Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 99-75 CUP 99-5, CUP 89-3 Amend 2 at 74235 Hwy 111 Lot 1 Parcel Map 26994 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to the decision of the Planning Commission approving a request by ONE EL PASEO LLC for approval of a conditional use permit to allow medical/dental office use of a 17,000 square foot building in the C-1 zone on the south side of Highway 1 1 1 , east of El Paseo (east), 74-235 Highway 1 1 1 , Lot 1 , Parcel Map 26994. III. APPELLANT: Gregory A. Swajian 74-090 El Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. APPLICANT: One El Paseo LLC 1919 Grand Avenue, Suite 2A San Diego, CA 92109 V. CASE NO: CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 Amendment #2 VI. DATE: July 8, 1999 VII. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Staff Reports dated June 1 and June 15, 1999 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving case CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 Amendment #2 E. Site Plan and Floor Plan F. Appeal Form and Attachment A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99-75 granting the appeal in part and amending Condition No. 6 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1926 to read, "That the applicant shall install a six-foot masonry wall along the southwest, south and east property lines except where the property is adjacent to an existing easement to the southwest." CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT #2 JULY 8, 1999 B. DISCUSSION: 1 . Background One El Paseo LLC owns the property at the southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and El Paseo (east). The property is currently occupied by Kaiser Grill, L.G.'s Steakhouse and a 1 ,200 square foot office. The applicant intends to construct the two remaining office buildings, a new 46,000 square foot building on the corner at Highway 1 1 1 and El Paseo and a 20,000 square foot building on the east end of the site, facing Highway 1 1 1 . These buildings were approved in 1991 under CUP 89-3 as amended. The entire parking lot was completed with finished pads. The applicant seeks approval to lease all of the easterly office building (building 'B' - 20,000 square feet gross/17,000 square feet net leasable) to medical/ dental office users. Building plans indicate four rentable spaces on the first floor and four on the second floor. At this time we do not know the mix of medical to dental users or the actual number of medical offices the building will have. After a careful analysis of the parking issue staff recommended approval of the application subject to conditions. A typical retail center in the city provides parking at four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet and is allowed up to 20% restaurant use. This project only utilizes 18% for restaurant use and the restaurants are not currently open for lunch. Following a June 1 , 1999 public hearing the Planning Commission on a 3-1 -1 vote (Commissioner Finerty no and Commissioner Beaty absent) approved the application subject to conditions. June 15, 1999 Planning Commission clarified Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 1926 to read, "That the restaurant known as L.G.'s Steakhouse or its successors, 74-225 Highway 1 1 1 , shall not open for business before 5:00 p.m., except for brunch on weekends and federally recognized holidays when offices on the site are closed." June 11 , 1 999 Mr. Swajian filed this timely appeal. 2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT #2 JULY 8, 1999 2. Analysis: Council will recall in July of 1 998 the City approved a new parking standard for medical/dental office uses. This new parking standard requires six parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of use. Municipal Code Section 25.58.31 1 (a) requires that all uses in the C-1 zone have a parking standard greater than one space per 250 square feet (i.e., 4 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet) shall obtain a conditional use permit. The earlier review of this project in 1989 and 1991 did not anticipate medical/dental office use. The main issue for consideration in reviewing this CUP was parking. The center (One El Paseo Plaza) was approved as follows: Building A: office on corner - 2 story / 46,000 gross square feet Building B: office on east end - 2 story / 20,000 gross square feet Old Desert Magazine Building: 2 restaurants - LG's/Kaiser Grill - 15,800 gross square ft. Old Desert Magazine Building: office - 1 story - 1 ,200 square feet OFFICE = 67,200 gross square feet RESTAURANT= 15,800 gross square feet Parking for 313 vehicles is provided on site. One El Paseo LLC also owns one half of the easement and parking located on an "L" shaped piece of land which extends along the southwest side of the Jet Copy building and the area between Jillian's and Jet Copy. This "L" shaped property is not part of this current application but it has become the area of concern as will be discussed later in this report. At this time with only two restaurants (open evenings only) and a 1 ,200 square foot office use, parking has never been a problem in that the entire 313 spaces have been constructed. This also makes it difficult to conduct a parking survey. Building A on the corner is to remain a general office building (A.G. Edwards is to be one tenant). Daytime use required parking would be: Building A: (General office-1 space per 250 sq. ft. after 15% reduction) = 158 spaces Building B: (medical/dental office - 6 spaces per 1 ,000 after reduction) = 102 spaces Existing Office: 1 ,200 square feet (general office) = 5 spaces TOTAL REQUIRED 265 spaces TOTAL PROVIDED 313 spaces 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT #2 JULY 8, 1999 The daytime uses should have adequate parking. The evening uses have been shown in the past to have adequate parking. The questions remaining are: i) What happens if either restaurant decides to open for lunch? ii) What happens late in the afternoon when both day and evening uses are open? ITEM i The city approvals of Kaiser Grill and L.G.'s Steakhouse did not impose conditions prohibiting lunch hour operation. The applicant advises that L.G.'s lease prohibits it from being open at lunch. The lease has many years to run. The applicant indicates that L.G.'s Steakhouse is seeking revisions to the lease to permit the restaurant to open early for brunch on weekends and holidays and to open at 4:00 daily. Planning Commission as part of this application imposed a condition for brunch on weekends and federal holidays when the office uses are not open but not to open at 4:00 daily. As noted previously, the proposed day uses account for 265 of the 313 available spaces. This does not account for the possibility that Kaiser Grill could be open at lunch. Kaiser is approximately 5,000 square feet and as such has a full parking requirement of 60 spaces (i.e., 10 per 1 ,000 square feet for the first 3,000 + 15 per 1 ,000 square feet thereafter 30 + 30). Without Kaiser open for lunch there was a parking excess of 48 spaces for code purposes. If Kaiser Grill were open at lunch we would have a 12 space (3.8%) shortfall for code purposes. ITEM ii There is the potential for a conflict between day and evening uses during the late afternoon. Thursday, May 6, 1999 staff surveyed the parking lot at 4:15 p.m. and at that time there were 20 cars. The restaurants currently open at 5:30 p.m. The Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring that the medical/dental offices not be open past 5:00 p.m. and required the applicant to submit a parking management plan to delineate employee parking areas, valet areas and hours and other parking related issues to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 3. Issues Raised by Appellant: 4 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT #2 JULY 8, 1999 Mr. Swajian met with staff, wrote a letter to the Planning Commission, spoke at the public hearing at Planning Commission and filed this appeal. ITEM (a) Initially Mr. Swajian expressed concern that parking demand on the One El Paseo LLC site would overflow to adjacent properties and streets (meeting with staff May 18, 1999 and letter dated May 18, 1999). In his testimony before Planning Commission his concern changed when he learned that a wall was proposed to close off the easement. At that time he expressed concern that Jillian's would no longer be able to park vehicles on the One El Paseo LLC property. He also expressed concern that the Fire Department access would be negatively impacted. Staff Response Staff initially recommended a condition to address Mr. Swajian's concern (i.e., close off the easement with a gate so One El Paseo LLC parking does not overflow the site). Staff have discussed the matter of closing the easement further with the Fire Department and we concur that if the easement is closed with a gate system it will be an ongoing enforcement problem. Having fire access takes precedence over the problem of Jillian's using the One El Paseo LLC parking lot. Therefore staff is recommending that the easement not be blocked. One El Paseo LLC has other methods at its disposal to prevent Jillian's from using its parking lot. ITEM (b) "Parking requirements for medical/dental and the other proposed professional building, existing restaurants serving lunches, and building height are also the subject matter of the Appeal." Staff Response The parking requirements have been discussed at length earlier in this report. This project will be parked in excess of other comparable developments on El 5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT #2 JULY 8, 1999 Paseo and restaurants amount to only 18% of the total. By policy the city permits up to 20% of retail centers to be used for restaurant purposes. Neither restaurant currently serves lunch and Condition No. 4 of the Planning Commission action prohibits L.G.'s Steakhouse from opening before 5:30 p.m. except on weekends and holidays. The city approved the entire project in 1991 . All of the improvements for these two new two-story office buildings have been installed. All the parking for the project has been installed. The only part that remains is the construction of the two office buildings. The issue at this time is whether one of the new office buildings can be used for medical/dental uses, not whether these buildings can be constructed or whether they can be two-story. The plans as submitted comply with the C-1 zone provisions as they relate to setbacks and height. Prepared by: '� 'bieve Smith Reviewed and Approved by--_� `^� Phil Drell /tm '"ITY COUNC_ I,Y� ACTION: ?.PROVED,. DENIED'` DENIED *Waive further reading and adopt OTHER Resolution No. 99-75, granting the appeal in part and amending Condition DATE ' No. 6 of Planning Commission Resolution APV1 � � No. 1926 to read, "That the applicant `� 'S' shall install a six-foot masonry wall IISTAIN• ..� along the southwest, south and east VERIFIED BY: —T�1IlfIIIM. property lines except where the property is adjacent to an existing Original on File with Cite" k's Office driveway to the southwest". If over- flow parking problem becomes significant in the future, applicant or adjacent property owner may request an amendment to this condition to install a wall or gate system to separate the properties, 6 RESOLUTION NO. 99-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING IN PART AN APPEAL BY GREGORY A. SWAJIAN TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST BY ONE EL PASEO LLC FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE USE OF A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING IN THE C-1 ZONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1 , EAST OF EL PASEO (EAST), 74-235 HIGHWAY 1 1 1 . CASE NO. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of June, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by ONE EL PASEO LLC for the above noted conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has by its Resolution No. 1926 as amended approved the requested conditional use permit subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, Gregory A. Swajian on June 1 1 , 1 999 filed a timely appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 8th day of July, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal by Gregory A. Swajian; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting said appeal: 1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use and the conditions under which it will operate will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goal's, objectives and the policies of the city's general plan. RESOLUTION NO. 99-75 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That the appeal dated June 10, 1999 filed by Gregory A. Swajian is hereby granted in part. 3. That Condition No. 6 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1926 is amended to read as follows: "That the applicant shall install a six-foot masonry wall along the southwest, south and east property lines except where the property is adjacent to an existing easement to the southwest." PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 •✓'" •••.•, 3/91 =fr" , ��► _ 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA +� --c: l7J�. _ :0i —_ ol: y APPLICATION TO A L1 i , . • DECISION OF THE Palm Desert Pl anni nPqXmPf qnS C; , , _ (Name of Comnittee/Commission) Case No. 99-5/CUP 89-3 Meeting Date: June 1 , 1999 Name of Appellant Gregory A. Swa j i an . 74-090 El Paseo Address Palm Desert, California 92260 Phone: (760 ) 341 -9322 ' Description of Application: Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 17,000 square foot medical /dental office located at 74-235 El Paseo Reason for Appeal: See attachment hereto. i., c, Signature of Appellant ( Dare -/6)'y FOR OFFICIAL US 0 % Date Appeal Filed: �`' �� 7 9 Fee Received: p Treasurer's Receipt#: Received by:/1 Public Hearing Set For-. -9 / F.' �� �� � r- h: VI Action taken by the City Council: , Date: Sheila R. Gillman, City Clerk 06/02/99 WED 16:12 (TX/RX NO 5485] Lj002 1 City of Palm Desert, California Application to Appeal Attachment 1 A letter from the Riverside County Fire Department dated June 3, 1999(attached hereto)contradicts the representation by the Applicant at the Planning hearing that the access between Jillian's and the subject property be walled off was approved by the Fire Marshall. Parking requirements for medical/dental and the other proposed professional building, existing restaurants serving lunches, and building height are also the subject matter of the Appeal. RIVERSIDE COUNTY /OpLifORNlq e FIRE DEPARTMENT oPF1aE PROTEC oN IN COOPERATION WITH THE • �!' COUNTY ' CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RIVERSIDE,: ,;:;e AND FIRE PROTECTION C F9RESTr c " JAMES M. WRIGHT CF FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE COVE FIRE MARSHAL 70-801 HWY 111 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92570 TELEPHONE: (909) 940-6900 TELEPHONE: (760) 346-1870 FAX: (760) 328-1071 TO: Steve Smith 6-3-99 FROM: Mike Mc Connell Fire Marshal SUBJECT: CUP 99-5 Dear Steve, It has come to my attention that there is a plan to wall off the access between Jillian's and the new medical/dental office building. I do not understand how this got past my office, I never would have approved of such a plan. It is possible that I overlooked it somehow. Bottom line is the fire department does not support this wall as it will create an even worst situation than already exists. I would rather see the driveway remain completely open, I would however approve of a gate that could be easily opened to allow for fire department access and egress. If a gate is installed no parking would be allowed on either side of the gate. I see the gate option as a continuous enforcement problem because I know people will park in front of the gate and block emergency vehicle access and egress. Since ely, Cv .;<t. ( Mike Mc Connell Fire Marshal cc: sabby jonathan gregory swajian printed on recycled paper CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 1 , 1999 CASE NO: CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 Amendment #2 REQUEST: Approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 17,000 square foot medical/dental office located at 74-235 El Paseo. APPLICANT: One El Paseo LLC 1919 Grand Avenue, Suite 2A San Diego, CA 92109 I. BACKGROUND: The building is part of the One El Paseo Plaza (Kaiser Grill and L.G.'s Steakhouse) at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and El Paseo. The applicant intends to construct the two remaining office buildings, a new 46,000 square foot building on the corner at Highway 111 and El Paseo and a 20,000 square foot building on the east end of the site, facing Highway 1 1 1 . These buildings were approved in 1991 under CUP 89-3 as amended. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval to lease all of the easterly building (building 'B' - 20,000 square feet gross/17,000 square feet net leasable) to medical/dental office users. Building plans indicate four rentable spaces on the first floor and four on the second floor. At this time we do not know the mix of medical to dental users or the actual number of medical offices the building will have. III. ANALYSIS: Commission will recall in July of 1998 council approved a new parking standard for medical/dental office uses. This new parking standard requires six parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of use. Municipal Code Section 25.58.31 1 (a) requires that all uses in the C-1 zone have a parking standard greater than one space per 250 square feet (i.e., 4 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet) shall obtain a conditional use permit. STAFF REPORT CUP 99-5 JUNE 1, 1999 The earlier review of this project in 1989 and 1991 did not anticipate medical/dental office use. The main issue for consideration in reviewing this CUP is parking. The center (One El Paseo Plaza) was approved as follows: Building A: office on corner - 2 story / 46,000 gross square feet Building B: office on east end - 2 story / 20,000 gross square feet Old Desert Magazine Building: 2 restaurants - LG's/Kaiser Grill - 15,800 gross square ft. Old Desert Magazine Building: office - 1 story - 1 ,200 square feet OFFICE = 67,200 gross square feet RESTAURANT= 15,800 gross square feet Parking for 313 vehicles is provided on site. At this time with only two restaurants (open evenings only) and a 1 ,200 square foot office use, parking has never been a problem in that the entire 313 spaces have been constructed. This also makes it difficult to conduct a parking survey. Building A on the corner is to remain a general office building (A.G. Edwards is to be one tenant). Daytime use required parking would be: Building A: (General office-1 space per 250 sq. ft. after 15% reduction) = 158 spaces Building B: (medical/dental office - 6 spaces per 1 ,000 after reduction) = 102 spaces Existing Office: 1 ,200 square feet (general office) = 5 spaces TOTAL REQUIRED 265 spaces TOTAL PROVIDED 313 spaces The daytime uses should have adequate parking. The evening uses have been shown in the past to have adequate parking. The questions remaining are: i) What happens if either restaurant decides to open for lunch? ii) What happens late in the afternoon when both day and evening uses are open? ITEM I The city approvals of Kaiser Grill and L.G.'s Steakhouse did not impose conditions prohibiting lunch hour operation. The applicant advises that L.G.'s lease prohibits it from being open at lunch. The lease has many years to run. The applicant indicates 2 STAFF REPORT CUP 99-5 JUNE 1, 1999 that L.G.'s Steakhouse is seeking revisions to the lease to permit the restaurant to open early for brunch on weekends and holidays. Staff will suggest a condition which will require the property owner to request an amendment to CUP 89-3, as amended, should L.G.'s or successors request a change to their lease to permit opening before 5:00 p.m. As noted previously, the proposed day uses account for 265 of 313 available spaces. This does not account for the possibility that Kaiser Grill could be open at lunch. Kaiser is approximately 5,000 square feet and as such has a full parking requirement of 60 spaces (i.e., 10 per 1 ,000 square feet for the first 3,000 + 15 per 1 ,000 square feet thereafter 30+30). Without Kaiser open for lunch there was a parking excess of 48 spaces for code purposes. The parking should be adequate even if one restaurant were to be open for lunch. The applicant indicates that a six foot wall will be constructed along the southwest property line between this site, Jillian's and the Blueprinter sites. Staff will condition that the wall be implemented as part of this application in order to prevent parking of this site from spilling over to the adjacent properties. ITEM II There is the potential for a conflict between day and evening uses during the late afternoon. Thursday, May 6, 1999 staff surveyed the parking lot at 4:15 p.m. and at that time there were 20 cars. The restaurants currently open at 5:30 p.m. It is our intention to impose a condition requiring that the medical/dental offices not be open past 5:00 p.m. and to require the applicant to submit a parking management plan to delineate employee parking areas, valet areas and hours and other parking related issues to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. CONCERNS: A letter was received from Gregory A. Swajian, owner of neighboring properties. He raises a number of issues which we believe are answered in the report and in the suggested conditions of approval. Mr. Swajian also raises issue with respect to an easement between the rear of the Blueprinter building and the entry to Jillians. Mr. Rasmussan advises that easement was a grant of half those parking spaces for use by his project. These spaces were 3 STAFF REPORT CUP 99-5 JUNE 1, 1999 not included in our parking analysis and in fact staff is recommending that the applicant be required to wall off this site from those to the west. Mr. Swajian indicates that when he visited the department he was advised that the project "is short at least 34 spaces...". To clarify, the proposed office building if it were to be a medical/dental building would require 34 additional spaces. This additional parking is included in our analysis as is shown in the chart in the middle of page 2. A. FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. Response: Medical/dental offices are permitted uses in the C-1 district with approval of a conditional use permit. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Response: The proposed location of the conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding properties. Limiting the hours of operation will help to avoid conflicts with surrounding uses. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except variances or adjustments. Response: The proposed use and other existing uses on the site when operated pursuant to existing conditions of approval and suggested conditions for this application will meet all of the zoning ordinance requirements. 4 STAFF REPORT CUP 99-5 JUNE 1 , 1999 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and thepolicies of the city'sgeneral plan. Y Response: The proposed medical/dental office is consistent with the zoning and general plan. The use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and has been classified a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. approving CUP 99-5, subject to conditions. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Plans and exhibits Prepared by -Z,i `fit ve Smith Reviewed and Approved b Phil Drell /tm 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE LOCATED AT 73-235 EL PASEO. CASE NO. CUP 99-5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of June, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by ONE EL PASEO LLC for the above mentioned; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "Cityof Palm PP P q Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the director of community development has determined that the project is a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use and the conditions under which it will operate will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goal's, objectives and the policies of the city's general plan. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-5 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of June, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT #2 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. That the restaurant known as L.G.'s Steakhouse or its successors, 74-225 Highway 111 shall not open for business before 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 5. That the hours of operation for the medical/dental office building (the building at 74- 235 Highway 111 ) shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The property owner shall impose said condition on all leases in said building. 6. That the applicant shall install a six foot masonry wall along the southwest, south and east property lines. 3 05/25/1999 21:37 6192734454 OCEAN PROPERTIES DEV PAGE 02 Ocean Properties _ - Development Corporation • c I MIy 251999 May 26, 1999 LAdm uivfryE;:YELOPM_ TC CITYOF PALM DESERT Crii • Mr. Steve Smith Staff Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr_ Palm Desert,CA 92260 RE: C.U.P. 99-5 Application for One El Paseo, L.L.C. Steve: Pursuant to your request for additional project information concerning our Conditional Use Permit Application 99-5,I am providing the following information: 1. As it relates to available parking,currently the 7,232 sq/ft portion of the restaurant building occupied by LG's Steakhouse is restricted to evening dining only. We are currently in the final stages of executing a lease extension with this restaurant through the year 2011 plus three(3) five(5)year options. The lease extension authorizes evening dinner dining only with early dining allowed on weekends and holidays when the remaining portion of the project is not typically in normal use. 2. In reviewing any issues brought up by the property owner on our west boundary, please he advised that we are putting up a solid four foot high block wall that separates us from this adjoining site. The block wall mentioned above has no pedestrian access to allow a"park and walk"to our project scenario. I have included with this memorandum a site plan(Exhibit"A") of our project. This wall would clearly prevent any of our project's tenants or visitors from parking on any adjoining site's property. • 1919 Grand Avenue, SuiteSan Di ego,2A • P ego, California 92109 (619) 273-6600 • (619)273-4454 FAX 67-555 East Palm Canyon Drive, Suite F120 • Cathedral City, California 92234 052699.OEP.C.U.P.Applicaton.Add.(nfd76O) 770-5777 • (760) 770-5775 FAX 05/25/1999 21:37 6192734454 OCEAN PROPERTIES DEV PAGE 03 ci••ntrict rr.`!if Qu pie•: ' 6311144'izerc ai titi. aR-our project or the /'ern•it S:p l;Jic J1: SS �J Sauiv� . P.. •,k.s..t:x*s:r: • r'1AY 2 1999 ‘444114UNIrrEEVEL M CirYOFPgtmnESt him l • • • • ;••x.. ;.'v.%A rri-adp•l►.A•a1.:':.. • 05/25/1999 21:37 6192734454 OCEAN PROPERTIES DEV PAGE 04 11 f -,• iL=. _I i g ' 111111U11 t ;� ' 111111U111111111b N, ;� I _ -_ ha.- \ I _ ..w,c.ir,.11:6- Q i Ili I la\: H_ 11 rill:1111 likp — I-1-1 -.4\ = :-....- err �, 3 1 . ri. 1 ,_ pi t: .:,,,\... x N - , -_-_- 1 , (.,gm. ,...-; ,,-" Ic . .�s - ■ri/ fi vk , IN i' iiit-IY 5 1999 commtiNITYCEYELOP&:f NTCEPrRT ENT CITY Of-PALM DESERT Sd a I 1 05/27/99 THU 11:11 FAX 7603413635 21002 GREGORY A. SWAJIAN • 74-090 El Paseo • Palm Desert, California 92260 • TELEPHONE(760) 341-9322 FACSIMILE(760)341-3635 • • May 18, 1999 RECEIVED VIA FACSIMILE ONLY 341-7098 MAY 2 7 1999 Mr. Steve Smith COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Manager CITY OF PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Conditional Use Permit No_ 99-5 Dear Mr. Smith: Please be advised that 19wn 74r175 El Paseo, the neighboring commercial property and the easement for ingress and egress for One El Paseo LLC and Jillians. I also own the office building at 74-090 El Paseo. I had the opportunity to briefly discuss this project with you at the City of Palm Desert at noon on May 18, 1999. Questions were asked of you that I think need to be discussed at the hearing regarding parking. It is any understanding that there are no specific tenants for the proposed medical/dental building. The tenants could include a medical clinic and/or a dental clinic of which the parking requirement 9f 6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage would be necessary to meet the City of Palm Desert's Parking Ordinance. You also discussed that there is already a parking problem at the Sunlife Building which consists of doctors, optometrist, etc.( You also stated that One El Paseo, LLC is short at least 34 spaces than required if all the existing project parking was vacant between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. regarding their 17,000 square foot building. However, there is an existing office which utilizes approximately 5 spaces between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Also, you advised me that an additional 40,000 square feet of business development of additional office space is also planned for One El Paseo LLC requiring 160 or more parking spaces (if the space does not include medical/dental).' There are two restaurants at One El Paseo LLC of which the management/employees begin arriving shortly after noon, seven days a week. As we also discussed, LG's Steak House served lunches approximately four to five years ago during the winter season. If the existing restaurants commence serving lunches (or their successors-in-interest serve lunch) the parking will be grossly insufficient and will create a problem similar or worse to the parking problem at Portola Plaza, the northeast corner of Portola and Highway 111, where Ruth's Chris Steak House is located. 05/27/99 THU 11:11 FAX 7603413635 g1003 Gregory A. Swajian RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1999 0 Mr. Smith May 18, 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Page 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT Also, medical/dental personnel, administrative staff and patients often remain on the premises after 5:00 p.m. which is the commencement of the bar/dinner hour of the existing restaurants. thus, my properties at 74-090 and 74-175 El Paseo and the easement would become overburdened. The extra cars would also spill over to other El Paseo properties and El Paseo would be lined with parked cars. There are additional issues regarding the easement. The former owners (Mr. Cusak, Mr. Radaker and PDNB) of the property sold to One El Paseo, LLC received the Riverside County Property Tax Statements for years and failed to pay same. I had meetings with Mr. Rassmussen and One El Paseo, LLC Iasi year regarding the property taxes and maintenance and repairs of the easement. Nothing hil s been done. 1 The maintenance and, rep it of the easement, taxes, ingress and egress to One El Paseo, LLC and Jillians needs to be rrsolved,prior to approval of the project and should be a condition of approval of the project. One El Paseo, LLC's predecessors-in-interest who owned the property prior to Mr. Cusak' and Mr. Radaker, i.e., Samuel I. Russell filed litigation against the predecessor-in-intere t to Jillians_ The resolution was recorded including the responsibility for the property taxes an maintenance of the easement. This responsibility was discussed at length with Mr. Rassmusse lal Fall. Recently, I received a telephone call from Mr. Rassmussen's assistant that the Cou ty operty Taxes were again delinquent for April 1999 and I advised him of the above and he aid would get back to me after he talked to Mr. Rassmussen. I am sure that the C y aid One iEl Paseo LLC will resolve the size of the building, parking, traffic, maintenance)f th easement and property taxes of the easement. We don't want the parkin pmbleTms that exist at the Sunlife Building or the traffic and parking problems at Portola laza. I would also like to e the staff report prior to any hearing, Please advise. Co ti G RY . SW GAS:di CITY OF PRIM DESFIT 73-310 FRED WARING DRIVE .1 , y PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 TEL: 760 346-0611 i.i:....•• FAX:760 341-7098 ,',i -•"'' infoOpslin d org • CITY OF PALM DESERT • LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.:CLIP 99-5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission td consider a request by ONE EL PASEO,LLC for approval of a conditional use permit to allow medical/dental o ce use of a 17,000 square foot building in the C-1 zone on the south side of Highway 111,east of El Paseo(east), 7 235 Highway 111,Lot 1,Parcel Map 26994. 1 W 1 "'I;;I s.o.�.�� s ."►. -I P.R.-S,N. 1.3�1fj ■ :■ ■- ,�,Lm.. _Ad; rim U�SIh 3 -1 II -- -- - - 700iw*- rr-ca.r[r ����41���:Iui!'lUli! 4�i r. / (I!t ae'6Q4 i tv* ail ."Ai RTTI eV. i 3. 0 ' e3EgEl'i 111�I9�3[31:1L'I MISIZIO I., Alm .m.�unium.H. °i4i'a III 1 1111111111122211 nrarn,��uosmt 4.1.A, III srarE .N,IG, . ll,iiIII1IuI 11 1 ii-1 , - - am PIS EO _ TOO ,'t R-3 20. (3) - __ .,•.. TOO '/!>�ii �s-;t- ft44 . le Iit - . s 31.0G* 1.101”11.1. DRIVE ' F I ,"'�i�, 4 I R 1 Itg bb0(c3) I I ` I! I, i.IRo[r�I.21) 1 F41 12:000 �1 I •I 41•::/1 p p-olo. I 1 . vim 11'1A1i o. �■ ,, I.oRa1 I2100� l..l. c.1' I I . t I R � 00kusiuv �1 in PI ■I .I IT'r1T'ITTn 1 �,,, w.Il.wwwowww SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,June 1, 1999,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 700 p.m.in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall,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 itwms covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to date of the hearing. Information concerning the p oposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community rir evelopment/Planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a,m.and 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. you challenge the proposed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else r •sed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning omission(or City Council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. P�mBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL,Secretary May 14, 1999 Palm Desert Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1926 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE LOCATED AT 74-235 HIGHWAY 111 . CASE NO. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of June, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by ONE EL PASEO LLC for the above mentioned; 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. 97-18," in that the director of community development has determined that the project is a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use and the conditions under which it will operate will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goal's, objectives and the policies of the city's general plan. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1926 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-5 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of June, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, LOPEZ, JONATHAN NOES: FINERTY ABSENT: BEATY ABSTAIN: NONE SABBY JO AT AN, Chairperson ' ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, ecretary Palm Desert PI nning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1926 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT #2 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. That the restaurant known as L.G.'s Steakhouse or its successors, 74-225 Highway 1 1 1 , shall not open for business before 5:00 p.m., federally rccognizcd holiday weekends., *except to a//ow L.G. 's Steakhouse to be open for brunch on weekends and federally recognized holidays when offices on the site are closed. 5. That the hours of operation for the medical/dental office building (the building at 74- 235 Highway 111 ) shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The property owner shall impose said condition on all leases in said building. 6. That the applicant shall install a six foot masonry wall along the southwest, south and east property lines. 7. Applicant shall submit a parking management plan to delineate employee parking areas, valet areas and hours, and other parking related issues to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. *Amended by Planning Commission June 1 5, 1999. 3 05/27/99 THU 11:11 FAX 7803413635 41 uuc GREGORY A. SWAJIAN • 74-090 El Paseo Palm Desert, California 92260 • ! TELEPHONE(760) 341-9322 FACSIMILE(760)341-3635 • May 18, 1999 RECEIVED VIA FACSIMILE ONLY 341-7098 MAY 2 7 1999 Mr. Steve Smith COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP;,RTMEN) Planning Manager CM'OF PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Conditional Use Permit No_ 99-5 Dear Mr. Smith: Please be advised that I own 74-175 El Paseo, the neighboring commercial property and the easement for ingress and, egress,for One El Paseo LLC and Jillians. I also own the office building at 74-090 El Paseo. I had the opportunity to briefly discuss this project with you at the City of Palm Desert at noon on May 18, 1999. Questions were asked of you that I think need to be discussed at the hearing regarding parking. It is my understanding that there are no specific tenants for the proposed medical/dental building. The tenants could include a medical clinic and/or a dental clinic of which the parking requirement of 6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage would be necessary to meet the City of Palm Desert's Parking Ordinance. You also discussed that there is already a parking problem at the Sunlife Building which consists of doctors, optometrist, etc. You also stated that One El Paseo, LLC is short at least 34 spaces than required if all the existing project parking was vacant between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. regarding their 17,000 square foot building. However, there is an existing office which utilizes approximately 5 spaces between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Also, you advised me that an additional 40,000 square feet of business development of additional office space is also planned for One El Paseo LLC requiring 160 or more parking spaces (if the space does not include medical/dental). There are two restaurants at One El Paseo LLC of which the management/employees begin arriving shortly after noon, seven days a week. As we also discussed, LG's Steak House served lunches approximately four to five years ago during the winter season. If the existing restaurants commence serving lunches (or their successors-in-interest serve lunch) the parking will be grossly insufficient and will create a problem similar or worse to the parking problem at Portola Plaza, the northeast corner of Portola and Highway 111, where Ruth's Chris Steak House is located. 05/27/99 THU 11:11 FAX 7603413635 l uuu Gregory A . Swajian RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1999 Mr. Smith May 18, 1999 COMMUNITY GEVELOPMEi4T DEPARTMENT Page 2 CRY OF PALM DESERT Also, medical/dental personnel, administrative staff and patients often remain on the premises after 5:00 p.m. which is the commencement of the Aar/dinner hour of the existing restaurants. thus, my properties at 74-090 and 74-175 El Paseo and the easement would become overburdened. The extra cars would also spill over to other El Paseo properties and El Paseo would be lined with parked cars. There are additional issues regarding the easement. The former owners (Mr. Cusak, Mr. Radaker and PDNB) of the property sold to One El Paseo, LLC received the Riverside County Property Tax Statements for years and failed to pay same. I had meetings with Mr. Rassmussen and One El Paseo, LLC last year regarding the property taxes and maintenance and repairs of the easement. Nothing has been done. The maintenance and repair of the easement, taxes, ingress and egress to One El Paseo, LLC and Jillians needs to be resolved prior to approval of the project and should be a condition of approval of the project_ Qne El Paseo, LLC's predecessors-in-interest who owned the property prior to Mr. Cusak and Mr. Radaker, i.e., Samuel I. Russell filed litigation against the predecessor-in-interest to Jillians_ The resolution was recorded including the responsibility for the property taxes and maintenance of the easement. This responsibility was discussed at length with Mr. Rassmussen last Fall. Recently, I received a telephone call from Mr. Rassmussen's assistant that the County Property Taxes were again delinquent for April 1999 and I advised him of the above and he said he would get back to me after he talked to Mr. Rassmussen. I I am sure that the City and One El Paseo LLC will resolve the size of the building, parking, traffic, maintenance of the easement and property taxes of the easement. We don't want the parking problems that exist at the Sunlife Building or the traffic and parking problems at Portola plazas. I would also like to c firstaff report prior to any hearing. Please advise. Coy i GRE RY . SWATTIAN GAS:dj CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER DATE: JUNE 15, 1999 SUBJECT: CONDITION CLARIFICATION FOR CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT ONE EL PASEO LLC I. BACKGROUND: At the hearing of June 1 , 1999, the applicant indicated that L.G.'s Steakhouse wished to be able to open on holidays for brunch. Commission responded with an amendment to condition no. 4 which allowed L.G.'s to be open for Sunday brunch on holiday weekends. Mr. Rasmussen has requested clarification of this condition to allow L.G.'s to be open for brunch "weekends and holidays." Staff has no objection to allowing L.G.'s to be open for brunch when the office building uses would not be open. Therefore, we have no objection to L.G.'s being open for brunch on weekends and federally recognized holidays when the offices are not open. II. RECOMMENDATION: That Condition No. 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1926 be clarified to read: "open for brunch on weekends and federally recognized holidays when any offices on the site are not open." Prepared By: Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved BV' Ir Philip Drell /tm Co 1 /0ierf RECEIVED JUN101999 / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �/(_ r CITY OF PALM DESERT A y6(A, a; e/2_,T Acn • c . qg /, O147/e ne,/,416 C' G,d,D 7-6 •. ? is /�aG/�,�y ����cwd s r ,2cPl7/ r 774-frir cve ��xT A�k„v/.v c�rA2, y T -ride-ride_ (-06'4-' w,6's &Va idozieOgV yy) �u�c1 owe e„yelr 05/25/1999 21:37 6192734454 OCEAN PROPERTIES DEV PAGE 02 Ocean Properties Development Corporation • F:ECFIVE MAY 2 5 1999 May 26, 1999 w41kiitiNI YEEVE.LGoi.; —u.r j inth1 CRy OF PALM DESERT Mr. Steve Smith Staff Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr_ Palm Desert,CA 92260 RE: C.U.P. 99-5 Application for One El Paseo, L.L.C. Steve: Pursuant to your request for additional project information concerning our Conditional Use Permit Application 99-5,I am providing the following information: 1. As it relates to available parking,currently the 7,232 sq/ft portion of the restaurant building occupied by LG's Steakhouse is restricted to evening dining only. We are currently in the final stages of executing a lease extension with this restaurant through the year 2011 plus three(3) five(5)year options. The lease extension authorizes evening dinner dining only with early dining allowed on weekends and holidays when the remaining portion of the project is not typically in normal use. 2. In reviewing any issues brought up by the property owner on our west boundary, please be advised that we are putting up a solid four foot high block wall that separates us from this adjoining site. The block wall mentioned above has no pedestrian access to allow a"park and walk"to our project scenario. I have included with this memorandum a site plan(Exhibit "A") of our project. This wall would clearly prevent any of our project's tenants or visitors from parking on any adjoining site's property. 1919 Grand Avenue, Suite 2A • San Diego, California 92109 (619) 273-6600• (619)273-4454 FAX 67-555 East Palm Canyon Drive, Suite F120 • Cathedral City, California 92234 052699.OEP.C.U.P.Application.Add.(grd76O) 770-5777 • (760) 770-5775 FAX 05/25/1999 21:37 6192734454 OCEAN PROPERTIES DEV PAGE 03 E'tea cl••ntrlcr rrx if yQU furth4w• itift rnrttivrJ..'.of:r project or the Fenrr.i_ • C�")Ir:�tlall: V -4 : 'i w_m );r • RFf, >>v,� '.lily 2 5 1999 mOF paw nESERr/484"Etii • • • 1 05/25/1999 21:37 6192734454 OCEAN PROPERTIES DEV PAGE 04 1 ((a : - h i JIll IIUII ugli . iIll NI II WI N,� J ,��,i � Willi a.^ _1 _ _ ., _ ......__ 0 _ = u-- _ _ u_ _ _ _ , ..., ._ _,\,,,.....r II _ ii_ _ _ , ,, ,, _ _ ........_ , 0- . , ..N\ 1 a 7._glir: E- v." . . Li : ,..„ . 1.1 .7 , 12: ......\'‘. "s„,\ — ......_..—_ V % I lie ,_ !I.. ..,_ im........mm-,..mmompirmio — ),... w _ , 1•1: ,t• a r. .: . , ‘ 1 • �'� /:: ��AY 2 5 1999 CC,�MUNITY GEVE!Qo�f�fJT DEPtiRTAiEN7 —-----.--...'''..-''''''''.''....N.N4\Ni CfTy OF FAU,f DESERT O 6- aIS CITY Of PALM O [ RI •. •j 73-310 FRED WARING DRIVE :. ".\ PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92 2 60-2 5 7 8 •., .' rat: 760 346-0611 'e :. .a•r.'•• FAX:760 341-7098 .', iafo•pala•desett.ins • CITY OF PALM DESERT • LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.:CUP 99-5 • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission td consider a request by ONE EL PASEO,LLC for approval of a conditional use permit to allow medical/dental once use of a 17,000 square foot building in the C-1 zone on the south side of Highway 111,east of El Paseo(east), 7235 Highway 111,Lot 1,Parcel Map 26994. II LL-i s.o,L.''NEBI f I] ."^. 1 P.R.-5,N. ___ :II), " - -rcrl elsiii:,iii,z33 -I I II --- I_ ,o 00 mig - - ..r , I { _/�emir.... I -- —Ili t -nuil►V ill . -.-a,or •4.-4,4tworA:ralviliiin imp. —44k 414%.. //• J(''���1�r1�1!'�JI L.(• y 1 3. 0 / SI i _ c//f ..11 o�aR� s_tsu- r)' as a7ell.. e3r`Ia .Ry3 co � l R-� 4,i'10Ylt•1SQQ1'•ZZIIy i_' I i I u.c 1�-r.0.1 WI 1 I_.l 0'o H 1 I u!I3QEia ..'�N 1a.aa=1 at a I.M"arl! H,owww 111 S T A T E —• —kr1 C. ., iaara-411. 1 .:1/141(61111111111 I IC—fIL_EL • , P•S E 0 _ i/ -- �• •-1 R-3 20irip .. -3) ,r ! 1 - • •gigs1 -. i i �' IPj `-: .'' '�� i- w4 ,, . .ey. A OVA SMa Gv • rvF 1 ' -'•v -� I ! A1 It$,b00(C3�"1 1 A !: 1c; 1R.4(i .i1oo r ac, u,1 11III woe�o a, ,210oo I R•I P 1I 13?' I I I 1 . 11RU1L,T `s.•oor . — l i 1 Ri*,1 Imam \` rFl, )2j0'" \ cerco.. cwrcaar a.. r r. r( 0 ara,awrnaawro SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,June 1, 1999,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 7,00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall,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 date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community t evelopment/Planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. I 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 Clommission(or City Council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL,Secretary May 14, 1999 Palm Desert Planning Commission MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY W. LYONS, 160 Menil Place in Palm Desert, said that one of the conditions in the report was the easement agreement that was entered into between the Palm Desert Parking Authority, himself and his wife, and that agreement had been drafted and required the concurrence of Walgreens with certain aspects. He received those concurrences and they had fulfilled all the requirements for their part. They signed it and had 'given it back to Mr. Erwin and requested and obtained May 12 insurance in favor of the Parking Authority. Mr. Erwin now had it in his possession. Mr. Smith informed the applicant that Mr. Erwin would be putting the agreement on the next council agenda. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1925, approving PM 29166, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case Nos. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 Amendment #2 - ONE EL PASEO LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 17,000 square foot medical/dental office located at 74-235 El Paseo. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the location was 74-235 Highway 111, not El Paseo. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the request was also for a 20,000 square foot building and there was also 46,000 in addition to that. Mr. Smith said he would cover that in his report. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 Mr. Smith indicated that Planning Commission received a piece of correspondence that was received after the commission packets were delivered. That was a letter from Mr. Rasmussen, the applicant, which included a copy of his title report on the property. Mr. Smith said they were talking about the property at the southeast corner of El Paseo and Highway 111 . At this point the property was occupied by Kaiser Grill and L.G.'s Steakhouse, and a small office at the rear of that building. They were approved in 1991 . At that time there were two additional office buildings approved that had not yet been constructed. Mr. Rasmussen acquired the property recently and intended to proceed with and subject to those approvals. The building on the corner as mentioned would be a two-story 46,000 square foot building. The building to the east was a two-story 20,000 square foot building. He pointed out the site plan on display. He showed the location of the existing buildings toward the center of the site, the two story building located on the corner and the two story building on the east side, which was the building subject to tonight's hearing. The request by the applicant was to allow the easterly 20,000 square foot building, which nets out to about 17,000 square feet, to be used for medical office purposes. He noted that in the last year the zoning code was amended to require six parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of medical office uses. The code requires that any parking in the C-1 zone, any use above four spaces per 1 ,000, is required to obtain a conditional use permit approved through the planning commission. The 1991 review of this application did not anticipate medical office use, hence the applicant was requesting it at this point. The parking for the entire project had been constructed. There were 313 parking spaces on this property. The site plan was one used at the time of the 1991 approval and he noted it showed a few parking spaces to the west of this property and that was part of the reason for Mr. Rasmussen's letter to the commission in that while he did have an interest in that property, it was not part of the application before the commission this evening. The 313 parking spaces did not include anything west of the westerly property line and in fact as a condition on the approval suggested by staff was that they wall off the site so that they didn't have the potential problem of users on this site wanting to spread themselves across that property line. That was acceptable to Mr. Rasmussen. The day time uses on the site would be the two new office buildings along with the existing 12,000 square foot office. Mr. Smith pointed out the location. He said in the middle of page two of the staff report there was an analysis of the parking. As indicated, there were 313 parking spaces. Assuming a full building of medical/dental use there would be 265 spaces required. There was an overage of 48 parking spaces. Then there was the issue if one of the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 restaurants opened for lunch. Currently there were provisions in the lease for L.G.'s that prevented it from opening before 5:00 p.m. Kaiser Grill in the past had been open for lunch and currently they were not. Both uses currently opened at 5:30 p.m. Kaiser Grill on its own has a parking requirement for 60 parking spaces, so even if they were open for lunch and that was added in, there was a 12-space deficiency between the 60 spaces and the 48. The other issue staff was concerned with was late in the day there might be a potential for some overlapping between the medical office use and the restaurant use. The restaurants currently open at 5:30 p.m. Staff suggested a condition on the medical office uses that would limit them to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. In addition, staff was suggesting a six-foot wall be constructed along the southwest property line in order to prevent parking from this use from spilling over. Staff thought it was fairly unlikely that someone going to the medical office would walk around the sidewalk in that it was a considerable distance. He indicated in the staff report that a letter was received from Mr. Swajian, the owner of neighboring properties to the west. Mr. Smith thought Mr. Rasmussen's first letter that was included in the commission packets responded to that. The essential part of it was that while he has a right to some of the parking spaces in that area, it is not part of this application and in fact would be walled off. The findings for approving the conditional use permit were outlined in pages four and five of the staff report. The request was a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. Staff was recommending approval subject to conditions. He called attention to Condition No. 4 which required that the restaurant known as L.G.'s Steakhouse or its successors should not open for business before 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Condition No. 5, that the hours of operation for the medical/dental building be limited to 8:00 to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and that the owner be required to impose that condition in all leases in said that theapplicant install a six-foot masonrywall building. Condition No. 6, pp along the southwest, south and east property lines. He also wanted to add Condition No. 7 to read: "That the applicant submit a parking management plan to delineate employee parking areas, valet areas and hours, and other parking related issues to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development." He said he referred to that in the staff report but it hadn't been added to the resolution. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked how high the 20,000 square foot building was proposed to be. Mr. Smith said two stories and 29 or 30 feet high. Commissioner Finerty asked how high the surrounding buildings in the area were. Mr. Smith said they were one-story. Commissioner Finerty asked if 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 they were approximately 18 feet. Mr. Smith replied 16-18 feet. Mr. Drell pointed out that there were other two story buildings on Highway 111 down the next block. Right at the corner at Panorama there was a two-story building and the next building was a two-story building, then a one story building, and other two story buildings. He said there were three or four two- story buildings from there down to Deep Canyon and thought that half the buildings were two story. Commissioner Campbell said there was even a two- story building on the corner of El Paseo by Wells Fargo Bank at Larrea. Mr. Drell concurred and indicated there was a one story building in between and then the two story building on that corner. Commissioner Campbell asked how high L.G.'s Steakhouse was. Mr. Drell thought it was about 24 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if the height of a two-story building was 24-25 feet high. Mr. Drell said that typically with parapet walls screening equipment it reached 30 feet. The height limit in the zone was 30 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if the entrance to the development would be on El Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Smith concurred that it had access from both streets. Mr. Smith pointed out the entrances on the map and the location of the proposed wall. Commissioner Lopez noted that in the conditions of approval Mr. Smith indicated L.G.'s Steakhouse's hours of operation and asked if staff was concerned about Kaiser Grill. He noted that Mr. Smith mentioned that the parking spaces were enough to cover a shortfall and asked if the commission needed to be concerned about that. Mr. Smith said that unfornately at the time the city approved the restaurant staff didn't condition it and the lease did not preclude it, so there was little the city could do about that one. Mr. Drell said that typically at lunch a good number of people in office buildings were at lunch. Just like in any typical retail center the typical four/1 ,000 parking could accommodate up to 20% restaurant by virtue of the fact that some of those people were going to be eating at that restaurant or eating at a different restaurant so that during the peak 11 :30 a.m. to 1 :30 p.m. period there was shared use of some sort. In this case there were 48 spaces in addition to the normal. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they would be placing a condition that involved another building and asked if it was the same owner. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that Mr. Smith said it was just the 20,000 square foot building in front of the commission, but the project included a condition that addresses the other building. Mr. Smith said that 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were on solid ground in doing that. Mr. Drell said that the property owner was consenting to that condition. Mr. Smith said that if theyunable were u e to place the condition, it might seriously alter staff's ability to recommend in favor of it. Mr. Rasmussen had advised staff that the lease currently contains language to that effect. Chairperson Jonathan said if there was a problem, like L.G.'s started opening for lunch, the city wasn't in a position as a third interested party on a lease agreement. They have a condition of approval on this medical/dental office building so that if for some reason L.G.'s started serving lunch, they could in theory shut down the medical/dental office. Mr. Drell said that was correct and if this application was approved, the resolution should include both Conditional Use Permit 99-5 and an amendment to CUP 89-3. They were amending both. Chairperson Jonathan asked if L.G.'s was to operate for lunch, then in theory there was a 12-space shortfall because they'd require 60 spaces and there was an overage of 48. He asked about Kaiser Grill and if they opened for lunch, how many spaces they would require and what the shortfall would be. Mr. Smith said the premise was based on Kaiser being open. Chairperson Jonathan said they were the ones that didn't have a lease agreement that prevented them from opening, so in theory tomorrow they could open for lunch. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they did that what their parking requirement would be. Mr. Smith said 60. Mr. Drell said the other question was what would happen if L.G.'s and Kaiser Grill both opened for lunch. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that L.G.'s was the one that had the lease agreement preventing them from opening for lunch and Kaiser was the one that had the capacity to do that. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that if Kaiser opened, that created the 12 space shortfall. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if for some reason they both opened, what the shortfall would be. Mr. Drell said 90. Mr. Smith said an additional 90. Mr. Drell said that L.G.'s was 7,500 square feet, so there would be a total shortfall of about 92-95 spaces. Chairperson Jonathan felt that was why it was truly imperative that L.G.'s not open for lunch. Mr. Drell said if in the future when this medical building was built and occupied and it could be demonstrated that there were 90 spaces available at lunch, then the applicant was still able to come back and ask for a waiver of that condition but the applicant would have to prove there were adequate spaces. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff was comfortable with the cross over time if there was a 5:00 p.m. closing restriction. Mr. Smith said yes, with the 5:00 p.m. closing and the 5:30 p.m. restriction for the restaurant opening. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that at the ingress/egress on Highway 111 there was a dedicated right-hand turn lane from El Paseo onto 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 Highway 111 . That ingress/egress point was kind of close to that access and he asked if there was consideration given to moving the ingress/egress point to the very eastern end of the parking lot so that it didn't come that close to the corner and intrude on the right-hand turn from El Paseo. What happened was that people making a right were accelerating rapidly so they could merge left onto Highway 111 where the speed limit is 50 mph. They were looking at their side and rear view mirrors trying to accelerate rapidly and move over left. The last thing they would be doing was looking to the right at who might be coming out of that parking lot. Not to suggest that people "have a few," but people coming out of that parking lot might not be as careful coming out of that parking lot as they should be. Mr. Smith said at the time of day he was there, there were three other cars in the parking lot and that wasn't an issue. Chairperson Jonathan said they had to assume that the center would be successful. Mr. Smith said that staff didn't look at that in that it served as a direct feed to the majority of the parking spaces. Mr. Drell stated that the parking lot was built and had been there six or seven years in that configuration. Chairperson Jonathan said with the increased use he was looking at the opportunity of moving that over but if staff felt in their professional opinion that there wasn't a danger posed, then so be it. Mr. Greenwood said that from the Public Works Department's opinion since it was an existing driveway and hasn't had any history at all of any problem, they thought it would be fine where it is and it served the onsite circulation best where it was located now. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the dedicated right-hand turn lane. Mr. Greenwood indicated that it has been there at least four years and before he worked for the city. Mr. Drell stated that the work was done by the developer when he remodeled the L.G.'s and Kaiser building and put in the parking lot. He thought it was done around 1992. The applicant widened and created that lane. There used to be a frontage road there and they eliminated the frontage road. The lane on Highway 111 was a deceleration lane to the entrance to the project. All that corner work was done by the original developer. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SAM RASMUSSEN, President of Ocean Properties Development and the managing member/owner/developer of One El Paseo LLC at 1919 Grand Avenue in San Diego, stated that the project approved in 1991 with the parking had always envisioned medical and dental in it. When the project was first being put together there was quite a bit of 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 interest in the medical and dental community to come on into the project and it was only in the last year that the parking changes came into effect and necessitated a conditional use permit application. Their financial center on the west end of the building would be solely office and in his opinion minimum parking usage if not just normal parking usage including as their anchor tenant A.G. Edward's, a stock brokerage that closes at 2:30 or 3:00 p.m. when the market closed. The project itself would only have office users, financial type users, attorneys, etc., in the west building. In the east building they had been getting quite a bit of interest from the local medical/dental community and doctors and dentists in Palm Desert now that would like to come into the project. That was why they went forth with a conditional use permit application to accommodate those users. The project itself has a lot of critical mass and the critical mass is that a project of this size probably has more parking spaces than most any other office professional project in Palm Desert, so by definition 300 and some parking spaces as they all knew for shopping centers and whatnot, if it wasn't for Christmas or a special time, on the larger projects when they had four spaces per 1 ,000 requirements they ended up with quite a bit of excess parking and he thought that would be the case with this project as well. The project was completely self contained. In his opinion it did not impact any of the adjoining users. It had a block wall completely around it and the only access area was the little "L" shaped parcel that was approved a couple of months ago and the updated site plan had that block wall closed off. They wanted to do that because they could add a couple of extra spaces if they added that block wall and they were just adding more parking there. The comment with regards to L.G.'s Steakhouse that was a firm condition in their lease, it was a default provision in their lease and L.G.'s Steakhouse just renewed their lease through the year 2011 or 2012 with three 5-year options. It was a very successful restaurant and they anticipated that they would be there for the long run and as a dining steakhouse he had no interest in opening for lunch. He serves steak and it wasn't a luncheon-type concept. He asked for questions. Commissioner Finerty said she didn't doubt that there was a lot of interest from doctors in the area and her concern had to do with how many doctors could be in each office. She knew that right now the trend seemed to be with doctors sharing offices and generally that lent itself to really crowded waiting rooms and an exacerbated parking problem as well. The staff report indicated 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 that staff didn't know the mix of medical and dental and she was also wondering if there was any potential for a clinic type of facility in any of the eight office buildings. Mr. Rasmussen said that all of the doctors that have come to them were not packed in tight. They have not signed any preleases or letters of intent with specific doctors, but they had proposals in hand. They didn't want to sign them before they came before commission. They didn't want to tell them the building was approved before they got the proper authorization. He stated that both of the buildings were very high end buildings. Not "B" or "C" buildings where they would bring in something that would be considered a lower tier clinic or medical facility. They were done in granite and hardwood, etc., and their rent structure was $1 .75 a foot, triple net, and he anticipated that they would not get the clinic type user that was more of an HMO or lower budget type user and only the higher end medical community. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Rasmussen anticipated doctors sharing offices. Mr. Rasmussen said no, he didn't know what sharing was but for their occupancy and use they didn't anticipate any exceptional clinic or traffic use in the building at this particular point. They were only working with one or two doctors and were working with one dentist and he was a single practitioner that wanted about 2,000 square feet of space--one doctor with the standard four or five type rooms to service his clients/patients. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be any laboratory there of any kind. Mr. Rasmussen said no. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Rasmussen understood and accepted the 5:00 p.m. closing restriction on operating hours. Mr. Rasmussen said yes and stated that they have talked with L.G.'s personally about this. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he was talking about the medical and dental building. Mr. Rasmussen said yes and indicated that was something that would be put into the leases for those hours. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they did end up with a clinic or something like that, they would understand that it wouldn't be a 24-hour operation. Mr. Rasmussen said yes, absolutely. Mr. Rasmussen said that one of the other items that staff did not bring up was that L.G.'s has requested for holidays, Thanksgiving and so forth when both the offices and medical spaces are traditionally closed, to be able to serve brunch. They had them for evening dining only and there was no language and he was restricted to evening dining in his first 10-year lease and he was further restricted now in his lease extension. He was asking that L.G.'s serve brunch on the holidays when the other offices were closed. As well, L.G.'s wanted to have his bar open because he thought the stock brokerage would close at 4:00 p.m. and he wanted to serve cocktails only and/or appetizers before the 5:00 p.m. dinner hour and he requested early opening for those two eventualities. Chairperson Jonathan asked if with regards to the brunch Mr. Rasmussen was talking about a federal holiday, maybe on a Sunday. Mr. Rasmussen said yes, it would be holidays only and it would be the times when the entire rest of the project would traditionally not be used. Commissioner Campbell asked if anticipating for cocktails would mean having the bar open at 4:00 p.m. or 4:30 p.m., instead of 5:30 p.m. Mr. Rasmussen said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MR. GREG SWAJIAN, 74-090 El Paseo, stated that was a building he owns, and he indicated that he also owns a neighboring building at 74- 175 El Paseo. He noted that commission had a copy of his letter. He 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 received a copy of the packet that was faxed to him today and that was the first time he had an opportunity to look at the staff report and he had a few comments he wanted to address on the staff report which he just saw. One of the things that confused him, and he has been an attorney and he knew some of them for 20 years in that same location at 74-090 and down the line he was able to acquire the building. His staff, the other professionals in his building and himself, and he had that in his letter, had eaten lunch at L.G.'s about four or five years ago. They were open through the winter season which was basically Thanksgiving through mid April. If there was a lease provision regarding luncheons, he could tell them he was there time and time again because Kaiser hasn't been open for lunch, Ruth's Chris wasn't open for lunch, but L.G.'s was and they obviously breached that lease provision at least one time during their lease without any enforcement from the landlord whatsoever. Those were some of the other items he wanted to address. How would they enforce some of these provisions which sound pretty good right now but in reality might never come about? That was one and he was sure they could talk to the people at L.G.'s and he would try to find some of his credit card receipts about paying for lunch there and maybe he could get his money back if they weren't supposed to be open. Obviously that has happened and Kaiser didn't have it in their lease and he didn't know if Planning staff or the commissioners had even seen the lease that prohibited the lunches at L.G.'s. He hadn't seen it, but he knew they had served it four or five years ago. He said he went through schools in Indio: grammar, junior high and high school. He has been out here since 1955 so he has been here a long time and the law firm that he was with initially represented what used to be Able Cable, Coachella Valley Television, etc., which was located in the building now at 74-175 El Paseo. The easement for ingress and egress from the One El Paseo property has been for years used by the customers, owners and tenants on his property exiting on El Paseo. From his letter, and if any of them had been out there, it was falling in disrepair. He was really surprised and astonished when he saw this report that the solution was to wall off the easement for ingress and egress that they shared with the predecessors in interest from Mr. Rasmussen for decades. Obviously that didn't address the issue on the fact that they have been receiving the property tax statements that have not been paid and they want to block it off, shut it down or whatever they were trying to do. Secondly, where the Jet Copy building is, he owns that and that easement. They have an 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 easement for ingress and egress as well as Jillians. Someone could go 9 9 during the season to Jillians when staff starts coming in that was about noon time and the parking from Jillians spilled over onto Mr. Rasmussen's property day after day after day and they have been using that parking there day after day after day since Jillians has been there since 1990 or 92 and he wasn't sure when Jillians was in place, perhaps 1993. There is a parking problem at Jillians and their solution has been to pull it over on One El Paseo and they also used some of his parking, too. Except for now it was in June at the end of the season and if this meeting took place 2, 3, 4, 5 months ago Jillians was as popular and as good a restaurant as any in Palm Desert and they didn't have adequate parking at Jillians for their own parking. And he hasn't seen that issue addressed--what were they going to do about all the people who go to Jillians and where were the going to put those cars? Secondly was the narrow easement. This easement was approved in 1958 or 1959 when this was first all put together out there and the codes were different, but it was a very narrow easement. He didn't hear anything from staff that they spoke to police and fire regarding his building or Jillians and he certainly didn't represent Jillians and he was only talking about his building, but Jillians was one of the neighbors that needed to be addressed. As the commission could see there by walling that off fire couldn't make a U-turn and fire couldn't do anything once they got in there. They were blocked like they were at the end of an alley with the wall there. Both the county and the city stopped approving flag lots for residences a long time ago because they needed the 660-foot diameter for fire. They were creating a dead end and by doing that did Mr. Rasmussen and his partners abandon the easement that was on his property? They had an easement on Mr. Swajian's property for ingress and egress besides the fire and police issue which he didn't feel had been addressed regarding the other two buildings and he could guarantee them that with the parking, etc., going on at Jillians they were going to have more use of ambulance and other facilities because older clientele perhaps having a drink or two and having a health problem--what would they do with the massive amount of cars that were already there right now because there was a parking problem? By blocking that off that created more of a problem for the neighborhood and created the kind of situation he was sure this city didn't want to have because Jillians at night, and he knew this was approved a long time ago, could not handle the volume that it has. It was the most popular restaurant, and he had been in that place since 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1 , 1999 it was the Wooden Nickle, El Jackal, and everything else and Jillians was the one that has captivated this valley and it would have business forever. He thought Jay and June paid off their mortgage in two years. That was the kind of volume and business that they do there. He was concerned about fire, etc., and they certainly didn't want to lower the neighbors property values by putting a wall up there and they still hadn't dealt with the issue of the easement that was for ingress and egress. A successor in interest to Mr. Rasmussen then had an easement for ingress and egress on the other side of the wall. He asked if Mr. Rasmussen was going to abandon that easement for ingress and egress by putting up this wall? He thought all these issues should have been addressed and hadn't been addressed but putting in a wall there didn't solve the problem of either fire, medical, police or the Jillian parking problem or the reasonable use of his building which he thought was a concern they should all have because obviously they were trying to make things work. He was for progress on El Paseo. He has been on El Paseo for 20 years and he wanted things to work on El Paseo and there was no question about that. A first class facility was fine, but he thought a first class facility should have the adequate parking. If 17,000 was appropriate parking for the spaces, they needed to deal with that, but they couldn't put up a wall and say they've solved the problem for the neighbors--they've created a bigger problem for the neighbors. He didn't see addressed in either Mr. Rasmussen's letter or through staff about the issue on the easement and the taxes. That was his property where the easement was on. When Mr. Radaker and Mr. Kusack purchased that property from their predecessors in interest they had the county send them the tax bill. Why he didn't know. But they did that and the tax bill was going to them. Mr. Swajian had paid those taxes for about six or seven years in a row. About four or five years later he received a letter from Mr. Kusack asking him to pay a portion of the taxes. He said he had paid them and showed them all the tax bills he paid, plus they were all delinquent because Mr. Kusack hadn't paid them and it would be unfair to ask the neighbors to pay for that. In Mr. Rasmussen's escrow he advised Mr. Swajian that one of his conditions was to have Mr. Kusack or PDMB who had taken over a portion or all of it, he wasn't quite sure, and then Mr. Rasmussen closed escrow last fall then failed to pay the property taxes. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Swajian was going to bring this around to something over which the commission had influence over because if he had a legal matter or legal dispute, the commission wouldn't get involved in that. Mr. Swajian thought that part of this process would be that either the planner and the developer meet with the neighbors to solve some of these problems which remained unaddressed and maybe that was a solution and might be the solution right now because he felt that fire, etc., needed to be involved in this wall issue because obviously they knew that neighborhood and that little easement dead ending caused that kind of problem so maybe the goal was to "kick it over." He also saw when he got the fax today, and he would have addressed this in a letter to the commission but he didn't see the staff report until this afternoon, that they were going to put some dumpsters along the border of his property. He was obviously not in favor of that and his dumpsters were around the entrance to the back. There were street people on El Paseo and street people on Highway 1 1 1 that came out more at night. The dumpsters from what he saw on the fax he got would be located right near the wall against his property. When the wind blew garbage would blow on his property and he deals with Waste Management and he knew they tried to do a good job on his properties on El Paseo. When they come down the alley, they lifted the dumpsters up and if it was windy stuff flew everywhere and he had to clean it up. He didn't think that was appropriate. He was also wondering where these would be faced and if he would now be seeing these trash dumpsters. He thought trash dumpsters should be located at the back of the property so they weren't close to any street persons because that was a problem and that way it wouldn't affect the neighbors like himself. The next issue was the restriction on the leases and hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Swajian had in his building a podiatrist, a dermatologist and a dentist. They all worked past 5:00 p.m. The dermatologist worked until 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. The podiatrist worked pretty late and the dentist worked at least until 5:00 p.m. Almost all of them were professionals in the city of Palm Desert or had dealt with clients or customers who were in the field and working during the day and only dealt with their services after hours, 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. and that was how they had all made their livelihood. He asked how they would police this 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. time. The doctors he knew if they were working on someone and it was 5:00 p.m. or 5:15 p.m. they would keep working and if they had people in 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 their waiting room, they would take care of those people. If they had a dentist or an ob. gyn. and at 3:00 p.m. he went and delivered a baby, those patients would wait until 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. at night. They wouldn't run out of the building at 4:50 p.m. because they had to be out of the parking lot at 5:00 p.m. He asked how they would police that and if a code enforcement officer would be running around. He didn't think that was realistic. He thought it was much more realistic to build a building that was 17,000 square feet that had enough parking so they weren't policing it. He didn't think the developer would police it because he wanted to get his rent and the neighbors shouldn't be forced into the position of having to call a code enforcement officer when they saw doctors' office lights on. That was something that just wasn't realistic. On the question of shared doctors, if a doctor leased space and he was willing to pay the rent and he broke it up into offices, he might not even be a local guy and then would lease each one of the offices to another professional and their might be four or five doctors in some of this square footage. He didn't know since none of the leases were signed. They all knew it happened and it happened because doctors like everyone else wanted to make more money and they would lease it. He had an issue in his building and he prohibited subleases where a podiatrist was leasing to a hair replacement person when he wasn't using the facility. He stopped it. He didn't know it was going on until the dermatologist told him. It happens and it would happen here and it happened everywhere but they were going to work past 5:00 p.m. They couldn't stop that kind of activity, whether it was a root canal, or if it was an orthodontist and the kids were getting out of school and they were late or had football practice and were coming in for their braces or whatever the situation was, they would come past 5:00 p.m. They all knew that so to prohibit past 5:00 p.m. he didn't know how they were going to enforce it. He really thought Mr. Rasmussen, and he had met with Mr. Rasmussen before, and staff needed to address those issues because there were going to be problems. Jillians parking was a problem, the easement issue was a problem, the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. wasn't realistic and life just wasn't like that down here, and now that L.G.'s wanted to open a little bit earlier at 4:00 p.m. for drinks, then they would have staff there much earlier to do that too and if someone that came at 4:00 p.m. wanted to get a bite to eat, they would be served dinner. That was how the system always worked and there was no one there to stop it. He stated that he wanted a successful development next door, he didn't 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 want problems between neighbors, he didn't want problems with Jillians and he wanted to make things work as well as anyone else, but he felt those issues needed to be addressed and then come back before commission with reasonable solutions or have a decision made by the Planning Commission on how to solve some of these problems he raised. Again, he would have put his comments in a letter but he just received the staff report that afternoon. He thanked the commission for listening. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Rasmussen would like to readdress the commission with any rebuttal comments. Mr. Rasmussen said that obviously L.G.'s Steakhouse was open five years ago because there weren't two other buildings on the property and they had 300 and some parking spaces. He was granted a temporary luncheon type of scenario with the other two buildings not there and he did not do well at lunch and closed. Otherwise, he would probably still have been open. That was why he temporarily opened but he had no intention or ability to open once these other buildings were in place. Mr. Rasmussen stated that he was the fee owner, half owner of this property that Mr. Swajian was talking about. He was not an easement owner. He had provided staff a copy of the title report. He was a fee owner. That was his property just as much as it was Mr. Swajian's and it wasn't part of this application. He thought the members of the commission could see through that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Rasmussen was referring to the Jet Copy property. Mr. Rasmussen said yes. The "L" shaped property there. Mr. Swajian owned in fee simple the Jet Copy building and the "L" shaped parcel was owned one half by himself and one half by Mr. Swajian. Mr. Rasmussen had an easement right over it. Mr. Swajian did not have an easement right over Mr. Rasmussen's property and it went back to several years ago. In the late 1980's the Jillians restaurant building signed an agreement that since they had an easement over this "L" shaped property, they would pay for everything. They would pay for resurfacing the parking lot. It was not related to their transaction in any 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 way, shape or form and any inference that they were cross related was fabrication. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on the ownership and if Mr. Swajian owned the building. Mr. Rasmussen said that Mr. Swajian owned the front building. Behind the "L" shaped property was Jillians restaurant and that was owned by Jillians. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the building was the Jet Copy building. Mr. Rasmussen concurred that that was one parcel. Then the "L" shaped parcel was a separate parcel and was only an access easement and it came with them as an unrelated parcel that was just passed down over the last ten years or so ago. They had no interest in it and in fact told Mr. Swajian that they would be glad to sell it to him. They didn't need it but they had an easement over it and it was a valuable piece of property that appraised at $60,000 or $70,000. They weren't just going to give it Mr. Swajian, but if he wanted to buy it they were ready to talk about it. The problem he was raising was the fact that there was an old Jillians building that was not in any way, shape or form related to their One El Paseo project. They had no parking rights and they never would. They would never grant anyone easement or parking rights on their property. They weren't allowed to do it by code and Mr. Swajian was trying to save his rear end a little bit by saying that he has a small property that doesn't have enough parking and there was a restaurant there and what should he do and he was trying to say they should get together with the developer and maybe he can negotiate an easement to park some of Jillians parking or some of his parking over on their property and it wasn't going to happen. Mr. Rasmussen said they are the fee owners and it wasn't related to the property. There were absolutely, 100%-and they have met with the Fire Marshal--no code violations on either property for fire. They had gone through and applied through the Fire Marshal for this wall and had gotten that approved by the Fire Marshal. Any inference that there was ambulance or fire problems was a fabrication. There were no code problems because of putting in a wall along there. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if the Fire Marshal specifically addressed the Jet Copy property in terms of there not being a problem. Mr. Rasmussen said the Fire Marshal addressed the One El Paseo property and the wall and looked at the other property as well, but they didn't really ask him to do anything with it, fire sprinklers and whatnot. Mr. Swajian raised an issue with regards to property taxes and it was a non-related issue to this hearing. Jillians owes the taxes and Mr. Swajian was trying to say he did. It was a non-related issue and Jillians wasn't paying. The dumpsters he was talking about were built in 1991 under the original site permit and they weren't adding any more dumpsters. They were just cleaning up and using the existing dumpsters that have been there under the original application and the completion of the common area in 1991 . There were no extra dumpsters or whatnot that were being placed. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Rasmussen if he thought it would be to his benefit to move the trash dumpsters a little more out of site toward the rear of the property. Mr. Rasmussen said they already were. They didn't want to move them because it would cost $20,000 or $30,000 and they were already block dumpsters that were full height that have full walk-ins that face their property, not Mr. Swajian's property, and relocating them would not accomplish anything. They were already well away from Mr. Swajian's property. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was not convinced that a 30-foot tall building really fit into the surrounding area. She would prefer to see a smaller building, perhaps even a single story building. She was also concerned with the amount of medical/dental space. Again, she went back to the issue of satellite offices which were very common now for doctors to share offices and what it resulted in was twice as many patients in the waiting rooms. The parking at Kaiser would be 12 short if they decided to open for lunch. A 5:00 p.m. closing time for doctors that she visited was not realistic. There were always things that came up and reasons why they needed to stay open. A lot 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 of doctors take appointments up until 5:00 p.m. Considering the fact that L.G.'s would like to open earlier, she felt this was in direct conflict and didn't feel it was in the best interest of the area. Commissioner Campbell said that being in the medical field before and her husband being a dentist, if they were going to be closed at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., the last appointment would be about half an hour before. You advise your staff not to take any later appointments so she didn't see any problem with that. If there were people in the waiting room waiting for some reason or another; at least there wouldn't be any more people coming to the office. Also, as far as Mr. Swajian was saying about El Paseo and how he thinks El Paseo looks so great, it did, but he wasn't really taking good care of the Jet Copy building. That was one bad spot on El Paseo. She didn't have any problem with the height of the building and as she saw it with L.G.'s having a special Sunday brunch, those offices would be closed. A.G. Edward's would also be closed after 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. so she didn't see any problem with the parking situation at all. She would be in favor of the project. Mr. Drell said he wanted to clarify something tonight. The construction of the building was not an issue tonight. This was a building that was approved in 1991 and all the improvements for that building other than the actual construction of it were completed then. All the parking was put in for a 20,000 square foot building. All the improvements for the pad were there so the issue before the commission was not whether that building could be built, but whether that building could be used as a medical office which by our code required extra parking. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was approved as a two-story office building. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan thanked staff for the clarification. Commissioner Lopez stated that the only concern he would have was if for whatever reasons either or both of the restaurants opened for lunch, down the line ten years from now L.G.'s might decide to go back into the luncheon business and as the community grows and the valley grows, the opportunity to succeed had better odds so he was concerned about the opportunity of lunch being served there. He was also concerned that at the last minute there was a request or expectation that they would open earlier for drinks and he guessed that was just doing business and was probably a good business move, but he had concern with it. Other than that he was comfortable with the project itself. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 Commissioner Jonathan shared the concerns that were brought up about the intensity of the usage which would be related to the medical and dental offices. If it was successful, and he has sat in waiting rooms and has been in offices where doctors share and that was the trend and they could end up with a situation that would tax even the six per 1 ,000 usage much less a special circumstance that surrounds this particular building. He thought that was a true potential problem. If he were comfortable that the building would shut down at 5:00 p.m., he could live with the situation and it would be a reasonable compromise, but he was concerned. He thought Mr. Swajian's comments'in this regard were cogent and it was difficult to police. It would take someone seeing an office light on and calling Code or coming in and saying that they were in violation. It was a very difficult thing to police and these doctors were going to sign a lease agreement that says they have to close at 5:00 p.m. and then they were going to take 5:00 p.m. appointments or 6:00 p.m. appointments and he believed they would do it until someone told them not to. They were creating a problem and he wasn't sure how he wanted to go with it but he had concerns. He would certainly not exacerbate that problem by allowing L.G.'s to open earlier. He thought that would totally defeat the purpose of the compromise they were trying to reach. They had to make the assumption that a 4:00 p.m. bar opening would be successful and that meant a lot of cars and a lot of people. It was a much more intensive use than dining and right at the time for the most popular time for medical appointments which was late afternoon; it was after work and after school, before soccer practice so right at the most intense moment they would be creating a larger demand on the parking spaces. He would be very opposed to the earlier opening. Sunday brunch on holiday weekends would be fine for obvious reasons. The rest of Mr. Swajian's comments he thought were largely unrelated to the medical/dental use that the case was about. He would like to see the Jet Copy property improved, like to see that whole situation improved, as much as Mr. Swajian would like to see a main tenant in there so they had the same goal there. If it was just office, use the matter wouldn't be before them. The reason it was is because people wiser than them perceived a potential problem with medical and dental usage in terms of the intensity of usage and the burden it placed on parking. That was why they were here and going through the process. He asked for direction from the commission. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would be in favor except for L.G.'s opening before 5:30 p.m. Chairperson Jonathan noted that would be as presented by staff with the modification to the time restriction that would allow Sunday brunch on holiday weekends. Commissioner Campbell 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 concurred. Regarding the enforcement issue, Mr. Drell said that practically speaking he would not necessarily be worried about whether there was a light on. They would be worried about a parking problem. The assumption would be that between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. there might be some abuse but the restaurant, especially a steakhouse, didn't really gear up and hit its stride until 7:00-7:30 p.m., so it was probably only going at half speed and, therefore, if they had even half of the doctors operating at half speed, at that middle point they were still probably not going to have a problem. That was what they would be looking for. If there was a problem they would go back and ask why there was a problem. If it was because the doctors were open until 6:00 p.m. and that was the reason why there was a problem or if they see that L.G.'s is opening his bar at 4:00 p.m. then they would do what they had to do whenever they have to enforce the zoning ordinance and threaten them with the City Attorney. Again, that was what happened with why in a typical retail center that was parked four per 1 ,000 they could have 20% restaurant was because between 11 :00 a.m. and 1 :30 p.m. there was a shifting of uses. He agreed that until we know what the situation is that L.G.'s should be restricted to the 5:30 p.m. time. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that in the conditions of approval it said L.G.'s would not open before 5:00 p.m. Mr. Rasmussen said L.G.'s lease said 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Smith would read back the proposed condition number 7. Mr. Smith said that the applicant would be required to submit a parking management plan to delineate employee parking areas, valet areas and hours and other parking related issues to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Mr. Drell said the reason for that was because most of the parking was considerable distance from the buildings and they want to insure there is adequate patient parking closer to the building for the medical uses and make sure if and when the valet kicks in that they don't start fighting with each other. Commissioner Finerty noted that the staff report indicated that the restaurants currently open at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Commissioner Campbell's comment was in the form of a motion. She said yes and moved for approval with the exception of allowing L.G.'s to open early for cocktails. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that included the addition of condition number seven and with the modification to condition number four. Mr. Drell said they would be allowing him to stay open on holidays but not open early. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that was Sunday brunches on holiday weekends. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would second that motion. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1999 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approvingthe findings aspresented bystaff. Motion carried - 3 1 9 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1926, approving CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 Amendment #2, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-1 _ Chairperson Jonathan wished Mr. Rasmussen good luck and indicated that besides staff, he was sure the neighbors would police the situation and if there were any problems the commission wanted to hear about them so they could be corrected. D. Case Nos. GPA 99-1, C/Z 99-1, PP/CUP 99-6 and Development Agreement - RAYMOND T. TROLL, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, zone change to add senior overlay designation, a precise plan and conditional use permit, development agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to a 76-unit senior (age 62 and older) apartment project on 3.38 acres on the west side of California Avenue, south of New York Avenue, 77-080 California Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. The site is zoned R-2 4,000 which would permit apartment units at a rate of one unit per every 4,000 square feet. It is designated medium density 5-7 units per acre in the general plan. He noted that the site was an irregularly shaped 3.3 acre site on the west side of California. The applicant was proposing a total of seven buildings on the site. They have three one-story buildings in the form of building one, building two and building six. Building six was at the north end of the site adjacent to the parking lot for the golf club and restaurant at the country club. Buildings one and two were adjacent to single family homes to the south. The one story recreation building was located in the central portion of the site. Buildings three, four and five were shown as two story buildings. They were currently 25 feet in height. In order to meet code they would need to be reduced to 24 feet maximum height. There would be two points of access to California. Mr. Smith pointed out the locations on the map. He said the plan 25 ON E. FL PST t A -77:/ ONE EL PASEO , L . L. C .A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RECEIVED May 28, 1999 JUN - 1 1999 COMMUNITY 0E OPM NTDEPARTMENT Mr. Steve Smith Staff Member City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: C.U.P. Application 99.5 for One El Paseo Plaza Medical/Dental Application Steve: I have reviewed the public letter comments of Mr. Greg Swajian dated 5/18/99 and am writing this memo to clarify and refute multiple misstatements contained in this letter. To begin with, as a matter of significant clarification, the City of Palm Desert notice forwarded to all adjacent property owners includes an"L" shaped piece of property that is not included in our application. This parcel, which is %2 owned by One El Paseo, L.L.C., is not a part of this application and should be removed. This issue alone should clarify many of Mr. Swajian's questions as we are not applying for use of this property. To address his specific comments contained in his 5/18/99 letter I have the following comments: 1. Mr. Swajian represents himself as the owner of the"L" shaped parcel; in fact, he is %2 owner of the parcel as mentioned above. Please see the enclosed title report for confirmation. 2. Mr. Swajian represents that our proposal is "at least 34 spaces" short of parking; that is not the case. There will be more than sufficient parking to handle our Dental/Medical parking requirements per the City of Palm Desert parking code. 3. As I have corresponded to you earlier, LG's Steakhouse is restricted in their lease from serving lunch. The remaining tenants of the proposed project have sufficient parking during daytime use. 0528990EP.S.Smith.CUP App.Swajian.Ltr. 1919 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 2A • SAN DIEGO, CA 92109 • PHONE: 619/273-6600 • FAX: 619/273-4454 4. Mr. Swajian's 'A interest of adjoining land or any other adjoining parcel surrounding our property have absolutely no easement rights of any nature that burden the four parcels contained within One El Paseo Plaza and its C.U.P. application. There is no shared parking, ingress, egress or any other items that involve our application parcels. In fact, many easements burden his parcel at it relates to Jillian's Restaurant ingress/egress to El Paseo Drive and parking. I have included a copy of our title insurance policy clearly showing all easements and have more included notes of explanation. In this title policy, the One El Paseo Plaza land is referred to as parcel "A"— Lots 1 through 4 of parcel map number 26994. Parcel "B" is the"L" shaped adjoining parcel, not a part of the parcel map. 5. The payment of property taxes for the"L" shaped parcel `B" are the responsibility of Jillian's Restaurant per a recorded agreement, and in no way are a liability or responsibility of One El Paseo Plaza or the four parcels of my One El Paseo C.U.P. application. I have no idea why a property tax payment on an unrelated adjoining property is an issue for him to raise for this C.U.P. application as no subject parcels contained in our application have any relation to this parcel. 6. All of Mr. Swajian's comments concerning maintenance and repairs relate to the "L"shaped parcel "B"that is not related in any manner to our C.U.P. application. All of these repair items, per an executed agreement, are the responsibility of the Jillian's restaurant land owner and not One El Paseo, L.L.C., nor do these responsibilities relate to or burden the One El Paseo land (Parcel Map 26994) or its owners. In fact, we are building a block wall to separate the two properties because we want to add extra parking and Mr. Swajian's property is in such poor repair. In conclusion, One El Paseo Plaza's C.U.P. application provides for proper parking upon our property. Mr. Swajian's contention that his property has "easements" over our property are completely false. All of his maintenance issues relate to his property, not the property involved in our C.U.P. application. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Samuel E. Rasmussen Manager Enclosures 0528990EP.S.Smith.CUP App.Swajian.Ltr. a' i� 't _s'fr4FL_, 1h 'rtti(u t_ .a , .l'AW.N. - Tl _1F Ft.: -! AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION If, OWNER'S POLICY d j (10-17-92) O rI SI I". *y ,41 �F CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY •`! r, .-, ( r' r 5r it. SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE1 !`i CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, CHICAGO TITLE 'i INSURANCE COMPANY,a Missouri corporation,herein called the Company,insures,as of Date of Policy shown I' 1 in Schedule A,against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or rya incurred by the insured by reason of: PI I VP I. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; 441 Iw 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; ) p, t, 3. Unmarkctability of the title; r _; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. 0, €,I, The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but I only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. '01 1 I In Witness Whereof,CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and sealed as ,,,, of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A,the policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized signatory. ,,, A, W xr h9� 6,I . .r �1 r ? ti a. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Issued by: By: :1!' CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 560 E. Hospitably Lane ' San 13ernardino, CA 92408 �'� .,.. / - , �a (909) £313�1 0�1�18 Preside' t, 7 \NSUgI �tPOAAIfC" 1 �,1 7 f 1,y„ .-: 'C By: I r rl V'��� t� (' : i n. Sccrclary II., °nil -- .. •:.. AI:rA Own,'.s coin-y(111 17.9?) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys'fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (iI) the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the land;(lii)a separation In ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land Is or was a part;or(iv)environmental protection,or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances or governmental regulations,except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Dale of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects,liens,encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created,suffered,assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy;or (e) resulting In loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim,which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors' rights laws,that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or Interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer;or (b) of such recordation to Impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. • CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. DEFINITION OF TERMS (c)Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a The following terms when used In this policy mean: defense as required or permitted by the provisions of this policy,the Company (a)"insured":the insured named in Schedule A,and,subject to any rights may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent juris- or defenses the Company would have had against the named insured,those diction and expressly reserves the right,in its sole discretion,to appeal from who succeed to the interest of the named insured by operation of law as any adverse judgment or order. distinguished from purchase including,but not limited to,heirs,distributees, (d)In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prose- devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next of kin, or corporate or cute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding,the insured shalt fiduciary successors. secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the (b)"insured claimant":an insured claiming loss or damage. action or proceeding, and all appeals therein,and permit the Company to (c)"knowledge"or"known":actual knowledge, not constructive knowl- use, at its option, the name of the insured for this purpose. Whenever edge or notice which may be imputed to an insured by reason of the public requested by the Company,the insured,at the Company's expense,shall give records as defined in this policy or any other records which impart construe- the Company all reasonable aid (i) in any action or proceeding, securing live notice of matters affecting the land. evidence,obtaining witnesses,prosecuting or defending the action or pro- ceeding,or effecting settlement,and(ii)in any other lawful act which in the (d)"land":the land described or referred to in Schedule A,and improve- opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to merits affixed thereto which by law constitute real property.The term"land" the estate or interest as insured.If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of does not include any properly beyond the lines of the area described or the insured to furnish the required cooperation,the Company's obligations to referred to in Schedule A,nor any right,title,interest,estate or easement in the insured under the policy shall terminate,including any liability or obliga- abutting streets,roads,avenues,alleys,lanes,ways or waterways,but noth- lion to defend,prosecute,or continue any litigation,with regard to the matter ing herein shall modify or limit the extent to which a right of access to and from or matters requiring such cooperation. the land is insured by this policy. (e)"mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security 5. PROOF OF LOSS OR DAMAGE instrument. In addition to and after the notices required under Section 3 of these Condi- (f)"public records": records established under state statutes al Dale of Lions and Stipulations have been provided the Company, a proof of loss or Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to damage signed and sworn to by the insured claimant shall be furnished to the real properly to purchasers for value and without knowledge.With respect to Company within 90 days after the insured claimant shall ascertain the facts Section 1(a)(iv)of the Exclusions From Coverage,"public records"shall also giving rise to the loss or damage.The proof of loss or damage shall describe include environmental protection liens filed in the records of the clerk of the the defect in, or lien or encumbrance on the title, or other mailer insured United Stales district court for the district in which the land is located. against by this policy which constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall (g)"unmarketability of the title": an alleged or apparent matter affecting state,to the extent possible,the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or the title to the land, not excluded or excepted from coverage.which would damage.If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured claimant to entitle a purchaser of the estate or interest described in Schedule A to be provide the required proof of loss or damage,the Company's obligations to released from the obligation to purchase by virtue of a contractual condition the insured under the policy shall terminate,including any liability or obliga- requiring the delivery of marketable title. lion to defend,prosecute,or continue any litigation,with regard to the matter or matters requiring such proof of loss or damage. 2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER CONVEYANCE OF TITLE In addition,the insured claimant may reasonably be required to submit to The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company favor of an insured only so long as the insured retains an estate or interest in and shall produce for examination,inspection and copying,at such reason- the land,or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage able times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative given by a purchaser from the insured,or only so long as the insured shall of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made by the insured in any memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Policy, which transfer or conveyar:ce of the estate or interest.This policy shall not continue reasonably pertain to the loss or damage.Further,if requested by any aulho- in force in favor of any purchaser from the insured of either(i)an estate or rized representative of the Company, the insured claimant shall grant its interest in the land, or (ii) an indebtedness secured by a purchase money permission,in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to mortgage given to the insured. examine, inspect and copy all records,books, ledgers, checks, correspon- dence3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party,which reason- ably pertain to the loss or damage.All information designated as confidential The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing(i)in case of any by the insured claimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section litigation as set forth in Section 4(a)below,(ii)in case knowledge shall come to shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the an insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the title to the estate or interest,as insured,and which might cause loss or dam- insured claimant to submit for examination under.oalh,produce other reason- age for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy,or(iii)if title to ably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonably neces- the estate or interest,as insured,is rejacted as unmarketable.If prompt notice sary information from third parties as required in this paragraph shall fermi- shall not be given to the Company, then as to the insured all liability of the nate any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim. Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required;provided,however,that failure to notify the Company shall 6. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS; TERMINATION in no case prejudice the rights of any insured under this policy unless the OF LIABILITY Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then only to the extent of the In case of a claim under this policy,the Company shall have the following prejudice. additional options: 4. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS; DUTY OF INSURED (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance. CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance under this policy (a)Upon written request by the insured and subject to the options con- together with any costs,attorneys'fees and expenses incurred by the insured tamed in Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations,the Company,al its claimant,which were authorized by the Company,up to the time of payment or own cost and without unreasonable delay,shall provide for the defense of an tender of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim adverse to the title Upon the exercise by the Company of this option,all liability and obligations or interest as insured,but only as to those slated causes of action alleging a to the insured under this policy,other than to make the payment required,shall defect,lien or encumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy.The terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or con Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice(subject to the tinue any litigation, and the policy shall be surrendered to the Company for right of the insured to object for reasonable cause)to represent the insured as cancellation. to those stated causes of action and shall not be liable for and will not pay the (b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other than the Insured or fees of any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs or With the Insured Claimant. expenses incurred by the insured in the defense of those causes of action (i) to pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an which allege matters not insured against by this policy. insured claimant any claim insured against under this policy,together with any (b)The Company shall have the right, at its own cost, to institute and costs. attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act which in its opinion were authorized by the Company up to the lime of payment and which the may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest,as Company is obligated to pay;or insured,or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the insured.The Company (ii)to pay or otherwise settle with the insured claimant the loss or darnaclr' may lake any appropriate action under the terms of this policy,whether or not provided for under this policy, together with any cost;. attorneys' fee; rind l shalt be liable hereunder,anti shall not thereby concede liability or waive any expenses incurred by the insured claimant v:hi,:h were authori rd h; Ih; nrovi;ion of this policy. If the Company shall exercisr its rights under this Company up to the lime of(-ravmenl and whir:h the Crimp-my in obligated lu ;raragraph it shall do so diligently pay • Upon the exercise by the Company of eithe le options provided for in (b)When liabilitia' extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed -paragraphs(b)(i)or(ii),the Company's oblige s to the insured under this in accordance with ti conditions and Stipulations,the loss or damage 'policy for the claimed loss or damage,other than the payments required to be shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. made,shall terminate,including any liability or obligation to defend, prose- cute litigation. or continue anyliti ation. 13. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT The Company's Ri ht of Subrogation. 7. DETERMINATION,EXTENT OF LIABILITY AND COINSURANCE (a) g g This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or dam- Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this age sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss or policy,all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act damage by reason of matters insured against by this policy and only to,the of the insured claimant. extent herein described. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and (a)The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the least remedies which the insured claimant would have had against any person or of: property in respect to the claim had this policy not been issued.II requested by (i)the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A;or, the Company,the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights (ii)the difference between the value of the insured estate or interest as and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect insured and the value of the insured estate or interest subject to the defect, this right of subrogation.The insured claimant shall permit the Company to lien or encumbrance insured against by this policy. sue,compromise or settle in the name of the insured claimant and to use the (b)In the event the Amount of Insurance slated in Schedule A al the Dale of name of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation involving these Policy is less than 80 percent of the value of the insured estate or interest or rights or remedies. the full consideration paid for the land,whichever is less,or if subsequent to If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the the Date of Policy an improvement is erected on the land which increases the insured claimant,the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and reme- value of the insured estate or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of dies in the proportion which the Company's payment bears to the whole Insurance slated in Schedule A,then this Policy is subject to the following: amount of the toss. (i)where no subsequent improvement has been made,as to any partial If loss should result from any act of the insured claimant,as stated above, loss,the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that the that act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that event, shall be amount of insurance at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured required to pay only that part of any losses insured against by this policy which estate or interest at Date of Policy;or shall exceed the amount,it any,lost to the Company by reason of the impair- (ii)where a subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial ment by the insured claimant of the Company's right of subrogation. loss,the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that 120 (b)The Company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors. percent of the Amount of Insurance slated in Schedule A bears to the sum of the Amount of Insurance slated in Schedule A and the amount expended for The Company's right of subrogation against non-insured obligors shall the improvement. exist and shall include,without limitation,the rights of the insured to indem- The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs,attorneys' fees •nines,guaranties,other policies of insurance or bonds,notwithstanding any and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy,and shall only terms or conditions contained in those instruments which provide for subroga- apply to that portion of any loss which exceeds,in the aggregate,10 percent of lion rights by reason of this policy. the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. 14. ARBITRATION • (c)The Company will pay only those costs,attorneys'fees and expenses incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations. Unless prohibited by applicable law,either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the 8. APPORTIONMENT American Arbitration Association.Arbitrable matters may include,but are not If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which limited to,any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured are not used as a single site,and a loss is established affecting one or more of arising out of or relating to this policy,any service of the Company in connec- the parcels but not all,the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata lion with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation.All basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as to arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is$1,000,000 or less shall the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the whole,exclusive of be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the insured.All arbitrable any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of$1,000,000 shall be value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel by the Company and arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the insured.Arbitra- the insured at the time of the issuance of this policy and shown by an express lion pursuant to this policy and under the Rules in effect on the date the statement or by an endorsement attached to this policy. demand for arbitration is made or,at the option of the insured,the Rules in 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY effect at Date of Policy shall be binding upon the parties. The award may (a)II the Company establishes the title,or removes the alleged defect,lien include attorneys'fees only if the laws of the slate in which the land is located or encumbrance,or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the land,or permit a court to award attorneys'lees Io a prevailing party.Judgment upon cures the claim of unmarketabilily of title, all as insured, in a reasonably the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s)may be entered in any court having diligent manner by any method,including litigation and the completion of any jurisdiction thereof. appeals therefrom,it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. Insurance Arbitration Rules. (b)In the event of any litigation,including litigation by the Company or with A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. the Company's consent,the Company shall have no liability for loss or darn- age until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdic- 15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY;POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT lion,and disposition of all appeals therefrom,adverse to the title as insured. (a)This policy together with all endorsements,if any,attached hereto by the (c)The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any insured for Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and the Corn- liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit without pany.In interpreting any provision of this policy,this policy shall be construed the prior written consent of the Company. as a whole. 10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION OF (b)Any claim of loss or damage,whether or not based on negligence,and LIABILITY which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest covered All payments under this policy,except payments made for costs,attorneys' hereby or by any action asserting such claim,shall be restricted to this policy. fees and expenses,shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro lanlo. (c)No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by 11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President,a Vice President,the Secretary,an Assistant Secretary,or validating officer or It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy authorized signatory of the Company. shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any policy insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the 16. SEVERABILITY insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is hereafter ex- In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable ecuted by an insured and which is a charge or lien on the estate or interest under applicable law,the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision described or referred to in Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be and all other provisions shall remain in full force and cited. deemed a payment under This policy to the insured owner. 12. PAYMENT OF LOSS 17. NOTICES,WHERE SENT (a)No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorse- All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing menl of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed, in which required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the and shall be addressed to the Company al the issuing office or to: Company. Chicago Title Insurance Company Claims Department 17t North Clark Street r;:,nsa 1,0 ersc iri,,. iu•ri-u:'i Clu:acgo, Illinois t4160 i-3204 • SCHEDULE A Your Ref: 882780-N82 POLICY NO. 8223055 K16 Premium: $5,956.00 Amount of Insurance: $3,750,000.00 Date of Policy. January 22, 1999 at 8:00 A.M. 1. Name of Insured: ONE EL PASEO, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is: A FEE c9-6t7rV /714"- C" r/j'9 �J��'6 a �/� 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: ONE EL PASEO, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4. The land referred to in this policy is situated in the State of California, County of RIVERSIDE and is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION This Policy valid only if Schedule B is attached. ;{ n1TAOPA 07/I I/P2-Irc • DESCRIPTION Page 1 POLICY NO. 8223055 K16 PARCEL A: PARCELS 1 THROUGH 4 AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP 26994, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON FILE IN BOOK 177, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL B: AN UNDIVIDED 1 2 INTER ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SO OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 OF DESERT GARDEN HOMESITES, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 33, PAGES 95 AND 96 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; SAID CORNER BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WITH A RADIUS OF 770 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 35° 08' WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE, 30.27 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN THE DEED TO JOHN OUTCAULT RECORDED APRIL 28, 1964 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 52141 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH 37° 14' 35" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO JOHN F. OUTCAULT, ET UX, BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 15, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 85510, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 52° 25' 55" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, A DISTANCE OF 120.25 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 36° 57' 10" EAST, 40 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO PARCEL 1 TO M.L. KIRKPATRICK, ETAL, BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 29, 1964 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 11490, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE SOUTH 52° 25' 55" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO M. L. KIRKPATRICK, 150 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 37° 14' 35" WEST, ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED NORTHEASTERLY, LINE, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SCHEDULE B Your Ref: 882780-N82 POLICY NO. 8223055 K16 EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage(and the Company will not pay costs,attorneys'fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, TO BE LEVIED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 THAT ARE A LIEN NOT YET DUE. 2. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 1ST INSTALLMENT: $1,098.62 (PAID) 2ND INSTALLMENT: $1,098.62 PENALTY AND COST: $119.86 (DUE AFTER APRIL 10) HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION: $NONE CODE AREA: 018-028 ASSESSMENT NO: 625-112-014-6 AFFECTS: PARCEL 1 3. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 1ST INSTALLMENT: $9,181.63 (PAID) 2ND INSTALLMENT: $9,181.63 PENALTY AND COST: $928.16 (DUE AFTER APRIL 10) HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION: $NONE CODE AREA: 018-028 ASSESSMENT NO: 625-112-015-7 AFFECTS: PARCEL 2 4. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 1ST INSTALLMENT: $2,344.38 (PAID) 2ND INSTALLMENT: $2,344.38 PENALTY AND COST: $244.43 (DUE AFTER APRIL 10) HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION: $NONE CODE AREA: 018-028 ASSESSMENT NO: 625-112-018-0 AFFECTS: PARCEL 3 Al TAOr13117?/11/n2-hc SCHEDULE B Page 1 (Continued) POLICY NO. 008223055 K16 5. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 1ST INSTALLMENT: $392.47 (PAID) 2ND INSTALLMENT: $392.47 PENALTY AND COST: $49.24 (DUE AFTER APRIL 10) HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION: $NONE CODE AREA: 018-028 ASSESSMENT NO: 625-112-013-5 AFFECTS: PARCEL 4 6. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 1ST INSTALLMENT: $8,692.31 (PAID) 2ND INSTALLMENT: $8,692.31 PENALTY AND COST: $879.23 (DUE AFTER APRIL 10) HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION: $NONE CODE AREA: 018-028 ASSESSMENT NO: 625-112-016-8 AFFECTS: PARCEL 4 7. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 • 1ST INSTALLMENT: $461.19 (PAID) 2ND INSTALLMENT: $461.19 PENALTY AND COST: $56.11 (DUE AFTER APRIL 10) HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION: $NONE CODE AREA: 018-028 ASSESSMENT NO: 625-112-004-7 AFFECTS: PARCEL B 8. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75) OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 9. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET SCHEOOC-O2/2 /P:.Irc ..^ ,•_- SCHEDULE B Page 2 (Continued) POLICY NO. 008223055 K16 FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: RANDALL HENDERSON PURPOSE: UTILITIES ----- - O V)4Q4 n' 49 UT/tt1 . 1 M ' RECORDED: DECEMBER 1, 1947 IN BOOK 878, PAGE 111 AND DECEMBER 1, 1947 IN BOOK 878, PAGE 112, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM THE RECORD 10. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET \------ FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO:PURPOSE: RECORDED: CHARLES H. HILL AND LORRAINE G. HILL - INGRESS AND EGRESS FEBRUARY 18, 1957 IN BOOK 2041, PAGE 510, OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: THE SOUTHWESTERLY 30 FEET OF PARCEL B - 44f -75 / 141 C" —o If ,, 0 �, To C I To 46 a°Ase 1AI' 11. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, A PUBLIC AGENCY PURPOSE: DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION PURPOSES Ley RECORDED: DECEMBER 19, 1977 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 250960, OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCEL B OF SAID LAND 12. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, A PUBLIC AGENCY PURPOSE: DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION PURPOSES - 4/6/17 RECORDED: DECEMBER 19, 1977 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 250962, OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCEL B 13. A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT", DATED NOT SET OUT EXECUTED BY DESERT PLAZA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JTK CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; JEAN DUMONT, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND PALMER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. , A DELAWARE CORPORATION, SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS THEREIN CONTAINED, RECORDED MARCH 2, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83430 OFFICIAL RECORDS A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT RECORDED MARCH 26, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83431 OFFICIAL RECORDS. SCI IEU[3C-02/70/P2-Irc SCHEDULE B • Page 3 (Continued) POLICY NO. 008223055 K16 14. AN AGREEMENT FOR: "DESERT PLAZA EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY CLAIM IT OR ITS SUCCESSORS MAY HAVE TO REQUIRE THE FENCE AND SHRUBS, WHICH DIVIDE PARCEL B TO BE MOVED OR REMOVED FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS OR FOR AS LONG AS J.T.K. AND ITS SUCCESSORS CONTINUE TO USE THE EASEMENT STRIP FOR PARKING AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 3 ABOVE; WHICHEVER EVENT OCCURS LAST." EXECUTED BY: DESERT PLAZA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JTK CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND JEAN DUMONT, AN INDIVIDUAL AND BETWEEN: PALMER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. , A DELAWARE CORPORATION UPON THE TERMS, PROVISIONS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, RECORDED: MARCH 26, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83431, OFFICIAL RECORDS 15. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PURPOSE: UTILITIES — G/T/7-/7/d.S 4-Pt, 6 Z 4v0 RECORDED: JULY 8, 1948 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 941 IN BOOK 992 PAGE 405 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCELS 1 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 16. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY J PURPOSE: UTILITIES — G/":1/9e2Ga�I�'*'11�.� 4lv G' RECORDED: AUGUST 9, 1943 IN BOOK 1001 PAGE 409 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCELS 1 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 17. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY PURPOSE: POLE LINES - 4771.//e S RECORDED: APRIL 18, 1957 IN BOOK 2074 PAGE 413 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: SOUTH PORTION OF PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 18. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY PURPOSE: UTILITIES lTJ/L/T/eS RECORDED: OCTOBER 11, 1957 IN BOOK 2161 PAGE 574 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 Scf i[Uoc-07/?B/IJ2 I c SCHEDULE B Page 4 (Continued) POLICY NO. 008223055 K16 • 19. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, BUT "OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON. RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION: 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HANDICAPPED PERSONS." RECORDED: MAY 5, 1953 IN BOOK 1468 PAGE 411 OFFICIAL RECORDS 20. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY PURPOSE: POLE LINES — �fyGlT/ems RECORDED: MAY 23, 1956 IN BOOK 2276 PAGE 135 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCELS 1 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 21. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY PURPOSE: POLE LINES - (�jjGdTl�s RECORDED: NOVEMBER 18, 1960 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 98852 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 22. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND CALIFORNIA WATER AND TELEPONE COMPANY PURPOSE: PIPE LINES-- l�7Gn/ RECORDED: MAY 29, 1967 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 46439 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: THE SOUTHEASTERLY 5.00 FEET OF PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 23. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY PURPOSE: _ PUBLIC UTILITIES - GtTG��TI RECORDED: - OCTOBER 2, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 341969 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 AFFECTS: PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 ft SCF 11.1)iJG CO/20/P2 c • • SCHEDULE B Page 5 (Continued) POLICY NO. 008223055 K16 24. AN ASSIGNMENT RE TENANTS IN COMMOM RECORDED JUNE 8, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 206670 AND AMENDED FEBRUARY 23, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 74550. 25. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT PURPOSE: PUBLIC ROAD, HIGHWAY AND MAINTENANCE RECORDED: JULY 29, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 280394 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PORTIONS OF PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL 269994 26. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS OMPANY PURPOSE: UTILITIES -- li/�"/LGIr RECORDED: AUGUST 18, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 306473 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: SOUTHWEST 30 FEET OF PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 27. A DOMESTIC WATER AND SANITATION INSTALLATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT RECORDED FEBRUARY 17, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 58811 OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS PARCELS 1 THROUGH 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994. 28. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PURPOSE: UNDERGROUND PIPELINE AND NECESSARY DEVICES RECORDED: NOVEMBER 25, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 4511119 OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 29. EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS SET FORTH IN THE DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 15, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 499008 OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS PARCEL B 44,i715drr/�C`� Fa e c4G//0"k r 3t� LG,Oil e O 30. THE REQUIREMENT THAT PRIOR TO TRANSFER OR SALE OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 4/WOE SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY CONNECTED TO THE PUBLIC SEWER SHALL BE RECORDED AS SET FORTH IN THE CERTIFICATE RECORDED JULY 12, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 277626 OFFICIAL RECORDS. 31. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT PURPOSE: EASEMENT - RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 355519 OFFICIAL a SCHEDULE B Page 6 (Continued) POLICY NO. 008223055 K16 RECORDS AFFECTS: PARCE L 3 OF PARCEL MAP 26994 OFFICIAL RECORDS 32. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SHOWN OR AS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION ON THE RECORDED MAP SHOWN BELOW. MAP OF: PARCEL MAP 26994 EASEMENT PURPOSE: ACCESS EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AFFECTS: PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP 33. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 34. RIGHTS OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES IN POSSESSION OF SAID LAND UNDER UNRECORDED LEASEES, WITH NO RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL OR OPTIONS TO PURCHASE: 1. LG'S STEAKHOUSE 2. KAISER GRILLE 3. COMMUNITY NATIONAL CORP. 35. ANY RIGHTS, INTERESTS, OR CLAIMS WHICH MAY EXIST OR ARISE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS SHOWN ON A SURVEY PLAT ENTITLED "ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY ", DATED DECEMBER 18, 1998 PREPARED BY A-1 SURVEYING, INC. JOB/FILE NO. : NOT SET OUT: A. A PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG HIGHWAY 111 ENCROACHES ONTO SUBJECT PROPERTY BEYOND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LIMITS. B. A TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX, TRAFFIC SIGNAL RISERS, AND AN ELECTRIC METER EXIST ON SUBJECT PROPERTY NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER WITHOUT BENEFIT OF SPECIFIC EASEMENT RIGHTS. C. SUBJECT PROPERTY ACCEPTS DRAINAGE, VIA A CONCRETE CHANNEL, FROM THE ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. D. A T.V. RISER EXISTS ON SUBJECT PROPERTY. E. AN EDISON VAULT LIES PARTIALLY OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED EASEMENT. F. ANOTHER EDISON VAULT EXISTS ON THE NORTH PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NEAR THE SOUTH RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE OF HIGHWAY 111. G. BLOCK WALLS AND RETAINING WALLS STRADDLE THE BOUNDARY LINES OF VARIOUS LOCATIONS. H. THE FACT A STONE RETAINING WALL ENCROACHES 1 FOOT ONTO PARCEL B OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. <c;r3Erx3Cm/?O/J2 t« SCHEDULE B page 7 (Continued) POLICY NO. 008223055 K16 I. THE FACT ANOTHER WALL OF UNKNOWN CHARACTER ALSO ENCROACHES ONTO SAID PARCEL B TO A MAXIMUM OF 1 FOOT 4 INCHES. 36. A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT SHOWN BELOW AMOUNT: $2,800,000.00 DATED: JANUARY 19, 1999 TRUSTOR: ONE EL PASEO, LLC. TRUSTEE: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BENEFICIARY: RANCHO SANTA FE NATIONAL BANK RECORDED: JANUARY 22, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 025814 OFFICIAL RECORDS ORIGINAL LOAN NUMBER: NOT SET OUT 37. AN ASSIGNMENT OF ALL THE MONIES DUE, OR TO BECOME DUE AS RENT, AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE OBLIGATION SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST RECORDED: JANUARY 22, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 025814 OFFICIAL RECORDS ASSIGNED TO: RANCHO SANTA FE NATIONAL BANK BY ASSIGNMENT RECORDED: JANUARY 22, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 025815 OFFICIAL RECORDS 38. AN ASSIGNMENT OF ALL THE MONIES DUE, OR TO BECOME DUE AS RENT, AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE OBLIGATION SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST RECORDED: JANUARY 22, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 025814 OFFICIAL RECORDS ASSIGNED TO: RANCHO SANTA FE NATIONAL BANK BY ASSIGNMENT RECORDED: . JANUARY 22, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 025816 OFFICIAL RECORDS 39. AN ASSIGNMENT OF ALL THE MONIES DUE, OR TO BECOME DUE AS RENT, AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE OBLIGATION SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST RECORDED: JANUARY 22, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 025814 OFFICIAL RECORDS ASSIGNED TO: RANCHO SANTA FE NATIONAL BANK BY ASSIGNMENT RECORDED: JANUARY 22, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 025817 OFFICIAL RECORDS END OF SCHEDULE B SCH1DiiG02/70/P7 Lc SCHEDULE B Page 8 (Continued) POLICY NO. 008223055 K16 JD/LE/JF • AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY S!IEOL'C-O2/20/92-I,c r,•r • • • 61 r{•c%!„/tcAil 02 0 i I 41 3.11 .. •: •..... :iu.'� i1.1:•:I:i 'WO Alf AaII A -. .. Si • _ �- i. IYd/N A/CH.w'!d l '17'L11A'ww 10)JY In},I,/' 't)'il w)w1Y A ))r lt:]-fA I:•• t•11•{L A C) 1Dt'm XPV71:1• *i)t)w 0 PI Y00 1 t.I..0.7)Y/Cw.'1^ A �'.•'�'• 1 ^Y710.•7 t q A[11]I tlr)w7/nI M a• Y]Yt?I yl)t)q1 IM)r.ir)M 7' •m wY/)1)]l7 A q/!w)nt;17•.• T7 •. • • • r wMY. ]1.cwQ) 1{.ir1(C{n •• I .f. • ••3'•illr]'AM A'SW ltl)ILI- ♦)'il.r)ww 10 7)Y lr(VA n t]%.1M NY 10')Y 1•I}Iq A ' .1 r> r Y)I✓)LLYCAw,1'•t.:7)Y f•'• •. �..• A 0O.K.4)DI IV O0Aa1)Y 1.'1J O1)ow•10C IQro N JFS.r7)6 16..0: O•IIw 1.,TIT.yw OI C7.,7Y.')( • .,..•, • 2 'm 16+G 13)191.CL LO,r7Cl7 M U7•M 1Tl t)W.lw7n)tt)M IOr XYI ADO'cops w 1•.{.t 7)w JT+ .: v; �-1. • �• "{; '0]Y1+wOY)7V h q1 iw)nxlt7/r, ,r ) �'� n WO AO A Tn)WO IC r) allr)ww I 1a v] U1.) NO 10 J. li'�.17: ma'Wad)w.)r�uar)O0°YolM t.CT.i)yYYt 1v.1 ltl�luo 40 tt{nt- 1vn t('.t.0 n to rn1 t{i wa w t..t.: ):Y cr�,'-• .-- •:oY ltN'D7:Y.rat/w}(x•)w• to tD1.07 to•]Ot YO•!w].•Tt•)f.T T ___ •__1__-_ _ S310N 1N3W3Sd3 w1•t'O••ro1w .wuat•)1.. ,.:)s.w I g0yvrq( IOOY11t)auul]Yo.-- vlvfc s oanit.rslwv..:r) ...,' / ` 4r 6n1•aoNO•10•t)]rI _ i ��Jdd•. w u.. tc:. :;.T. 1m•1 )w0)N.t.1 a) •� -f• tJt7 c::.. .•r Y Z1Yd orr). a.w) ]It}N, .]x.cirt(tio 7o'. / d:,. I IO1) _• r p1 \,.•i® s.'rz .v:).) 7 • • • I f Z '2i V d .\4� �' 9 O r. j j - II• • ,1. T T ... .... -2r l [d -•- CF ••01 ON I)Y n)w'Y cm:Pin w 0)Y A '• 1 ;. i;c°•:� 1 lava: I_ - - ...,. .•6'; aY )a:,�.. ac r.ONO)Io deal NO_.-c t,.]�:. i):.rc.• • `.^ �\\- .. it 1(U( Olt ad 1116(•61f )]Y Jrlr. I.,t•T..11•).0M M _ •_ p - �).�,o VD E IlYci . V _ ••: J'•KW1 r1..1..7n�YlY1 • ;V C...,,,.. Ot 0))a YNY 1Y,()0 wl'I t7 .. ..... .. OY O)14/• 11.....).....OM.•w,.lr'0.0w �• -•': "I • )Vr..n1 w.Y..10.10.•41 . • 1. .41 .�M)IM C. foo•'t7 .s.nt II•.•�. of _ _.-.f7... •ti. 1\\�1.•1+LA)-.. . 1 ,1.0 - .. ... .. _-.... 1�:... .. .___.-... •P.:.� .. . C --- - is '_ r .. ... s .o• W c. -7 , •1-•- • tr.? c "91~' ww(t.n'•II�Ifv••010••.•. .1 11___/ L" •) l II, oiaw):. Y4 • .r• • I:Na••.1A-ir{a l.rn, •r••- 'C(•:.OY IwI MYI.0 .•0)0Y0)1.)1 PC' '.I 'a., Olt'0) 'NY 1 • ate• . .r ., • ••' Y)u .A+ t )tl.• c•I/:,.OY..>(.Y 1 h`r..,iy)..I r91)t I )'`�"n �..1r�n. 1n ]Y.l • (••t.7)Y o).na. c u ic1 f:1/ 11),Y).1.0) 11: [� y. - . .. T1I Ay/al-toll(' 3-LVJ.6 • • i • (..••. •• 1• o'.ccn•ot `r.,. ) .. .. ... - :1: : ic;•" o,.°;;o�; c•;`: • 1661 E+3E0.00 170 '1113S30 WICd ''3Ni ''03 7N1/,3:.21fS :•ti luv 13Ceu i tl tin•. t k 1N V1 0. 11113NM3. ..� 1• 1 .•.r. •Jr.` r, ' 'S '1 v3 9 3�rl�a 'w.1n l' I (t. v.. l I.'. N/1.133i 37 b.1: 1^1M i1':?' 3.1. J1 • 1'3;. ` \ // (• 1 LLd•3N 3hLL y0 IJ011)1�! !' N:it�.:..:R ::3e \ V ;ti ,0 JwHr 669 'ON 4 dVV, -I]D d dd .{ - _- 1 _. f 1334S 1'IN40311C3 '1d9S30 Wlvd AO AI!3 1111 HI r ;, )... /i- ©fi1M ofl 'a[� D esec 4 1 rill" 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. CUP 99-5/CUP 89-3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal by Gregory A. Swajian to a decision of the Planning Commission approving a request by ONE EL PASEO LLC for approval of a conditional use permit to allow medical/dental office use of a 17,000 square foot building in the C-1 zone on the south side of Highway 1 1 1, east of El Paseo (east), 74-235 Highway 1 1 1, Lot 1, Parcel Map 26994. i 11 s.o.i..rilEd_ :f"I t l- ...-. I P.R.-5,N Inn II ii MC f:41-4Y 1 ■ i'1.1:1‘J ).. 61, ./... .. _ L- -COS EZ r,. '74, II i . , ._:7-. k, \Pi % t 44 4„.... :_-_,.. 6_, .. , 4 4.`�T .r. R}t / .yf1 s•R x.RiNo rn 0T`0' 1 t III ar al iiiil 3f47, aim ma. 1300':.4-3fo1 I H-I. 4Y110EIVIIEQ1^TINI 0 1.9 I l i l ; 1 -T.4i,41 iii 1,N. ..4 H I uie 3 Qa2 • _ • .. ICYItT,s IE • - I0GHWAY „l STATE -.....N-I G i$Iiiiiia a i IIc ��O - . - f V . . L,� '�` �j T} P o• r Y R 3 '.0 A� )/%33 , _A ;liq --r--1" L'' 13 SHADOW MORN T•iN I IID•I VE I I I IRk'( � I ,"4X% -I I p+-3,118,b00(W I I w CANDLER ST.. 1 _ 040o I I I IR:_, _ PLr1?: I I STREET CHICORY SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, July 8, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk June 21, 1999 City of Palm Desert, California