HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 88-2, CZ 88-2, PP 88-10 SW Fred Waring Dr and San Luis Dr CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal of a planning commission decision
denying a general plan amendment, zone change and precise plan
of design to allow construction of a 21,450 square foot single
story office project southwest of Fred Waring Drive and San
Luis Drive.
APPLICANT: RAY AND MARGARET LACERTE CHARLES MARTIN
72-880 Fred Waring Dr. #14 40-840 Thunderbird Rd.
Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CASE NOS: GPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2, PP 88-10
DATE: February 9, 1989
I. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Resolution/Ordinance No.
D. Planning Commission Minutes involving January 3, and January 17, 1989
E. Planning Commission Resolution No.
F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 3, 1989
G. Related maps and/or exhibits
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NDATION:
Refer this matter back to the planning commission for new advertised
hearings as a new plan has been presented by the applicant.
III. DISCUSSION:
The commission denied the subject request based on the project's lack of
sensitivity towards the location, including the size of the project in
relation to the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. The
commission did, however, feel that an office use at this location would
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal of a planning commission decision
denying a general plan amendment, zone change and precise plan
of design to allow construction of a 21,450 square foot single
story office project southwest of Fred Waring Drive and San
Luis Drive.
APPLICANT: RAY AND MARGAREP LACERTE CHARLES MARTIN
72-880 Fred Waring Dr. #14 40-840 Thunderbird Rd.
Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CASE NOS: GPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2, PP 88-10
DATE: February 9, 1989
I. CONTENTS: 0-;j4
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Resolution/Ordinance No.
D. Planning Commission Minutes involving January 3, and January 17, 1989
E. Planning Commission Resolution No.
F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 3, 1989
G. Related maps and/or exhibits
II. STAFF RBOOMMENDATION:
Refer this matter back to the planning commission for new advertised
hearings as a new plan has been presented by the applicant.
III. DISCUSSION:
The commission denied the subject request based on the proj ect's lack of
sensitivity towards the location, including the size of the project in
relation to the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. The
commission did, however, feel that an office use at this location would
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. GPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2, PP 88-10
FEBRUARY 9, 1989
be acceptable and welcomed the chance to review an amended plan. During
the hearing, one person spoke in opposition to the project with her main
concern being that San Luis Drive would remain open to through traffic
rather than being closed. An alternative may be to approve a zone change
so that demolition of the houses could camence. However, staff has
concerns over this demolition without an approved plan.
Prepared by ,
?-4:/0 / !,..---
Reviewed and Approved by
/fr
tom- .. QOn`( �
cITY
'ION: -(D
COUNCIL p,C'. EENIE ,eAC
�ZGge
AES',1,NIti ems'1 -'�Zg1K'
r
Original ell
2
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: January 3, 1989
CASE NO: GPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2, PP 88-10 AMENDMENT 1
REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment hum open space and low
density residential to office professional, a zone change fiun
single family residential to office professional, a precise
plan to allow construction of a 21,450 square foot professional
office building and negative declaration of environmental
impact located southwest of San Luis Drive and Fred Waring
Drive.
APPLICANT: RAY AND MARGARET LACERTE CIHARLES MARTIN
72-880 Fred Waring Dr. , #14 40-840 Thunderbird Road
Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260
I. BAQID:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is comprised of six parcels. Five of the parcels face
onto San Luis Drive, with the easternmost parcel being vacant and the
other four parcels having houses constructed on them. The fifth
parcel is vacant and is 44.5 feet long ranging hum 29 to 45 feet in
width . This last parcel resulted fiun excess right-of-way fLuu the
Fred Waring Drive widening. The property is now under a single
owner who is the applicant.
B. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The entire site is currently zoned R-1, while the Palma Village
Specific Plan identified the excess Fred Waring right-of-way as
green-belt and the existing homes R-1.
C. ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE
North: R-1, 0.P./Church and Office Complex
South: R-1/Single Family Homes and Vacant Lot
East: R-1/Single Family Homes
West: R-1, O.P./Office and Single Family Homes
S
PLANNING cammisSION STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. GPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2,
PP 88-10 AMENUIENT 1
JANU ARY 3, 1989
II. DISCUSSION:
A similar project was presented to the city last summer by a trust
consisting of three separate owners of five lots. The commission denied
the request by a 5-0 vote based on the lack of greenbelt and the long
length of the building facing the residential area. The applicant then
appealed to the city council who tabled the request instructing the
applicant to re-think his plans. The present applicant now represents all
of the original five lots plus a sixth lot located south of the original
project and contiguous to it along the west side of San Luis Drive. The
previous project consisted of a 14,600 square foot building on Fred Waring
Drive with parking behind on San Luis Drive. The present application is
for a 21,450 square foot building with the parking in front along Fred
Waring Drive. The present applicant recently constructed the office
project across Fred Waring Drive between Fairhaven and Acacia.
Besides the increase in size there are two main differences between the
old submittal and the present application. The first is the flip-flop of
the building and parking lot. This mitigated two Berns previously
raised which were: 1) The noise of the parking lot being in close
proximity to the hones in the area, and 2) The tendency of people to park
along Fred Waring Drive since it might be the closest parking to the
entrances and add to traffic congestion in the area.
The second major difference amongst the application is that the old
project had parking lot access onto San Luis Drive which concerned
resident in the area, while the present proposal has two driveways onto
Fred Waring Drive. It is the city's policy to limit access to major
roads such as Fred Waring Drive, but in this instance it worked to the
disadvantage of the residents to have the parking lot exit on San Luis
Drive.
A major, previous, concern of the commission was the length and monotony
of the building facing San Luis Drive (now 440 feet). The applicant has
address this concern by reducing the building height fruit 18 feet to
15 feet and including a 6 foot berm along the north side of the structure.
An ordinance section was written for these situations that the commission
may use. The section states that the commission may require the
setback to vary to avoid monotony. In this case, the required setback is
15 feet from property line or 27 feet from curb face. The section states
that the 15 feet can be an average with 12 feet as a minimum. Staff has
included this as a condition of approval with the intention being to work
around existing trees along San Luis Drive.
2
4111
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. GPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2,
PP 88-10 AMENDMENT 1
JAM ARY 3, 1989
Another condition of approval deals with the vacant lot to the south of
the site. The proposal shows the required 20 foot setback with no access
into this area. Rather than requiring a block wall along this property
line, staff is requiring a scenic easement in favor of the vacant lot to
eliminate an alley like situation when a home is constructed on this lot.
III. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN:
A. PRECISE PLAN
1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate
property values in the vicinity:
Justification:
The design of the use is attractive and will be compatible with
other office and residential uses existing in the vicinity.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use of or
enjoyment of property in the vicinity of the occupants thereof for
lawful purposes.
Justification:
The surrounding land in the vicinity is zoned for the same type of
use as proposed and owners would not be deprived the use of their
land due to the landscape buffer as called for in the specific plan.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety
or general welfare.
Justification:
The precise plan complies with all code requirements and will not be
detrimental to the public peace, health, safety or general welfare.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the
office-professional disL ict.
Discussion:
The intent of the disLiict is to be compatible with residential
zoning that is in the vicinity and provide a buffer to same. This
3
4111
•
PLANNING CGT.IISSICN STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. CPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2,
PP 88-10 AMENI NfENP 1
JANUARY 3, 1989
is also consistent with the Palma Village Specific Plan, which
designated the Fred Waring Drive frontage as O.P. but did not
include this site due to reasons specified in the staff report.
2. The proposed amendment is canpatible with adjacent land uses.
Discussion:
The landscape buffer provides compatibility to the adjoining
residential area, while the project carries on the office theme
along Fred Waring and is adjacent to other office use rather than
standing by itself.
3. There is a present need for more office professional land in the
city.
Discussion:
The city is continuing to build into the activity center of the
valley so this creates a need for more office space as does the
nuvement of offices away fran El Paseo. This is evident by the new
offices adjacent to the industrial area. The location also provides
a more attractive use along the Fred Waring frontage rather than
the unplanned rear of the existing single family hones.
C. ZONE CHANGE
1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the general plan.
Discussion:
The zee change is consistent with the general plan amendment that
is proposed.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Director of Catmunity Development has determined that the proposed
project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative
declaration of environmental impact has been prepared.
4
•
PLANNING C MISSICN ST__ REPORT
CASE ND. GPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2,
PP 88-10 AMENDMENT 1
JAN[ARY 3, 1989
V. RF70MT1TICN:
Staff feels the proposed project is acceptable and reccrm1enas:
A. Adoption of the findings.
B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending
to the city council approval of GPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2 and PP 88-10.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal Notice
Prepared by
Reviewed and Approved by
/fr
5
PI NG 41+IISSI11N RESOLUTIONNO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CCNMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RE SIDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
A 21, 450 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE STRUCTURE AND
DEMOLITION OF THREE EXISTING HOMES LOCATED AT
THE SOUITHWEST CORNER OF SAN LUIS DRIVE AND FRED
WARING DRIVE.
CASE NO: GPA 88-2 AND C/Z 88-2, PP 88-10 AMENDMENT 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Ci
did on the 3rd day of Janu tY of Palm Desert, California,
consider the request �, 1989 hold a duly noticed public hearing to
project. ' RAY LACERTE for approval of the above mentioned
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 chi ty
ment has determined that the project will not have a significant develthe
environment and a negative declaration is herebyimpact on the
recommended for certification.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested
heard, said planning commission did find the following facts desiring ns to
exit to justify their actions.
1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate
property values in the vicinity.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use of or
enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants Pants thereof for
lawful purposes.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public
or general welfare. peace, health, safety
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the
office-professional district.
5. The proposed amendment is compatible with adjacent land uses.
6. There is a present need for more office professional land in the
city.
7. The proposed zone change is consistent with the general plan.
PLANNING QMKISSICN RESOLLTTICN NO.
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.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of January, 1989, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman
Ar1'hST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/fr
2
PLANNING QIM.fISSICN RESOLUPICN NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 88-10, C'A 88-2 AND C/Z 88-2
Department of C bmmunity Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits
on file with the department of community development, as modified by the
following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year
from the date of second reading before city council, or one year after
first reading unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to
all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or
which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall fii5L obtain permits
and/or clearance from the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Palm Desert Water & Service District
Evidence of said permit of clearance fruit the above agencies shall be
presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance
of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. All future occupants of the building shall comply with parking
requirements of the ordinance and shall be limited to office professional
uses.
6. Hares shall be demolished by permit prior to lot consolidations.
7. Final parcel map shall be recorded prior to second reading upon approval
of zone change.
8. Precise plan contingent upon approval of zone change.
9. Recorded scenic easement shall be required along southerly property line
with a 25 foot setback fran San Luis Drive.
3
PLANNING CCNMISSICN RESOLUTION NO.
10. Final building design to meet O.P. standards for parking, building
height, setbacks, etc. , and include variation along San Luis Drive.
11. Seven foot wall shall be constructed along west property line, except
where adjacent to landscape buffer, prior to second reading of zone change
and shall be decorative.
12. Demolition permit shall first be obtained prior to demolition of existing
homes.
13. Applicant to pay applicable art in public places and school fees.
Deppm7brient of Public Works:
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the
above-referenced project:
1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 507, shall be paid prior
to issuance of grading permit.
2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study
prepared be a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works.
3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos.
79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26.44 and 26.40 of the
Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with
applicable City standards.
5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in
accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
checking and approval before construction of any improvements is
commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by Public Works
Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required
offsite improvements prior to issuance of grading permit. Such offsite
improvements shall include, but not limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt
paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration.
"As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of
Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City.
6. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the
engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior
to grading permit issuance.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION IAA.
7. Landscaping maintenance on Fred Waring Drive and San Luis Drive shall be
provided by the property owners.
8. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective
utility district's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible,
applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding
district.
9. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete
grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits.
10. Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications
with only two driveway approach(es) to be allowed to serve this property.
11. Complete parcel map shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the
Director of Public Works for checking and approval and be recorded before
issuance of any permits.
12. Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of
plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit(s) by the Department
of Public Works.
13. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a Registered
Soils Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of
Public Works prior to issuance of the grading permit.
14. Applicant shall secure reciprocal ingress and egress access easements
from the owner of the lot westerly of the proposed project (APN
640-121-015).
15. Applicant shall redesign the westerly driveway in order to provide for a
common driveway with the property to the west.
City Fire Marshal:
1. Provide, or show there exists a water system capable of providing a
potential fire flow of 3000 gpm and the actual fire flow available from
any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for 2
hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure.
2. A fire flow of 3000 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on
the job site.
3. A combination of on-site and off-site Super hydrants (6" x 4" 2 x 2-1/2" x
2-1/2" ), will be required, located not less than 25' nor more than 150'
5
PLANNING CCMMIISSICN RESOLITPICN NO.
from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flaw shall be available frnu any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
4. 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.
5. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, locations and spacing, and the
system shall meet the fire flaw requirements. Plans shall be signed by a
Registered Civil Engineer and may be signed by the local water company
y
with the following certification: I certify that the design of the
water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department. "
6. 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.
7. Install a fire alarm (waterflaw) as required by the Uniform Building
Code, 3803, for sprinkler system.
8. Install tamper alarm on supply valve for sprinkler systems. Must also
ring water flow alarm.
9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
10. Install panic hardware and exit signs per Uniform Building Code, Chap.
33, and/or Uniform Fire Code.
11. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less
than 2A10BC in rating.
12. 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).
13. Whenever access into private property is conl.Lvlled 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
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RE oLum N NO.
have a radio-conUulled over-ride system capable of opening the gate when
activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles.
Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the
event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power
operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening
width shall be 12' , with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
14. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
Sec. 503.
15. Provide suitable Fire Department turnaround area at end of parking lot.
16. Contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
17. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred
to the Fire Department Fire Protection/Inspection Staff.
/fr
7
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Phil Joy
FROM: Brent Conley
RE: 88-10
DATE: December 9, 1988
The Police Department is pleased to see a development which
encourages parking within a development instead of on the street.
The height of the berming should be reduced to allow viewing into
the complex by both passing patrol vehicles and perspective
customers.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact
me at ext. 8.
f:.
Brent Conley
Crime Prevention Officer
BC/rh
•
Palm ,,,veoert Wafer & serviced eCJii1ric1
44.500 PORTOLA AVENUE
BOX 161
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
ROBERT C. H. LAWMAN, President
Phone:(619)346.6338
R. CLAIR McDONOUGH
SHARON K. EPPS
CONNIE ATKINS, District Secretary
December 13 , 1988
Mr. Phil Joy
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Case No. PP88-10 Amendment
Mesa Professional Building
Fred Waring Drive at San Luis Drive
Ray and Margaret Lacerte
Dear Mr. Joy:
We have reviewed the site plan for the above referenced project.
We previously reviewed the original site plan and responded with
our letter dated June 22 , 1988 , a copy of which is enclosed. Our
conditions remain the same, however, we believe that it is very
important that the developer or his engineer contact us so that
the proper steps can be taken for water service for this project
and any delays can be avoided.
If you have any questions in regard to the above, please
contact us .
Very truly yours ,
4342-.7
Sharon K. Epps
SKE:RJM: sg
•
cc: Ray and Margaret Lacerte
72-800 Fred Waring Drive #14
Palm Desert, California 92260
Charles Martin
40840 Thunderbird Road
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
• • ~ • ,
y4/
73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
•
•
INITIAL STUDY' ENVIROWENTAL CHECKLIST
-4)-p S 8- (0 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?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes In siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
— —
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
•
of ambient air quality? _
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _Y
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-
• rection of water movements, in either marine /
or fresh waters?
— s1/
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat-
terns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or low of flood
• waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
n. auctstantial r'ducti n 1n the mount of
water otherwise available for public
t .
wati iplies? f ---
i. Exposure of people or property to water re-
lated
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
ber of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
-17
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare —
or endangered species of plants? J
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an
area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish-
went of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animmil Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
bers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms 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 migra-
tion or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
8. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? V
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned —
land use of an area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
• a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hA7ardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or •
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? _ _✓
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
• distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
• population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the prow l
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ✓
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? —
c. Substantial Lrnpact upon existing
ta"-- systems?
d. Al lone to present patterns of circula •
-
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ (✓
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov-
ernmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools? C7
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
V
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources or energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy? t/
18. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the �l
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? (/
—
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? •
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
• historic building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect /
unique ethnic cultural values? v/
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? ,y/
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. C le project have the potential to degrade
t.o y„ality of the environment, substantially
.reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal ccmaunity, re-
duce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of --
California history or prehistory?
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 rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (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?
12 -12 -8g /tom
Date Signature
For
V
ti
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA, •DENYING A
REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
ZONE CHANGE AND PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW DEMOLITION
OF THREE EXISTING HOMES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
21 .450 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE PROJECT LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND SAN
LUIS DRIVE.
CASE NO: GPA 88-2, C/Z 88-2 AND PP 88-10 AMENDMENT
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California,
did on the 17th day of January, 1989 hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the request by RAY LACERTE for the above mentioned project.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, of all interested person desiring to be heard, said
commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify their
decision.
1 . The proposed amendment is not consistent with the intent of the
district due to its relation with the surrounding residential area.
2. The plan will substantially depreciate property values in the area
by replacing compatible uses with an incompatible structure due to
the intensity and its size.
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 it hereby does deny the above described project based on the
previous listed findings.
PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of January, 1989, by the following
vote. to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/fr
r r
0. *
Charles L. Martin
January 11, 1989 (Architect)
Mr. Ramon Diaz
Director of Environmental Services and
Assistant City Manager
City of Palm Desert
Palm Deset, California 92260
Re: Planning Commission action on Case: GPA 88-2, Ct.88-2, PP 88-10
Dear Mr. Diaz:
On January 3, 1989, the Planning Commission rejected the above
referenced applications. To our understanding it was due to the design of
the building. We therefore request permission to speak to the Commission
and to show new exhibits more in line with what the Commission was
looking for.
Please direct us as to whether we need to sign anything to speak or how do
we know that we are on the agenda.
Respectfully,
Ch rles L. Martin, Architect for the applicants Ray and Margaret La Certe
40-840 Thunderbird Road Rancho Mirage, California 92270 (619) 346-4090