Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Res 98-109 TT 26562 Amend 1 E Portola Ave. N Frank Sinatra and W Cook St
' CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal by the Palm Springs Unified School District to a decision of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission approving Tentative Tract 26562 Amendment #1 which added development phasing to a 420 acre previously approved project located east of Portola Avenue, north of Frank Sinatra and west of Cook Street. 6ihttP:*atVgfc-; III. APPELLANT: Palm Springs Unified School District 10 H y hp t„011 y. 2 c/o Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone g H H I " " zt_ H o n 4920 Campus Drive d . "I 0 tit 0 Newport Beach, CA 92660 0 to I u; a z IV. CASE NO: TT 26562 Amendment #1 o io V. DATE: September 10, 1998 4 ��� H µ,, .L tt I VI. CONTENTS: `" ! r'' O e z xz A. Staff Recommendation 4, C B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution No. 98-109 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. T ' :5 £ m- d Ant #1 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1880 • F. Planning Commission Staff Report July 28, 1998 p G. Related maps and/or exhibits 1 •- t A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 98-10%enying the appeal and affirming the action of the Planning Commission dated July 28, 1998. B. CURRENT REQUEST BY APPLICANT: The applicant is requesting approval to add development phasing to a previously approved project. STAFF REPORT TT 26562 AMENDMENT #1 SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 C. BACKGROUND: In 1990 and 1991 the City reviewed an application for approval of a precise plan, conditional use permit, change of zone and tentative tract map for a 687 unit residential development, 18 hole golf course and 225 suite hotel on 420 acres located east of Portola Avenue north of Frank Sinatra Drive. The review also included the of a full Environmental Impact Report. preparation P May 9, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-52 (copy attached) certifying the EIR and approving PP/CUP 90-27 and TT 26562, subject to conditions. 1 . SITE DESCRIPTION: The property consists of 420 acres of undeveloped sand dunes and desert scrub straddling the Palm Springs sand ridge. General plan designation is low density residential (3-5 dwelling units per acre). Current zoning is PR-5 (planned residential five dwelling units per acre). The property is surrounded by similar low density residential designations. The property abuts Portola Avenue on the west, Frank Sinatra Drive on the south and Cook Street on the east. 2. SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: PCD/Vacant South: PR-5/Desert Willow East: PR-5/Future Cal State site West: PR-5/Vacant The Planning Commission considered this phasing request at its July 28, 1998 meeting and granted approval subject to conditions on a 4-0 vote, Commissioner Jonathan absent. The Palm Springs Unified School District submitted written comments dated July 9, 1998, copy attached, and was present at the Planning Commission meeting and requested that the commission add a condition requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement regarding future school impact mitigation (see attached minutes for complete presentation by school district attorney). The commission determined that the application was not a legislative act (i.e., not a change of zone, general plan amendment or specific plan) and therefore the district is only entitled to the statutory school fees. The district disagrees and filed this timely appeal. STAFF REPORT TT 26562 AMENDMENT #1 SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 D. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The applicant has filed an amendment to TT 26562 to add development phasing to the approved project. The proposal is to develop the project in four phases. Phase one (1 ) includes the golf course and residential units. The residential units are generally those located along the south portion of the property. Phase two (2) includes residential units to the east portion of the property. Phase three (3) includes residential units to the northeast part of the property. Phase four (4) includes residential units located along the west portion of the property. The proposed phasing represents a logical development sequence. E. ANALYSIS: TT 26562 was originally approved May 9, 1991 . The map is scheduled to expire May 9, 1999. Approval of this phasing plan will serve to extend the map life to May 9, 2001 (see attached letter of March 24, 1998). The phasing as proposed is a logical development sequence. Staff has no objection to the phasing plan as presented and will recommend approval subject to all the conditions imposed on the original approval. F. CEQA REVIEW: The original approval was based on the certification of a full Environmental Impact Report. The phasing plan is consistent with the original approval. No further environmental review is necessary. G. CONCERNS: The application was circulated to the usual list of agencies. The Palm Springs Unified School District responded with a letter dated July 9, 1998 (copy enclosed). The district asks that the following condition be imposed on the phasing approval: "Prior to the approval of Tentative Tract Map 26562 within the Rancho Portola project area by the City of Palm Desert, the property owner(s) within the project area shall enter into a written mitigation agreement(s) with the Palm Springs Unified School District ("District") mitigating the project's impacts on the District's school facilities. The mitigation • STAFF REPORT TT 26562 AMENDMENT #1 SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 agreement(s) shall be in substantially the same form as the "School Facilities Funding and Mitigation Agreement between Palm Springs Unified School District and Andreas Cove Development Co." executed on April 28, 1998, and recorded in the Riverside County Recorder's Office on May 21 , 1998 as Instrument No. 207468, which is by this reference herein incorporated. Such mitigation agreement(s) shall also provide that in the alternative to mitigating the project's impacts by mitigation payments, the property owners may participate in a community facilities district, but only at the District's request. The mitigation payment amounts shall be as set forth in the District's then current justification study." The district forwarded to us its "Residential Development School Fee Justification Study" which was adopted June 9, 1998. We note that on page 3 Mitigation Payments the study reads as follows: B. Mitigation Payments Mira-Hart-Murrieta Decisions Over the last decade three (3) decisions have been rendered by the Court of Appeals regarding a city's or a county's ability to consider the impact of new development on school facilities. These decisions are the Mira Development Corp. V. City of San Diego, William S. Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles, and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside. The Mira- Hart-Murrieta Decisions provide school districts with legal support to require cities and counties to consider the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval of a zone change, general plan amendment, specific plan, or other legislative application. By requiring legislative applications to consider the adequacy of school facilities, school districts have been able to obtain Feesandpr ovide Payments which exceed School p o vi de funding for up to 100 percent of the impact caused on the school district's facilities by the development project. The key words are "when considering the approval on a zone change, general plan amendment, specific plan or other legislative application". The proposed phasing plan is not a legislative act. Therefore, the district is only entitled to the residential school fee authorized by AB 2926 (currently $1 .93 per • STAFF REPORT TT 26562 AMENDMENT #1 SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 building square foot). Actual fee will be the residential school fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance. We would note that the P.S.U.S.D. was consulted as part of the EIR process in 1991 . The "district" response is contained in a letter dated March 15, 1991 , copy attached. We have also included the EIR discussion relating to schools and the adopted mitigation. Prepared by: to Smith Reviewed and Approved by: P ilip Drell /tm RESOLUTION NO. 98-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL BY PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A PHASING PLAN FOR TT 26562 LOCATED NORTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE BETWEEN PORTOLA AVENUE AND COOK STREET. CASE NO. TT 26562 AMENDMENT #1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10th day of September, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an appeal by the Palm Springs Unified School District to an action by the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 1880 has approved the phasing plan for TT 26562; and WHEREAS, the Palm Springs Unified School District filed a timely appeal to the Planning Commission action; and WHEREAS, the application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-1 8," in that an Environmental Impact Report has been certified by the city for TT 26562 and the proposed phasing plan for TT 26562 is consistent with the plan reviewed in the EIR and the Director of Community Development has determined that no further environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of the appeal: 1 . The original project was approved pursuant to a certified environmental impact report. 2. The addition of a phasing plan is not inconsistent with the certified environmental impact report. 3. The application to add a phasing plan to TT 26562 is not a legislative act and therefore the Palm Springs Unified School District is not entitled to mitigation payments in excess of the statutory fees. RESOLUTION NO. 98-109 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. That the appeal by Palm Springs Unified School District is hereby denied. 3. That the action of the Palm Desert Planning Commission approving TT 26562 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions, is hereby affirmed. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 RESOLUTION NO. 98-109 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 26562 AMENDMENT NO. 1 Department of Community Development: 1 . That all conditions imposed on the original approval of TT 26562 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 91 -52 shall continue to be in effect. 2. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permit the owner (developer) shall provide the city with evidence that the required school fee authorized by AB 2926 has been paid. Department of Public Works: 1 . All applicable provisions, conditions and requirements contained in City Council Resolution 91 -52 approving Tentative Tract Map 26562 and Precise Plan 90-27, adopted on May 9, 1 991 , with the exception of Public Works Condition No. 9 which is hereby deleted, shall be considered as conditions of approval for this map. 2. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 3. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (Permit No. CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 98-109 Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.301 C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 1500 for single family, 2500 for multifamily, and 3000 for commercial. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' single family, 165' multifamily, and 150' commercial from any portion of the building(s) as measured along vehicular travelways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow. 6. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 7. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1 , 1990, for all occupancies. 8. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered per NFPA 13. The building area of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 98-109 additional floors is added in for a cumulative total. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 9. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for fire sprinkler system. Install tamper alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. 11 . Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems, systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a1) 12. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75' walking distance. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 13. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. NFPA 96, 17, 17a. 14. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around, (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 15. The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or apartment complexes shall be: a. 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel parking, carports or garages allowed on one side only. b. 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports or garages allowed on both sides, no parallel parking. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 98-109 c. 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel parking is allowed on one side. d. 36 feet wide when parallel parking is allowed on both sides. 16. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 17. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 18. Contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 19. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 20. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 21 . All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements. 22. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 23. Clubhouse and maintenance facility are classified as commercial buildings. 6 SEP. 8. 1998 3: 16PM BAKWG (714) B51 0208 NO. 7307 P. 2 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTQRNEYS AT LAW ALEXANDER BOWIE' 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE (800)42340$4 JOAN C.ARNESON NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 FAX(949)851.4014 WENDY H.WILES' (949)$s1.1300 PATRICIA B.GIANNONE ROBERT E.ANSLOW 3403 TENTH STREET.SUITE 715 RUPONO TO NEWPORT MACH ARTO J.NUUITNEN RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92501 REP,pUX PBg DANIEL].PAYNE (909)222.2750 ISABELLA ALAST7 DEBORAH R.G.CESARIO 15030.41 BRIAN W.SMITH KRISHAN CHOPRA CARMEN A.BROCK •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION September 8, 1998 Via Facsimile U.S.Mail Sheila R. Gilligan City Clerk City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Re: Appeal by the Palm Springs Unified School District Relative to Tentative Tract Map No. 26562,Amendment No. 1 Dear Ms. Gilligan: On behalf of the Palm Springs Unified School District("District"),we hereby withdraw the District's appeal application relative to the above-referenced matter approved by the Planning Commission on July 28, 1998. We understand that the appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 10, 1998. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, BOWIE,ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE 1 By. ��� eborah R.G. Cesario DRC/ad cc: Mr. William Schmidt Mr. Alexander Bowie Mr. Phil Drell BAW&G/[)RC/ d/s1628 Y.--i-ii,left , 0 : _. CITY OF Piv, iALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA .. - ii .....a, ,, ,...„.. „.„ APPLICATION TO APPEAL .'•.4O� CO DECISION OFTF E PLANNING COMMISSION -< (Name of Committee/Commission _ rn cm crn-) rn_ G Case No. TT 26562 Amendment No. 1 Meeting Date: Jui 19R o 7�Y T, 1--a "`-1) c= Name of Appellant Palm Springs Unified School District ' o Address c/o Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone 492a Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PlI°IIe: (949 ) 851-1300 Description of Application: Appeal of Planning Comm i s s i n n's l r i G i n n 2L1 Tilly 7 R 1 Q Q R to approve Tentative Tract Map 26562 Amendment No. 1 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1880, subiect to conditions of apprnval ReasonforAppeal: See Attachment 1 Signature of Appellant �'�y� 'j 7* ! �r1:�� Date R/h/4R Deborah R.G. Cesario of Bo wie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone, on behalf of Palm Springs Unified Schnnl District 1 , FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: 7`' I D ` • Fee Received:('— —1 Treasurer's Receipt #: `2 1 Received b �( c2 y: Public Hearing Set For: OA '- 6 r �' p�-_�J� Action taken by the City Council: Date: Sheila R. Gilli an, Ci Clerk ATTACHMENT NO. 1 APPLICATION TO APPEAL CITY OF PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA REASON FOR APPEAL: Amendment No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map 26562 (the"Project")is not consistent with the City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5. The Public Facilities Element of the City's General Plan requires that adequate community facilities, such as schools, shall be available before or along with private development in order to guarantee that facilities are not overloaded and areas are not left unserved. Additionally,the implementation portion of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan requires that development shall only be permitted if school facilities will be available for that development and that the developer pays the cost for the new facilities. The Planning Commission on July 28, 1998, approved the Project by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1880 ("Resolution") along with certain conditions of approval ("Conditions"). The Resolution provides that the"proposed amendment [No. 1] to the map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Condition No. 3 of the Department of Community Development states that"prior to the issuance of any building permit the owner (developer) shall provide the City with evidence that the required school fee authorized by AB 2926 has been paid." Condition No. 3 limits the District to collecting only $1.93 per square of assessable space for residential development. This amount does not mitigate the Project's impacts on the District's school facilities. In order to mitigate the Project's impacts on the District's school facilities,the District requires the owner and District execute a mitigation agreement similar to the School Facilities Funding and Mitigation Agreement Between Palm Springs Unified School District and Andreas Cove Development Co. executed on April 28, 1998, and recorded in the Riverside County Recorder's Office on May 21, 1998,as Instrument No. 207468. Such mitigation agreement would mitigate the Project's impacts on the District's school facilities in accordance with the City's General Plan. BAW&G/DRC/dee/5093 1 - i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1880 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PHASING PLAN FOR TT 26562 LOCATED NORTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE BETWEEN PORTOLA AVENUE AND COOK STREET. CASE NO. TT 26562 AMENDMENT #1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 28th day of July, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES on behalf of AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC., for approval of a phasing plan for TT 26562; and WHEREAS, the application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that an Environmental Impact Report has been certified by the city for TT 26562 and the proposed phasing plan for TT 26562 is consistent with the plan reviewed in the EIR and the Director of Community Development has determined that no further environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the phasing plan: 1 . The development phasing as delineated on TT 26562 Amendment #1 presents a logical development sequence for the project. 2. That the proposed amendment to the map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map amendment Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1880 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 approval of TT 26562 Amendment No. 1 is hereby granted, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of July, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, FERNANDEZ, FINERTY, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: JONATHAN ABSTAIN: NONE ez SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: STE . SMITH, Ac ing Sec etary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1880 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 26562 AMENDMENT NO. 1 Department of Community Development: 1 . That all conditions imposed on the original approval of TT 26562 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 91-52 shall continue to be in effect. 2. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permit the owner (developer) shall provide the city with evidence that the,required school fee authorized by AB 2926 has been paid. Department of Public Works: 1 . All applicable provisions, conditions and requirements contained in City Council Resolution 91-52 approving Tentative Tract Map 26562 and Precise Plan 90-27, adopted on May 9, 1991 , with the exception of Public Works Condition No. 9 which is hereby deleted, shall be considered as conditions of approval for this map. 2. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 3. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (Permit No. CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 3 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1880 Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.301 C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 1500 for single family, 2500 for multifamily, and 3000 for commercial. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' single family, 165' multifamily, and 150' commercial from any portion of the building(s) as measured along vehicular travelways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow. 6. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 7. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1 , 1990, for all occupancies. 8. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered per NFPA 13. The building area of 4 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1880 additional floors is added in for a cumulative total. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 9. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for fire sprinkler system. Install tamper alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. 11 . Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems, systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)) 12. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75' walking distance. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 13. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. NFPA 96, 17, 17a. 14. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13 6 of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around, (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 15. The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or apartment complexes shall be: a. 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel parking, carports or garages allowed on one side only. b. 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports or garages allowed on both sides, no parallel parking. 5 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1880 c. 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel parking is allowed on one side. d. 36 feet wide when parallel parking is allowed on both sides. 16. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 17. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 18. Contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 19. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 20. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 21 . All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements. 22. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 23. Clubhouse and maintenance facility are classified as commercial buildings. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1879, approving PP 98-12, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No. TT 26562 Amendment #1 - ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES FOR AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC., Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to TT 26562 to add development phasing to a 420-acre property located east of Portola Avenue north of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Cook Street. Mr. Smith noted that a copy of the plan was on the wall and they received it in the commission's packet. In 1990 and 1991 the City reviewed an application for the precise plan/conditional use permit, a change of zone and tentative tract map for this 687 unit residential development. It included an 1 8-hole golf course, and 225 suite hotel located on 420 acres east of Portola and north of Frank Sinatra. That review also included preparation of an environmental impact report which was adopted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 91 -52, a copy of which was included with the staff report. The EIR was certified and the precise plan/conditional use permit and tentative map were approved subject to conditions. At this time the applicant is wishing to add to that tentative map development phasing. Phase 1 would be golf course area and residential units; Phase 2 would be residential units in the area at the southeast corner; Phase 3 would be residential units at the north end of the project; and Phase 4 is the remaining residential units. Staff felt the proposed phasing represented a logical development sequence. On page 2 of the staff report it explained that the original map was approved May 9, 1 991 . The map is scheduled to expire next May 9, 1999. Approval of this phasing plan would serve to extend the life of the map to the year 2001 . There was a full Environmental Impact Report prepared and staff felt the phasing plan is consistent and did not change the density or lot lines. Staff also felt it was consistent with the previous approval. Therefore, staff concluded that no further environmental review is necessary. Mr. Smith noted (and had provided 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 copies of the letter from the Palm Springs Unified School District dated July 9, 1 998) that P.S.U.S.D. asked that their condition be imposed. The District forwarded to the City their Residential Development Fee Justification Study which outlined when mitigation payments may be requested. This was a result of three recent court of appeals cases. Staff felt that the key words were "when considering the approval of a zone change, general plan amendment, specific plan or other legislative application". Mr. Smith noted that the application before the Planning Commission was not legislative. It is a phasing map. Staff recommended approval of the phasing plan as proposed. There were three conditions of approval and the Department of Public Works restated their conditions of approval from 1991 . Staff was suggesting Condition No. 3 that prior to the issuance of any building permit the owner/ developer provide the City with evidence that the required school fee authorized by AB 2926 has been paid. With that staff concluded and asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Engineering at 74-410 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, thanked city staff for working with them on extending their map. As stated by Mr. Smith, the map has not changed in its configuration at all. All they have done is add phasing to it which they feel is a logical sequence. They have gone through the hurdles of the EIR and all the conditions of the map are fair and were agreed on in 1991 and should remain basically intact. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Ross had any comment in response to the request by Palm Springs Unified School District and if that was acceptable to him. Mr. Ross said no, he didn't feel that it was fair. He felt the state mandated fee was fair. It was agreed to back in 1 991 with the EIR and he felt it was still valid. Commissioner Beaty asked if it was correct that in 1991 Palm Springs Unified agreed to that condition. Mr. Ross said he assumed so. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Mr. Erwin said that in 1991 the District commented on the Environmental Impact Report which contained a great deal of detail about the fee. They did not raise any issue about that at that time. They did comment on some other issues, but not on the fee at that time. Commissioner Beaty asked if the fee structure had changed since 1991 . Mr. Erwin said not appreciably, he didn't think, other than the court cases that were set forth. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. She noted that she had a request to speak card from Deborah Cesario in opposition. MS. DEBORAH CESARIO, an attorney with the law firm of Bowie, Arneson, Wile and Giannone, said she was present representing Palm Springs Unified School District. She appreciated the fact that the City staff had acknowledged, as well as the Planning Commission, a letter dated July 9, 1998, and she requested that the letter be made part of the record as well as her testimony this evening (see letter attached hereto as Exhibit A). She said that essentially they do acknowledge the fact that this project was not before the Planning Commission or City Council for some type of legislative approval. However, the basis for their objection to the project this evening was the fact that as stated in the Planning Commission resolution that this project, they believe, is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Upon review of the General Plan and as outlined in their letter dated July 9, 1998, they state that essentially the General Plan requires that public facilities be provided prior to or concurrent with need and that additionally developers pay for the facilities that are needed in order to serve the new development. Therefore, their condition of approval that they proposed should be substituted for the condition of approval proposed by the City this evening. She did acknowledge that back in 1991 the School District did not submit the same comments they are stating tonight. The fact was that yes, there is no legislative approval, however, the Planning Commission had to find tonight in order to adopt their resolution to approve this project that this project is consistent with the General Plan, which she just mentioned and in her documentation submitted is inconsistent. The School District has adopted what is called "statutory school fees" in the amount of $1 .93 per square foot of assessable 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 space for residential development and $.31 per square foot of chargeable covered enclosed space for commercial development. In the case of legislative approvals or in instances not just involving legislative approvals, cities and counties have required mitigation in line of the full mitigation. The study identified in the staff report unfortunately stated that it was adopted on January 9 and in fact it was adopted by the Board on June 9, 1998. She felt that study not only justified S 1 .93. It also justified $3.58 per square feet of assessable space for residential development for single family detached and $3.47. There was quite a bit of difference between $3.58, $3.47 and $1 .93; therefore, the basis for requesting the condition of approval was to ensure that one, school facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development and that developers pay more than just statutory school fees. She stated that was necessary in order for the School District to provide adequate school facilities for the students that are going to come out of this development. Therefore, at this time she submitted to the Planning Commission that they approve the project provided that it does so with their suggested condition of approval. She asked for any questions. Commissioner Beaty stated that he knew there has been a lot of controversy on that parcel and asked if there has been a study of how many students are projected to be generated from the housing construction. Ms. Cesario said she couldn't speak on behalf of the City. On behalf of the District, the Justification Study that was adopted June 9, 1998, contained what they call "student generation rates" for the District as a whole. They in turn use the student generation rates and apply them to a project. For the 687 developed units they would break them down by single family-multifamily and then make a determination. She apologized, but to precisely answer Commissioner Beaty's question, no, but they can, based on the School District's Justification Study they could present Commission with those figures. As a follow up, the School District's school facilities, especially in the elementary level, are over capacity and theyare using and theydon't consider seder that in capacity calculations for the purposes of the state. Chairperson Campbell asked if the applicant wished to offer rebuttal comments. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Commissioner Beaty asked the applicant for the average cost of the units. Someone from the audience said approximately $250,000. Mr. Ross said they would be comparable with Indian Ridge Country Club and at that level. Regarding student generation, he wasn't a lawyer but he didn't agree with the study which was based more on single family homes versus a second home type of project like this would be, similar to Indian Ridge. Commissioner Beaty said if Indian Ridge is a comparable project, he would like to see the number of students that are generated from Indian Ridge and he would guess that it is less than one dozen. Mr. Ross said he would venture to guess that it wasn't the same as a single family residential development. He felt the current fee was adequate and that is where they stand. He said they were happy with staff's recommendation. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that as she understands it, the Commission would simply be approving a phasing map for something that has already been approved. It was approved at $1 .93 and therefore she didn't see a need to change that because they are just going ahead and approving a phasing plan. She moved for approval based on staff's report. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was in concurrence with Commissioner Finerty with the added comment that he thought the fees generated would far exceed the need on a per pupil basis and he seconded the motion. Commissioner Fernandez added that he felt the same way. The project was already approved and he was in favor of the motion. Chairperson Campbell stated that she also concurred and asked for a vote. Mr. Erwin stated for the record that the action of the Planning Commission is final and would not go to the City Council. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1880, approving TT 26562 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (July 20, 1 998) Commissioner Finerty stated that basically they are still debating the deteriorating walls on Hovley and what could be done. It was still a policy issue versus the homeowner's responsibility. Project Area 4 Committee expressed their desire to be part of the review process as the proposed improvements are implemented. D. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (July 22, 1 998) Mr. Smith stated that the committee had a report from Jerry Clark, the City's landscape consultant design person, relative to parking lot modifications. The code changes would be coming before commission shortly. Basically the parking lot shading goal was to get 50% of the parking lot shaded within ten years. Unfortunately most of the trees tended to die off in less than ten years. Even in the best of circumstances it seemed that the best they could hope for was a 25% shade factor. They would be amending the parking requirements and 13 1- Bo' 1 ., ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE `��/ A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALEXANDER BOWIE' 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE (800)423-6054 JOAN C.ARNESON NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 FAX(949)851-2014 WENDY H.WILES* (949)851-1300 PATRICIA B.GIANNONE ROBERT E.ANSLOW 3403 TENTH STREET,SUITE 715 RESPOND TO NEWPORT REACH ARTO J.NUUTINEN RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92501 REF.OUR FILE DANIEL J.PAYNE (909)222-2750 JULIE McCLOSKEY ISABELLA ALASTI DEBORAH R.G.CESARIO BRIAN W.SMITH 15080.8 KRISHANCHOPRA RECEIVED July 9, 1998 •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JUL 13 1998 COMMUNITY CEVELOPMENT C..PA:Ti'hoct C Y OF PAW DESERT Via Facsimile [(7601341-7098] & U.S. Mail Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Re: Response to Request for Comments and Conditions of Approval Relative to Tentative Tract Map 26562, Amendment No. 1 (the "Project") Dear Mr. Alvarez: On behalf of the Palm Springs Unified School District("District"), we are submitting the following comments and condition of approval relative to the Project. We understand that the applicant, Robert Bein, W.M. Frost& Associates, is seeking the City of Palm Desert's ("City") approval of Amendment No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map 26562 ("Tract Map"), the Project. Approval of the Project would add development phasing to 420 acres of property located east of Portola Avenue, north of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Cook Street. We further understand that the Project is for 687 residential dwelling units, an 18 hole golf course and 225 suite hotel development which is known as the Rancho Portola project. The District respectfully requests that the City include the proposed condition for approval ("Condition") as a part of the conditions of approval for the Project and that this letter be made a part of the record of these proceedings. The basis for this request is to ensure that the conditions of approval for the Project are consistent with the City's General Plan. BAW&G/DRC/ad/50168 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Martin Alvarez City of Palm Desert July 9, 1998 Page 2 1. CITY'S GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS The Public Facilities Element of the City's General Plan sets forth the following Goal and Objectives: Goal - Provide a full range of public facilities and services that are related to citizen needs, are economical, and are convenient. Objectives - Ensure that adequate community facilities are available before or along with private development approval, in order to guarantee that facilities are not overloaded and areas are not left unserved. - Ensure that increased service demands due to new development and the financial participation of developers in providing these additional services are equal. The Concept portion of Public Facilities Element of the General Plan provides that: These economic constraints are shifting the responsibility of providing public facilities from local government to the developer. Developers are required to either provide for the facilities at the time of construction or pay a fee for that facility. The opportunity exists for local officials to assert strong leadership to not only maintain and improve existing facilities but also assure an adequate level of public facilities for future residents. The Element portion of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan also states that: Permit development only if community facilities such as schools, police protection, recreational facilities, will be available for that development at a level required for that development. Provide that the cost of increased service demands due to new development and the financial participation of developers, in providing facilities to meet these demand increases, be equal. BAW&G/DRGad/50168 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Martin Alvarez City of Palm Desert July 9, 1998 Page 3 The City's General Plan, therefore, requires that school facilities are to be provided prior to or concurrent with need (development), or else, appropriate school facilities cannot be provided at the time of full build-out. If the Project is approved without providing full mitigation of school facilities impacts, the City approval of the Project would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan. In order for the District to provide school facilities for the new residential development, the Project owner(s) ("Owner") shall mitigate the project's impacts on the District's school facilities pursuant to a mitigation agreement. The mitigation agreement shall provide that the Owner is obligated to pay to the District mitigation payments ("Mitigation Payments"), not statutory school fees pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq. and Education Code Section 17620 et seq. ("School Fees"). Alternatively,the Owner may participate in a community facilities district, but only at the District's request. 2. PROPOSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL In order to ensure compliance with the City's General Plan, the District proposes that the City approve the following Condition for school facilities: "Prior to the approval of Tentative Tract Map 26562 within the Rancho Portola project area by the City of Palm Desert, the property owner(s) within the project area shall enter into a written mitigation agreement(s)with the Palm Springs Unified School District("District") mitigating the project's impacts on the District's school facilities. The mitigation agreement(s) shall be in substantially the same form as the"School Facilities Funding and Mitigation Agreement between Palm Springs Unified School District and Andreas Cove Development Co." executed on April 28, 1998, and recorded in the Riverside County Recorder's Office on May 21, 1998 as Instrument No. 207468, which is by this reference hereiri incorporated. Such mitigation agreement(s) shall also provide that in the alternative to mitigating the project's impacts by mitigation payments,the property owners may participate in a community facilities district, but only at the District's request. The mitigation payment amounts shall be as set forth in the District's then current justification study. " 3. REQUEST FOR NOTICE On behalf of the District, we hereby request that copies of all notices and other documents mailed or distributed relative to the Project be furnished to the District at its office, located at 333 S. Farrell Drive, Palm Springs, California, 92262, to the attention of William Schmidt, Director, Facilities Planning & Development; and to our offices to the attention of BAW&G/DRC/ad/50168 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Martin Alvarez City of Palm Desert July 9, 1998 Page 4 Alexander Bowie. If there are any fees or charges required for the provision of such notices, please provide our office with an invoice for such costs and we will pay such costs. This request for notice specifically includes, but is not limited to, notices of all hearings, proposed actions to be taken with regard to the developmental process, requests for information, draft environmental documents, staff reports or commentaries, and, in particular, any draft EIR, responses to, or final EIR prepared, furnished or filed with regard to this Project pursuant to CEQA and copies of all Planning Commission and City Council Agendas where this matter will be calendared. 4. CONCLUSION If the Project is approved without a condition of approval that requires full mitigation, the District will be required to meet its legal mandate to educate students without assured funds or available capacity. Additionally, approval of the Project, in the absence of the Condition violates the provisions of the City's General Plan. Therefore,the City should only approve the Project subject to the District's proposed Condition. Very truly yours, • BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE By ?i,56)44/5 /�'/�.e��Cli1•t'`� Debdrah R.G. Cesario DRC:ad cc: Mr. William Schmidt Mr. Alexander Bowie BAW&G/DRC/ad/50 1 68 4 T_of- 7-l .:.: . `H ©off @V Pelluifo De-seu ''144 g,.ii '� 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 26562 AMENDMENT #1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal by the PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT to a decision of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission approving Tentative Tract 26562 Amendment #1 which added development phasing to a 420 acre previously approved project located east of Portola Avenue, north of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Cook Street. wall T taMwc N1\ / \C RAW f ;N of IMLN I MEAT 0 Dawn Iota rwwo.» onnr * 01410011 PI.Iwr&IPA KM • SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, September 10, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the 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. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 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 at, or prior to, the public hearing. • PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk August 30, 1998 City of Palm Desert, California