HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 01-90 and Ord 991 CZ 01-02 and PP 01-02 at 74150 Country Club Dr Ordinance No. 991-
Resolution No. 01-90
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, a change of zone from PR-5 (planned
residential five units per acre) to O.P. (office professional),
and a precise plan of design for two buildings (an office and
a bank) on a 2.33 acre site on the north side of Country
Club Drive 450 feet east of Portola, 74-150 Country Club
Drive. Proposed zone change also includes the 2.33 acre
lot immediately to the west.
III. APPLICANT: Robert Orr
77-734 Country Club Drive, Suite K
Palm Desert, CA 92211
IV. CASE NOS: C/Z 01-02 and PP 01 -02
V. DATE: June 28, 2001
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Background
C. Project Description
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No.01-90 and Draft Ordinance No. 991
B Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos. C/Z 01-02 and PP 01-
02
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2073
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 5, 2001
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-90 and pass Ordinance No. 991 to
second reading.
Ordinance No. 991
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-90
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
JUNE 28, 2001
B. BACKGROUND:
1 . ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: PR-5 / Desert Willow Golf Course
South: PR-4 / Silver Sands Racquet Club
East: PR-5 / Seventh Day Adventist Church
West: O.P. / Office complex under construction
2. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The property is relatively flat land on the north side of Country Club Drive
which extends north to the Desert Willow golf course.
3. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Office Professional
4. PROJECT HISTORY:
First Submittal
In March and April 2001 the applicant first presented a three building
development proposal for this site to Architectural Review Commission
and Planning Commission.
The ARC rejected this earlier proposal for the following reasons:
a. The architectural style is inappropriate for the residential/resort
nature of this area of Country Club Drive.
b. The commission determined that the constraints placed on the site
plan by its long narrow shape created a site plan inconsistent with
the office park/resort environment.
The Planning Commission upon reviewing the earlier project was prepared
to deny it for the following reasons:
2
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 991
Resolution No. 01-90
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
JUNE 28, 2001
a. The project as designed did not create a park-like environment as
envisaged when the City considered offices in this area.
b. The building plans as designed were over the height limit permitted
in the O.P. zone district.
c. The site plan as designed did not meet the parking requirement for
the uses proposed.
d. The property owner to the east indicated that it was not prepared
to enter into a shared parking arrangement.
Prior to adoption of the resolution of denial by Planning Commission, the
applicant withdrew that application. We now have a revised proposal
which is more in keeping with staff expectations for office development
in this area.
Revised Submittal
In April 2001 revised plans were received which addressed many of the
concerns which were raised relating to the first submittal. The plans
were changed as follows:
a. Front landscape depth was increased from 26 feet to 34 feet.
b. Bank building was changed from two stories to one story and its
height reduced to 22 feet.
c. Architecture was improved.
d. The center (medical) building was eliminated in favor of an open
space area.
e. The north office building was reduced in height to 25 feet
maximum and it became a partial two (2) story as opposed to a
full two (2) story building.
3
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 991
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02 Resolution No. 01-90
JUNE 28, 2001
f. The revised plan provides 100% of required parking onsite rather
than needing a shared parking arrangement with the church to the
east.
The revised plans were presented to ARC and Planning Commission.
April 25, 2001 ARC on a 4-0 vote with Commissioners Connor, Hanson,
and O'Donnell absent, granted preliminary approval.
June 5, 2001 Planning Commission on a 3-0 vote (Commissioners
Campbell and Finerty were absent) recommended approval of the project
to the City Council.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project involves a change of zone from PR-5 to O.P. which affects two
2.33 acre lots located on the north side of Country Club Drive between the
Seventh Day Adventist Church and the Homme project at the corner of Country
Club and Portola. The second part of the request is a proposal to construct two
buildings on the easterly parcel. The southerly (front) building will be a single
story bank while the northerly office building will be a partial two-story building
overlooking the Desert Willow Golf Course.
1 . CHANGE OF ZONE:
The applicant seeks to change the zone from planned residential (PR-5)
to office professional (O.P.).
City Council may recall that in 1999 staff and ZORC presented an
ordinance to Planning Commission to establish a new office park district
(POP). If adopted, it had been intended to be placed on sites in excess
of two acres which were appropriate for office development. This area
had been preliminarily identified as being an appropriate location.
Unfortunately POP was not endorsed by the Planning Commission and as
a result it died.
4
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 991
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02 Resolution No. 01-90
JUNE 28, 2001
Without having POP available, the applicant was limited in what he could
request and has requested an O.P. zone designation.
The purpose of POP was as follows:
"It is the purpose of the Planned Office Park (POP) district
to provide for flexibility in development, creative and
imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land
as coordinated projects involving a mixture of professional
office, research, and community facility uses, both public
and private. The POP district is further intended to provide
for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities
within developments within a park-like setting. The POP
district is also established to give a land developer
assurance that innovative and unique land development
techniques will be given reasonable consideration for
approval and to provide the city with assurances that the
complete project will contain the character envisioned at the
time of approval."
This plan achieves the purpose of the POP District (i.e., lower profile
buildings, greater setbacks and larger greenbelt areas). Staff will support
the requested change of zone for this project.
2. PRECISE PLAN:
The project includes two buildings and will take its main access from
Country Club Drive at the east property line where it will share the
existing driveway with the church to the east. The project has been
designed so that it can connect with the property to the west (that site
will share an access at its west limit with the Homme property on the
corner).
The site plan shows the bank facilityat the south end of the site facing
Country Club Drive and at the north end overlooking Desert Willow a
partial two-story office is proposed. The building will be setback 42 feet
from curb with an eight foot meandering sidewalk.
5
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 991
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02 Resolution No. 01-90
JUNE 28, 2001
The site plan shows the drive-thru lane for the bank located along the
north side of the building. The 32-foot wide west side yard will be
landscaped.
Building architecture can be described as contemporary desert
architecture.
Landscape for the project will be desert and will complement the Desert
Willow area.
The project provides 100% of its required parking onsite. The applicant
has provided a large park-like area between the two buildings. As of this
time a theme for the use of this open space area has not been developed
but it most likely will house the project's public art.
The west side of the property provides a 12-foot wide driveway which
will be coupled with an additional 12 feet from the property to the west
which will provide an adequate circulation system. The additional 12
feet on the west will need to go in with this development (i.e., the back
building and with the office building).
PROJECT DATA CHART
Project Data O.P. Standards
Site Area 2.33 acres 15,000 sq. ft. minimum
Total Building Area 24,933 square feet N/A
Total Coverage 18.5% 50%
Parking* 103 spaces 100 spaces
Landscaping 28% N/A
Bank Building Setbacks:
Country Club 36 feet** 15 feet
East Side 54 feet 20 feet
West Side 32 feet 0 feet
Height 14 feet - 18 feet ' 22 feet 25 feet
6
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 991
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02 Resolution No. 01-90
JUNE 28, 2001
Project Data O.P. Standards
Office Building Setbacks:
East Side 54 feet 20 feet
West Side 42 feet 0 feet
Rear (North) 73 feet 20 feet
Height 12 feet - 16 feet - 25 feet 25 feet
* 33 spaces will be under carports or building overhang
** 30 feet to building columns
D. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
The revised plans address concerns that were raised on the previous application
and is now in full compliance with the requirements and standards of the OP
zone. The applicant deleted the middle building (medical office) and replaced
it with an open space area. The plans have been revised to reduce the building
height for the two (2) story north building to 25 feet. The site plan provides
100% of the required onsite parking thereby eliminating the need for a shared
parking arrangement.
The Seventh Day Adventist Church expressed support for this revised plan in
a telephone conversation with staff. In the previous plan they had opposed it
and refused to enter into a shared parking arrangement.
The project has been recommended for approval by Planning Commission and
has preliminary approval from ARC.
7
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 991
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02 Resolution No. 01-90
JUNE 28, 2001
CEQA Review
The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA and a draft Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. Staff recommends that
City Council certify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
,—g/ge-12•P -/ -*-- _
STEVE SMITH PHILIP DRELL
PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Review and Concur: Review and Concur:
CH RD J. LKERS RLOS L. ORT A
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED ✓ DENIED
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETING DATE l ,a 7 ^6.) 1
AYES:
NOES: �+
ABSENT•
ABSTAIN: i1/1rrv4.
VERIFIED BY: P-_,/ o .P , 7
Original on File with City Ctrk's Office
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2073
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL (PR-5) TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) AND A
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A 24,933 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE/BANK COMPLEX LOCATED ON 2.33 ACRES ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE EAST OF PORTOLA
AVENUE, 74-150 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. PROPOSED ZONE
CHANGE INCLUDES THE 2.33 ACRE SITE IMMEDIATELY TO
THE WEST.
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 5th day of June, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
ROBERT ORR for approval of the above noted cases; and
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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact has been prepared; 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 recommending to City Council
approval of said request:
1 . The zone change to O.P. will be consistent with the General Plan.
2. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
adjacent land uses.
3. The precise plan as conditioned is consistent with the intent and purpose of
the Office Professional zone.
4. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will
not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
5. The precise plan of design will not unreasonably interfere with the use or
enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful
purposes.
0,0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2073
6. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare.
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 Change of Zone 01-02 (Exhibit B attached hereto) and Precise
Plan 01-02 are hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached
conditions.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached
hereto), is recommended for certification.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 5th day of June, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: JONATHAN, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: CAMPBELL, FINERTY
ABSTAIN: NONE
4
/ Jim
J OPEZ, C'a' p.rson
ATTEST:
etA__O—Q)
PHILIP DRELL) Secretary
Palm Desert Nanning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2073
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
Department of Community 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 final approval 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 first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from 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. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the
Architectural Review Commission process.
7. 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
3
4%2a
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2073
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.
8. That if this project proceeds prior to development on the property to the west, it shall
install to full two-way width the access driveway shown on the site plan on the west
portion of this property and the east limit of the property to the west.
9. That an open space development plan be included as part of the landscape plan for
the open space area located on the midpoint of the lot north of the bank and south
of the office building.
Department of Public Works:
1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
and Palm DesertOrdinance
O d nce Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading
permit. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the
increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 25 year storm.
2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
3. Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent upon
a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works.
4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
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 shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to
guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2073
grading permit. "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 paid prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
7. Landscaping maintenance on Country Club Drive frontage shall be the responsibility
of the property owner.
8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
9. Project shall utilize the existing driveway access located on the east property line.
Reciprocal access agreements shall be executed with properties located to the east
and west.
10. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the
Director of Public Works and the issuance of a valid encroachment permit by the
Department of Public Works.
1 1 . 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 the
issuance of the grading permit.
12. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
13. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
14. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust (PM 10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the
fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized Fire
Protection Standards:
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2073
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3,000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 150' from
any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with
a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the
locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and
connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an
approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water-
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. 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 not be less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 1 50' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments.
1 1 . A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development.
12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2073
13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
Other:
Provide secondary access from the west property line through Lot 28 (lot to the west) to
connect with the existing driveway at the southwest corner of Lot 28.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2073
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Robert Orr
77-734 Country Club Drive, Suite K
Palm Desert, CA 92211
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 24,933 square foot office/bank complex located on
2.33 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive east of Portola Avenue, 74-150 Country Club
Drive.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
ne 5 2001
PHILIP ELL D E
DIRECT R OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
8
- - rigit ) 1-7----17
- j P.R.-5
0A*�w• A P.R. 5 i
*ma* i 1 1
- \ ( __Li
P.R.-5
I1 / a*
O.P.
N
O.P. P.R.-5
1 [ I - 1H / 1
COUNTRY CLUB DR
ii
1.1 ;\
\ I .„, pin
_ PrI-Itin,, *s / % ..,., s)
". 44:'1-14. -1,P-W I Nkis% IIIi,
'/ / D
P.R.-5 S.O . \P'. l Ok ..
`„
I,J p u1um
'�� Y�� \ Proposed
'r r''�' i, Zoning Change
,.
. ', .. IIAl .I, Iv,,,,,,,,,,,o,Ws--'Qui% \\ _ i L P.R.-5
to
.R.-5 w 'I 1 0.P.
g ot
ENI \t 'l
1 IMP - % cC--nmmr-ram cl 1 I :aT-1 v< // I
e'7, 9a6"- eoe'rf Case No. C/Z 01-02 PLANNING COMMISSION
�`'' C�71a1�11`!' e ®f Zone RESOLUTION NO.
-1!y R '•
EXHI II IT it Date: 6-05-01
1
• CITY 0f HU DE SNIT
t 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
• �'\ PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8
\' {. TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
■as:.
-'-�.' ....:• • info@palm-deserr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider a request by ROBERT ORR for approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre)
to O.P. (office professional), and a precise plan of design for two buildings (a single story
bank and a two-story office) on a 2.33 acre site on the north side of Country Club Drive
450 feet east of Portola, 74-150 Country Club Drive. Proposed zone change also includes
the 2.33 acre lot immediately to the west.
_s_
5 0. i .,
GuiM r1 li: i g
111111111
:ram V
i
Ililill1,�i�t,� _
*, ri S
F3m
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 4:00 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
June 15, 2001 City of Palm Desert, California
LAFT,,,-)
-
SUBJECT TO
i REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001
C. Case Nos. C/Z 01-02 and PP 01-02 - ROBERT ORR, Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, a Change of Zone from PR-5
(planned residential, five units per acre) to O.P. (office
professional), and a precise plan of design for two buildings
(an office and a bank) on a 2.33 acre site on the north side
of Country Club Drive 450 feet east of Portola, 74-150
Country Club Drive. The proposed zone change also
includes the 2.33 acre lot immediately to the west.
Mr. Smith explained that there was a proposal on this property before the
commission in April which was not approved. Prior to the commission
adopting a resolution of denial, the applicant withdrew that previous
application. He came back with a significantly revised application. He
stated that if approved, both parcels would be zoned from Planned
Residential five units per acre to Office Professional. The property to the
east was the location of the proposed bank and office building. The
reason for the commission's intent to deny the previous application were
outlined in the staff report. He indicated that the applicant made
significant changes. First, the bank was now a one-story building. They
eliminated the parking out front and the parking was now located to the
north. The drive-through for the bank was located on the north side. It
was formerly on the west. The applicant has deleted the medical office
building from the center of the property and in its place had shown an
open space park-like area. The northerly office building was now a partial
two-story building, so it was a mix of one and two stories with a
maximum height of 25 feet. Previously it was 32 feet which was
considerably in excess of the 25-foot permitted maximum height. With
the reduction in building floor area, the applicant has been able to achieve
100% of parking onsite. Previously he was attempting to use a shared
parking arrangement with the church to the east. The revised
architecture was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review
Commission on April 24, 2001 . Essentially the applicant took out all of
the negative aspects of the previous proposal. Mr. Smith said he spoke
with Pastor Blue today of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. They now
support the application. They were shown the revised plans and very
much liked the idea of the open space which was opposite the entrance
to their sanctuary. At this time staff was recommending that the
commission recommend certification of the Negative Declaration of
13
Mal��
�.)D�
r REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001
Environmental Impact and approval of the precise plan of design and
change of zone to the City Council.
Commissioner Jonathan asked to see the renderings. He reminded staff
of his extreme desire to get these kinds of colored renderings into the
commission's packets whenever possible. He thought all they had were
blueline elevations and that didn't give them a very clear idea of how it
would look. He asked if the left side of the two-story building was the
view facing south and if that was the front. Mr. Drell said he thought the
front was the one story elevation.
Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. ROBERT ORR, 77-734 Country Club Drive, in Palm Desert,
said that they have a very difficult site to work with because of its
shape but they had done everything they could to adapt it to the
site and the concerns of planning. As mentioned, the church had
a lot of concerns when they started and now they had no
objections. To his knowledge, Silver Sands Racquet Club to the
south was in favor. He said he would defer any questions on the
design criteria to his architect. He said he was present to answer
any questions for the owner.
MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A in
Palm Desert, stated that on the site plan they met with staff and
tried to mitigate the problems mentioned last time. A big thing
was to have a big setback of 40 plus feet from the curb, all
landscaped and a one story bank building only 22 feet high and
then tried to create a park-like setting where they would have a
fountain in the middle and meditation type of garden and palm
trees all around it so that it would really be a park-like area.
People from the bank could have lunch there. It would be the
focal point of the design. They removed some covered parking so
that it was all open and nothing obstructs the park-like setting.
They put the office building in the back closer to the golf course
so that it wouldn't be seen from the street. When coming up and
down the road now, it would be fairly well hidden. The church
would hide it on one side and eventually it would be hidden from
the other side when the vacant parcel developed. On the
14
3/
'G
) le
y� " "�' SUBJECT TO
. AF REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001
architecture, the south elevation would be the main elevation from
the street. He showed the other elevations. He said that what
didn't show on the elevation was some of the landscaping which
would hide the plainness of the north elevation - the back of the
bank. For the two-story building in the back, the south elevation
would be facing the street so that would be the prominent
elevation. Then it stepped up to the two-story portion. There was
car parking underneath the structure and on top would be an
outside deck area for the second floor people. They tried to do
everything in the way of site design, architecture that the staff
thought was the best architecture, and the Architectural Review
Board was very much in favor of the project. There wasn't one
negative vote. They were in conformance and agreed with all the
conditions of approval and he hoped the Planning Commission
would agree with both ARC and staff.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the bank would be a full service bank on
the bottom floor.
Mr. Ricciardi concurred.
Commissioner Tschopp said that there were five parking spaces to the
east adjacent to the building and he assumed probably two would be
ADA designated.
Mr. Ricciardi concurred.
Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that would only leave three for
customers.
Mr. Ricciardi said that one had to be ADA, but that would leave
four for the basic in and out customers. Staff and others would
park in the back. This wasn't the type of bank that would have
huge payrolls and those kinds of problems.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Ricciardi, the architect, had a
problem with most of the customers in excess of four coming across the
drive-up area.
15
7
. ' St anfn\.
Ls , - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001
Mr. Ricciardi said no, they had a similar situation in the new bank
they just did on El Paseo which they have been told was a very
successful remodel. They have a similar situation with First
Community Bank in Indian Wells where most of the parking for
that bank is behind the drive-up window, so it wasn't uncommon
to have it that way, so architecturally it has worked. The drive-up
window was more for people using the ATM for small cash
withdrawals. Several banks have done away with their drive-up
windows because not a lot of people use them. There wasn't a
big demand for drive-up windows except in the summer time when
people don't want to get out of their cars. So that worked well
here. In the summer time the drive-up window would get a lot of
use. He thought it would work fine and the bank liked the design.
Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification on the vehicle circulation at the
drive-up window. He asked where the cars go after leaving the drive-up
window.
Mr. Ricciardi explained cars would make a U turn. He said there
was a lot of stacking area there.
Chairperson Lopez asked if this was a full service window.
Mr. Ricciardi said yes and it was his understanding that they
would be renting space in the building in the back because the
two-story element they had before would be rental space. They
tried to get the park so that it lined up with the church so that
when the church came in it didn't have buildings growing over it
and were off to the side.
Chairperson Lopez asked if it was feasible that when the lot next door
develops that the access exiting the bank window could make a left turn
and out or if that would be a driveway.
Mr. Ricciardi said that in the last design they had laid that space
out for the applicant, but the present landowner was not
interested in developing the property, he was just interested in
holding onto it. The City could require them to make their parking
lots work together.
16
SUBJECT
, AFT IMS
REWSION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001
Mr. Drell thought that site would have a shared exit back to Country Club
with the Homme project.
Mr. Ricciardi said that was correct.
Mr. Drell said that someone could circulate to the next parcel and get to
the Homme driveway and back to Country Club. He said that circulation
would work much better after the vacant parcel developed. Mr. Smith
stated that the Fire Marshal was requiring that the driveway go in now
to connect across there so they would have it when this property
develops.
Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that there would be a
driveway now going across the Homme property to the west. Mr. Smith
said it wasn't the Homme property, but the property immediately to the
west. The Fire Department wanted a second access and that seemed to
be the most logical way to achieve that and so that was the way they
phrased their condition.
Mr. Ricciardi said they would be putting in a 24-foot wide
temporary driveway there.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing
was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or
action.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that last time he was one of the more
vocal critics and this time he hoped to be one of the more vocal
supporters. This was wonderful. He applauded the applicant, Canyon
National Bank, the contractor, the Orrs, and the architect. He thought
they had done a wonderful job here and he was very pleased. He
especially liked the one-story element in the front with ample setback
from Country Club and sufficient parking. The deletion of the center
building made a big difference. The center park-like area was awesome.
The partial step two-story building in the rear with the reduced height
absolutely worked here and the architecture was very attractive. He said
it was very aesthetically creative and appealing. He couldn't find
anything wrong with it and liked it very much. He said it was a shame
that the property owner to the west wasn't interested in participating in
17
cS
r -7) 4 FT
SUBJECT
MINUTES - REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001
the design, but he would expect that he would be hemmed in in terms of
what is on either side of him and the limitations he would face. He
stated that this project stands alone and is a perfect use of the land. It
was a difficult parcel to work with and he applauded the applicant on the
project.
Commissioner Tschopp thought that was well said. He also
complimented the architect on the building design and coming back with
two buildings that actually fit that narrow piece of land versus the three
that were previously proposed. The parking meets the requirements and
he thought it was a very good plan considering the property they had to
work with.
Chairperson Lopez concurred. He congratulated all parties involved. He
thought they had done an outstanding job in incorporating a difficult
piece of property with some nice buildings, the layout, and he thought
they had "raised the bar" for those individuals who develop the property
next door. He asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried
5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2073,
recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 01-02 and PP 01-02,
subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0.
D. Case No. PP 01-12 - RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, Applicant
Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 9,007
square foot restaurant on a 69,829 square foot site at the
northeast corner of Highway 111 and Village Court, 74-740
Highway 111 .
Mr. Smith distributed colored copies of the building elevations. Mr.
Smith explained that essentially they were looking at a 9,000 square foot
restaurant on a 70,000 square foot lot. The property is located at Village
Court and Village Center so they were at the easterly city boundary.
18
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: June 5, 2001
CASE NOS: C/Z 01 -02 and PP 01 -02
REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a change
of zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre) to 0.P. (office
professional), and a precise plan of design for two buildings (an office
and a bank) on a 2.33 acre site on the north side of Country Club Drive
450 feet east of Portola, 74-150 Country Club Drive. Proposed zone
change also includes the 2.33 acre lot immediately to the west.
APPLICANT: Robert Orr
77-734 Country Club Drive, Suite K
Palm Desert, CA 9221 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project involves a change of zone from PR-5 to 0.P. which affects two 2.33 acre
lots located on the north side of Country Club Drive between the Seventh Day
Adventist Church and the Homme project at the corner of Country Club and Portola.
The second part of the request is a proposal to construct two buildings on the
easterly parcel. The southerly (front) building will be a single story bank while the
northerly office building will be a partial two-story building overlooking the Desert
Willow Golf Course.
II. BACKGROUND:
April 3, 2001 , the applicant presented a three building development proposal for this
site. At the conclusion of the hearing commission directed staff to prepare a
resolution of denial. The reasons for the denial were:
A. The project as designed did not create a park-like environment as envisaged
when the City considered offices in this area.
B. The building plans as designed were over the height limit permitted in the O.P.
zone district.
C. The site plan as designed did not meet the parking requirement for the uses
proposed.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
JUNE 5, 2001
D. The property owner to the east indicated that it was not prepared to enter into
a shared parking arrangement.
Prior to adoption of the resolution the applicant withdrew that application. We now
have a revised proposal which is more in keeping with staff expectations for office
development in this area.
A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: PR-5 / Desert Willow Golf Course
South: PR-4 / Silver Sands Racquet Club
East: PR-5 / Seventh Day Adventist Church
West: O.P. / Office complex under construction
B. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The property is relatively flat land on the north side of Country Club Drive
which extends north to the Desert Willow golf course.
C. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION:
The revised plans were reviewed by ARC at its April 24, 2001 meeting and
were given preliminary approval.
III. CHANGE OF ZONE:
The applicant seeks to change the zone from planned residential (PR-5) to office
professional (O.P.).
Commission may recall that in 1999 staff and ZORC presented an ordinance to
Commission to establish a new office park district (POP). If adopted, it had been
intended to be placed on sites in excess of two acres which were appropriate for
office development. This area had been preliminarily identified as being an
appropriate location.
Unfortunately POP was not endorsed by the Planning Commission and as a result it
died.
2
37
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
JUNE 5, 2001
Without having POP available, the applicant was limited in what he could request and
has requested an O.P. zone designation.
The purpose of POP was as follows:
"It is the purpose of the Planned Office Park (POP) district to provide for
flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the
development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a
mixture of professional office, research, and community facility uses,
both public and private. The POP district is further intended to provide
for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within
developments within a park-like setting. The POP district is also
established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and
unique land development techniques will be given reasonable
consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances that
the complete project will contain the character envisioned at the time
of approval."
Staff does not feel that a general plan amendment is necessary given that the
property to the west is designated O.P. and land use maps are construed to be
flexible.
This current plan comes much closer to achieving the purpose of the POP District
(i.e., lower profile buildings, greater setbacks and larger greenbelt areas). Staff will
support the requested change of zone for this project.
IV. PRECISE PLAN:
The project includes two buildings and will take its main access from Country Club
Drive at the east property line where it will share the existing driveway with the
church to the east. The project has been designed so that it can connect with the
property to the west (that site will share an access at its west limit with the Homme
property on the corner).
The site plan shows the bank facility at the south end of the site (setback 30 feet)
facing Country Club Drive and at the north end overlooking Desert Willow a partial
two-story office is proposed. The front setback is comprised of 30 feet of landscape
in front of the building plus 12 feet of parkway along the street for a total 42 feet.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
JUNE 5, 2001
The site plan now proposes that the drive-thru lane for the bank be located along the
north side of the building. The 32-foot wide west side yard will be landscaped.
Building architecture has been changed but can still be described as contemporary
desert architecture.
Landscape for the project will be desert and will complement the Desert Willow area.
The former project required a shared parking arrangement with the church to the
east. This project provides 100% of its required parking onsite. The applicant has
provided a large park-like area between the two buildings. As of this time a theme
for the use of this open space area has not been developed but it most likely will
house the project's public art.
PROJECT DATA CHART
Project Data O.P. Standards
Site Area 2.33 acres 15,000 sq. ft. minimum
Total Building Area 24,933 square feet N/A
Total Coverage 18.5% 50%
Parking* 103 spaces 100 spaces
Landscaping 28% N/A
Bank Building Setbacks:
Country Club 36 feet** 15 feet
East Side 54 feet 20 feet
West Side 32 feet 0 feet
Height 14 feet - 18 feet ' 22 feet 25 feet
Office Building Setbacks:
East Side 54 feet 20 feet
West Side 42 feet 0 feet
Rear (North) 73 feet 20 feet
Height 12 feet - 16 feet - 25 feet 25 feet
* 33 spaces will be under carports or building overhang
* * 30 feet to building columns
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01 -02
JUNE 5, 2001
V. ANALYSIS:
This plan is more in keeping with what staff had in mind when we contemplated
office use along Country Club Drive.
The open space area needs a development concept but this can be done in that the
land is available.
The west side of the property provides a 12-foot wide driveway which will be
coupled with an additional 12 feet from the property to the west which will provide
an adequate circulation system. The additional 12 feet on the west will need to go
in with this development (i.e ., the back building and with the office building).
The former plan requested a shared parking arrangement with the church to the east.
This plan provides 100% onsite parking and shares its access with the church which
was anticipated when the church went in.
The revised architecture was given preliminary approval by ARC at its meeting of
April 25, 2001 .
VI. CONCLUSION:
The revised plans address our concerns that were raised on the previous application.
The applicant deleted the middle building (medical office) and replaced it with an open
space area. The plans have been revised to reduce the building height for the two
(2) story north building to 25 feet. The site plan provides 100% of the required
onsite parking thereby eliminating the need for a shared parking arrangement.
The project is currently at a point where it can be recommended for approval. Staff
will recommend approval subject to conditions to address the issues raised
previously.
VII. CEQA REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA and a draft Negative
Declaration of Environmenta I Impact has been prepared. Staff recommends that
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact.
5
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
JUNE 5, 2001
VIII. RECOMMENDATION:
That Case Nos. C/Z 01 -02 and PP 01 -02 (revision) be recommended to the City
Council for approval, subject to conditions.
IX. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal notice
B. Comments from city departments and other agencies
C. Exhibits
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:
p _
Stev Smith P it Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
/tm
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL (PR-5) TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) AND A
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A 24,933 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE/BANK COMPLEX LOCATED ON 2.33 ACRES ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE EAST OF PORTOLA
AVENUE, 74-150 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. PROPOSED ZONE
CHANGE INCLUDES THE 2.33 ACRE SITE IMMEDIATELY TO
THE WEST.
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 5th day of June, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
ROBERT ORR for approval of the above noted cases; and
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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact has been prepared; 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 recommending to City Council
approval of said request:
1 . The zone change to O.P. will be consistent with the General Plan.
2. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
adjacent land uses.
3. The precise plan as conditioned is consistent with the intent and purpose of
the Office Professional zone.
4. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will
not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
5. The precise plan of design will not unreasonably interfere with the use or
enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful
purposes.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
6. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare.
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 Change of Zone 01 -02 (Exhibit B attached hereto) and Precise
Plan 01-02 are hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached
conditions.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached
hereto), is recommended for certification.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 5th day of June, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
4/
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
Department of Community 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 final approval 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 first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from 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. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the
Architectural Review Commission process.
7. 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
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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.
8. That if this project proceeds prior to development on the property to the west, it shall
install to full two-way width the access driveway shown on the site plan on the west
portion of this property and the east limit of the property to the west.
9. That an open space development plan be included as part of the landscape plan for
the open space area located on the midpoint of the lot north of the bank and south
of the office building.
Department of Public Works:
1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading
permit. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the
increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 25 year storm.
2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
3. Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent upon
a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works.
4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
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 shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to
guarantee the installation of a II required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
grading permit. "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 paid prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
7. Landscaping maintenance on Country Club Drive frontage shall be the responsibility
of the property owner_
8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
9. Project shall utilize the existing driveway access located on the east property line.
Reciprocal access agreements shall be executed with properties located to the east
and west.
10. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the
Director of Public Works and the issuance of a valid encroachment permit by the
Department of Public Works.
11 . 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 the
issuance of the grading permit.
12. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
13. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
14. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust (PM 10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the
fire department recom mends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized Fire
Protection Standards:
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3,000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 150' from
any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with
a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the
locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and
connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an
approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water-
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1OBC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walkingdistance. A "K" type
YP
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
9
10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50'
of allportions of the exterior wallsof the first story. The roadway shall not be less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 1 50' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments.
1 1 . A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development.
12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
6
4/7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
Other:
Provide secondary access from the west property line through Lot 28 (lot to the west) to
connect with the existing driveway at the southwest corner of Lot 28.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01 -02
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Robert Orr
77-734 Country Club Drive, Suite K
Palm Desert, CA 9221 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 24,933 square foot office/bank complex located on
2.33 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive east of Portola Avenue, 74-150 Country Club
Drive.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
June 5, 2001
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
8
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Joseph S. Gaugush, Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 01-02; COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS CENTER
DATE: May 30, 2001
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 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a
grading permit. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated
with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 25 year storm.
(2) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
(3) Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent
upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works.
(4) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the
Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable
City standards. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of
Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance
of any permits associated with this project.
(5) As required under Palm Desert M unicipal 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 shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to
guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of
a grading permit. "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 paid prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
(7) Landscaping maintenance on Country Club Drive frontage shall be the responsibility
of the property owner. -
(8) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this
project.
(9) Project shall utilize the existing driveway access located on the east property line.
Reciprocal access agreements shall be executed with properties located to the east
and west.
(10) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the
Director of Public Works and the issuance of a valid encroachment permit by the
Department of Public Works.
(11 ) 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 the
issuance of the grading permit.
(12) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
(13) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
(14) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12,
Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control.
JJO27 / 11
SEPH S. GA USH, P.E.
G:\PubWorks\Joe Gaugush\WPDOCS\Pplans\Pp0102ss.cnd...pd
J%
RIVERSIDE COUNTY GAUFORNIA
FIRE DEPARTMENT o,k,0:1 F,4E P80T ENT of cn a4 y
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
LINTY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY ,1tt tir
�, o,;� AND FIRE PROTECTION
RIVERSIDE. I�
�flNt� '•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE
COVE FIRE MARSHAL 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE
70.80I HWY Ill PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92570
RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 TELEPHONE: (909) 940-6900
TELEPHONE: (760) 346•1870
FAX: (760)328.107 l {M t 1
TO: S S 3DQ (
REF: 6220 /_ 02
If circled, conditions apply to project
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project,
the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with City Municipal Code,NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized
Fire Protection Standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildin per UFC article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
combustible material isplaced on the job site.
available before any
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings
4 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings
(5) 3000 gpm for commercial buildings
The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than:
6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway
165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway
0 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway
09. ---
Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water
mains will not meet the r- .uired fire flow.
diInstall a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with
a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve
the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All
valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50'
of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
printed on recycled paper •
•
/ 0 All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and
Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9.
13 Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
14. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less that one 2AIOBC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A"K"type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
15. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system NFPA
96 in all public
and private cooking operations except single-family residentialusage.
16. Install a dust collecting system per UFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that
produces airborne particles.
17. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
0
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be
less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and
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.
18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates,barriers
or other means provisions shall be made to install a"Knox Box" key over-ride
system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16"
with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or
other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance
shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted.
2 A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from a main
roadway
or an emergency gate from an adjoining development.
pla
n
licensing by
21. This project may require Lce g a state or county agency, to facilitate p
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
approved
2 All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size by the city.
OP All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
53
/
„0"/
24 Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws , or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire
Marshal Office at 760-346-1870; 70-801 Hwy. 111, Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270
Other:
ea-7k/I d4-t— c7)-1( pti-d_. /5?--cl.,-taJ 04) 1,--\. G)r-Crp j".,jti______
Jtt.)‘,_._;_„),(Abikizjit _, , ,c.e.x.,-.66,_ey____-- .
i , Lam- �/,2e, ‘56). .
1g_w
,-47
, I
Sincerel ,
M1
Coves Fire Marshal
e a-
- `>a
r
Tt-;t'
-s q#
LEGEND OF SOURCES
CASE NO. PP 01-02
1 . City of Palm Desert General Plan
2. City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance
3. City of Palm Desert Director of Community Development
4. Visual inspection by City of Palm Desert Community Development staff
5. City of Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage
6. City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance
7. Coachella Valley Water District
8. Riverside County Fire Department
9. Sheriff's Department/Palm Desert Branch
10. Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed lizard Conservation Plan
tNVI RONMENTAL CHECKLIST F' JI
1 . Project Title:
Country Club Business Centre
2. Lead Agency and Name and Address:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
3. Contact person and Phone Number:
Stephen R. Smith, Planning Manager
Department of Community Development
(760) 346-0611 ext. 486
4, Project Location:
74-150 Country Club Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Robert Orr
77-734 Country Club Drive, Suite K
Palm Desert, CA 92211
6. General Plan Designation:
Office Professional
7. Zoning:
PR-5 to O.P.
6. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
Approval of a change of zone from PR-5 to O.P. and approval of a precise plan
of design for a 24,933 square foot office and bank complex on 2.33 acres.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach
additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
NORTH: Golf Course
SOUTH: Residential
EAST: Church
WEST: Vacant
1 0. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
None
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 PAGE 1 OF 12 FORM "J"
t,c
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
2 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning
❑ Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population/Housing
❑ Public Services 0 Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑ Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
•
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment_ and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.ed.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant or"potentially significant p y gruf cant unless
mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONME
NTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required.
,�
S`gr'a-L/.62., V /' Date
Printed Name For
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 2 of 14
EVALUATION OF EN` NMENTAL IMPACTS:
I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
CITY/R VPUB/1 999/3 1 3785
FORM"T'
Page 3 of 14
5Z
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance.
SAMPLE QUESTION
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impa
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 03(
❑ ❑ ❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not ❑ ❑ ❑
limited to,tress,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ 0 0
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ 0
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of ❑ ❑ 0
Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM «)„
Page 4 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impa
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, El El �
due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland,to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable D 0 0
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 0Pti
D
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant � 0
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 0
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or
regional plans,policies,or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 5 of 14
Less That
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imps
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 0 0 ❑
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,
etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological
interruption,or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 0 0
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting D ❑ 0 �y
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or 'fit
ordinance?
1) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 0 0 V)
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,regional,or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES_ Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside ❑ 0 0 [ 1
of formal cemeteries?
CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 785 FORM `T'
Page 6 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impale
Impact Incorporated Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 0 0 0 g
effects, including the risk of loss,injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the D 0 D
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map yF
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0
D g
iii Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? D 0 D
rg
iv Landslides? 0 0 0
131
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that D D 0
would become unstable as a result of the project,and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral
spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of D D D
the Uniform Building.Code(1994),creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of D D D
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment D 0 D
through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous
materials?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "I"
Page 7 of 14
Less Than ,
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impac
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 0 0 0 ,b(
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident 1` '
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 0 0 ❑
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 0 0 ❑ 0
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ 0 0 0
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ 0 ❑
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing orPr
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ 0 ❑ g
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Cl ❑ El
injury or death involving wildland fires,including whererk
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ 0
requirements?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "J"
Page 8 of 14 (p3
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imps,
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ 0
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ 0
area,including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river,in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑
area,including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ 0 4 CIcapacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ 0 0
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ D ❑
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑
fgt
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑
cgf
injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 85 FORM"T'
Page 9 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No tmpac
Impact Incorporated Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 0 � ❑
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 D D
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan,specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 0
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 El 0
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in 0
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient D �
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 378 5 FORM "T'
Page 10 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp:
Impact Incorporated Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ 0 0
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport,would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ 0
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either- ❑ D D ram;
directly(for example,by proposing new homes and }6+
businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of
road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ 0 ❑ �'
necessitating the construction of replacement housing J�
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ❑ 0 ❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities,the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Police protection? 0 0 0
Schools?
� D D
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "7"
Page 11of14
Less Than
Issues: Significant .
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impac
Impact Incorporated Impact
Parks? 0 ❑ 0
Other public facilities? 0 ❑ ❑
1
I
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional 0 0 0
g.
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require 0 ❑ 0
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ❑ ❑ IA 0
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ 0 6
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either 0 0 0
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 0 0
(e. sharpcurvesorIA
g, dangerous intersections)or
incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0
C ITY/R VPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5
FORM "T'
Page 12 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated impact
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 014
g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs 0 0 ❑
supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 0 0 gl
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 0 ❑
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ 0 tzt
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the •
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 0 ❑ ❑ 4
project from existing entitlements and resources,or are �'
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 0 0 ❑ VI
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 0 ❑ 0
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ 0 0 gi
regulations related to solid waste?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 13 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impac
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ❑ ❑ ❑
of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat or a
fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community,reduce 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 impacts that are individually D 0 0
limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects,the effects of other current
project,and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ 0 ❑ t�{
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either
directly or indirectly?
CI TY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 14of14
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP 01-02
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE
MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
AESTHETICS:
d. New light will be produced, but the project will be required to prevent
lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting
plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
a. The property is in the designated area of the Coachella ValleyFringe-Toed
P p Y 9 9
Lizard. This project will eliminate all fringe-toed lizards within the project
boundaries. Pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan the loss of lizards and habitat can be mitigated by
payment of a $600 per acre fee for each acre developed. Project will be
conditioned to pay said fee. Mitigation fee will be used by Nature
Conservancy to purchase land in special preserves. The Coachella Valley
Preserves will create suitable habitat for lizards as well as other species.
b. The site is an in-fill site and is not suitable habitat for wildlife.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
c. The project will result in grading. Such grading will not result in any
alterations to geologic substructures. The site is relatively flat so that
grading will not create unstable earth conditions.
As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-
covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and
approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the
structural developments which will take place on the site.
The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will
be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to
adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less
water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better
direction.
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP 01-02
The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required
detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the
settlement and expansive characteristics of onsite soils. All structures
must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are
constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the
type of building and occupancies being developed.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
c. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however, the
landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material.
The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining
property as it is directed in a controlled manner.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. The project will generate additional vehicular movements but not beyond
that anticipated in the General Plan. Street design and intersections will
be designed to meet all city standards and the project will not include
incompatible uses.
2
'/
ATE0
O`.®� ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
iSTRIC
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(760)398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
JOHN W.McFADDEN,PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
RUSSELL KITAHARA,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY
TELLIS CODEKAS STEVEN B.ROBBINS,ASSISTANT TO GENERAL MANAGER
PATRICIA A.LARSON January 26, 2001 REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS
PETER NELSON
File: 0163.1
050604-3
17
Department of Community Development I
City of Palm Desert FEB
73-510 Fred Waring Drive 2 20t1'�
Palm Desert, California 92260 CCMMUtilTY CEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF RA,)OEriERT
Gentlemen:
Subject: Precise Plan No. 01-02
This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this
time.
Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the district does not need to
review drainage design further.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with
the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees
and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change.
Additional sewer pipelines in Country Club Drive will have to be installed by the subdivider in
order for the district to provide service.
Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the district for
review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Joe Cook, planning engineer, extension 292.
Yours very truly,
001/40-'-- C.41-1
Tom Levy
General Manager-Chief Engineer
cc: Don Park, Riverside County Department of Public Health
TRUE CONSERVATION
JEC:md\eng\sw\jan\pp01-02 USE WATER WISELY
.7?
•
•
CITY OF PHA DE ! L1j
•3 1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
4\, � TEL: 760 346-06i 1
•\ss i 1! FAX: 760 341-7098
iofoOpdm•desert.ors
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. C/Z 01-02 AND PP 01-02
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by ROBERT ORR for approval of a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact, a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per
acre) to O.P. (office professional), and a precise plan of design for two buildings (a single
story bank and a two-story office) on a 2.33 acre site on the north side of Country Club
Drive 450 feet east of Portola, 74-150 Country Club Drive. Proposed zone change also
includes the 2.33 acre lot immediately to the west.
*A! •
. ._5
•
L.
itittLiMiaM
GO>(J N �tT b
111111111 ' =
EIT
������ /W7 i
q I . I111
waw_
em
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, 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.rn. 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 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary 73
Mav 17 7nn1 Palm r)acart Plannirrn Cnmmiccinn
111
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 24, 2001
MINUTES
2. CASE NO.: PP 01-02, C/Z 01-02
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT ORR, 77-734 Country
Club Dr, Suite K, Palm Desert, CA 92211
ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Palm
Desert, CA 92211
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary
approval of revised architecture and landscaping plans for
office/bank complex, COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS CENTRE
LOCATION: 74-150 Country Club Drive, north side of Country
Club Drive, 450 feet east of Portola
ZONE: PR 5 to be re-zoned OP
The original proposal for this site included three office buildings: a
two-story bank building in front facing Country Club Drive and two
one-story buildings behind. Lacking ARC's approval, the Planning
Commission chose not to proceed, and the applicant withdrew his
application.
The applicants have revised the project and are planning only two
buildings, instead of three. The front building will still be the bank
building, but it will be one story instead of two. The drive-thru will be
located at the rear (north) of that building. The middle building has
been removed and replaced with a park-like setting. The second
building at the north end will be a blend of one- and two-stories.
The two-story portion will overlook the golf course. The maximum
height is now at 18 feet stepping up to 22 feet on the bank building
and 25 feet on the office building to the north.
Mr. Ricciardi pointed out the many shadows and recesses. The
front building will step up and have a higher part in the center. The
drive-thru will not be seen from Country Club Drive. The building
will be located 30 feet from the property line allowing for
landscaping along Country Club Drive. This is the same setback as
the Homme project to the west.
G/planning/gale santeelwpdocs/agmm/ar010424.min.wpd 10
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 24, 2001
MINUTES
Commissioner Gregory asked about the potential problem of having
people cross from the main parking area at the rear of the bank by
walking across the drive-through access. Mr. Ricciardi pointed out
that the offices on the Homme property were similar in set up.
Commissioner Gregory asked about the west property line. Mr.
Ricciardi responded that there were 12 foot easements on both
adjacent properties. Mr. Drell explained that the 24-foot drive aisle
is being constructed. The full aisle improvement will be made with
the exception of the landscaping. When the landscape plan is
submitted, there would be trees in that easement area. Mr. Drell
suggested installing blow-sand fencing on the adjacent
undeveloped property to prevent sand blowing into the applicant's
parking lot and against the buildings.
Commissioner Gregory remarked that this was a significant
improvement over the previous submittal on what remains to be a
very tough site. Mr. Ricciardi stated the colors will be submitted
with the working drawings, but that they would be a combination of
beiges. The preliminary landscape plan will be submitted shortly
and will include plans for the west side of the project.
Action:
Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle,
to grant preliminary approval to the revised plans for the project.
Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners Connor, Hanson, and
O'Donnell absent.
3. CASE NO.: PP 01-11
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEANNE LeDUC, PALM DESERT
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PO Box 3958, Palm Desert, CA
92261
TERESA LaROCCA, CITY OF PALM DESERT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Blvd.,
Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary
approval of architecture and landscape for 40-acre, 162-unit
affordable rental housing development , Hovley Gardens
LOCATION: Between Avenue 42 and Merle Drive, west of Cook
Street
G:Iplanning/gale santee/wpdocs/agmin/ar010424.min.wpd 11