh AswuwT. MILFORD 11ARRISON, R7Melde RAY T. SULLIVAN. JR„ Ce fv Cevnwl
HORACE MILLER, Blythe
ROFI"T T. OTC:".F,LL, Hve.e HA7EL1. EVENWN, S-CoHwy
BPP:48207
March 9, 1972
Board of Supervisors
County of Riverside
Court House
Riverside, California
Gentlemen:
V#A. R. LIVINGSTONE - PLANNING DIRECTOR
WOO LEMON STREET, ROOM 101. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92SCI
TELEPHONE IT.eI TTLg lS
b'� MAR 13 19�- ' �J
2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DES°ST O,=FICE
SUBJECT: Tract No. 4489
SUBDIVIDER: Eagle Development Co.
SCHEDULE: "A"
SGPEFJISORIAL DISTRICT: Fourth
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR'S AGr.:7DA DATE: 3-14-72
The above -listed subdivision, subject to the attached conditions, was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting
of March 8 1972 Enclosed is the tentative map, the proposed
conditions an copies of the Health Dcanrtmnnt and Flood Control District
letters on the subjcct matter.
This matter must be set for public hearing at 10:00 A.M. on the Board's
agenda of March 21, 1972 , at which time the Board must approve,
conditionally approve or disapprove the tentative map, unless the time
limit is extended by mutual consent of the silbdividnr and the Board.
The Subdivision Map Act provides that approval of a tentative map shall
terminate 18 months after the date of approval by the Board of Supervisors
unless an extension of time is subsegag�ntly granted by the Board. If the
subdivider is imahle to record a final map within the 18 month period, he
may file a request with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for a one
year extension at least 20 days prior to the lest Board meeting prior to
the expiration date. If he is unable to record a final cap within the one
year extension, he may request a recon.d extension of time by following
this same procedure.
The subdivider is advised by copy of this letter, that the transfer of
ownership of any tentative map or portion thereof or the creation of an
easement on any area contained within the boundaries of a tentative map
as approved by the Board of Supervisors is a violation of Section 11538
through 1154o of the Business and Professions Code, end is subject to the
penalties contained therein. Stich transfer or creation of an easement
will be considered a breach of the conditions attached to the filing of
a final map of any of the area contained within the tentative map.
a
t
e
UNT ii OZAL GSM CASE 150. 1371
rnw-lo Alveloprwnt Co. &
J. 1. Giltea}Fie,
rebrua ry 23, 1972
Pa Ge -2-
lien srkzll not be subordir..ate to,..ny encmnbrance other than n 1'2rst Iticd
of Trust; lrovlded such cad of T_vat is node in Good faith and for value
and is of record 1 rior to the lien of tite aranagetzent cormaiy
T. Special Conditions:
a• mere sim17 be no loco than 2 1;2 narking spaces provided for each unit
b. Prior to final inopectio:'r and occug.ancy, a ri ve i r,•at ratni.uie:ra [ e:it itt
ornarental rnnonry %,all oim11 be installed slang the entire boundary
of the Project.
a. Density shall not exceed twit permitted by Sction 13.5(2), Ordinance
No.
8. Street treca shall ba planted along all county rc.^_d .frontages in occordlonce
with Street Tree Planting Onlirrance 13 57.1y. A lar:dceoring, (IM(Uln:i,
lightin,, mionitieo) v lta:ay l;:yotrt, anti irri;atio;111tin rholl be rulmUtted
to the Planning Director for npprOval prior to issuance of a buildin; y'rild.t.
'r'r.e J=.dacuje clan rL:.11l inelwde a SUaJG'Laritial nilnibar of full -via tr'icC, :lr
inelic.;teo by tiito elevation vi.cws subrnitt d and usado a cart of this al j rovol.
A minimum of ona tree TO --unit, no sraallcr than the heitnt of the unit. adjnccnt
thereto, sieall be rltaatcd avid wn'untaircd. ?: rarct aallc shall 'co no loss than
the height of any air corditioint; eou3.linerat pl red on the roofs of iiae units.
'1Rre Uui3.uiit; rormlit, when issued, oI•.all include the urading, li.ghtint,, tralle: yc,
and irription ryccean. Ito fi;:al insrection or occupcncy slmA be Zivon by thc,
Duildine Dcpartrrrnt to this projcct ua.til the afore�,antion-od airroved rizns
and eonotruQtion shall wave been co s,eted. ti:aar ei r hasis should be
given to tiu: perimeter plaatin.- both inside and outside the reciuir'ed ornacental
nanonry wall.
9. 'rita ce;rer e dinpoaal nyst::°n sboll ta, dcsioled so ra to readily facilittata
C011rl.:.:ti.i)�, with a cosmlunity triu:l:.Livc. J�:I-j oet;ers ahn Il be installed if
ieaoibi+i au cip(:4'!al1.1-d Ly 11% Cent 1111j" Y1.1joy �iut 4ty T,,.It.'QY Wuntrici', Sir
cclrer•s sitnl.l to co:mocted vita the Coachella Velley Co. (rater District trans
line at Boni:erey Averuc an.. lni:ic;,a'.,er Ctmnael.
10. This'apnroval shall be uccd :within 3 1/2 years after final procecdin;;c before
the Doard of Su_.aervioorc, otilc.rri.ee, it siwall bocorc null and void and of no
effect whatsoever. By "uza" is want recordation of a cubuivision r.:ap and
substantial construction of tite developr.::.nt =t-ora7lated.
i acrcpt and ogres, prior to use of this 1:ermit or arproval, to col'ply 1-4411
all of the conditions ect forth and m1crotand that lha ofiico of$uildin„
and Safety wi_l.7. not ineu•, ci Dlilding rcrmit, or allo:r occurancy on the Lice
permitted until this si(7.cd confir:ration, in quadruplicate, liar, boon roecivcd
by the Planning Cosa*fission.
Date A1-plicant'c Si nature _
Date Qr ar'o Signature
UNW...%M41s, moo an. Q. 1311
`. F.. Gillrap
3.drSSUn1 Dc+trlal�z s t
zone CQ
February 23, 1y72
1.
O ttCrelopas L of the property shall conform cubrUntially uith that as shown
on Plot Plen narked "' .hibit 'r.A" "%' and 'C"
us revised 2-22-'(2on files with
Conditional Uwe Case Q. 1371 in the office
of the Riverside County Manning
Commission, unlaoo oth^iviEC anc- -d by. the
followinC conditions:
2.
Prior to the icrnance of a bizi d.in_ 7:eraait
for any condca;tiniura ctructure, a
rArl,
be arMir: cuU tanLiall l with said UJtibl't
sucdiviaion sl:call recorucd c
',C"
"B" rcvic-ca 2-22-'(2 c_:cej t t'tat buildinU pennYtt9 for not more than
and as
hour (4) lay c:: i•=:,uct for models rrior to such recordation anal
only after a tentative cubdivision =D Vs
been zrprcvcd by the Planning
Cowmission.
--
3.
02
-
-
fr ara P'i18 Grla.G-flF'.0 , 4ihn a;. a...-.
Stakes L:ai: ]i: Q:'2 it:y CG..._:a scald No. 3
St"_o on islon 'l i' Son:) {. l.. ,
.'it
UpletFunt Se .iubl.Tc MAN.
C:,.. ul•ln Valley crud .. 1 %r Me.
Bond Do+:nztr.a t
StSta DJ.-:.,. on o;: H :a: ,
Qlkn
^1.
to Cho ad Urn DMAnn ...rr. ... 0 .- . .... V:
RO t '.".3 J.ud sr y ve ; ... "..
the ii'3C^"11 of a b l s . . .,•
- .: znd herculn.
4.
r n e - ..
Gc•„t;t:r.t f.,�u of E.F,z dcr '� �;
�. 1?- J---,an [It .i !a
•
tttagan [ rov dni sonquataWAI, .. ..
lov 1 3 Y to" -.ilk.i 1
M
a
ffacil`_sira, and a;`.:.-s"r'.... ..............
t, :.. ,. ,. i•,a'. iFt the. '. f ,, ,_ ...t'
ch chat! t..l}..r.:i:i: ; v ..- ° .. .W,F.
+LC::t'.4 _CO2 ha r ._, _ila� O ., au .. _ .. -. ,
.. . .., ! b.. 3ai:i�.P1 �'.. i n . �,. .-... i
in ecci l C. `n :a4 i:h at': ALIM In
A:
SO WAWA:
b. C1 : : _ C1 :_. : .......... .. .. .. •.
r... ..::i
C. ir'. i"< �, .t ..:w .. 1 '`�.,.i
W eet:r:T:M into wiS tF..
'
fj T:IS1:S: ul J.. :1',: ..'Cn':.. ,c, ...... 17 Q .,
..
VIP to 1%eazdal.
th.:units a iir_ wua . . a iF:.... ... nn ... (1^ J:E:.N -. .._. Ct...
On 0
Zoning Administrator
Page Two
In September of 1974 and again in September of 1975 the City
Council of the City of Palm Desert made findings to this effect
and found that the Conditional Use Permit and Variance referred
to were valid and in effect. All of the conditions to the
Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Tract Map for Tract 4489-1
have been complied with and the proposed project as delineated
on the plan submitted to the Design Review Board is identical
to the one in the plans approved in connection with the grant
of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance in all material respects.
Accordingly, the proposed project conforms with the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Palm Desert by virtue of Section 25.5-3
and the applicant requests that the Use Certificate be issued as
required by Section 25.42-2.
Respectfully submitted,
EAGLE DEVELOPMENT C MPANY
- APPLICATION FOR USE CERTIFICATE -
ftEC!EJ' "D
To: Zoning Administrator Zo 1g77
City of Palm Desert f�u�
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane ENV1IicnMI rvVAL SERVICES
Palm Desert, CA 92260 CITY OF PMM DESERT.
Re: Use Certificate - Tract 4489-1
Dear Sir:
Eagle Development Company hereby makes application for a Use
Certificate under Section 25.42-2 of the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Palm Desert. Tract 4489-1 is located southwesterly
of Highway 111, northeasterly of Painter's Path and easterly of
Avenue 44. The proposed use is a planned residential development
in accordance with Conditional Use Permit No. 1371 and Variance
No. 1171 granted by the County of Riverside. Plans for this
project were submitted to the Design Review Board with an
application filed July 6, 1977.
The proposed use of the project is in conformity with the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Palm Desert for the following reasons.
Section 25.5-3 provides:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article or
any other provisions of this Ordinance, no new or addi-
tional variance, conditional use permit or license shall
be required for any land use heretofore authorized by the
City of Palm Desert or the County of Riverside by a
variance, conditional use permit, building permit, license,
or tentative or final tract map, provided there has been
substantial reliance upon the above mentioned governmental
entitlement, and provided further that conditions thereof are
complied with and that substantial construction has begun on
a portion of the project."
In March of 1972 the County of Riverside issued Conditional Use
Permit No. 1371 and Variance No. 1171 and approved all of Tract.
4489, a Final Tract Map encompassing Tract 4489-1 having been
filed in November of 1973. Since the issuance of the Conditional
Use Permit, Variance and approval of Tentative and Final Tract
Maps there has been substantial reliance on those government
entitlements and substantial construction has begun on a portion
of the project.
B. Discussion of Issues (Continued):
2. Alternatives
a) If the Council determines that substantial construction was secured
prior to 09/21/75, the applicant then has a vested right and may
simply apply for building permits.
b) If the Council determines that substantial construction has not
occured, then no vested rights exist. The applicant has the option
to apply for a General Plan Amendment and a rezoning to residential
to permit a modified condominium project in compliance with all
City requirements, or develop a commercial complex.under the existing
zoning.
3. Additional Information
The final decision on this issue requires a great deal of analysis of
the legal ramifications which the City Administrative Staff should not
give. Therefore, the City Attorney has been reviewing this matter and
will be prepared to give his analysis at the meeting of September 8,
1977.
V. ATTACHMENTS
1. Application for Use Certificate Received August 30, 1977.
2. County of Riverside Conditional Use Permit No. 1371 Dated February 23, 1972.
3. Riverside County Planning Commission Letter Dated March 9, 1972.
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 77-98
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, ASSUMING AUTHORITY OVER CASE NO. 81MF, ANNOUNCING
ITS FINDINGS AND REJECTING THE REQUEST BY EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR A
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, has
assumed authority, at the request of the Planning Commission, over Case No. 81MF,
EAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicant, at the request of the Design Review Board,
pursuant to Sec. 25.39-2.15 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sec. 25.39-2.05 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance,
the Design Review Board or any body assuming the authority of the Board must make
a mandatory finding that the proposed use must conform to all the requirements of
the zone in which it is located and all other applicable requirements before approv-
ing any project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council cannot make the mandatory finding required in
Sec. 25.39-2.05 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance in the case of EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY'S proposal to construct the first phase of a 248-unit planned residential
development within the P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preserva-
tion Overlay District); and,
WHEREAS, after hearing all the testimony regarding this matter did find
the following facts to exist to deny the request by EAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY:
1. The proposed use is not in conformance with all the requirements
the P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preserva-
tion Overlay District) zone in which it is to be located.
2. No vested right exists for the project due to the lack of
substantial construction.
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 City Council in this case;
2. The proposed request is hereby rejected for cause.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held this day of 1977, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
EDWARD D. MULLINS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ON: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS SUFFICIENT
VESTED RIGHTS TO CONTINUE AS AN ON -GOING PROJECT.
APPLICANT: MORGAN MITSIBISHI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
BY: EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
CASE NO. 81 MF
REQUEST:
The Planning Commission has referred a request for Design Review approval of
final construction plans for a 74-unit condominium project to the City Council
for a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficient vested rights
to construct regardless of the fact that the existing zoning does not allow
residential development. The property is located at the northwest corner of
the intersection of Avenue 44 and Highway 111. The total property contains
approximately 29.3 acres and the first phase contains approximately 10.889
acres.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
By Resolution No. 77-98, assume jurisdiction over Case No. 81 MF and determine
that a vested right to development does not exist due to the lack of substan-
tial construction, and reject the application for Design Review known as Case
No. 81 MF due to non-compliance of the proposed use to the requirements of
the zone in which it is located.
Justification is based upon:
1. The review of conditional use permit deals with the physical development
of the property which is reflected by plans which describe buildings in
terms of design and relation and other physical modifications such as
driveways, landscaping and recreational amenities. Those items related
to the subdivision process are considered ancillary at the CUP stage of
the review process. The applicant has pursued the subdivision portion
of the subject development but not the conditional use permit portion,
with one exception which is grading of the pads for the units in the first
phase of development. Staff does not believe that grading of the pads is
sufficient substantial construction to justify ignoring the existing
zoning on the property.
The original conditions of approval by the County, in their action on
CUP-1371, particularly Condition No. 10, makes a clear distinction
between the subdivision process and substantial construction. The pro-
ject reviewed was a planned residential development which, by definition,
is the development of physical facilities in which people may reside. No
such facilities have been developed on the subject property within the
time constraints applied by the original approval.
3. The precise writing of Condition No. 10 of the original approval would
further imply that building permits would have to be issued and physical
construction underway within the 3-1/2 year period. Since this never
occured, the vested right in the project is null and void and of no
effect.
Because of the expiration of CUP-1371, the provisions of Section 25,5-3
of the City's Zoning Ordinance cannot be met.
III. PROPOSED RESOLUTION (Page 2 of this report)
REPORT ON:
c2) 1s.�-nrnZ G-visa{
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92200
TELEPHONE (714) 340-OCI1
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT
Condominium Project
CASE NO.: 81 MF
Date: Aug. 10, 1977
ZONE: P.C. (4), S.P.
LOCATION: South of 44th Ave., West of Hwy. 111
APPLICANT: Eagle Dev. Co.
NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGIIT: Final Construction Drawings
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by
the staff and by the applicant, the DRB REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
this project, subject to the attached conditions.
Date of Action: 8/9/77
Motion wade By: Johnson
Seconded By: Hill
Vote: 4-0
Reasons for Negative Vote (s):
�1n appeal o the above action may be made in writing to the
City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days
of the date of the decision.)
STAFF CO?iMENTS: Referred to Planning Commission to clarify the zoning
situation at their meeting of August 30, 1977
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
27
28
29
30
31
32
ATTEST:
a Asm;is City Clerk
Ci,y or Palm Desert, California
-3-
frcnry
City of Palm D
J / �� 1
I ar.:: "Aayor
California .
� � s
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
27
28
29
30
3j II
to insure the protection of the public health, safety,
and general welfare, to conform to the logical development
of the land and to be compatible with the present and
future logical development, character, and design
of the surrounding property, including the consideration
of the location of streets, the avoidance of traffic
congestion and topographical, drainage conditions,
and architectural appearance.
(c) Appeals. An applicant may appeal from the decision of the
Planning Commission by the following procedure:
(1) Appeal to the City Council. Within 30 calendar
days after the date of the mailing of the Planning
Commission's decision, the appellant may appeal
the decision, in writing, to the City Council,
on the forms provided by the Planning Department.
Upon receipt of a completed appeal, the Clerk of the
City shall set the matter for hearing before the City
Council not less than 5 days nor more than 30 days
thereafter and shall give written notice of the hearing
to the appellant and the Planning Director. The City
Council shall render its decision within 30 days
following the close of the hearing on the appeal. .
(d) Transfer to City Council. The decision of the Planning
Commission shall be tinal The
an appeal is filed or unless
within 7 days of the date of mailing of the Commission's
decision, the City Council or any member thereof request,
the application transferred to the Council for public hearing.
(e) Approval Period. The approval of the plot plan shall be
valid for a period on one year from its effective date, within
which time the construction authorized must be substantially
begun or the occupancy authorized be in use; otherwise .
the approval shall be void and of no effect.
SECTION 2. All permits issued by the County of Riverside, includi
but not limited to conditional use, variance, zoning, grading, building or Plot
Plans, unless substantial construction has been commenced, are hereby declared
null and void and of no further effect. Approval thereafter must be by permit
under Section 1 above.
SECTION 3. The City of Palm Desert being incorporated this date,
the City Council determines this matter to be of extreme urgency and is required
to preserve the immediate peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Palm
Desert.. By reason of the foregoing, this ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption and the same shall be posted as prescribed by law.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9.6t} day of
itovertb�r , j973, by the following vote;
AYES: Mayor C).ark, Coun^_iluoman Benson,
Coun ciimcn Asto' n Srtish McPherson
NOES: lone
ABSENT: None
-2
r
I ( ORDINANCE NO. 12
2 1ORDINANCE OF T¢fE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT RESTRICTING DEVELOP,RENT AND
3 AMEND?r1ENT TO COUNTY ORDINANCES WITH REGARD
TO ISSUANCE OF PERP,IITS AND USES PEW.UTTED.
4
S The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:
6
7. SECTION 1 . That Section 18.30 of the Riverside County
Ordinance No. 348 be and the same is hereby amended to read as
S follows:
9 "Section 18.30. Approval of a Plot Plan. Notwithstanding
any other provisions of this Ordinance, the following procedure and standards
10 are established for all "Uses Permitted" in all zones and for the approval of a
plot plan that is required by any section of this ordinance. Any such approval
11 granted prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby declared null
and void if the use authorized has not obtained permit therefor and construction
12 been commenced.
13 (a) Application. Prior to issuance of a building permit and
prior to any use permitted, applications for approval of
14 a plot plan shall be made to the Planning Commission on the
forms provided by the Planning Department and shall
15 include such information and documents as may be
16 required, in addition to the following:
(1) Name and address of the applicant and all persons
17 that own any part of the subject property, including
evidence that all owners agree to the application.
18 (2) Location or address, and legal description of subject
property.
19 (3) A plot plan, drawn to scale,.that shows the following:
20 a. Boundary and. dimensions of the property.
b. Existing topography of the property and
21 proposed grading
c. Location of adjacent streets, easements, drainage,
22 structures, utilities., buildings, signs, and other
_ features that may affect the use of the property.
23 d. Proposed development, including planned
buildings and structures, access, drainage,
24 yards, drives, parking areas, landscaping,
signs, and walls or fences.
2' e. Building elevations.
f. Floor plans.
26 g. SVeat and road improvements.
27 (b) Approval of Plot Plan_ The Planning Commission shall approve
conditionally approve or disapprove a plot plan within 30
23 days after receipt of a completed application and they shall
give notice of their decision, by mail, to the applicant,
29 together with any required conditions of approval, based
30 upon the following standards.
(1) The pre^osed use must conform to all the requirerents
31 II of the zn12 in Vdlich it is located and all other appli-
cable requirements of this ordinance.
(2) Ti.e ovcr-all development of the land shall be cl-signed
i
it
z
David J. Erwin, Esq.
Page Two
July 14, 1977
City adopted an ordinance revoking all conditional use permits,
variance and tentative tract map approvals, except in this case
where the developer had obtained vested rights in the approval
in question. Subsequently, the City recognized the fact that the
developer had a vested right in the tentative tract map approval
for the remainder of Tract 4489 (those portions of which the final
tract map 4489-1 did not cover). The conditional use permit and
variance would be subject to the same test as the tentative tract
map approval, and, accordingly, the City's own actions have in effect
validated these approvals.
mr. Williams cites Attorney General Opinion (43 OPS., Atty.
Gen. 144,4-7-64), a copy of which I have enclosed. The opinion does
not seem to be relevant to the issue of validity of the conditional
use pernit, but encompasses an entirely different matter. Accord-
ingly, I do not see why Mr. Williams seeks to rely on this opinion.
As you know, the developer has spent substantial time and
effort in preserving the approvals obtained for this project. This
includes the litigation brought by the concerned citizens. The
decision in that lawsuit by the Appellate Court in effect held that
the developer had obtained all necessary final approvals to go for-
ward with the project, and that these were no longer subject to
attack. See Concerned Citizens of Palm desert Inc, v:..Board of
Supervisors, 1974) 38 Cal. App. 3d 257. Subsequent to t e incorp-
oration of the City, the developer too}: all steps necessary to
preserve the previous approvals and cor.-plied with all conditions
imposed on it by the City of Palm Desert. It would seem to me
absolutely outrageous for the City to attempt to reverse its position
at this time. Certainly the City has no authority to do so under
existing case law, and in any event would be estopped from assert-
ing that position because of their previous actions.
We have continued the design review of. this project to July
26, 1977. };opefully the viability of the proposed project will
have been established and accepted by the Planning Commission, and
again by the City Council, at that time. We would also hope that
at that meeting the Design Review Board would limit their inquiries
to those matters with which they may properly be concerned, con-
sidering the approvals obtained to date by the developer.
Please call me after you have had an opportunity to review
this letter and the Attorney General's opinion so that we may dis-
cuss the matter further.
Very truly yours,
RCV: pc
enc.
cc: R. Bruce Robertson Ralph C. Wintrode
Walter R. Gayner
July 14, 1977
CX 4377-1 a,,,
David J. Erwin, Esq.
Erwin, Anderholt & Scherotter
74133 E1 Paseo
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Tract no. 4439
Dear Dave:
I have reviewed Paul Williams' letter of July 5, 1977 and
certainly disagree with the opinion he expresses, particularly his
points with respect to the Conditional Uae Permit i1371.
Condition •„•1J of. the Coaditional Use Permit required that
the approval be "used" within three and a half years after the
final proceedings before the Board of supervisors and defined use
as recording of a subdivision map and substantial construction of the
development contemplated. Variance #1171 had a similar condition.
The developer in this case has complied with that condition and his
compliance is evidenced by action taken by the City Council on a
number of occasions. You will note that conditions to the recording
of a final map are that a valid conditional use permit and variance
shall be in effect at the time of recording. The City Council found
in Septerujer of 1975 that all conditions regarding the final map
on the second phase of the project had been met and the map was
subsequently filed. In addition, at the Cite Council neeting of
Septenber-26, 1974, when the City extended for one year tha date
in which .? final map could be recorded, the City accegted the
developer's position that the conditional use permit on the property
had become final, and granted the extension with certain conditions
with which the developer has complied. There would seem little
question that the conditional use permit has become final and the
developer is entitled to go forward with the project as originally
contemplated.
The actions taken by the City on incorporation and in con-
nection with adopting the City zoning ordinance in 1975 and the
zoning map in 197G would have little effect on the validity of the
conditional use permit. As you nay recall, upon incorporation, the
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to con-
tact Mr. Ralph Cipriani. during my absence.
Very truly yours,
Paul A. Williams, Director
Dept. of Environmental Services
PAW/ ks
cc: Ralph C. Wintrode
City Attorney
Gt:Q�J�r oo IP�
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
July 5, 1977
Walter R. Gayner
President
Eagle Development Company
4262 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
Re: Tract 4489 and County C.U. #1371
Dear Sir:
Since our meeting on June 27, 1977, I have reviewed all the previous actions
of the City regarding the property owned by Morgan -Mitsubishi known as Cases
Tract Nos. 4489 & 4489-1 and County C.U. #1371. Since I am going to be out of
town on vacation and will not be able to review this research with Dave Erwin
for a month, I thought that I would forward my thoughts to you while Dave is
investigating the matter more fully. The following represents what I believe
to be the relevant outcome of this survey:
valid recordedtract exists encompassing the property in question.
U. #1371 is null and void for the following reasons:
a. Non-compliance to original County Conditions of Approval No. 10
b. Incorporation of the City on November 26, 1973 and related actions.
c. Adoption of City Zoning Ordinance on December 11, 1975, particularly
Sec. 25.5-3 (page 25.5(1)).
d. Adoption of the City Zoning Map on February 12, 1976 designating
the property as Planned Commercial Resort.
On the surface it would appear to me that all previous actions by the City on
the Tract Map was on the basis of conformance to the City's Subdivision Ordinance
or the State Map Act. Said actions never dealt with what ultimate use of the
property would be pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Please note Attorney
General Opinion (43 OPS., Atty. Gen. 144,4-7-64)which seems to relate to this
matter. --Based upon the present zoning, a condominium development is not permitted
in the Planned Commerical Resort Zone District. Therefore, no such use can be
granted by the City.
I am certain that the City Attorney will be researching this matter more fully
and will notify you of his opinion in a relatively short time. If my opinion
holds true, it would be meaningless to file for Design Review of the original
project at this time.
ARTICLE 25.42 CERTIFICATES OF USE AND OCCUPAt1CY
25.42-1 Intent and Purpose
In order to assure that each new or expanded use of a structure or
site or alteration of an existing structure complies with all
applicable provisions of this Ordinance, a use certificate is
required before any building permit may be issued or any structure
or site is used. A Certificate of Occupancy as required in the
Building Code shall be issued only for a structure that conforms
with the Use Certificate.
25.42-2 Application and Issuance of Use Certificate
Applications for a use certificate shall be made on a form
prescribed by the Planning Commission and shall be accompanied
by plans and additional information as necessary, in the opinion
of the Zoning Administrator, to demonstrate conformity with this
Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator shall check the application
and all data submitted with it and shall issue a use certificate
if he finds that all applicable provisions of this Ordinance will
be complied with.
25.42-3 Issuance of Building Permit
The Building Official shall not issue a building permit until the
Zoning Administrator has approved a use certificate for the
structure which is the subject of the building permit.
25.42-4 Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
25.42-4.01 Conformance to Requirements
The Building Official shall not issue a certificate of
occupancy for a structure or alteration until he has found that
the structure or alteration conforms with the use certificate,
until all required screening and landscaping and off-street parking
and loading facilities are complete, and he has found that all
conditions attached to a use permit, a variance, and design review
have been met, provided that the Building Official may issue a
certificate of occupancy prior to the fulfillment.of all require-
ments of this Ordinance if a faithful performance bond in an
amount determined by the Building Official to be sufficient to
complete the work necessary to meet the requirements is filed with
the City. Cash in the amount of the faithful performance bond may
be deposited with the City in lieu of the bond.
25.42 (1)
r° 25.40-10 Abandoned Use
Where no use of a non -conforming building or improvement shall be made
for a period of one (1) year, said non -conforming building or improve-
ment may be used only for the particular use or uses in their zoning dis-
trict which requires the least amount of off-street parking.
25.40-i1 N
,
on -Conforming Uses Under Variance or Conditional Use Per -
The non -conforming uses and buildings which are existing under a Variance
or a Conditional Use Permit granted under this or any previous Ordinance,
shall be permitted to continue under the conditions and regulations im-
posed in said permit or variance.
T
25.40 (5)
ARTICLE 25.5 APPLICATION
C , 25.5-1 All Lands within the Corporate Limits
The provisions of this Chapter are declared to be in effect upon all
land within the incorporated jurisdiction of the City of Palm Desert
as exist or is hereafter changed by annexation.
25.5-2 Relationship to Prior Ordinances
Any building for which a building permit has been issued and valid under
the provisions of earlier Ordinances of the City which are in conflict
with this Chapter, may be continued and completed in accordance with
the plans and specifications upon which the permit was issued.
25.5-3 _Continuation of Previously Granted Variances
Conditional Use Permits, Permits, Licenses
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article or any other provisions of
this Ordinance, no new or additional variance, conditional use permit or
license shall be required for any land use heretofore authorized by the
City of Palm Desert or the County of Riverside by a variance, conditional
use permit, building permit, license, or tentative or final tract map,
provided there has been substantial reliance upon the above mentioned
governmental entitlement, and provided further that conditions thereof
are complied with and that substantial construction has begun on a
portion of the project.
25.5-4 Procedure Regarding Pending Procedures
The repeal or substitution of any Ordinance shall not affect any
prosecution which may be pending in any court for the violation of
any provision of said ordinance at time of said repeal or substitution.
25.5-5 ' Violation of Previous Ordinances
The substitution or repeal of any Ordinance shall not be deemed to
ratify or legalize any violation of any provision of such ordinance
nor to affect the prosecution or punishment of any person, firm or
corporation for any act done or committed in violation of any provision
of said ordinance prior to the taking effect of this Chapter.
25.5-6 Conviction of Crimes Continued
Any Ordinance to be repealed or substituted,by this Chapter shall be
deemed to continue and be in full force and effect for the purpose
of prosecuting and meeting punishment for any violation presently
pending in any court.
25.5 (1)
September 3, 197E
City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Tract 4489
Gentlemen:
The undersigned, Morgan -Mitsubishi Development Co.,
hereby requests that the matter of the approval of the
final subdivision map for Tract 4489 be placed on the
agenda for the meeting of the City Council on the llth
of September, 1975. The final map is filed for approval
pursuant to Section 66457 of the Government Code. The
final map was submitted to the City Engineer for approval
in accordance with Section 66442 of the Government Code
on August 1, 1975. It is anticipated that the final map,
together with the certificate of the City Engineer, will
be transmitted by the City Engineer on September 5, 1975,
or shortly thereafter. All other conditions to the
tentative map have been fulfilled.
The foregoing was discussed with the City Attorney, David
Erwin, who indicated that the matter should be placed on
the agenda pending receipt of the final map from the City
Engineer.
The undersigned would appreciate your confirmation that
this matter will be set for hearing at the September 11,'
1975 City Council meeting and included on the agenda for
such meeting.
Very truly yours,
MORGAN-MITSUBIS11I DEVELOPMENT CO.
By: MORSTAN DEVELOPMENT CO.
by
Its .• ` h '✓ /'♦
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TRACT NO. 44 O
16. Tho developer -hall enter into a future agreement with the
City of Palm Desert to pay for 1/4 of the cost of the in-
stallation of a traffic signal system at the intersection
of Highwav 111 and 44th Avenue. Said agreement shall be
writtan in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. Said
a;rc;c;::ent shall be filed and accepted with the City prior
to the recordation of any subsequent units of this tract.
17. In a a;anner acccptable to the City Traffic Engineer and as
a part of the public improvements of any subsequent phase,
the developer shall install standard stop signs at all in-
tersections of the private driveways with public streets.
18. In a manner acceptable to the City Road Department, all
driveway intersections with public streets shall be perpen-
dicuLar to the public streets and adequate line -of -site shall
be established at all intersections.
19. In a manner acceptable to the County Road Department and as
a part of any subsequent unit, the required public improve-
ments shall include a temporary cul-de-sac to be installed
at the easterly terminus of Painters Path.
20. As a part of the development of any subsequent phase of this
tentative map, the developer shall provide plans and construct
a bicycle path and landscape buffer including mounding as ap-
proved by the Architectural Review Board within the unused
right-cf7way and the area between the northerly property line
of the snb?ect property- and the street shown as'street "c''
on the tentative map for the full frontage of the subject
property on Highway 111. Said bicycle path and landscape
buffer shall also be extended along the Highway 111 frontage
including the unused right-of-c-ay for depth of 20 feet in the
proposed vehicle storage area located at the northeast cor-
ner of the subject property. In no event shall the required
bicycle path and landscape buffer be a minimum of 22 feet in
depth. The plans for the proposed system (bicycle path/
landscape buffer) shall be submitted as a part of the plans
for the first building permit application on the subject prop-
erty.
21. An easement in the form acceptable to the City Attorney shall
be granted to the City as a part of any subsequent phase of
this tentative map for the public use of the required bicycle
path described in Condition No. 20, when said path is located
on any portion of the subject property.
22. The applicant and/or any subsequent Home Owners Association
shall be responsible for the maintenance of the bicycle path
:.,,and landscape buffer to be installed along Highway 111.
�( C.
Mayor and City C n nv Ll _2-
Core Area Plan. The -discussion revealed that the applicant, in
addition to rocor0fri the first phase of this- tract, had also in-
stallcd 40 roqu!.red J.ilpro' cments on the adjacent public :streets,
completely graded and established pads for the proposed units on
the total property, and have installed all utility lines within
the total project. Based upon those improvements, the applicants
are of the opinion the existing Conditional Use Permit on this
property has been made permanent. However, due to market condi-
tions, the applicant feels that the project as approved, does not
appear feasible and is therefore, proposing at some later date to
revise the total development. Since the applicant has installed
subsiantial improvements, they feel that they must roquest the ex-
tension of the tentative map at this time to guarantee the monies
that have: been spent hereto, on this project. The City Staff is
of the opinion that the developer has a valid point and should not,
unless the applicant proposes, be required to totally revise their
project.
However, with regards to the Core Area Plan, the applicant should
be required to provide for the installation of the indicated bi-
cycle/landscape buffer along Highway 111. The applicant appears
to be wiling to do this at his own expense. Therefore, the recom-
mended a0ditiunal conditions of approval do specify the installa-
tion of the bicycle path and landscape buffer along Highway 111 as
a part of any _subsequent phase.
IIL111hore
attach.
cc: R. tintrode
Gibson, Dunn C Crutcher
550 `.export Center Drive
Newport Sewell, California 52 6GO
MEMORANDUM
September 23, 1974
To: honorable Mayor and Members of thc' City Council
From: Iiarv_y L. Iiurlburt, City Manager
Re: REQUEST FOR AN E\TE.';SIC\ OF TIME - TRACT NO. 4?89
A request for a second extension of time for Tract No. 44S
"Eagle Development" is scheduled fnr public bearing on Sertem-
ber 26, 1974. The purpcsa of this memo is to establish additional
recommended conditions to be attached to this requested extension.
When this :natter Was originally approved by the Board of Super-
visors on narch 21, 1972, the attached 15 conditions were applied
to that apnruval. Subsequent to that approval, the County Planning
Co'.!missicl granted an extension of time for the tentative map to
.S'e_JteI".'.beI' 21, 1974. This extension of time Was granted August 9,
1973.
In :larch, 1974, the owners of this property requested an extension
of this tract to the City and I resgonled with . _vit r ihd_cat..'
that all existing £ubdivisions were null and void in the City unless
subsLa "-tal construction -was started. It Was my understanding at
that tl..._ tAni _., now tentative tI'a.ct would be processed through the
City. SubBr,quint to that Time it was found that the first unit of
Tract No. 44£9 had been recorded on November 2, 1973 and grading
had been completed on the site and utilities had been extended into
the tract. Based upon this substantial construction, it was deemed
by the City '.ttornvy that: the subdivision Was not null and void and
a time extension on the remainder of the tract could be considered
by the City of Palm Desert. Attached is a copy of the recorded
unit of this subdivision. On August 13, the Director of Environ-
mental Service, received a let:sr requesting an extension of this
tract for an additional one -;ear period.
Under the provisions of the State nap Act, when a consideration V.
a time etitonsion on a tentative map occurs, the Council may con-
sider additional conditions to be attached to the approval of the
time extension. On that basis, I would recommend approval of the
extension of time for an additional one-year period to September
12, 1975 for recordation of the final map on this project subject
to the original conditions of approval and the follo•:ing additional
conditions. Justification for this arpro-:al would be conformance,
of the clap to the existinG zoning of R- -5000 and conformance 01
the tentative map to the adopted General Plan and to all require-
ments of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City.
Recently, the Director of Environmental Services met With the
reproscatatives of the owners of this property to discuss the ex-
tension of this tentative map. The train concern of this discussion
Was the conformance of this tentative map to the recently adopted
pqa s F,3u
uSII:JSdn 4 hull jvosul!) xo�
v oa;ulf.A '3 quTeu
s o.& dTra-4 tay.%
'&LGT °TL xacu+:,c+ag oq TTTA 6U3t Baas; a �T2e tuaw
go _-0 uTuQlDg cq.j zoo olvp VOTzUa dxO a ul;
VT uaTOtSO—V a sTs;v cT Yttt; ; ° :-6C55
:�=.%,L go uoTYaod r ::Q Tv 0:1 400dcza c�TX c'0:z 10-aj
TmuTg tt buj,c`s3 xo; waah Duo -o uoTstsc�xa
ury :p3cs aboa aaTgt''4u0w ZO
xaPuTt?nsax oda gut: 4,t::t,P, . o xaur:O at;3 eT 1;0" +,
14uudusoD -Vuawd0IUA<sa Tt(sTrnsgTeti-t+eGwo,4 auoa:.adEa cti
s uarsaT:ueo
seaTAxes T^4uQ"UOI TAua ZO «oaoc.:Ta
SM MUTM *V TnTd 'aH aaoTt;u?v^if
LET OCT ;�es6ttu
T-LLE:p f D
C
73-021 EL PASEO P.O.Box 1648 Palm Desert Co.92260 Ph. 346-0611
April5, 1974
Morgan -Mitsubishi Development Co.
O/o Morstan Development Company, Inc.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
Dear Mr. Melzer:
In answer to your letter of March 28, 1974 regarding an extension
of time for Tract 4489 we wish to advise that at the time the City
of Palm Desert was incorporated all existing subdivisions were made
null and void unless substantial construction was started.
I am sure you are aware of this as I am told that you have applied
for a new Tentative Map to be processed through the City of Palm
Desert and have filed the necessary form with the County of River-
side Planning Office in Indio, California. The County Staff is
processing our subdivision maps at this time.
No action will be taken on your request.
Very truly yours,
IIARVLY L. HURLBURT
City Manager
HLH:cd
RECEIVED
MORGAN-MITSUBISHI DEVELOPMENT CO. MAR 2 8 1974
c/o Morstan Development Company, Inc. PALM DESERT CITY HALL
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
March 28, 1974
City Council
Palm Desert, California
Gentlemen:
Morgan -Mitsubishi Development Co. is the owner of
Tract No. 4489-1 and the remainder of Tentative Tract
No. 4489. In accordance with Article 5, Section 5.16
of the Riverside Subdivision Code, as adopted by the City
of Palm Desert, we hereby request an extension of one
additional year for the tract map regarding Tentative
Tract No. 4489. We understand that if this approval is
granted, the expiration date of the remainder of Tentative
Tract No. 4489 will be September 21, 1975.
MORGAN-MITSUBISHI DEVELOPMENT CO.
By: MORSTAN DEVELOPYEENT COMPANY, INC.
by
Thomas C. Melzer
MORGAN-MITSUBISHI DEVELOPMENT CO.
c/o Morstan Development Company, Inc.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
City Council
Palm Desert, California
C/o Planning Department
County of Riverside
Gentlemen:
March 28, 1974
I,r^1' 1' I' I I r
MAR 2 8 19r.�. 1
RIVERSIDE CL"_l :';
PLAmNG CaV,�A-S,%
NI>4
DESERT' „'-rICE
Morgan -Mitsubishi Development Co, is the owner of tract
no. 4489-1 and the remainder of Tentative Tract No. 4489.
Enclosed is one original Tentative Tract Map for Tract
4489 which is being filed with you for processing with
respect to the arrangements not covered by Tract Map
No. 4489-1. Eight additional copies of the Tentative
Tract Map will be delivered to you shortly.
The enclosed Tentative Tract Map is being re -filed
without prejudice to any rights which Morgan -Mitsubishi
Development Co. may have to continue the processing of
Tentativa Tract No. 4489 as originally filed with the
County of Riverside and approved by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Riverside, including but
not limited to its right to require that final Tract
Map be approved by the appropriate governing body if
the conditions imposed with respect to Tract 4489 are
complied with.
Very truly yours,
MORGAN-MITSUBISHI DEVELOPMENT CO.
By: MORSTAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
by
Thomas C. Melzer
TCM/mj
cc: Mr. David J. Erwin
Erwin, Anderholt & Scherotter
City Attorney of Palm Desert
City Council
September 1, 1977
page 5
shall be permitted to continue in accordance with such use
permit. Since there are vested rights with respect to the
project which cannot be altered by a zone change, it cannot
be held to be determinative that the City, on its own motion,
changed the zoning map to be inconsistent with these vested
rights.
In preparing this letter we have intentionally
omitted references to the various legal precedents establishing
the validity of the Conditional Use Permit and the project.
We are unaware of any controlling precedents to the contrary
and the City Attorney has not indicated to us that his opinion
is to the contrary. We are, however, available to discuss any
legal issues relating to the project with the City Attorney or
the City Council.
In light of the foregoing, we hereby request on behalf
of our client that the City Council (i) instruct the Zoning
Administrator to issue a Use Certificate in accordance with
Section 25.42-2 upon a finding that the proposed project con-
forms to the requirements of Conditional Use Permit No. 1371
and Variance No. 1171 and (ii) find that under Section 25.5-3
of the City Zoning Ordinance design review is not necessary
in this instance as all matters which would normally be con-
sidered by the Design Review Board were approved in connection
with Conditional Use Permit No. 1371.
RCW:pko
Enclosures:
Respectfully submitted,
W
Ralph C. Wintrode
of GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
1.
Ordinance No. 12
2.
Transmittal
letter to City
Council, dated March 28, 1974
3.
Transmittal
letter to City
Council, dated March 28, 1974
4.
Letter from
City Manager, dated April 5, 1974
5.
Letter from
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher to City Council,
dated August 13, 1974
6. Memorandum from City Manager, dated September 23, 1974
7. Letter to City Clerk, dated September 3, 1975
8. Section 25.5-3 of the City Zoning Ordinance
9. Section 25.40-11 of the City Zoning Ordinance
10. Section 25.42-2 of the City Zoning Ordinance
11. Letter from Paul A. Williams to Walter R. Gayner of 7/5/77
12. Letter from Ralph C. Wintrode to David J. Erwin of 7/14/77
City Council
September 1, 1977
page 4
Substantial construction has occurred in connec-
tion with the proposed project. The developer spent sub-
stantial amounts in reliance on the Conditional Use Permit
and other approvals. This included not only grading of
the entire site, but also installation of public street
improvements required in connection with Tract 4489 and the
dedication of such improvements to the County, but also the
installation of on -site utilities specifically designed for
the proposed project.
The City Council has made a finding on at least
two occasions that substantial construction did occur and,
accordingly, the rights in the conditional use permit had
become vested. These findings occurred at the September,
1974 City Council meeting both by adopting the staff position
as outlined in the City Manager's memo of September 23, 1974
and by extending a Tentative Tract approval which would have
been revoked by Ordinance No. 12 had substantial construction
not taken place. Again, at the September 1975 City Council
meeting the City found that Conditional Use Permit No. 1371
was valid and this permit by its terms would have expired
had substantial construction not been undertaken, and
also would have been revoked by Ordinance No. 12. Given
this background, it is not surprising that our client became
greatly concerned when they received the July 5, 1977 letter
from Mr. Paul A. Williams, Director of the Department of
Environmental Services taking a contrary position. The reason
for this concern is even more evident when considered in the'
light of the fact that in June of 1977 a meeting was held
with Mr. Williams and the City Attorney, Mr. Erwin, wherein
the City Attorney expressed the opinion that the approvals
had become final and that the project could go forward,
The apparent dilemma now posed by the staff is that
the proposed project is in conflict with the zoning map and
the City's Zoning Ordinance. It is clearly not in conflict
with the Zoning Ordinance because Section 25.5-3 clearly
recognizes the validity of approvals such as those in effect
for the project as well as nonconforming uses under Section
25.40-11. This section provides that nonconforming uses
which are existing under a variance or conditional use permit
City Council
September 1, 1977
page 3
dated September 23, 1974 the City staff expressed the opinion
that the existing Conditional Use Permit had been made per-
manent because of substantial construction and that the developer
should not be required to revise its project. This was in
essence the finding made by the City Council in granting the
extension.
11. In October of 1974 the refiling of the balance
of Tract 4489 was withdrawn.
12. At the meeting of the City Council on September
11, 1975, the Final Tract Map for the balance of Tract 4489
was approved. This approval encompassed the finding that all
conditions of approval to Tract 4489 were met. Included within
these conditions is the fact that "a valid Conditional Use
Permit shall be in effect as of the time of recording the
final map."
13. On September 18, 1975 a Final Tract Map for
the balance of Tract 4489 was recorded.
A condition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1371 is
that it be used within 3-1/2 years and "use" is defined as
"recordation of a subdivision map and substantial construction
of the development contemplated." Section 25.5-3 of the City
Zoning Ordinance provides that no new or additional permit will
be required for any land use heretofore authorized by the City
of Palm Desert or the County of Riverside by variance, con-
ditional use permit or tentative tract map provided there has
been substantial reliance on such approval and that substantial
construction has begun on a portion of the project.
As can be seen, the concept of substantial construction
is important to the validity of the approvals previously granted
for the proposed project. In fact, under California law, the
whole question of vested rights turns on substantial construction.
If substantial construction had not occurred prior to November
26, 1973, the conditional use permit, variance and tentative
tract map approval would have been revoked by Ordinance No.
12 and if substantial construction had not occurred prior to
September 11, 1975, the City Council could not have made the
finding approving Final Map 4489.
City Council
September 1, 1977
page 2
precise plat plan, layouts, elevations and building plans
submitted to the Design Review Board on July 6 , 1977.
3. On November 30, 1972 a challenge was made to
the Conditional Use Permit and Variance in a case entitled
Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert, Inc.V. Riverside County
Board of Supervisors. In March of 1974, an opinion in that
case was issued upholding the validity of the Conditional
Use Permit and Variances.
4. On November 2, 1973 Final Tract Map 4489-1,
covering a.portion of the property, was recorded.
5. On November 26, 1973 the City of Palm Desert
was incorporated.
6. On November 26, 1973 Ordinance No. 12 of the
City of Palm Desert was adopted which, in effect, revoked all
conditional use permits, variances and tentative tract
approvals "unless substantial construction has been commenced."
7. On March 28, 1974 our client filed for an ex-
tension of time on the balance of Tract 4489 and also refiled
the balance of Tract 4489 for tentative map approval without
prejudice to any rights they may have had with respect to the
original tentative tract map.
8. On April 5, 1974 the City Manager advised our
client that all existing subdivisions were made null and void
by the above referenced ordinance and that no action would be
taken on the request for an extension for the balance of Tract
4489.
9. On August 13, 1974 a second request for extension
of Tract 4489 was filed with the City.
10. At the meeting of the City Council on September
26, 1974 a one-year extension of time for the balance of Tract
4489 was approved in accordance with the staff recommendation.
That recommendation included additional conditions which were
complied with. It is pertinent to note that by a memorandum
LOS ANGELES
SIB SOUTH FLOWER STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
12131 488-7000
BEVERLT-HILLS
9601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
BEVERLT HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210
(213) 273-6990
SAN DIEGO
600 8 STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
D141 231.1100
GIBSON, DUNN a CRUTCHER
LAWYERS
660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
POST OFFICE BOX 2490
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663
()14) 644-2071
TELEX! 67 4930
CABLE ADDRESS: GISTRASX
September 1, 1977
City Council
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Tract 4489
Gentlemen:
JAS. A. GIBSON. ISS2-19S2
W. E. OVNN, 16IB 61-1925
ALBERT CRUTCNER, 6D-1931
BERT A. LEWIS
MAX EDDY UTT
✓ w.xlu
EUROPE
4 RUE SAINT FLORENTIN
75001 PARIS, FRANCE
260-3905
CABLE ADDRESS: GSTRASR PARIS
TELEX: 210805
OUR FILE NUMBER
CX 4377-1-2
This letter is written on behalf of our client,
Morgan -Mitsubishi Development Co., the owner of Tract 4489
in the City of Palm Desert. In July 1977 plans were filed
for design review for a planned unit residential project on
a portion of Tract 4489 in accordance with Conditional Use
Permit No. 1371 originally issued by the County of Riverside.
Through the design review process and at the Planning Com-
mission questions were raised concerning the validity of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1371 and the ability to go forward
with the proposed project under the City Zoning Ordinance.
We understand the status of the proposed project will be
considered at the City Council meeting to be held on September
8, 1977.
Our client considers these questions to be of a most
serious nature, particularly in light of the history of the
proposed project both before and after the incorporation of
the City. We believe it would be helpful to review this history.
1. In December of 1971 Eagle Development Company
submitted applications to the Riverside Planning Commission
for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Tenta-
tive Tract Map for a planned unit residential project.
2, In March of 1972, after numerous public hearings
and changes to the proposed development plan, Conditional Use
Permit No. 1371, Variance No. 1171, and Tentative Tract Map 4489
were approved. This approval encompassed approval of the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ASSUMING AUTHORITY OVER CASE NO. 81MF,
ANNOUNCING ITS FINDINGS AND REJECTING THE REQUEST BY EAGLE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAW-
INGS FOR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
/ 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, has
assumed authority over Case No. 81MF, EAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicant, at the
request of the Design Review Board, pursuant to Sec. 25.39-2.15 of the Palm Desert
Zoning Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sec. 25.39-2.05 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance,
the Design Review Board or any body assuming the authority of the Board must make a
mandatory finding that the proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the
zone in which it is located and all other applicable requirements before approving
any project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission cannot make the mandatory finding required in
Sec. 25.39-2.05 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance in the case of EAGLE DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY'S proposal to construct a 248-unit planned residential development within the
P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation Overlay District); and,
WHEREAS, after hearing all the testimony regarding this matter did find the
following facts to exist to deny the request by EAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY:
1. The proposed use is not in conformance with all the requirements of
the P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preservation
Overlay District) zone in which it is to be located.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
' 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the Commission in this case;
2. The proposed request is hereby rejected for cause.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held this 30th day of August, 1977, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman
ATTEST:
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
As
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
August 30, 1977
IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (Continued)
A. Appeal of Case No. 303SF (Continued)
Page Six
required the parkway to be landscaped to improve the appearance of the area, to
reduce dust, and to minimize erosion from surface stormwater runoff. In consider-
ing the appeal, the Design Review Board overruled the applicant, except for the
slumpstone requirement; they felt that stucco would be acceptible if an adequate
landscape plan were submitted.
Dr. Fernandez explained the reasons for the appeal. His concern was not the
money, since he intended to use a concrete driveway and add quite a bit more
landscaping in the future. He was upset about the principle of losing the
freedom to decide how to design his own home. The issue of what is considered
beautiful is a personal matter of each individual and involves the right of
self-expression. "As long as I meet the minimums of the ordinance, I should
be free to do what ever else I please." Section 25.33-3.09 of the Zoning
Ordinance allows asphaltic or concrete driveways.
Mr. Williams replied by pointing out that there is an ordinance, the Design Review
Board Ordinance, which does give the staff the legal authority to review design,
colors, materials, landscaping, etc. These ordinances have been upheld by the
courts and are found in many cities.
Commissioner Kryder agreed with the applicant on the driveway, although he did
support the landscaping conditions. The Design Review Board Ordinance, while it
may infringe on the rights of each individual, it is a reasonable approach to
take when considering the best interests of the entire community and that is
what the Planning Commission must give first priority. No ordinance can be writ-
ten which will adequately specify every detail of every house.
Commissioner Snyder reminded the applicant that as an attorney, he must be aware
of the fact that laws are interpreted each day and that the Design Review Board
Ordinance gives the staff this right.
Commissioner Kelly thought that if the landscaping was adequate, a stucco wall
would be acceptible. She supported the condition for a concrete driveway and
parkway landscaping.
All Commissioners agreed to require a new landscaping plan, including the parkway,
and to allow a stucco wall. All except Commissioner Kelly agreed to delete the
condition requiring a concrete driveway.
It was moved by Commissioner Kryder and seconded by Commissioner Reading to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 280 deleting Conditions No. 8 and No. 10 and re-
taining Condi14vff9-Vb-4_and No. 13. Motion carried unanimously (5-0).
CASE NO. 81MF, EAVLE DEVELOPMENT
f construction drawings for a 248-unit condominium project
west of Highway 111 and south of 44th Avenue.
The staff explained the history of the project and indicated that the Council
would have to determine a substantial right to develop the project as previously
approved now exists. Upon advice of the Acting City Attorney, Commissioner Read-
ing modified his original motion to forward the case with a recommendation of
denial to simply forwarding the case to the Council. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kelly and was unanimously approved (5-0).
oil 1E::)Mn=r
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
September 15, 1977
Mr. Walter Gayner, Pres.
Eagle Development Co.
4262 Campus Dr.
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
Subject: Denial of request for Certificate
of Use Permit
Dear Mr. Gayner:
Pursuant to Section 25.42-2 of the Municipal Code, I have re-
viewed your application for a use certificate. Based upon
the following facts I cannot make a sufficient finding to
issue a use certificate as requested:
The requested use of Planned Residential development
does not conform to the existing zoning on the pro-
perty which is Planned Commercial Resort.
2. The findings necessary under Section 25.5-3 of the
Municipal Code which would have permitted the proposed
use regardless of the conflict with the existing zoning
have not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
City.
If you have any questions regarding this determination,
please fee free to contact me.
truly yours,
A -\��
TPa A. Williams
Zoning Administrator
PAW/ks
cc: Dave Erwin
Ralph C. Wintrode
Dept. of Bui ing and Safety
File 81MF
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to adjourn
the meeting to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing possible
litigation, said Executive Session to be held immediately following the
Redevelopment Agency. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mullins
adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:45 p.m.
Mayor Mullins reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. immediately
following Executive Session and announced that no action had been taken.
Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Wilson seconded that the
meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mullins
adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:21 p.m.
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
EDWARD D. ➢1ULLINS, MAYOR
September 8, 1977
ft
Page 10
could appreciate what the applicant has done, but the
reason for incorporation was so that we can approve what
is built in Palm Desert.
Mayor Mullins asked for a vote on Councilman Wilson's motion
and the following vote was cast:
AYES: Brush, McPherson, Newbrander, Wilson & Mullins
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried unanimously.
XIII. OLD BUSINESS
None
XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
1. RESOLUTION NO. 77-99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROPRIATING
ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR STORM MAINTENANCE.
Mr. Ortega stated that funds in the amount of $9,883
are included in the FY 1977-78 budget for storm main -
maintenance. To date, expenses for storm protection
and cleanup total approximately $28,000, leaving a current
deficit of $18,117. In order to make up the deficit and
budget additional funds of $6,000 to cover cleanup for
upcoming storms, Staff was requesting adoption of this
resolution.
Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to
waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-99. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Mr. Ortega reported that the City of Palm Springs was
going to contract with the firm of Gordon Beamer &
Associates to do a Risk Management Study and had asked
other C-VAG cities to participate. All other C-VAG
cities and also Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage had
agreed, and Staff was requesting that Council authorize
the City Manager to spend $715, Palm Desert's share, to
be taken from the Insurance Services Account, for our
participation.
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to
authorize the City Manager to spend $715, to be allocated from the
Insurance Services Fund, for the purpose of entering into a joint
contract with Gordon Beamer & Associates and the C-VAG cities, as
well as Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, for a Risk Management Study.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. CITY ATTORNEY
None
C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Mullins asked that everyone note the future meetings
listed on the Agenda.
September 8, 1977 Page 9
Mr. Wintrode responded to the mention of the delay associated
with the development stating that his clients had been in
court for quite some time with the Concerned Citizens of
Palm Desert and this accounted for the delay, Also, the
market conditions changed and that also caused delay.
Dave Erwin stated that Mr. Wintrode, in his letter together
with attachments, has fairly well reviewed the past history.
The Staff Report gives Council the alternatives available to
them. Ile stated that it appeared to him in his review of it,
the initial review and extension of a Tentative Map in
September, 1975, appears to be a point in time when there
may have been a determination that some substantial construc-
tion had developed, at least on behalf of the Staff. At
that point in time, there was action by the Council to extend
the Tentative Map and you could infer from that that it was
based on the findings as contained in the letter from the
former City Manager. What we are faced with at this time,
with the City Council looking at it, is to say that deter-
mination was made at that point in time and that is the
status of the project. Otherwise, it would appear to be a
matter of reviewing the determination of substantial com-
pliance at this time which appears to be somewhat light in
being accomplished. Mr. Erwin advised that if Council was
looking for a recommendation from him, he was not sure he
could give one. There are problems on both sides, and it
appears there may have been a determination or ratification
by the Council at one point in time. Staff takes a different
view. Very frankly, Mr. Erwin stated that he had no total
recollection of what did occur at that meeting.
Councilman Wilson stated that this was a very complex issue. He
stated that he tended to favor the Staff's recommendation that Council
rule that substantial construction has not taken place over the years
on that site. It is definitely not in conformance with our Zoning Map,
and he so moved for adoption of Resolution No. 77-98 recommending that
Council take authority of this matter and make a finding rejecting the
request of the Eagle Development Company for approval of the final con-
struction drawings.
Mr. Erwin pointed out that obviously the developer is
interested in going ahead and that if the Council did
decide to reject the case, it will probably result in
more litigation. He felt Council should be aware of
this.
Councilman Wilson reaffirmed his motion and Councilman Brush
seconded the motion to adopt Resolution No. 77-98.
Councilman McPherson stated that he did not feel the
issue was that complex, just a question of did they
or didn't they, and he did not feel that they had
accomplished substantial construction. He expressed
a feeling of confidence in the developers in the City
in that they desired to construct projects that both
they and the City could be proud of. The City has
worked with many developers and has not turned many
of them down. Councilman McPherson stated that maybe
the next step would be to have the applicant sit down
with Staff and work out something mutually acceptable
to both.
Mr. Gaynor reemphasized his position and strongly urged
the Council to reconsider the time, planning, and staggering
amounts of money that had already gone into this project.
Councilman McPherson told Mr. Gaynor that one of the very
reasons that the City had incorporated was that the resi-
dents were not happy with what the County was doing with
the area. During the past 3J years, the Council has
wrestled with the zoning ordinance, the General Plan, etc.
Rules have been changed from what the applicant had taken
to the County and what we have now. He stated that he
:September 8, 1977 Page 8
.F
w
the similarity between Rancho Las Palmas and Sunrise.
MR. RALPH WINTRODE, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Attorneys at Law,
660 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, addressed
Council representing the property owner, Morgan -Mitsubishi
Development Company. He stated that he did not wish to
recount his letter to Council (attached hereto as Exhibit "B"
and made a part of these minutes), but stated he would mainly
like to address the Staff Report and their disagreement to it.
He stated that he did not believe that the only issue was
substantial construction, even though it was done. The
first point mentioned in the Staff Report is the fact that
the construction in place related only to the subdivision and
not to the Conditional Use Permit. We find it very difficult
to make any distinction in that the 3 permits obtained in
March of 1972 were all interdependent on one another. There
is a Conditional Use Permit for the precise project, a sub-
division map which really only makes sense in connection
with the Conditional Use Permit, and a variance which made
the project work. The improvements made consist in two
basic categories: There was some off -site improvements to
Painters Path and Avenue 44 which would have been made in any
subdivision of the property. In addition to that, there is
approximately 1/4 of a million dollars on site in grading,
water, sewer, storm drains, not to mention the engineering
costs and the costs in litigating the validity of the project
with the Concerned Citizens. These particular improvements
are designed specifically for the project and for another
project would be useless.
The other points made in the Staff Report really go to the
same point — what types of improvements were they and were
they related to this project? Mr. Williams made the comment
that in their opinion, the Conditional Use Permit expired in
1975, after the 31 period. This certainly could not have
been the case since the 12th ordinance adopted by the City
would have revoked the Conditional Use Permit with substan-
tial construction not having occurred at that time and this
would be back in 1973. The City Council made two findings
to the effect that substantial construction had occurred
and that the Conditional Use Permit had become permanent in
the words of the former City Manager. That is basically
the property owner's position, and Mr. Wintrode offered to
answer any questions Council might have.
Councilman Newbrander inquired about the letter of April 5,
1974 by the City Manager saying that substantial construction
had not been started. Why was the substantial construction
issue not determined then.
Mr. Wintrode responseed that between April and September of
1974, there were a number of meetings and conversations with
the City Staff and the City Attorney. This resulted in part
in the generation of the September 23, 1974, memo and the
finding of the Council that the Map could, in deed, be extended
since substantial construction did exist and, in effect, a
finding that the Conditional Use Permit had become permanent.
In their view, these matters were determined in 1974 and
those findings have become final and cannot be changed at
this time.
MR. EDWARD BENSON, 1106 Sandpiper, Palm Desert, addressed
Council stating that he had been Secretary of the Palm Desert
l Property Owners' Association in 1972 and that the County had
asked them to review the project. Among other things, Mr
Benson stated that he had pointed out to the developer's
representative that this project was very close to the
mountain and subject to flooding. He stated that the
Association had indicated that subject to the developer
getting started on the project within the ensuing 12 months,
they would agree with it. He stated that he had seen the
pads put in and then watched them erode as they sat for
years because of the flow of water. Mr. Gaynor replied that
the pads had not really eroded or become lower over the
time period in question.
September 8, 1977 Page 7
i
through his actions on the Tentative Tract and previous work
and Council's actions on the extension of the Map in 1975 and
final action of recording of the Map in 1975 grants them a
finding of substantial construction and therefore, they have
the right to construct the development.
Mr. Williams pointed out that Council had received in their
packets a letter from the applicant's attorney, Mr. Wintrode,
which states precisely the history of these actions and their
point of view. The total matter rests on the issue of sub-
stantial construction. Has there been construction? The
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, when they acted
on this project, attached a condition to the Conditional Use
Permit that said: "This approval shall be used within 3J
years after final proceedings before the Board of Supervisors,
otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect what-
soever. By 'use' is meant recordation of a subdivision map
and substantial construction of the development contemplated".
Mr. Williams stated that it was Staff's feeling that the
Conditional Use Permit, when the Final Map on the phase
that was reviewed by the City Council, was in effect because
that 3J years was running. The Council determined there was
a valid Conditional Use Permit on September 11, 1975. The
3J years expired on September 21, 1975. Further, in reviewing
the subdivision, the existing zoning on the property was then
residential, R-2-5000, which would have allowed the develop-
ment as contemplated. Subsequent to that, in December of
1975, and early 1976, zoning was changed on the property
based upon the feeling that this area was appropriate mainly
for hotels, which was a concept created in the General Plan
and in the Redevelopment Plan that was created for the area.
Since in terms of construction of a condominium development,
which is an area where people reside in structures known as
houses, and since that kind of construction has not occurred,
it is the position of the Staff that substantial construction
does not exist; that the Conditional Use Permit expired of a
natural life in September, 1975, and therefore, Staff recom-
mends that by Resolution No. 77-98, the Council assume juris-
diction of the Design Review Board case and determine that
vested rights do not exist and that, therefore, the project
be rejected due to noncompliance with the zoning. This
decision would leave the applicant, in Staff's opinion,
with the option of applying for a General Plan amendment
and rezoning if they still choose to pursue the condominium
development as contemplated.
Mr. Williams explained that if Council determined that sub-
stantial construction does exist, then only one alternative
is possible and that is to allow the applicant to apply for
building permits. Normally an alternative here would be to
perhaps process it through the Design Review Board, but the
Design Review Board would be at a loss as to what standards
to apply since the plans that were submitted as a part of
the Conditional Use Permit were as precise as to show the
exact design of the building, the grading, the placement of
all the details normally reviewed during the Design Review
Board process. So it would be meaningless. Therefore, it
would appear that the two alternatives the Council is faced
with is the determination of substantial construction or not.
Staff recommends the latter.
MR. WALTER GAYNOR, 4262 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, Calif.,
addressed Council on behalf of the developer, Eagle Develop-
ment, advising that he was the initiator of the project
through the County, receiving all the proper approvals, and
proceeding to physically construct over 1/4 of a million
dollars worth of improvements on that site. He stated that
their position was not one of substantial development but
one of a legal issue. He presented slides for Council's
viewing on other developments they have constructed which
he felt would show the quality they assured. He pointed out
•
September 8, 1977
Page 6
R
C. RESOLUTION NO. 77-97 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Th.
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIV181k
MAP FOR TRACT 9377-1, AND APPROVING THE STANDARD SUBDIVISION
AGREEMENT RELATING THERETO.
Mr. Ortega explained that this was a request for Final Tract
Map approval for Sommerset Development, formerly Mountainback.
Everything was in order, and Staff recommended approval.
Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman. Brush seconded to waive
further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-97. Motion carried unanimously.
IX. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
None
For Adoption:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 167 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE
CODE PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS
TO LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE OR EXPLOSION, AND ESTABLISHING
A BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION AND PROVIDING OFFICERS THEREFOR
AND DEFINING THEIR POWERS AND DUTIES.
Mr. Ortega pointed out that this was this second reading of
the ordinance and that unless Council had questions, he had
no further input.
Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to
waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 167. Motion carried unani-
mously.
X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
XI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None
XII. NEW
A. ASE NO. 81MF - EAGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPLICANT: (Referred
to the City Council by the Planning Commission.) Request for
determination whether the applicant has sufficient vested
hts to continue as an on -going project with the first
phase of a 248 unit planned residential development within
the P.C. (4), S.P. (Planned Commercial Resort, Scenic Preser-
vation Overlay District) zone, generally located west of
Highway 111 and south of Avenue 44.
Mr. Williams stated that we have a very unique situation
here, to say the least. We have a project approved under
the County in 1972, said project located at Avenue 44 and
Highway 111. The Planning Commission and the Design Review
Board were reluctant to review the matter in that the present
zoning on the property is Planned Commercial Resort, and the
request that was first acted upon by the County back in 1972
was for Planned Residential Development for condominiums.
The position the administrative staff has taken is, as
indicated by the applicant's attorney, somewhat contrary to the
position taken in 1974 with regards to the fact that a portion
of the property along Avenue 44 had a recording tract which
was recorded back in 1973. Subsequently, the City reviewed
it and extended the total tract in 1974 and 1975, September 11,
1975 to be exact, at which time the Council approved a Final
Map on the total property. As of today, the property has
a recorded Tract for condominium development, but it would
appear it does not have the zoning that would allow for con-
struction of the condominiums. The applicant contends that
September 8, 1977
Page 5