Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout126MF CHACAHUALA LTD C/O I HAROLD HOUSLEYO0 s ilL=yli. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE May 31, 1978 APPLICANT CHACAHUALA LTD. % I. Harold Housley 73-700 Highway 111, Suite #8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO.: C/Z 02-78, DP 09-78, 126MF and Related Draft EIR The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of May 30, 1978 . XX CONTINUED TO July 5, 1978 DENIED APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. .ny appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PALL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File DESIGN REVIE: BOARD DATE:_ Sept. 26, 1978 CASE NO.: 126MF APPLICANT LOCATION: ZONING: CHACAHUALA DEVELOPMENT South of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended, etween amo an PR-3 STAFF RECOIP.,IENDATION : The submitted site plan reflects changes that resulted from Planning Com- mission action on the development plan. The Board may still desire a more staggered approach to the position of the units to comply with Design Review Condition No. 3. /? f I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Pane Four Design Review Conditions: 1. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting, trash storage, walkway layout, and irrigation plan in addition to a proposed sign program and tennis court lighting proposal or any other ammenities proposed shall be sub- mitted to the Design Review Board. No final inspection or occu- pancy permit shall be given by the Department of Environmental Services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 2. Adjustments shall be made to the southside of the project to pro- vide for future 44' road dedication. 3. Revise orientation of structures throughout project for more interest and variety. 4. Resubmit a revised plot plan to the Board prior to completion of working drawings. AGREEMENT I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval, to comply with all the conditions set forth, and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occu- pancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been re- ceived by the Department of Environmental Services. (Date) (Applicant's Signature) /3- /\ Minutes Palm Desert Design Review Board September 26, 1978 Page Two III. Discussion (Cont.) 4. Cas No. 126MF - CHACAHUALA DEVELOPMENT - Revised site plan for a 17 unit con minium project to be located south of Little Bend an north esa View extended, between Alamo and Arrow Trail. Applicant was present. The Board noted that the revised site plan met the intent of the conditions. On a motion by Barton, seconded by Williams, the Board approved the revised preliminary site plan; carried 4-0 (Williams, Johnson, Hill, Barton). Frank Urrutia entered the meeting at 6:45 p.m. 6. Case No. 149MF - ROBERT RICCIARDI - Preliminary site, floor and e evatT io�or a 13-unit apartment building to be located on the north side of Shadow Mountain, east of San Luis Rey. Applicant was present. The Board's discussion centered on the following subjects: - clustering units to the center of the property - splitting the parking area up - abruptness of end building elevations - consideration for single story on ends of the two story building At the request of the applicants' representative, a motion was made by Williams, seconded by Barton, to continue the project for restudy; carried 4-0-1 (AYES: Hill, Johnson, Barton, Williams; ABSTAIN: Urrutia). I - At this point Jim Hill left the meeting (7:00 p.m.) 7. Case o 1 0 F - ROBERT RICCIARDI - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a 12-unit apartment building to be located west of Portol`a , tween Larrea and Shadow Mountain. Applicant was present. The Board found that the building configuration did not lend itself to the size of property being developed; and, that the location of the parking area in relation to dwelling units was not functional, encouraging occupant parking in the street. On a motion by Williams, seconded by Barton, the Board rejected the application; carried 4-0 (Williams, Urrutia, Barton, Johnson). 8. Case No. 95C - ROBERT RICCIARDI - Exterior remodelling of an exist- ing commercial structure located on the northwest corner of E1 Paseo and Larkspur Lane. Applicant was present. The Board reviewed the addition of wood facing to the existing build- ing and other remodelling requested. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Barton, the Board approved the remodelling subject to the condition that the canopy on the south elevation be completely faced in wood; carried 3-0-1 (AYES: Barton, Urrutia, Johnson; ABSTAIN: Williams). 9. Case No. 96C - ROBERT RICCIARDI - - Final construction drawings on 80 condominium units to be located on the northwest corner of 44th Avenue and Cook Street. Applicant was present. i Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 1, 1978 Page Four VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 05-78, C/Z 05-78. EIR, DP 10-78 & 133MF (Cont.) Mr. Wright noted that the lower corner of the site is being reserved for flood control purposes. Also, he noted that the units are like 4 bedroom homes not like pods. HAROLD HOUSLEY, Project Engineer, reviewed the flood control issue, noting that the City has a Master Plan for flood control and that the pro- ject has planned for flood control by having high pads and low streets. He also noted that projects will pay for flood control before the City can get bonds passed to do the same. Vice -Chairman Snyder declared the ?ublic Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kryder noted that the project would be an — asset -to the Community but the proposed Change of Zone. He was also con- cerned with the property if it was sold, what would the project then become. Further, the current zoning should be respected or the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan should be revised. This is a good project but in a wrong location. Commissioner Fleshman noted his concerns were the visual im- pact as far as the character of the neighborhood is concerned; the traffic issue; is it the best use for the area and the community; & would flood control as proposed by the City be sufficient. Vice -Chairman Snyder stated that the zoning is the issue and that the project should be placed in an area that is zoned to pro- perly handle it. Also the proposal does not meet zoning requirements. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Fleshman, the Commission denied the Change of Zone request and ap- proved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report as com- plete by Planning Commission Resolution No. 386; carried unanimously (3-0). On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Commission denied the request for approval of a proposed Development Plan by Planning Commission Resolution No. 387; carried unanimously (3-0). THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 8:30 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 8:40 P.M. B. Continued Case Nos. DP 09-78 nd 126MF, HACAHUALA, LTD., Applicant Request for approval of a Revised Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a 116-unit condo- minium project on approximately 39 acres located south of Little Bend Trail and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail. Mr. Williams reviewed the Case noting that the applicant had submitted a slightly revised Plan and also stated that the City Council had approved the Planning Commission's recommendation of PR-3. The applicant's revised Development Plan reflects this zoning. 01 Minutes Palm Desert Planning,Commission August 1, 1978 Page Five VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 126MF {Cont.) Mr. Williams noted that Alamo would be exit only and that Mesa View is entrance/exit. The number of units is reduced to 116 from 133; 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom; 58 duplexes, no more triplexes; 8 swimming pools not 9; and, 7 tennis courts instead of 9. With regard to the flood issue, there will be catch basins on the entry streets. The fence along Mesa View will be wrought iron and brick. Mr. Williams stated that Staff recommends approval of the proposed planand he reviewed the conditions of approval. Commissioner Fleshman asked if the wrought iron wall design would be all around the project. A. T. Wilkes, representing the applicant noted that public streets would have the open wall, with a solid wall adjacent to private areas. Commissioner Fleshman asked about the driveways for the units off of Homestead and if there would be sufficient emergency vehicle access. Mr. Williams noted that if the area were grassed this would be sufficient for the Fire Marshal. Chairman Berkey declared thA Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time. ( HAROLD HOUSLEY, Project Engineer, reviewed a revised Ijl site plan and noted that 117 is the correct figure for 3 units per acre, not 116 as Staff has stated. With regard to the Conditions of Approval, he noted that Condition No. 10 has been complied with; Condi- tion No. 6 - traffic will not be as heavy with exit only on Alamo and requested that the condition be deleted; Condition No. 7 - asked if the roads could be wider. He also noted that Mesa View and Alamo would have an open fence, Silver Spur would have a solid wall and other private sectors would have a solid wall. A. T. WILKES, Architect, stated that the pools had been reduced to six 201x40' pools and that the loop streets had been replaced with long driveways. Chairman Berkey asked about the Broken Arrow exit if it would be emergency access/exit only like Alamo. Mr. Wilkes noted it would be. Mr. Wilkes also noted that some of the units would be rotated for a better view. Commissioner Fleshman asked about the location of the 117th unit. Some discussion followed regarding the location of this unit. rfu U' _�M1AilOyMr. Wilkes noted that it would be moved off of Silver Spur. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. BOB WEINSTEIN, 73-065 Skyward, noted his approval. MARGARET KAY, 73-082 Homestead, noted her approval of the project as it will provide flood protection. She asked if Silver Spur streets were dedicated, and if they are, why can't traffic flow there also. 3 Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 1, 1978 Page Six VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 126MF (Cont.) Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in OPPOSITION. JANE WOOLLEY, 73-010 Somera, asked why Silver Spur is a "sacred cow" and why Chia was not (l being opened up. She also asked how an exit only would be controlled on Alamo. She would rather have entrance than exit on Alamo and she also noted that the project is super, but better traffic control is needed on Alamo. TOM O'SULLIVAN, 72-990 Homestead, asked how the exit only will be enforced. Mr. Williams noted that it would be a spike system with a key to release for emergency access. Mr. Sullivan then noted that 2/3 of the residents would still use Alamo if it is an exit as proposed. He noted that there is a need for a secondary entrance/exit on the north side. Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant would like to give any REBUTTAL at this time. Mr. Housley noted that he felt that the issue was traffic and that the right-of-way on Chia is the question. Further, he noted that the Homeowners' Association may not want more than one entrance/exit for security reasons, but he would like the option to do either. KAY CRAIG, stated that Silver Spur and Mesa View should be used with signs on Highway 74 directing traffic to use these routes. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Chairman Berkey asked if the Staff has considered other alternatives for traffic flow than those proposed and why not a single entrance/exit. Mr. Beebe noted that Condition No. 6 should be retained as it will help channel traffic better. He also stated that he hadn't had time to study the exit only proposal. Mr. Beebe also noted that the Silver Spur streets were accepted by the City but that the City will not maintain them for 5 years. Commissioner Fleshman asked if one entrance would effect the applicant's marketing. Mr. Greenberg that yes,__that this wa.s a more favorable flow plan. Commissioner Snyder stated that the --completion of Mesa View to Portola will help the traffic flow and that the problems noted previously have all been addressed reasonably. Commissioner Fleshman asked for the addition of Special L Condition No. 11 stating that Unit 117 would be relocated to the interior. He also asked when the flood control fees are paid. Mr. Williams noted that they are paid when the Final Map is filed. Mr. Housley asked if the Commissions decision was final or if it still had to go before the City Council. Mr. Williams noted that this decision is final unless the applicant appeals. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 1, 1978 Page Seven VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 126MP (Cont.) On a motion by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Commission approved the Development Plan and Preliminary ( Design Review by Planning Commission Resolution No. 388 with the noted changes to the Conditions and the addition of Condition No. 11; carried unanimously (4-0). Commissioner Fleshman was excused for the remainder of the meeting at 9:30 p.m. C. Case Nos. C/Z 07-78, TT 13236, CUP 08-78, CLIFFORD SWANSON, Applicant Request.for approval of a Change of Zone from 'S' Study to S.I.(U.A.) on approximately 29 acres located on the east side of Cook Street northerly of the Whitewater Channel and related 40-lot in- dustrial subdivision and a related request for ap- proval of a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Design Review to allow an Industrial Park Develop- ment on the site. Mr. Williams reviewed the Change of Zone and noted that it is compatible with the adjacent zoning. ( Chairman Berkey noted that this request does not conform to 1 the Minute Motion that was sent to CVAG regarding the right-of-way it on Avenue 42. Mr. Williams stated that the thought was to separate the com- mercial from the residential. Mr. Beebe noted that northerly of Avenue 42 the County states that they will not go much further but if they do it will be an 88 foot right-of-way. Chairman Berkey stated that the City's position on Avenue 42 should be firmed up before any action is taken. Mr. Williams stated that the Tentative Tract and the Conditional Use Permit could be continued in light of the question on Avenue 42. He also noted a letter of concern received from the City of Indian Wells stating that they were concerned with the intrusion of industrial upon commercial. Commissioner asked that the Tentative Tract be continued and allow the Staff time to pursue the issue of Avenue 42. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time. 4 S LED.-WALLICK, Project Engineer, asked if the applicant �� would have to improve Avenue 42, noting that he would ' rather not. �I Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposals. ALEXIS NEWBRANDER, 46-260 Cottage Lane, asked if the Commission had read the letter from the City of Indian Wells stating there concerns. Chairman Berkey noted that the Commission had. � b� o0 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE August 2, 1978 APPLICANT Chacahuala, Ltd. % I. Harold Housley 73-700 Highway 111. Ste. 8 Palm Desert. CA_ W 60 CASE NO.: DP 9-78 an 126 - The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of August 1. 1978 CONTINUED TO DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 388 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE July 6, 1978 APPLICANT % I. Harold Housley 73-700 Highway 111. Ste. 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE No.: DP 09-78 an ld 26MF / The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of Jnly 5. 1978 XX CONTINUED TO August 1, 1978 DENIED APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PLACED ON THE AGE11DA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File Gf:(b!�7 o:ff I1ma 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (T14) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT REPORT ON: 132-unit Condominium project CASE NO.: 126MF ZONE: PR-4 Date: May 31, 1978 LOCATION: South of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail APPLICANT: CHACAHUALA DEVELOPMENT NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary site, floor and elevations DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB APPROVED this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action Motion Made By: Seconded By: Vote: May 23, 1978 Urrutia Jackson 4-0 Reasons for Negative Vote (s): (An appeaZ of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (W days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS: 3 DESIGN REVIEW 30ARD 23, 1978 CASE NO.: 12611F APPLICANT: CIIACAIitiALA DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: South of Little Bend & North of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail ZONING: PR-4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Forward any recommended conditions to the Planning Commission as Design Review conditions. r DESIG'. RECITE BOARD CONDITIOSS FOR AGREEMENT I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval, to comply with all the conditions set forth, and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow oc- cupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. (Date) (Applicant's Sigtiat.ure) PL_ NNI`:G CO.dTMISSIO\ RESOLI;TION '10. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. DP 04- 7 8 & 1201[F pa_e Two Standard Conditions: 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all plans submitted in behalf of this case and as revised accord- ing to the Design Review Board process and/or Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Planning Commission. 2. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City, and any other applicable government entity shall be complied with as part of the development process. 3. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project, commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. 4. Any roof mounted, exhaust, or air conditioning equipment shall be fully concealed from view from any public rights -of -way and ad- joining properties by architecturally integrated means. 5. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 6. All utility service and distribution lines on or abutting the sub- ject property, shall be placed underground prior to occupancy clearance. 7. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Public Works. 8. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as re- quired by the Director of Public Works. 9. The Fire Protection Requirements as specified in the Fire Marshal's memo dated May 10, 1978, attached hereto, shall apply. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Design Review Board Process City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley County Water District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Dept. of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. rL 1;SI;:G CO" !ISS7 , RESOD::ON :CO. Special Conditior,s: 1. Traffic safety lightin;t shalL be provided at the entrance oC Alamo Drive and at Little Bend Trail. 2. All existing overhead utility and distribution lines shall he undergrounded pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code. 3. Swimming pool equipment shall be indicated on the final working } drawings in every instance where a swimmin pool is proposed'" roposedi 4. A 5 foot sidewalk shall be provided along Alamo Drive. 5. Tennis courts shall be recessed as required by the Design Review process. 6. Areas adjacent to the existing water tank west of the subject site shall be intensively landscaped. 7. Alamo Drive shall be improved where it borders the subject pro- perty. 8. A minimum 20 foot perimeter setback shall exist between all structures and property lines. 9. A 44' dedication shall be offered to the City beginning at the southwest corner of the property and proceeding easterly to within 200 feet of the southeast corner of the property. 10. Proposed street widths shall be modified as follows: Whiptail Loop shall be 32' wide; Pacer Trail shall be 28' wide; and the driveway to be located at the southwest corner of Whiptail Loon shall have a width of 241. 11. The proposed unit at the southeast corner of Iguana Road and l Alamo Drive and the 2 most westerly structures proposed for the south side of Whiptail Loop shall be deleted. L PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ Page Four Design Review Conditions: Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting, trash storage, walkway layout, and irrigation plan in addition to a proposed sign program and tennis court lighting proposal or any other ammenities proposed shall be sub- mitted to the Design Review Board. No final inspection or occu- pancy permit shall be given by the Department of Environmental Services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. Adjustments shall be made to the southside of the project to pro- vide for future 44' road dedication. 3. Revise orientation of structures throughout project for more interest and variety. Resubmit a revised plot plan to the Board prior to completion of working drawings. AGREEMENT I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval, to comply with'all the conditions set forth, and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occu- pancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been re- ceived by the Department of Environmental Services. (Date) (Applicant's Signature) Minutes Palm Desert Planning May 30, 1978 Commission VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR Page Four (Cont.) Commissioner Kryder asked if there was an outlet from the project onto Mesa View. Mr. Williams stated no. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hear- ing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kryder stated that it is a well thought out development and that the project is a good one for the area. He then noted that the drainage and flood control is his main concern all he wants more time to study the draft EIR. ' �14q 1� Commissioner Kell stated that the increase in density, drain- *01 a e"and fire protection are her concerns and she would like more �. time. �r Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder requested that Staff make certain determinations with regard to the land down stream and the traffic problem. Commissioner Kelly asked for further study to be done on the traffic situation. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the cases were continued to July 5, 1978 for further study; carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Housley asked what was to be done now. Mr. Williams stated that Staff is to address the City's responsibilities with regard to drainage and also Staff will provide more information on traffic I and access. Temporary Presiding Officer Commission needs additional input fine presentation. Snyder noted that the Planning from Staff, the applicant gave a B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 a 126MF - ACAHUALA, LTD., Applicant Mr. Williams noted that these cases had been reviewed with the related Case No. C/Z 02-78 and that they should be continued to the meeting of July 5, 1978. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder seconded by Commissioner Kelly the cases were continued; carried unanimously (3-0). C. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and Pre- liminary Design Review for a 200-unit condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue. Mr. Williams reviewed the cases and passed out pictures of similar projects already developed in other areas. He then noted the concerns of the Design Review Board and letters from the City of Rancho Mirage and Mr. Balch. Mr. Williams noted the applicants letter presented earlier in the day addressing the concerns of the Design Review Board. One of the main concerns with the project is that the parking areas are too tight. Mr. Williams stated that Staff is recommending denial of the project. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 May 30, 1978 Mr. Fred W. Griggs, Jr. President Silver Spur Ranchers Association P. 0. Box 680 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Griggs: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 19, 1978, regarding the draft environmental impact report on the "Chaca- huala" project. While we appreciate the time you and your Association have taken in the review of this document, we note in general, that your letter does not appear to address specific environmental issues for consideration or further analysis prior to action, but rather registers the Association's objection to the overall development. You should be aware that the purpose of the EIR is to provide the decision -making body with adverse and beneficial environmental impact information regarding a proposed project. The City has taken the position that the environmental issues associated with the "Chacahuala" project have been fully addressed in the draft EIR. If the Association is opposed to this project, such objections should be raised at the public hearing. Please be assured, however, that a copy of your letter has been included in the final EIR as well as presented to the Planning Commission for their conside- ration at the public hearing. In general we would agree with the concept expressed in your let- ter regarding environmental impacts associated with the develop- ment of any vacant land. Such impacts, however, were considered when the City adopted its General Plan. Accordingly, development of the property is not an issue, but t'r.- *--n,? of development to occur. With this in mind we would again refer to the intent of an EIR which is not to justify the type of development, but to pro- vide information and address potential impacts of a proposed develop- -z- We trust the foregoing information will be helpful to you and we appreciate receiving your comments. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. y truly yours, Paul A. Williams, A.I.P. Director of Environmental Services rk/pw/ks ***DESIGN REVIEW BOARD*** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION Chacahuala Ltd. 475-5550 Applicant ( please pdm) (213) 474-7979 10677 W. Pien Blvd_ 476-3849 Mailing Address Telephone Los Angeles, Ca. 90064 City State Zip -Code REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) Design Review C•. • Approval of proposed project on ' •- •-• below: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: NW v of Sec. 32, T5S, R6E FO - See Attached ASSESSOR IS PARCEL NO. 631-170-001-9 EXISTING ZONING R-1, 20,000 Property Owner Auth011ZatlOn UNDERSIGNED STATES THEY A E OWNER OF THE P OPERTY ESCRISEO HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR- ' TION FOR THE FILIN IS APP ION. SIG A RE GATE AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT. ABSO"f TF Applicants Signature SIGNATURE D9P RESTRICTIONS. PA'L�, OISERT� ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES- SE grrLy4ABL7TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. DATE DATE (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRWMENTAL STATUS AOyCEPTED BY ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. ❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CASE /� C E n )O. 0� % 41� ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION l�hiJ IV d (f ❑ OTHER / �� REFERENCE CASE NO. C�7 �L-79 The Design Review Board process is the method by which the City of Palm Desert reviews detailed design and construction plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. DEPARTMENT DESIGN n PLANNING APPLICATION OF ENVIRON- REVIEW F-\ COMMISSION MENTAL BOARD (APPROVES OR SERVICES (ADVISORY) DENIES PROJECT) STAFF INTERIOR REMODELS, MINOR ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, OR PLUMBING PERMITS STAFF USE ONLY: a DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT SAFETY ION Date Received Date of ACTOR hIeeting ACTION APPLICANT NOTIFIED Staff ORB P.C. C.C. Department of Environmental Services Form 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICATION FORM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Design Review of: Chacahuala Ltd. APPLICANT CASE NO. Units/Acre Agreement of compliance to be signed by those applying for review. I hereby acknowledge that I have read and agree, to comply with all the following requirements, and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case, and as revised according to the Design Review Board process. Any minor change requires approval by the Director of Envi- ronmental Services. Any substantial change requires ap- proval by the Design Review Board. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City, and any other applicable government entity shall be complied with as part of the development process. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project, commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. Landscaping (with irrigation system) shall be installed prior to final inspection and receiving certificate of occupancy. Curb, gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided along the full frontage of the lot by means of installation prior to final inspection or other provisions as approved by the City Engineer. onstruction shall conform to City Stan- dards and 0 reg�meRtg of the City Engineer. (Date) Department of Environmental Services Form 1 roth rn tNj City of I'a1a Pesert, Coun,'q of Riverside, Stare of California, jascri2Ied as follows: The SorGhs est ouaz ter of the ::ort nest quarter of Section 32, Township 5 S,ath, Pane 6 East, Sa- 3ernar:ino Base and "eridian; BYC�P^ItiC 'here -from that portion described as follows: �n:Ut5.;Cl*,- at the t.•orthwest corner of said Section 32; 4a_:tC: South 1. 24' 30" Sast, along the -*test line of said Section 32, u1.70 feet to a point in t5e West Iine of said Section 32, this point .being also the ?t%C POI.'tT of RECMMTYO; ^:P.7CS 4=7sterlg and at riq`:t arglcs to thr Nast Iiae of ..^.aid Section 32, 39* 35' 30" Nast, MY e •t: Sout�erly and narallal to the I;est Iiae of said Section 32, South 3^" zast, 100 fret: a� :,esterlg S. ut a G8• 3 5' 30" West, 1.^^-O .f.^et, to r. pcirrt in the West :i'':e of s id S action 32; _"I—CE-J1oW:erl1 anti !long the masterly !Iof said Section 32, 100 T-ifxt,. —ore or less, to the 'i'REY77 PDXNT OF P. rlh7r7!Iv'; AESO r,-czPTT:art therefrom tin7t portion (Iescri;Ted as follows: at tze Southw-st corner of said ;lortP..west quarter of the T)rt::e+est quarter; :'Ort.T 00 03, 01y, oast, along th'e hest Iine thereof, a distance of 3,;9.65 f_-nt to the South line of that certain 10n foot square parcel beionying to t;te Coachella Valley County rater District locally referred to as the "t-win reservoir" site; Sii-+CS :' nzTh 39. 52' 00" £ast, along t':e South line of said Parcel, a cistance of 10:9.Oo feet to the Southeast corner thereof; -sCZ ;Aortae oe 03, 00" raest, aio.•:g tae cast line of said par- 1, a :!istance oc 100.00 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; :mrth 39. 52' 00" rast, a distance of 100.00 feetr 7C Sa:.t`t 0' 03, 00" : ast, a d'istancs of fK9.65 feet t0 Via South is r_ of .aid aortzoest nuarter of the :forthtyest quarter; Sceth 390 52' call i;es*., along said :rnuth line a distance of ?•.h�.CO .'cet to the Point or 3egi-Wing. ':7 -.,�•,re1 "d Sn•risI ;'o;rat7 tar?a for tho ,`"kcal year I976-?7, a set out .1:( .mac.: w January 20, 1978 I. Harold Housley Consulting Engineers 73-700 Highway 111, Ste. 8 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Re: Your Project No. 7734-G Chacahuala Development Dear Mr. Housleya As you Snow, we are planning to develop a 140 unit single family project on the 40 acre parcel located on the south- east Conner of Alamo and Homestead. You are hereby authorized to act as my agent in connection with the planning, processing and development of our pro- posed project. This authorization includes the signing and processing of documents in connection with the environmental application, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, zoning and related matters. Very truly yours, Leonard Greenberg ;;�� General Partner 1 LG:lsp CC: Paul Williams, City of Palm Desert U 0 II CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA TREASURER'S RECEIPT Received of: Dote n For "�.i� — Account No. Amount N n .AAjc/ 2 n Received by /V�n ITY TREASURER r3 Sev TotoI �m 25-9-9 631-17 Vol C A /Ro0 NW. 114 of NW. 114 of SEC. 32, T. 5S., R. 6E. Oole: G.L.O.; R/S25/40; MR 33/5 APR. (4 ®1 /9) ASSESSOR'S MAP BK. 63/ PS. /7 R/VERS/oE couN7Y, CAL/F.