Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 520 CZ 87-10 APN 640-02-003 Parkview and Hwy 111 Intersection CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Negative declaration of environmental impact and change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to General Commercial (C-1 ) for that approximately 7,000 square foot portion of APN 640-02-003 directly adjacent to the west side of Highway 111 , east of the toe of slope and west of the Parkview/Highway 111 intersection. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: III . APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT ArrROVED ,.. R `CEIVL IV. CASE NO: C/Z 87-10 MEETING '=---f0..-�02-�7-V. DATE: October 22, 1987 AYE; f2._rlLC _/«�y VI. CONTENTS: d _ _. . .__.._ _—..._ _. B ` :,�llc� ABSTAIN:1,lk-t A. Staff recommendation VERIFIED BY: /j �j B. Discussion Original on File with City Clerk's C. Draft Ordinance No. 520_ D. Planning Commission minutes involving Case No. C/Z 87-10. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1255 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 1 , 1987. G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: The subject site is a portion of the 13 acre predominantly hillside property for which a restaurant proposal was denied by the city council in 1984. At that time the entire parcel was zoned C-1 . Following the denial , an initiative was passed by the voters prohibiting any commercial uses of the hillside. Hillside was defined as areas west of the toe of slope. In March of 1985 a general plan amendment and change of zone was passed redesignating the area hillside planned residential in compliance with the initiative. Inadvertly, approximately 7,000 square feet of flat area east of the toe of slope adjacent to Highway 111 was included in the change of zone. This area does not meet the hillside definition and is identical in nature to currently commercially zoned and developed parcels to the south along Painters Path. Without question this particular flat area adjacent to Highway 111 is not appropriate for residential use. C/,4Prepared by� ���� Reviewed and Approved by t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1255 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND CHANGE OF ZONE FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (HPR) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR THAT APPROXIMATELY 7,000 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF APN 640-02-003 DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 , EAST OF THE TOE OF SLOPE AND WEST OF THE PARK VIEW DRIVE/HIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION. CASE NO: C/Z 87-10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of September, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to General Commercial (C-1 ) . WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act , Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify a recommendation of approval : 1 . The subject property is not within the hillside, therefore the current HPR zoning is inappropriate. Commercial development of the • site would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current HPR designation. 2. The subject property is relatively flat, is adjacent to a state highway and is identical in nature to other commercially zoned and developed property in the vicinity. 3. The C-1 General Commercial zoning for the designated portion of the property is consistent with the general plan, West Hills Specific Plan and Proposition E passed November 6, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact Exhibit "A" and change of zone 87- 10 Exhibit "B". PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1255 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planing Commission, held on this 15th day of September, 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, LADLOW, RICHARDS, WHITLOCK 8 ERWOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 771 RICHARD ERWOOD, Chair an ATTEST: ...tr,/ wr / RAMON A. DIAZ, Se et /dlg 2 EXHIBIT "A" ONV oU PE D ese[A ' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083 of the California Administrative Code. CASE NO: C/Z 87-10 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CiTY OF PALM DESERT PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A negative declaration of environmental impact and change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to General Commercial (C-1 ) for that approximately 7,000 square foot portion of APN 640-02-003 directly adjacent to the west side of Highway 111 , east of the toe of slope and west of the Parkview/Highway 111 intersection. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /dlg o _ 1 k-i1 r\V I CW ui I ve/r11 gnway 1 1 i . h o ‘ U 4.1\ • • So \ •\ \ 4S 1. k \• • .... ... ... '7 r /E'oncho ... Mi.roge City :�:: Po/m G�ser! Lim SITE ...,: -.0. C�h �::�i:i:'� '` �1 D L. B 5 A v yo No / Or) 0 tip «", ,ti P T . 0 Lot 8 . • / 3` 30.08 I 113 u10 ' 6 .03 130 t I b1 ?s- 1 14° 6 6-1 • 6 I qa� "O =30Q Z • 30 4¢ 0 55 CP • 6 6 . 191.3c. -;1 5 t'1 0 ^t W • .5h h V1 Z 54.3 0 cr 5 • co IA us 60 44 07 2-R 9: ,—,,� CITY OF PALM DESERT Case NoCZ87- 10PLANNING COMMISSION ? 0 o TMCD1R © RESOLUTION NO. L.t: •\•,...-i-1 ;..0" 1 K -I_J- p ri-3 L_ __I B . . re' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 111 Mr. Diaz recommended taking Item Nos. E 8 F out of order. Upon discussion, commission indicated the item order should stand. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 87-10 - ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and conditional use permit to allow construction of a gasoline station and mini-market at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111 . Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report. Commissioner Richards noted that public works has a problem with entrances onto Portola. Mr. Holtz stated that this was correct and indicated that stacking of cars at that intersection was a problem. Commission further discussed ingress, egress and traffic. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. CRAIG YAMASAKI asked for and received further clarification of public works concerns. He felt their plan was viable and expressed a desire to make the project work from both points of view. He stated that they would remove the other station. Commissioner Ladlow asked for and received clarification regarding Highway III access and parking. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. MR. SANDY BAUM, 45-800 Deep Canyon Drive, Palm Desert, felt there were traffic problems at Portola and Goleta; he also felt that the Shell station corner was one of the busiest corners and did not seem to create a problem; he discussed curb cuts and access and felt that there were no problems today in going in or out at the existing site; he also indicated that staff was overacting and felt trying to put in a curb cut on Alessandro was not realistic. Mr. Diaz noted that one letter had been received in opposition. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 MS. MARY BROOKS, 73-333 Country Club, representing Roy Barbetty and Ira Johnson, stated that they are strongly opposed to this use as one of the most highly visible corners in the city, other development would enhance the site, an office complex is being development for the north side and the complex would look into the rear of the gas station, and felt that if Arco was concerned about beautification, they would not have let the present site deteriorate, and that increased traffic on Portola and access from Highway Ill would create a serious traffic problem. She also indicated that she did not want to work across from a gas station and felt there were better uses for the site. MRS. MERTYL BRADDOCK, 73-005 Shadow Mountain, stated that she travels that road and felt that it would be dangerous to increase traffic there. Mr. Yamasaki addressed concerns brought up by the public testimony and Chairman Erwood then closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards felt that this was a better site, noted that this was the fourth or fifth revision and that the facility will have restrooms and will be a spanish style design. He felt that it was time to move this project on its way. Commissioner Richards also indicated that he would like to see it come back with a curb cut on Portola. Commissioner Downs agreed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, finding the use acceptable and instructing staff to prepare a resolution of approval by minute motion. Carried 3-2 (Chairman Erwood and Commissioner Ladlow voted no. ) B. Continued Case Nos. GPA 87-3, C/Z 87-7, TT 22690, and PP 87-26 - TEMPLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone from PR-3 S.P. to PR-3.5 S.P. , a tentative tract, precise plan of design and negative declaration of environmental impact to construct 1234 condominium units and a golf clubhouse on 404 gross acres at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Cook Street. 3 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 E. Case No. C/Z 87-10 CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to General Commercial (C- 1 ) for the approximately 7000 square foot portion of APN 640-02-003 directly adjacent to the west side of Highway 111 , east of the toe of slope and west of Parkview Drive/Highway 111 . Mr. Diaz explained that this action was to clarify an error brought on by mis-intent of Measure E. Staff recommended adoption of a resolution recommending approval of the change of zone to city council . Mr. Diaz also explained that this would allow the applicant to submit plans for that property. Commissioner Richards asked if it were appropriate for commission to take action on an item under study by the federal courts. Mr. Connor asked staff if this matter were being handled by their office. Mr. Diaz explained that it was being handled in Los Angeles. Commissioner Downs suggested that commission move this item to city council with no action. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to addressed the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. TAMAR STEIN, 2049 Century Park E. #2800, Los Angeles, representing the property owner, recommended that all the property be rezoned to C-1 . Ms. Stein spoke in favor, but felt the action was too little, too late. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. • Commissioner Richards spoke against taking an action at planning commission level because it is currently involved in litigation regarding zoning. Chairman Erwood spoke in favor of the change of zone. He explained that when the voters passed the ordinance for the zone change, the whole area was not to be included and this action would remedy the error. Commissioner Ladlow asked what the present zoning was and Mr. Diaz replied hillside planned residential . 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1 , 1987 Commissioner Richards provided background information on the original rezoning. Mr. Connor suggested that since this item is involved in litigation, additional information could be provided by the attorneys, possibly in a study session. Staff noted that the public hearing did not have to be reopened. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing C/Z 87- 10 to September 15, 1987 . Carried 4- 1 (Commissioner Downs voted no. ) F. Case No. ZOA 87-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25.24 PR Planned Residential District limiting permitted uses to residential developments , country clubs , open space, recreation and other directly related accessory uses. Mr . Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report. He explained that as a result of enquiries from medical offices, that those type of uses should be subject to a conditional use permit for compatibility. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards expressed concern regarding uses allowed in open space zoning. Commission felt that Exhibit A #C should be deleted. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1249, recommending approval of ZOA 87-2 to city council as amended. Carried 5-0. 9 1111 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 1 , 1987 CASE NO: C/Z 87-10 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert REQUEST: Negative declaration of environmental impact and change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to General Commercial (C-1 ) for that approximately 7,000 square foot portion of APN 640-02-003 directly adjacent to the west side of Highway 111 , east of the toe of slope and west of the Parkview/Highway 111 intersection. I. BACKGROUND: The subject site is a portion of the 13 acre predominantly hillside property for which a restaurant proposal was denied by the city council in 1984. At that time the entire parcel was zoned C-1 . Following the denial , an initiative was passed by the voters prohibiting any commercial uses of the hillside. Hillside was defined as areas west of the toe of slope. In March of 1985 a general plan amendment and change of zone was passed redesignating the area Hillside Planned Residential in compliance with the initiative. Inadvertly, approximately 7,000 square feet of flat area east of the toe of slope adjacent to Highway 111 was included in the change of zone. This area does not meet the hillside definition and is identical in nature to currently commercially zoned and developed parcels to the south along Painters Path. Without question this particular flat area adjacent to Highway 111 is not appropriate for residential use. II. RECOMMENDATION: Approve findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to city council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a change of zone from HPR to C-1 . Prepared Ficq--3') Reviewed and Approved by /dig 1111 S PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planing Commission, held on this 1st day of September, 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /dlg 2 • �� '"` CASE NO. 4 111114 ., . .,,4nociir . 41! • • E"iTG'IXONMTTAI, SERVICES DEPT. • INITIAL, STUDY E1 VIROYMIENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST r. NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers , measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . • mitigation Yes Maybe No • 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in • ,/ • . geologic substructures? b. Disruptions , displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soil ? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering ., or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? ,...--- 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ✓ b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture , or temperature , or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? �- • 1 • 2? Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a, Changes . in currents , or the course or 1 direction of water movements? . b. Changes in-absorpt-nn rates , drainage . patterns, or the rate and- amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration of .the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters , I _ either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an • aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- • wise available for public water supplies? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees , shrubs , grass , and crops )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? . c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 5. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? • • • d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? 3. • Yes Mybe No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: _ a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? 7. lam. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ✓ • b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.development of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of U set. - ' Does the proposal involve a risk o an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides , oil , chemicals, or radiation) in • the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9. E''onomiC Loss. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in .the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and impro' erients exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted community risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? U. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the a tT erasion of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Open Soace. Will the proposal lead to a decrease the -amount of designated open space? 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. Alteration or the location, distribution density, or growth rate of the human , population of the City? b. Change in the population distribution by . aye, income, religion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class , household type? • 4. Yes Maybe No 14. Emolovment. Will the proposal result in additiona new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied dnd rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a.. Generation of additional vehicular movement? • b. Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present pattern's of or movement of people and/or goods?circulation f e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists , or pedestrians? • 17 . Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following aroA‹ : a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? • c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? f. Other governmental services? • 5. Y_ aa, No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a _ a need for new systems , or alterations to the following utilities: • ~ a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? — v c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? --/ e. Storm water drainage? ✓ f. Solid waste and disposal ? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: �/ a. The creation of any health hazard or • potential health hazard? — s b. A change in the level of community health ' care provided? 21 . Social Services . Will the proposal resuit in an increased demand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a a. Obstruction of any scenic vista, or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? . c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness , • and uniqueness? `/ 23. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new 1 i ght or Tare? 24 . Archeological/Historical . Will the result in ra an a tetlon of a significanposal archeological or historical site, structure , object, or building? 1 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? . b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental .goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time • while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) _ c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? • Initial Study Prepared Bye' 1.°::44,, '1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 October I. 1987 CiTY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C/Z 87-10 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a negative declaration of environmental impact and a change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to General Commercial (C-I) for that approximately 7.000 square foot portion of APN 640-02-003 directly adjacent to the west side of Highway IIi, east of the toe of slope and west of Parkview Drive/Highway IIi. ..,,,...:\i:....., 4,1 4' \\.:.,‘\ • 3oa \ \ ,� '� �a,cAo Mirogp Cdy Lmi/s Y •gem•...s"c SITE- rol Po/m Dem," Gry. Lirs 359�3 • ,.:,� n'.5 9 Sy, 4 5° No./ 0 /?l/:c,, P •/ 1 ' I � � I • 1 a _ 1 03 • ' n' 1 13..li Pl'c y. — ',r .. ! 95 • W • ,V,.34 1, • N.! / „ NS n Z }50.l0 • IIM� v! • 1.6P \ u'e< s . o< 0 SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 22, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Palm Desert Civic Center. 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GiLLiGAN, City Clerk October 9. 1987 City of Palm Desert, California