HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 01-42, 01-43 and Ord 984 GPA 00-07, CZ 00-10 and PP 00-23 Resolution No. 01-42
• Ordinance No. 984
CITY OF PALM DESERT Resolution No. 01-43
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of
Zone from Service Industrial (S.I.) to General Commercial (C-1 )
and a Precise Plan of Design for a 27,116 square foot mixed use
commercial complex located on 2.35 acres at the southwest
corner of Cook Street and Green Way (north).
III. APPLICANT: Lakeside Properties
920 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
and Axcess Architects
18652 Florida, #200
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
IV. CASE NOS: GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
V. DATE: March 22, 2001
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 01-42 Ordinance No. 984 , and Draft Resolution
No. 01-43
B. Planning Commission Minutes for Case Nos. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10 and PP
00-23
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2043
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 20, 2001
E. Related maps and/or exhibits
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1 . That City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-42 approving GPA 00-07.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
MARCH 22, 2001
2. That City Council pass Ordinance No. 984 to second reading approving C/Z
00-10.
3. That City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-43 approving PP 00-23.
B. DISCUSSION:
1 . BACKGROUND:
a. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: SI / Multi-tenant industrial
South: SI / Vacant
East: SI / Industrial (multi-tenant)
West: Retail / Industrial
b. Site Description:
The project is located on 2.35 acres of relatively flat land on the east
side of Cook Street south and west of Green Way. Green Way was
recently realigned as part of the Cook Street improvement plan and now
aligns with 42nd Avenue to the west.
c. Planning Commission Action:
At the Planning Commission hearing of February 20, 2001 , other than
the applicant's architect no one spoke in favor or opposition to the
application. The commission on a 5-0 vote recommended approval of
the request.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project involves a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from
Service Industrial (SI) to General Commercial (C-1 ) and the development of a
mixed use commercial project including a market/deli of 4,000 square feet and
the remainder as general retail uses.
2
Resolution No. 01-42
Ordinance No. 984
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-43
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
MARCH 22, 2001
a. General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone:
Commercial uses providing a wide range of basic goods and services are
typically located on arterial streets where they can serve the most
people with the least amount of negative impact on existing property
owners. The proposed small commercial center provides a 4,000
square foot market/deli and general retail uses. The project is in the
center of an industrial park so it will be convenient to employees of the
industrial park as well as passersby on Cook Street which is a
designated arterial street without impacting residential neighborhoods.
Staff will recommend approval of the proposed general plan amendment
and change of zone to general commercial.
We are suggesting the rezone to general commercial (C-1) because the
property does not meet the minimum size provision for the PC-2 zone
district and in reality the project more closely reflects the general
commercial zone than the planned commercial district.
b. Precise Plan:
The project includes a 4,000 square foot market/deli and 23,000 square
feet of general retail uses. The project takes its main access from
Green Way (north) and also has access from Green Way (east). There
is no direct access to or from Cook Street. The building has been
arranged with the market/deli at the north end facing Green Way (north)
and Cook Street. The remaining retail uses face west to Cook Street.
Loading areas for all units face Green Way (east). Parking for 114
vehicles is provided in the areas adjacent to Cook Street and Green Way
(north) and at the south end of the site. The driveway system provides
for access from Green Way (north) through the parking lot to the south
end of the property with an access to Green Way (east).
Architecture will be contemporary. Landscape throughout the project
will be "Desert Willow St le and will complement the landscaping just
Y P P 9
completed on the Cook Street parkway and median. Architectural
Commission granted preliminary approval of the architecture and
landscaping at its meeting of January 23, 2001 .
3
Resolution No. 01-42
Ordinance No. 984
Resolution No. 01-43
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
MARCH 22, 2001
PROJECT DATA
Project Data C-1 STANDARDS
Site Size 2.35 acres 10,000 square feet
Building Area 27,116 square feet N/A
Coverage 26.3% N/A
Building Height 22' - 25' 30'
Setbacks:
Cook Street 49' - 87' 5'
Green Way (N) 87' 5'
Green Way (E) 30' 5'
South 85' 0'
Parking 114 spaces 1 1 3 spaces
Landscaping 29.6% N/A
The required parking is based on five spaces per 1 ,000 square feet for the
market/deli and four per 1 ,000 for the remaining 23,116 square feet of retail
use. Any future request for restaurant uses would need to be processed
through the conditional use permit process as all restaurants in the C-1 district
are required to do.
3. ANALYSIS:
The property is currentlyvacant and its access from a major arterial street has
P p Y 1
recently been improved significantly. The project will take all of its access
from side streets and not negatively impact traffic flow on Cook Street. The
transportation engineer has advised that the project will not impact traffic
levels on Cook Street. The commercial project is appropriate in the center of
a large industrial area for the service it provides to employees and to the
general public traveling on an arterial street.
Typically commercial rezoning runs into opposition when it is located adjacent
to or near existing residential areas. This property has no residential
neighbors.
Staff will recommend approval of the application.
4
Resolution No. 01-42
Ordinance No. 984
Resolution No. 01-43
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
MARCH 22, 2001
4. CEQA REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA and the Director of
Community has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact
on the environment. A Mitigated Declaration of Environmental Impact has
been prepared and is recommended to City Council for certification.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
_y_47-LN
T VE SMITH PHILIP DRELL
PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Review and Concur: Review and Concur:
•
R CHARD J. KERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
CITY COUNCIL .CTION:
APPROVED DENIED•
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETINq
YES CA&AAM - P. pArav>
NOES: !U 1)
ABSENT; -Q
'•STAIN: A-C-2
VERIFIED BY: Win„ �C
Original on File with Cit Cl k' s Office
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
middle of the three spaces which would leave room for customers to stand in
front on the pavement. Mr. Drell said there would be room to get around with
the third open parking space. Commissioner Campbell asked if this was the
same stand as last year. Mr. Alvarez concurred.
Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. JOHN CRAIG, 29706Avenida Del Real inSunCity,a California, said
that Mr. Alvarez did agood explaining his request. He used to have
jobP 9 q
a temporary brick sidewalk by his stand and he was planning to put that
in front of this one so that people could stand on it and have access to
the stand through the grass area. He could put some stepping stones
in the grass so that it would be safer and nicer looking. When the
season was over, he would fix it back up to its original condition. He
also thanked Mr. Drell for his compliment on the strawberries.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION
to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action.
Commissioner Finerty stated that she thoroughly enjoyed the strawberries last
year and was in favor of the project at this location. She moved for approval.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2042, approving CUP 00-01 ,
subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Case Nos. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, and PP 00-23 - LAKESIDE
PROPERTIES, Applicant
Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of
Zone from Service Industrial (SI) to General Commercial (C-1 ) and
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
a Precise Plan of Design for a 27,116 square foot mixed use
commercial complex located on 2.35 acres at the southwest
corner of Cook Street and Green Lane (north).
Mr. Smith pointed out that plans were on display. He said that the landscape/
site plan was a little confusing in that Green Way runs along the north/south
along the east side of the property and Green Lane runs along the north side
of the property that intersects with 42nd Avenue on the west side of Cook
Street. He said that the site is about 2.35 acres, is currently zoned Service
Industrial and the applicant was seekingan amendment to Commercial zoning.
P 9
Staff felt the general plan amendment and change of zone were warranted
given the location on an arterial street in the middle of an industrial area. He
also felt that the commercial aspect would provide a service to both the
employees to the area as well as the passersby on Cook Street, a designated
arterial street. The precise plan would provide access from the street to the
north and access at the southerly limit onto Green Way on the east side.
There were also a couple of driveway connections immediately on the east
side which would provide access to loading docks on the rear of the buildings.
The front retail portion would face west to Cook Street and the proposed
deli/market would be at the north end. Architecture and landscaping were
recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Commission on
January 23, 2001 . There would not be any access from Cook Street.
Landscaping would continue the theme set by the city with the reconstruction
of Cook Street. He said that the Transportation Engineer advised that the
project would not impact levels on Cook Street. Staff recommended approval
of the application and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
prepared.
Commissioner Jonathan said that the street names were confusing and asked
if staff considered changing Green Way to 42nd. Mr. Greenwood said there
was a lot of discussion when the street was named. He believed it was Green
Way, not Green Lane. Commissioner Jonathan noted that some names change
when they curve around like Sheryl turns into Melanie which turns into Merle.
Mr. Greenwood said there was some consideration about naming it 42nd, but
it wasn't because Green Way is a private street. Naming it 42nd would imply
that it was a public street. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the staff
report Mr. Smith indicated that any future request for a restaurant use would
have to go through the CUP process. He asked if Mr. Smith knew if the
applicant was contemplating a restaurant use because if the project is
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
successful, fitting in the additional parking required for a restaurant might be
difficult. Mr. Smith said he was unaware of any proposal for a restaurant.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if ARC was satisfied with the single, long
structure. He asked if there was any discussion about breaking that up into
a couple of buildings. Mr. Smith said yes. He pointed to two sets of plans
which showed that the plans had changed considerably between the project's
first and second appearance at ARC. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there
had been discussion in terms of grouping it into a series of three buildings
instead of one on the left and a long one on the right and breaking up the long
building. Mr. Smith said that ARC felt there was enough break in the building
with the movement of the roof elevation as well as the in and out movement
of the facade.
Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a memorandum from Senior Deputy
Conley and asked if his comments were incorporated. Mr. Smith said that
Senior Deputy Conley was questioning the location of the access and staff
indicated that the Transportation Engineer didn't have a concern with it.
Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification regarding the entrance and loading
area. Mr. Smith said that he was requesting that the loading area be signed.
That was no problem and could be accomplished. The street numbering
requirements would be handled through the Building Department.
Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. RICK BLOMGREN, Axcess Architects at 18652 Florida Street in
Huntington Beach, stated that he was the agent for the property owner.
He explained that their primary use would be the market. The
remainder of the project would be interior improvements such as interior
furnishings, tile, and things like that which would be an accent to the
industrial area. They weren't looking at any additional food uses at this
time. The movement in that area was for interior type uses. During the
ARC meetings, one of his concerns was that they would have tenants
that would be 1 ,500 to 6,000-7,000 feet. Keeping the building in a
rectangular footprint gave them flexibility for their tenants. The arcade
on the outside ranged from eight feet to 11 feet deep with different
increments of massing. It would look like multiple buildings but the
main core would be rectangular in shape. They tried to solve both of
those problems at the same time. They had a chance to look at the
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
staff report. Regarding zoning, he asked for clarification regarding PC-2
and C-1 and if the uses were similar and if it was based on the lot size.
Mr. Smith said that was correct. It was based on the fact that they didn't
meet the minimum for the PC-2 zone.
Mr. Blomgren noted that another question that was raised in the staff
report was the driveway at the southeast corner of the project. He said
it jogged slightly to the side. The reason they did that was because
when the old Green Way was abandoned there was a gigantic catch
space in that location. If they could work something out from a traffic
standpoint that would allow them to jog there, it would save them a lot
in terms of construction costs. When they got into plan check, they
would discuss this further with the city.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Jensen's was a firm tenant.
Mr. Blomgren said they were very close. It was just a matter of getting
their entitlements in place.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if it wasn't Jensen's, if that was the type of
user they envisioned for the end building.
Mr. Blomgren said yes.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION
to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she was on Cook Street often and felt that
it would be a very good development in that location. She was in favor and
moved for approval.
Commissioner Finerty concurred and seconded the motion. She felt that the
addition of a market/deli in that location would be a great convenience for the
area.
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
Commissioner Tschopp stated that he also concurred. A market/deli of that
size would be a good addition to the area and the building would be compatible
with the existing structures.
Chairperson Lopez concurred and called for the vote.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2043, recommending to City
Council approval of GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10 and PP 00-23, subject to
conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Drell requested that the following two public hearing items be considered
simultaneously. Commission concurred.
C. Case Nos. GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 and TT 29713 - IRONWOOD
COUNTRY CLUB, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, general
plan amendment and prezoning to facilitate future annexation to
the city of Palm Desert for 1 56.01 acres located in the east half
of Section 5, T6S R6E (the area south of Ironwood Country
Club). Said property to be designated very low density
residential (1 -3 dwelling units per acre) and open space in the
General Plan and prezoned PR-2 and O.S. (open space). The
application also includes a tentative tract map to create 20
residential lots ranging in size from 22,778 square feet to 35,830
square feet to be located on the future extension of Canyon View
Drive.
D. Case No. TT 29912 - IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, Applicant
Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative
tract map to create 32 single family lots ranging in size from 15,081
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2043
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PAL
M DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF' A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE FROM SERVICE
INDUSTRIAL (S.I.)TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND A PRECISE
PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
LOCATED ON 2.35 ACRES ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
COOK STREET AND GREEN LANE (NORTH).
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 20th day of February, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
of LAKESIDE PROPERTIES for approval of the above noted cases; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council
approval of said request:
1 . The site is suitable for the General Commercial General Plan designation.
2. The zone change to C-1 will be consistent with the general plan amendment.
3. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
adjacent land uses.
4. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the General
Commercial zone.
5. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will
not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
6. The precise plan of design will not unreasonably interfere with the use or
enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful
purposes.
PLANNING COMMISSI IESOLUTION NO. 2043
7. The precise plan not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That approval of General Plan Amendment 00-07 (Exhibit B attached hereto),
Change of Zone 00-10 (Exhibit C attached hereto) and Precise Plan 00-23 are
hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached
hereto), is recommended for certification.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 20th day of February, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, JONATHAN, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
JI PE , Cha' pe on
ATTEST:
.r-
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert PI nning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2043
CONDITIONS 'OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the
Architectural Review Commission process.
7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2043
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape
plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters
appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for
the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All
to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and
the approved landscape plan.
Department of Public Works:
1. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-
55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by
the Department of Public Works.
3. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction
of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading permit. Such
improvements shall include, but not be limited to, minimum six foot wide concrete
sidewalk and minimum twenty-four foot wide drive approaches.
4. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department
and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
5. Landscaping maintenance on Cook Street and Green Way shall be the responsibility of
the property owner.
6. Size, number and location of driveways to the specifications of the Department of Public
Works with four driveway approaches to serve this property.
7. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
8. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall
be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance
of the grading permit.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2043
9. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
10. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment
of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
11. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
(PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control.
Riverside County Fire Department:
Compliance with conditions required by the Riverside County Fire Department.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2043
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Lakeside Properties
920 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 27,116 square foot mixed use commercial complex
located on 2.35 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Green Lane (north).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
0ar 20, 2001
• PHILIP DRE L DAT
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6
•
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: February 20, 2001
CASE NOS: GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
REQUEST: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact,
General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Service Industrial
(SI) to General Commercial (C-1 ) and a Precise Plan of Design for a
27,116 square foot mixed use commercial complex located on 2.35
acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Green Lane (north).
APPLICANT: Lakeside Properties
920 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
and Axcess Architects
18652 Florida #200
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
BACKGROUND:
A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: SI / Multi-tenant industrial
South: SI / Vacant
East: SI / Industrial (multi-tenant)
West: Retail / Industrial
B. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The project is located on 2.35 acres of relatively flat land on the east side of
Cook Street south and west of Green Lane. Green Lane was recently realigned
as part of the Cook Street improvement plan and now aligns with 42nd
Avenue to the west.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project involves a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Service
Industrial (SI) to General Commercial (C-1 ) and the development of a mixed use
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
commercial project including a market/deli of 4,000 square feet and the remainder
as general retail uses.
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE:
Commercial uses providing a wide range of basic goods and services are
typically located on arterial streets where they can serve the most people with
the least amount of negative impact on existing property owners. The
proposed smal► commercial center provides a 4,000 square foot market/deli
and general retail uses. The project is in the center of an industrial park so it
will be convenient to employees of the industrial park as well as passersby on
Cook Street which is a designated arterial street without impacting residential
neighborhoods.
Staff will recommend approval of the proposed general plan amendment and
change of zone to general commercial.
We are suggesting the rezone to general commercial (C-1 ) because the
property does not meet the minimum size provision for the PC-2 zone district
and in reality the project more closely reflects the general commercial zone
than the planned commercial district.
B. PRECISE PLAN:
The project includes a 4,000 square foot market/deli and 23,000 square feet
of general retail uses. The project takes its main access from Green Lane
(north) and also has access from Green Lane (east). There is no direct access
to or from Cook Street. The building has been arranged with the market/deli
at the north end facing Green Lane (north) and Cook Street. The remaining
retail uses face west to Cook Street. Loading areas for all units face Green
Lane (east). Parking for 114 vehicles is provided in the areas adjacent to Cook
Street and Green Lane (north) and at the south end of the site. The driveway
system provides for access from Green Lane (north) through the parking lot to
the south end of the property with an access to Green Lane (east).
Architecture will be contemporary. Landscape throughout the project will be
"Desert Willow Style" and will complement the landscaping just completed on
the Cook Street parkway and median. Architectural Commission granted
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
preliminary approval of the architecture and landscaping at its meeting of
January 23, 2001 .
PROJECT DATA
Project Data C-1 STANDARDS
Site Size 2.35 acres 10,000 square feet
Building Area 27,116 square feet N/A
Coverage 26.3% N/A
Building Height 22' - 25' 30'
Setbacks:
Cook Street 49' - 87' 5'
Green Lane (N) 87' 5'
Green Lane (E) 30' 5'
South 85' 0'
Parking 114 spaces 113 spaces
Landscaping 29.6% N/A
The required parking is based on five spaces per 1 ,000 square feet for the
market/deli and four per 1 ,000 for the remaining 23,1 16 square feet of retail
use. Any future request for restaurant uses would need to be processed
through the conditional use permit process as all restaurants in the C-1 district
are required to do.
III. ANALYSIS:
The property is currently vacant and its access from a major arterial street has
recently been improved significantly. The project will take all of its access from side
streets and not negatively impact traffic flow on Cook Street. The transportation
engineer has advised that the project will not impact traffic levels on Cook Street.
The commercial project is appropriate in the center of a large industrial area for the
service it provides to employees and to the general public traveling on an arterial
street.
Typically commercial rezoning runs into opposition when it is located adjacent to or
near existing residential areas. This property has no residential neighbors.
Staff will recommend approval of the application.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
IV. CEQA REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA and the Director of
Community has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the
environment. A Mitigated Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared
and is recommended to City Council for certification.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Approve findings and adopt PlanningCommission Resolution
No.
Pp 9 P
recommending to the City Council approval of GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10 and PP 00-23.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal Notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. Initial Study
E. Precise Plan
'
Prepared by
��
p Steve Smith
Reviewed and Approved by A,
P it Drel
/tm
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE FROM SERVICE
INDUSTRIAL (S.I.)TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND A PRECISE
PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
LOCATED ON 2.35 ACRES ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
COOK STREET AND GREEN LANE (NORTH).
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 20th day of February, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
of LAKESIDE PROPERTIES for approval of the above noted cases; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council
approval of said request:
1 . The site is suitable for the General Commercial General Plan designation.
2. The zone change to C-1 will be consistent with the general plan amendment.
3. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
adjacent land uses.
4. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the General
Commercial zone.
5. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will
not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
6. The precise plan of design will not unreasonably interfere with the use or
enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful
purposes.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
7. The precise plan not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That approval of General Plan Amendment 00-07 (Exhibit B attached hereto),
Change of Zone 00-10 (Exhibit C attached hereto) and Precise Plan 00-23 are
hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached
hereto), is recommended for certification.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 20th day of February, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
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.
of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
3. The development
p p Y J
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the
Architectural Review Commission process.
7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape
plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters
appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for
the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All
to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and
the approved landscape plan.
Department of Public Works:
1. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-
55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by
the Department of Public Works.
3. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction
of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading permit. Such
improvements shall include, but not be limited to, minimum six foot wide concrete
sidewalk and minimum twenty-four foot wide drive approaches.
4. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department
and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
5. Landscaping maintenance on Cook Street and Green Way shall be the responsibility of
the property owner.
6. Size, number and location of driveways to the specifications of the Department of Public
Works with four driveway approaches to serve this property.
7. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
8. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall
be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance
of the grading permit.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
9. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
10. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment
of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
11. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
(PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control.
Riverside County Fire Department:
Compliance with conditions required by the Riverside County Fire Department.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Lakeside Properties
920 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 27,116 square foot mixed use commercial complex
located on 2.35 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Green Lane (north).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
February 20, 2001
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6
\ ' z_______I it -,
6.r P R
g 0.P. -
A/ 6 g \ 4
L S . q .. ) Q ,.*N
Ca
,,c9e * Q 0 \
I �' '► -_ i't %,•i4 '�
.4 ..* jA.: •
5.1. .44, .4,� r
S if'. ; .. a� � ��.''%. w.
x ao
• ► ' U SAINT _3MES S• •,
W JAMES- FL a-
S.I. W ''
aa
u _II — : :ANF' --,)
42ND AV- , —GREEN
\. I ,
u . A : tO '
( ' I
VELIE WAY is.i. IT1 E::::1,
o'DS.I.
Sp UST
JONI DR
P
T a
G MFRi.F.7111 I� . MERLE DR
s.
.. S.I. a
I III kL-I—I/\" �IN l a. Proposed
--� w GPA
r_ �. •is(4)
� W � i, R-3 so 0 \\
(4) rAI 1I SHERYL AVE
• Service No I Industrial
SHRRY".AVE to
- General Commercial
R-1 ,
e a,(Ya ii-°e"ed Case No. GPA 00-07 PLANNING COMMISSION
r,;,1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO.
'llEXIII 11 IT It Date: 2-20-01
, .
•
' *r :.4 ' ,` -`* P.R.-'
1 lii.1*11111715'
.„,...Als?
OO.P. -g ,. o
_______\/
‘11) 'kV .
; 610;J, - &VPIP 'C <C-, 45( ,)
(410.
HOVLEY LA E ilkili *. N N5 iq'O),b v
a( �'�. a�
t 4 ' • : 0
7 4 4 hit . .:::r .4,.f. ,,\O s
, . • •
a20o?.4.: <
. , . c 0 0
„SAINT S I r'
WJAMES V/
,r, _
S.I. ___&_p_i ' .
1/ II lit : : : . 1 /
1 S.I.
V. .7
CREEN
IVELIE WAY \
g I [ �[ 1 s.i. -ic , \ U
q
04
0.,
S.I. J
S
\_ JONI DR r
P
F--- MERLE DR
U_
�• I S.I. W Proposed
1i( )
41
L MI
(4) rol
WI
• SHERYL AVE S.I.
to
SHF.RYL-AV3
Rl � C 1
u/7 Yam..DeJert Case No. C/Z 00-10 PLANNING COMMISSION
'� Change of Zone RESOLUTION NO.
ki EXHI t IT C Date: _2-20-01
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Joseph S. Gaugush, Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 00-23; COOK STREET MARKET PLACE
DATE: February 15, 2001
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced
project:
(1) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
(2) Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent
upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works.
(3) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance
with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall
be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to issuance
of a grading permit. Such improvements shall include, but not be limited to,
minimum six foot wide concrete sidewalk and minimum twenty-four foot wide drive
approaches.
(4) All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering
department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
(5) Landscaping maintenance on Cook Street and Green Way shall be the responsibility
of the property owner.
(6) Size, number and location of driveways to the specifications of the Department of
Public Works with four driveway approaches to serve this property.
(7) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this
project.
(8) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of the grading permit.
(9) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
(10) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
(11) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12,
Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control.
JOSEPH S. GAUGUSH P.E.
(jsg\PP0023ss.cnd)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10, PP 00-23
AESTHETIC
Project design includes perimeter landscaping and decorative walls to resemble
residential development. Perimeter buildings are single story residential scale
consistent with existing neighborhood. Overall quality of architecture and
landscaping will be equal to or higher than surrounding area.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project is within the historical habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard.
Pursuant to CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan and the recently approved MOU with
the California Department of Fish and Game, a $600 per acre mitigation fee will be
paid.
XI. NOISE
The project is located adjacent to Cook Street, an arterial highway which serves as
a major access from an interchange at 1-10. Higher intensity uses are located on
Cook Street with office use sites adjacent to Sheryl. The project will be bounded on
the north by a six-foot block wall. Significant noise sources from commercial activity
will be substantially contained within the buildings. Limitations of night time
activities will further reduce noise impacts to a level of insignificance.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
With both physical and operational mitigation measures, all identified impacts have
been reduced to a level of insignificance.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title:
Cook Street Marketplace Retail Center
2. Lead Agency and Name and Address:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
3. Contact person and Phone Number:
Stephen R. Smith, Planning Manager
Department of Community Development
(760) 346-061 1 ext. 486
4. Project Location:
Southeast corner of Cook Street and Green Lane
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Lakeside Properties
920 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
6. General Plan Designation:
Service Industrial
7. Zoning:
Service Industrial
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Service Industrial to
General Commercial and approval of a mixed use commercial complex (27,116
square feet).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach
additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
Vacant site fronting on arterial street surrounded by industrial uses to the north,
south, east and west.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
None
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 PAGE 1 OF 12 FORM "J"
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils
❑ Hazards& Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning
❑ Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population/Housing
O Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic
❑ Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
O I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant or"potentially significant unless
mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all
potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed on the proposed pr ject, thing further is required.
���= � / - -O
Si attire Date
attire,. c Soy ) $11
Printed Name For
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 2 of 14
EVALUATION OF ENV txuNMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,lead agencies should
normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "F'
Page 3 of 14
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance cntena or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance.
SAMPLE QUESTION
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impac
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ 0
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not
limited to,tress,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 0 tsd' 0 �
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 0
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of cr
Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a D EJ
Williamson Act contract?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 4 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpac
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑
due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland,to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ 0 ❑ EY
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ 0 0
02/
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ 0 l2"
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ 0 [2(
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ 0 [Y
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through 0 113/ 0 ❑
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or
regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 5 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpaci
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ 0 n
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 0 0 0 L/
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,
etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological
interruption,or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 0 0 11/
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 0 0 0 Vd
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ 0 d/
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,regional,or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ 0 0 ®/
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ D D Ei2/
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 0 0 ®/
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside ❑ 0 0 e/
of formal cemeteries?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T"
Page 6 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ 0 0
effects,including the risk of loss,injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the ❑ 0 0
(Z
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑
fiZC
iii Seismic-related ground failure,including Iiquefaction? 0 0 0
iv Landslides? 0 0 0 L
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ D
fil
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that ❑ ❑ 0
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral
spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ 0 0 El
the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 0 0 0
Tir
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 0 0 0 U1
through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 7 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑
hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport,would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ L
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ LLB'
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ d
requirements?
CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "I"
Page 8 of 14
Less Than
lSsues Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑
area,including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ 12
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑
d
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ L�J
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "1"
Page 9 of 14
Less Than
Issues Significant
Potentially With Lcss Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impac
Impact Lncorporatcd impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 62
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ El D
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ ri
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑
[E(
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ (7/
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan,specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ d
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ IV
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ ,�/
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "T'
Page 10 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impai
Impact Incorporated Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ 0
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport,would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ S
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either 0 0 0 ud
directly(for example,by proposing new homes and
businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of
road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ 0
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ❑ 0 ❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities,the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 0 ❑ ❑
Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ C
Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 85 FORM "J"
Page 11 of 14
Less Than
Issues. Significant
Potentially With Less Than
SiEmificant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ L�'
Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ �/
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ ❑ (
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ [� ❑
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ❑ ❑ r-
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ lid
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ❑ ❑ ❑ �/
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ LU.'
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ [2/
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 12 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Lcss Than
Sig
nificant cant Mitigation on
E� B Significant No Impact
Impact incorporated Impact
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 D CI [iY
g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs D 0 ❑ L2"
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El ElO
[_'_'Y
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 0 CI E(
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water 0 0 0 [Z(
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources,or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 0 0 D
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity El El 0 Er
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM "T'
Page 13 of 14
Less Than
Issues: significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ❑
of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat or a
fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community,reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 2
limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects,the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 0 E/
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "J"
Page 14 of 14
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
c.,Cf;. PALM DESERT STATION
aF _- MEMORANDUM
\?/
TO: Steve Smith, Senior Planner
FROM: Senior Deputy Brent Conley
DATE: 1-8-2001
RE: PP00-23
The Police Department would like to comment on the proposed project. The
width of the main entrance should be increased to provide a safe access into the
project. I would like to offer for consideration the realignment of the southeast
entrance/exit. A straight access into the project would better serve the project
instead of the slight meandering of the entrance.
The loading area entrances should be equipped with"Loading areas only" to
prevent confusion of arriving customers.
The entrances to all businesses must have addressing consistent with
north/south addressing of Cook St. The use of suite numbers must not be used.
Addressing should be placed above the doorways at least 6 inches in height and
readable from the parking area.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you
have any questions, please feel free to call me at 836-1600.
S' rely,
Brent Conley
Crime Prevention
STAFF REPORT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 9, 2001
CASE NO.: PP 00-23
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LAKESIDE PROPERTIES, do Axcess Architects,
18652Florida Street, #200, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and
landscaping plans for a 27,116 square foot retail project
LOCATION: 42-150 Cook Street, southeast corner of Cook Street and Green Way
APN 634-220-010
ZONE: S.I. pending)
e(Zone
g p g)
DISCUSSION:
The applicant seeks preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for the above
noted retail center.
The project will take access from the newlyaligned street on the north end of the site and
from Green Way to the east. The building entries will face west and north and loading
facilities will face east_
The elevation facing Cook Street is contemporary in nature with a series of steps in
building height to break up the roof line. Also, along the north and west are a series of
of shed roofs and entry accents with columns with cultured stone bases.
The east(rear)of the building provides some inset architectural detailing, but it is basically
designed to provide loading spaces and will be screened from Green Way with a thick (15
feet) landscape buffer.
The landscape plan will be reviewed by the City Landscape Manager and his commen
ts
will be presented to the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Architectural Review Commission grant preliminary approval.
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
wpdocs\sr\pp00-23.arc
t
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 23,2001
MINUTES
5. CASE NO.: SA 00-86
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DGI SIGNS, 77-720 Springfield
Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92111 for HOSPITALITY DENTAL
ASSOCIATES, 77-900 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of
revised business identification signage
LOCATION: 77-900 Fred Waring Drive
ZONE: O.P
Mr. Smith reported that applicant had appealed the Commission's
earlier action to have a halo lit sign rather instead of a through-the-
face sign. The Council referred the case back to this Commission.
The applicant is requesting a through-the-face illuminated ivory sign
with individual block channel letters. The signs are to be located on
the south and east elevations.
Action:
Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic,
to approve the use of internally illuminated ivory colored individual
channel block letters on the south and east elevations. Motion
carried 6-0 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent.
B. PRELIMINARY PLANS
\(\ 1. CASE NO.: PP 00-23
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LAKESIDE PROPERTIES, do
Axcess Architects, 18652 Florida Street, #200, Huntington Beach,
CA 92648
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary
approval of revised architecture and landscaping plans for a 27,116
square foot retail project
LOCATION: 42-150 Cook Street, southeast corner of Cook Street
and Green Way, Cook Street Marketplace
ZONE: S.I. (Zone change pending)
4
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 23,2001
MINUTES
Mr. Smith advised that the applicant had revised the back side of
the building, altered the landscaping, and widened the planters per
Commission's recommendation. Mr. Rick Blomgren, Axcess
Architects, pointed out the changes that had been made by bringing
both coloring and some of the architectural elements from the front
to the back.
Greenway Street runs along both the side and the rear of the
building. Cook Street runs along the front.
Commissioner Vuksic noted that the front parapets will both be
visible from the side and back of the building. He recommended
that they be boxed in to make a finish form out of them. Mr.
Blomgren agreed with the recommendation. The air conditioning
units are lower than the parapets in the rear.
Along the front, there are two sections where tile shed roofs go into
metal awnings over the same set of windows. Mr. Blomgren
explained that he wanted to create a neighborhood feel with
different elements rather than a continuous arcade. Commissioner
Hanson recommended replacing the awning with the tile shed roofs
and then breaking the shed roofs with a space in the center.
The landscape plan is acceptable to the City Landscape Manager
as they are trying to pick up the Cook Street palette. It was noted
that Red Sage usually does not do well.
Action:
Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
VanVliet, to grant preliminary approval of the revised plans with the
following conditions: two exposed roof parapets to be finished into a
"box" shape; replace canopies with tile roofs, placing the tile roofs
over the sets of windows, breaking the roofs into two sections in the
center (this to be done in two separate locations). Red Sage may
not be suitable landscape material in the long term. Motion carried
6-0 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent.
5
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 9, 2001
MINUTES
Action:
Commissioner Vuksiq moved, seconded by Commissioner
O'Donnell, to continue the case to allow the applicant to meld the
two styles of architecture and to take into account the Landscape
Manager's comments. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners
Hanson and Lingle absent.
CASE NO.: PP 00-23
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LAKESIDE PROPERTIES, c/o
Axcess Architects, 18652 Florida Street, #200, Huntington Beach,
CA 92648
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary
approval of architecture and landscaping plans for a 27,116 square
foot retail project
LOCATION: 42-150 Cook Street, southeast corner of Cook Street
and Green Way, COOK STREET MARKETPLACE
ZONE: S.I. (Zone change pending)
Mr. Rick Blomgren, architect, and Mr. Bob Green, applicant, were
present. Mr. Smith reported that the applicant is seeking
preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for the
proposed Cook Street Marketplace retail project. The project will
take access from the newly created Green Way to the east. The
building entries will face west and north and loading facilities will
face east.
Mr. Knight stated that he had been in contact with the project's
landscape architect since the beginning, therefore, he did not have
too many changes. There were some plant materials he
questioned — the Nerium Oleander and Rosmarinus Officinalis -
and he will probably ask that the mesquites be multi-species rather
than standards and to space the trees further apart on the east
side. The project has matched the City's landscaping on Cook
Street.
Mr. Blomgren said he has met with AIPP and will be placing art in
two locations. Applicant also stated that with their updated grading
plan, the parking would be below Cook Street instead of doing any
berming or adding walls for a screen.
The loading docks on the east elevation (rear) will be screened
from Green Way with landscaping.
20
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 9, 2001
MINUTES
Commissioner Gregory asked how wide the planter areas for the
trees in the parking lot were as they look narrow and seven feet is
typical. Applicant felt they would be able to accommodate seven
foot planters even with the loss of a parking space or two.
Commissioner Vuskic stated there seemed to be a tremendous
amount of attention to the front and sides of the building with little
attention to the back which will be seen by a lot of people. He
discussed possible changes with the applicant who explained that
they tried create a little more of a neighborhood instead of a
redundant retail center. That's why the architecture elements are
different— a trellis area, a small covered area, a lean-to area, a
rounded area. Any of these items can be extended. On the back,
they added a different color band. Commissioner Vuksic suggested
they do something with the long parapet and to break up the top of
the building to create more shadow. It needs some more
architectural relief. Commissioner Vuksid suggested moving parts
of the single plane out about 4 inches.
Commissioner Vuksic asked if some of the modules could be pulled
out, keeping the same footage, but pulled them out closer to Cook
Street thereby giving some relief on the rear. The applicant stated
that could be a problem with the tenants.
Commissioner Gregory suggested that the 8" arches off the
building could project further out. The applicant replied that the
rear site was really tight and included a five foot walkway. Anything
they would do would have to cantilever off the building.
Commissioner Gregory agreed stating that it might create an
"eyebrow" and easy articulation.
Commissioner Gregory asked if it was necessary to have the five-
foot sidewalk on the rear elevation. He suggested having
concrete access to the doors, but in areas where they weren't
needed, perhaps they could have some planters for palms or
shrubs to soften some of the rear plane. The applicant said he
would work on improving the rear elevation.
Commissioner VanVliet was concerned with the view the
businesses across the street would have. He would like to see a lot
of what is on the front brought around the rest of the building.
Applicant asked if they put in a 6 foot wall and decorated the wall
along with landscaping would be sufficient. Commissioner VanVliet
didn't think a screen wall would do the trick.
21
,
r
w'
Y
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 9,2001
F MINUTES
7/ The buildings on the north are elevated as much as 15 feet above
this project. Therefore, the project's roof will be seen. However,
they are single-storied buildings and are back 45-50 feet.
Commissioner O'Donnell stated this building faces on three streets
and from a design point of view, they have to address that
architecturally first and then deal with the landscaping.
The Commission was concerned about possible signage on the
side of the building along Green Way. The applicant said the only
reason it was there to indicate the rear of the building for loading
which can be done in smaller ways and with placards.
Commissioner Gregory asked where the signage would be placed
on the front elevation. Applicant replied it would be placed over the
shed roofs. Commission noted that the maximum height at the top
of the signage letters is 20 feet.
The trellis and columns will be steel.
Action:
Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Connor, to continue the case to allow the applicant the opportunity
to address the comments of the Commission and the Landscape
Manager. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and
Lingle absent.
5. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-16, C 98-5
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALEC J. GLASSER, AMERICAN
INVESTMENT GROUP, 301 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA
92651-2131
RICK HUME, FREDERICK THOMAS HUME, 1990 S. Coast
Highway, Studio 4, Laguna Beach, CA 92651-3685
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Conceptual
landscape plan for Palms to Pines Retail Center
LOCATION: South side of Hwy. 111, east of Plaza Way
ZONE: PC-3
Mr. Knight made comments regarding the planting spaces in the
parking lot on the north,side of the building. With the number of
trees (137), there is a requirement for four species. There are four
listed two of which are palms which are not widely used. The pine
22
r
RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1PLIFORNIA
rk FIRE DEPARTMENT o�a�PF AE PRo E�oHgy
- IN COOPERATION WITH THE
LINTY 'e"' CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION 7RESTrt
`RIVERSIDkr:r•‘.0 n
�FIREl
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE
COVE FIRE MARSHAL 1 1- /A J - Zf� f) 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE
70-801 HWY 111 ♦♦♦+++ V V PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92570
RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 TELEPHONE: (909) 940-6900
TELEPHONE: (760) 346-1870
FAX: (760) 328-1071
TO: 5C V& 5Mal/
REF: Fe Q0 , 2 3
If circled, conditions apply to project
01 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project,
the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized
Fire Protection Standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings
2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings
5 3000 gpm for commercial buildings
The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)
4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than:
6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway
165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway
8 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway
09 Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water
mains will not meet the required fire flow.
Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with
a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve
the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All
valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50'
of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
printed on recycled paper
ivAll valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and
Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9.
13 Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
14. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less that one 2A1OBC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A"K"type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
15 Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public
and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage.
16 Install a dust collecting system per UFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that
produces airborne particles.
C31 All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be
less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and
32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments.
18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers
or other means provisions shall be made to install a"Knox Box" key over-ride
system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16"
with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or
other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance
shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted.
20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development.
21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
2�3 All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
onditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws , or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire
Marshal Office at 760-346-1870; 70-801 Hwy. 111, Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270
Other:
Sincerely,
Mike Mc Connell
Coves Fire Marshal
RESOLUTION NO. 01-42
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT FROM SERVICE INDUSTRIAL (S.I.) TO
GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL
COMPLEX LOCATED ON 2.35 ACRES ON THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GREEN WAY (NORTH).
CASE NO. GPA 00-07
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd
day of March, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of LAKESIDE
PROPERTIES for approval of the above noted case; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2043 has recommended
approval of GPA 00-07; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of GPA 00-07:
1 . The site is suitable for the General Commercial General Plan designation.
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 General Plan Amendment 00-07 (Exhibit B attached hereto) is hereby
approved.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached
hereto), is hereby certified.
RESOLUTION NO. 01-42
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 22nd day of March , 2001 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, CRITES, FERGUSON
NOES: KELLY
ABSENT: SPIEGEL
ABSTAIN: NONE
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
RESOLUTION NO. 01-42
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: GPA 00--07
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Lakeside Properties
920 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A General Plan Amendment to permit a 27,116 square
foot mixed use commercial complex located on 2.35 acres at the southwest corner of Cook
Street and Green Way (north).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3
r
11114,4W1 POPP* ' 4; 0.P. w Q, A 0,, • • .
_ 1
7' lig .: ,,Q,.* ' i, .,(VS
HOVLEY L E E � ' ��� ��*.
'. �
SI «Kseeo. .•, •
4,„„
SP, '414ka<3 �0.,
der a.ml/
a� •
. . . . .SAkS.Iip
T S.I. YY:lN: : .IDEVS.I.
42ND ItN7 CR I 1
VELIE WAY IIfj
v
� a O
U
CZ S.I. E cc
s.I. l .
SEGO LN 1 J
JONI DR
.9,4— P
M?RLE DR / . MERLE DR )
4
_ .
V � - .1 i
f �.~ . . - S.I.P ,4-4
Proposed
/ 41 4 II!
�,
R_3 \
: (4) rrni ram SHERYL AVE
`� U ' Service Industrial
V; to
R-1 THE23 ' -- General Commercial
"4'alYaim.Deaent Case No. GPA 00-7 CITY COUNCIL
" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 01-42
EXEII l i lT It Date: 3-22-01
RESOLUTION NO. 01-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A PRECISE
PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
LOCATED ON 2.35 ACRES ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
COOK STREET AND GREEN WAY (NORTH).
CASE NO. PP 00-23
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd
day of March, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of LAKESIDE
PROPERTIES for approval of the above noted case; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2043 has recommended
approval of PP 00-23; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request:
1 . The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the General
Commercial zone and the General Commercial land use designation.
2. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will
not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The precise plan of design will not unreasonably interfere with the use or
enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful
purposes.
4. The precise plan not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare.
RESOLUTION NO. 01-43
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 Precise Plan 00-23 is hereby approved, subject to the attached
conditions.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached
hereto), is hereby certified.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 22nd day of March , 2001 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, CRITES, FERGUSON
NOES: KELLY
ABSENT: SPIEGEL
ABSTAIN: NONE
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
RESOLUTION NO. 01-43
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 00-23 (GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10)
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the
Architectural Review Commission process.
7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
3
RESOLUTION NO. 01-43
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape
plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters
appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for
the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All
to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and
the approved landscape plan.
Department of Public Works:
1. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-
55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. Any storm drain construction associated with this project shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by
the Department of Public Works.
3. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction
of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading permit. Such
improvements shall include, but not be limited to, minimum six foot wide concrete
sidewalk and minimum twenty-four foot wide drive approaches.
4. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department
and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
5. Landscaping maintenance on Cook Street and Green Way shall be the responsibility of
the property owner.
6. Size, number and location of driveways to the specifications of the Department of Public
Works with four driveway approaches to serve this property.
7. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
8. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall
be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance
of the grading permit.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 01-43
9. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
10. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment
of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
11. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
(PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control.
Riverside County Fire Department:
Compliance with conditions required by the Riverside County Fire Department.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 01-43
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: PP 00-23
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Lakeside Properties
920 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 27,116 square foot mixed use commercial complex
located on 2.35 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Green Way (north).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6