Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPP 84-41 HOTEL/HIGHWAY 111 1984 PRE( IS)E PLAN I ' LA I TENTATIVE TRACT ZONE CHANCE- PARCEL MAP- VARIANCE U.U.F'. _-- REFEF' APPL_ICANT:__a l-fz - LOCAT ION : _ ULo REQUEST ;; 6-2 EXISTING ZONE� PREPARATION PROGRESS DATE ` BY COMMENTS APPLICATION RECEIVED LEGAL. PUBLICATION SENT NOTICES SENT c -- (7 FIELD INVESTIGATION DEPTS. NOTIFIED BUILDING ENGINEERING _ FIRE___ POLICE RECREATION & PARKS SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FLOOD CONTROL PRELIMINARY MEETING STAFF REPORT FINAL PLAN APPROVAL PRECISE PLAN (6) LANDSCAPING PLAN (5) PLAN. DIRECTOR MOD. (6) HEARINGS & ACTIONS DATE ACTION VOTE REVIEW BOARD HEARING P.C. HEARING PUBLISHED PC. PUBLIC HEARING 0c - APPLICANT NOTIFIED C.C. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. RESOLUTION NO. EFFECTIVE DATE RECORDED FOR DATA- BANK ZONING MAP CORRECTED f 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 30, 1984 MR. SANDY BAUM, 45-800 Deep Canyon, represented the Commercial/Resort Subcommittee and read a letter of recommendation for the project from that committee. MR. MARK SIMON, 45-406 Driftwood, was from the Mountain Villas Homeowners Association and expressed approval of the project. He asked that the city require no lights on the tennis courts. Mr. Sawa replied that there would be no lights. Commissioner Wood asked for and received clarification on the installation of the four-way traffic signal. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony and asked for and further comments from the commission. Commissioner Richards asked what the next change was from having three project condensed into two relating to the unit sizes. Mr. Sawa indicated that exact figures were not available at this time. Commissioner Richards expressed approval for the cooperativeness of the applicant in the changes that were made. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Erwood abstained.) Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1005, approving PP 84-39. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Erwood abstained..)) B. Continued Case No. PP 84-41/- BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL INC. (Super 8 Motel), Applicant,.__-% Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 70 unit motel on 1.39 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. Note: The applicant withdrew his request and no further action was necessary. *-Chairman Crites asked if anyone present for the Founded of the Retarded case wished to speak with the applicant, a conference room was available for discussion prior to the case coming before the commission. C. Case Nos. DP 07-81 (Amendment 02), C/Z 84-16, and TT 19970 - DEEP CANYON GROVES, Applicant Request for approval to allow construction of 12 casitas units in a portion of a currently vacant rear section of the Granada Royale complex located 1,000 feet south of Highway 111 and 600 feet east of Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Joy outlined the staff report, suggested the additional condition requiring school impact fees, and recommended approval. Chairman Crites asked about the consistency with resort commercial if the property is rezoned. Commissioner Richards explained that this had been the original plan. Mr. Diaz explained that staff is evaluating this project on its own merits. -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 1984 Mr. Sawa explained that the setback was different because the applicant's project was in a C-1 zone. MR. OUTCAULT concurred and enforced Mr. Sawa's remarks. He explained that they were in conformance with regulations. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Moved by Commissioner Wood to continue this hearing. The motion died due to a lack of a second. The following occurred at the end of the meeting. Mr. Diaz noted that condition #14 should be modified to be to read, "This may include modified curb return on northwest corner to address interior deceleration lane concerns." Chairman Crites requested and received clarification regarding conditions #6 and 1f9. Commissioner Richards expressed his displeasure with the overall project and felt it was too much project for the site. Commissioner Wood felt it was not an ideal project, but it did meet code. Chairman Crites felt the site should not be zoned C-1 and there should be more setback. However, it did meet code requirements. He noted that the project should be top-notch due to its location. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Richards voting nay.) Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1004, approving PP 84-34 and PMW 84-14, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Richards voting nay.) B. Continued Case No PP 84-41 - BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL INC. (Super 8 Motel), Applicant— -- —'' Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 70 unit motel on 1.39 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway III, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. Staff indicated that the applicant wished to continue the meeting another two weeks. Chairman Crites asked if anyone was present to speak in regard to this case. Hearing none, he asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this case until the meeting of October 30, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 4-0. C. Continued Case No. PP 84-39 - GARY LEEDS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 109 room hotel in PC (4) S.P. zone on 2.27 acres located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 680 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. Mr. Sawa reviewed the report and indicated that the commercial subcommittee had expressed approval of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval with modification. -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1984 Chairman Crites asked Mr. Sandling if the development would be changed if Highway III access was prohibited. Mr. Sandling replied that the salability would change and said he would like access onto Highway III, which Caltrans had approved. MR. SANDLING indicated that the cul-de-sac at from Highway I II could be dedicated a public street and that it would serve both parcels. Mr. Diaz indicated that the commission may not want traffic access on Fred Waring Drive if Highway III had six lanes; he indicated that Caltrans protects Highway Ill traffic. Commissioner Wood asked if the commission were to deny this request because of the lot fronting Highway 111, would it need an opinion saying that this proposal was unsafe. Mr. Erwin suggested that commission conditionally aprove the project. Commissioner Wood asked if Mr. McClellan would make the statement that the proposal was unsafe. Mr. McClellan replied no. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 992, approving PM 16258 Amendment #1, subject to the conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. C. Case No. PP 84-39 - GARY LEEDS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 109 room hotel in PC (4) S.P. zone on 2.27 acres located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 680 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to continue this case until the meeting of October 16, 1984. Carried 4-0. D. Case No. PP 84-40 - HOTEL PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 116 room hotel and 3,000 square foot restaurant on 2.27 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 285 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. E. Case No. PP 84-41 - BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL INC. (Super 8 Motel), Applic Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 70 unit motel on 1.39 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to continue both cases until the meeting of October 16, 1984. Carried 4-0. F. Case Nos. GPA 84-02, C/Z 84-13, PP 84-33, VAR 84-4, and PMW 84-15 - MONTEREY PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment and zone change from medium density residential R-2 (7) S.P. to Office Professional, a Precise Plan of Design, setback variance, street vacation and parcel map waiver, and a Negative Declaration of -4- Mountain Villas Homeowners Association C/O/ J & W Management 73320 El Paseo Palm Desert , Ca 92260 October 12 , 1984 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert City Hall Palm Desert , Ca 92260 Re : Hotel development 7. 27 acres Dear Gentlemen : I am satisfied with the efforts made by Birthcher Dunham in regards to set back from the rear wall of our property and the raising of the wall three feet and the incorporation of the ten feet of green area along the rear wall between our properties . I feel this development should increase the proeprty values for our . development . I would like to recommend to the Planning Commission that they approve this project . Very tr 1 yours , lZ �. lz: Mark Simon Mountain Villas Homeowners Association secretary/treasurer 1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: October 4, 1984 BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL INC. JAMES COOPERMAN AND ASSOCIATES Attn: Rich Brown Attn: Jim Palmquist 411 Borel Avenue, #620 Sheland Tower San Mateo, CA 92402 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Re: PP 84-41 The Planning Commission of the City. of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of October 2, 1984. CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 16, 1984, AT 2:00 P.M. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. ex RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/tgm cc: File(s) City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: . October 16, 1984, continued from October 2, 1984 CASE NO: PP 84-41 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 70 unit motel on 1.39 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. APPLICANT: BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL INC. (Super 8 Motel) 411 Borel Avenue, #620 San Mateo, CA 92402 ATTN: RICH BROWN ARCHITECT: JAMES COOPERMAN AND ASSOC. Sheland Tower ATTN: Jim Palmquist Minneapolis, MN 55426 I. DISCUSSION: - The applicant has verbally asked for an additional two weeks continuance to the meeting of October 30, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the continuance be granted to the meeting of October 30, 1984. Prepared by: ��'V✓1� tm - 1 - City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 2, 1984 CASE NO: PP 84-41 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 70 unit motel on 1.39 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. APPLICANT: BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL INC. (Super 8 Motel) 411 Borel Avenue, #620 San Mateo, CA 92402 ATTN: RICH BROWN ARCHITECT: JAMES COOPERMAN AND ASSOC. Sheland Tower ATTN: Jim Palmquist Minneapolis, MN 55426 I. DISCUSSION: The applicant has verbally asked for a two weeks continuance to the meeting of October 16, 1984, at 2:00 p.m. II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the continuance be granted to the meeting of October 16, 1984. Prepared by: tm - 1 - f BROWN, BROSCHE FINANCIAL, INC. -41 1 BOREL AVENUE, SUITE 620 SAN MATEO. CALIFORNIA 94402 (415) 572-9033 P.O. Box 270 San Mateo, CA 94401 October 3, 1984 OCT 9 1984 ENVIRONMEWAI SERVICES Mr. Stan Sawa OF PALM D CITY ESERT City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Sawa: This letter will .represent our approval to extend the precise plan hearing for our motel project an additional two weeks. Full information is on its way to your office regarding the redesign. Zncerely, Richard M. Brown RMB:bhk PROOF OF PUBWCATION This space Is for tF-114untyClark'sFiling Stamp (2015.5 C.C. all STATE OF CALIFORNIA, x, County of Riverside `—' SF 2 7 1984 - r--1 0 NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES I am a citizen of the United States and a _CITY OF!PALM ,0,ESERT.-ITy OF PALM DESERT resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of PZication-of < CD rn or interested in the above-entitled matter. I CASE NO CD PP 8 '-4V C.J am the principal clerk of the printer of the .............. ........G,,.........:............. ....... R>;$FiRF.RQ$T................. ... .................................................— A..:..... } CITYOFPALMDESERT ..............................................:..... LEOALNOTICE a newspaper of general circulation, printed •Cesa Nu pp"41 NOTICE IS HEREBY DNEN that e Hoe ring wIllb9 hale before theft" e i-weekly Desert Planning Commisslon to and published .................................. .Icorolom a request by BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL (SUPER 8 p qq MOTEL)for approve)of a precise in the City of ...I.��m..D.PT.B.T.r.t............. plan of design to afow construction of a 70 unit=%of on 1.39'ecres in County of Riverside, and which news- the PCle)S?.zone located on the South Side of Hwy. 111. approx. paper has been adjudged a newspaper bnatefy'450 lent east of Shadow of general circulation by the Superior Hills Rood. more particularly described as:Portion of Lot 1.Tract Court of the County of Riverside, State of 11883 SAID•Heri wal be held on Tues day.October 2.1964.at T:00 P.M., California, under the.date of„JA , 19. .4 et the Palm Desert Ci c Center Council. Chamber, 73-510 Freo �waring Drive, Palm Desert, Case Number 83658 California,at"Ich time and place •...............i that the notice, all Interested parsons are invited to of which the annexed is a printed copy (set ebendendbdheard.RAMON A.DIAz in type not smaller than nonpareil), has Secretary Pella Desert been published in each regular and entire Planning commission issue of said newspaper and not In any L (Pub.D.P.Sept.21.1984) supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: 9/21/84 .............................e...................... all in the year 19AA. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct. Dated at,,,,,, Palm Desert ................................... California,this. ?!ytt day ofsept., 19H4 . ... ....✓• Sign.Y lr� i ?7�iczC1 ature A FIN 49o48 of thlb otooY foam tI1Af be NcorN ores CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC. Legal Advertising Clearing House 120 West Second St., Los Angeles, Calif. 90012 Telephone: (2131625.2541 ' FNON fNNrtORM/RAl 1fNIM FYM1NItM trNA tVROIW t4a Mrw. y =' a9-- RIVERSIDE COUNTY CA FIRE DEPARTMENT g ` IN COOPERATION WITH THE - C UNTY - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY 4 RIVERSIDE�:r....i�y DAVID L.FLAKE FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE September 7, 1984 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 Ramon Diaz ` J4 � rA��' City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive srp 4 Palm Desert, CA 92260 01984 E61Vfppr�,MT Reference: No PP 84-41 , Applicant: Super 8 Motel (P OF p4 EN L41QE e�7ES Dear Mr. Diaz, The following fire protection requirements are in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and Life Safety Code standards . 1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a 3 hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. Fire flow requirements will depend on built-in fire protection provisions of buildings . 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 200 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. a. exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. b. curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. c. hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following...certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in PP 84-41 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal ." J 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 6. Drive under canopy must be 13' 6" high for emergency vehicle access. 7. Fire lanes will be required. 8. Secondary emergency access via joint access is required. �A Ramon Diaz 9/7/84 PP 84-41 Page 2. 9. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . Very-truly yours , GLEN J. NEWMAN Acting County Fire Chief rq A����� By, MIKE MCCONNELL Fire Marshal dpm cc: Jim Zimmerman CVWD INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Director of Environmental Services FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: PP 84-41 - Super 8 Motel DATE: September 10, 1984 The following should be considered conditions of approval : 1 ) Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by City ordinance, shall be paid prior to permit issuance. 2) Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. 3) Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. 4) Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the City Engineer for checking and approval prior to is- suance of any permits. 5) Only 1 driveway approach will be allowed to serve this property. Size and location to Public Works specifications. 6) The traffic signal at the entrance to Hwy 111 must be energized prior to i/� opening the hotel . Barr McClell ARC:BM/lo SE a 1 i �JJ FNVIRONA1 1984 CITY OF ABM SRRre - 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 September 14, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE Case No. PP 84-41 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL (SUPER 8 MOTEL) for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 70 unit motel on 1.39 acres in the PC(4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Hwy 111, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road, more particularly described as: Portion of Lot,l, Tract 11883 L < ANN 00Co P.R.-5 NS.P.WR-3(4) c - ` P.C.(4) , F. S.P. STATE N/GF/W.9{- C-I, S. P. C-I, WOC-1 S. ;. 1 I_ F $ R-3 a R-3 ( A - J W (3) Q(3) sw It ", P.R.-6 ( ) (L1P. 11-77) r y V � y AN L W •• 1 G i - -CHATEAU NORTH' u P.R.- 4 PEPPER TREE DRIVE 5CUP-01-74 PD)' SAID Hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 2, 1984, at 7:00 P.M., at the Palm Desert Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post September 21, 1984 FORK P/2'EGI-s-F, 'PLAtiI �L_9 A1=H FORK : d®pautanaM ®(I ®oon�mIDwa�®w4�� �®v�rl�®� a 6���uouo0�� �rinG�fi®ao a a R Fin na 1 S `d' +7olicant f p+ease orinrl �® 415— '�Ieg � TelYephone' `da�lina Adareu Ca 94402 zip-cad• ,Iry State Describe specific nature of approval reauested ) site approval forlo ):2k0pt► hotel PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: a ortio 0 Palm Desert, Ca ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 1portion625-436-061 c XISTING ZONING �rooerry Owner Autnvrizatlon The undersigned states that they art the orner(s)-of the property described herein and hereby give author- ization for the filing of this application. HUTICHINS Nr D COMPANY A� i nature Date Agreement absolving the City of Palm Dees of II liabilities relative to any deed restrictions. 00 BY MY SIGNATURE ON T EEMENT me Icy the opty of plf>Pob Irmo me propeseri of rty descrill bes ed herein. any dead restrictions _8/14/84 Sig natu rs Date Applicant's Signature rRQWN, BRO FINANCIAL, C. 7C ignd lure Da )R STAFc USE ONLY) 7Environmental Status Accepted by: r� ' 1 ministerial Act E.A. No. M 14 l [] Categorical I1V (� Ornu Reference Case No. _.._.. ..�..... •eau -_ . _ STATEATS SUPPORTING THE REQUESThD PRECISE PLAN. (15 Copies) Please state why the proposed precise plan should be approved based upon public necessity, general welfare, or good zoning practice. The applicant' s project will promote the general welfare of the community by increasing tourism and supports the continuing need for medium-priced lodging. %.r:RTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS LI5T (To be filled out by applicant) CITY OF PALM DESERT Department of Environmental Services 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Gentlemen: I' do hereby certify, under penalty of penury, that the attached list sets forth the names and addresses of the following persons as they appear on the last equalized assessment roll of the Riverside County Assessor. Sincerely, Printed Name Address Phone Number Dated in the City of California. Signature Please refer to tentative parcel map #20217 . F CT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF P: 'ERTY (S Copies) Please refer to tentative parcel map #20217. Legal Description Approved by: Date: STATEn._NTS SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED PRECISE PLAN (15 Copies) Please state why the proposed precise plan should be approved based upon public necessity, general welfare, or good zoning practice. The applicant ' s project will promote the general welfare of the community by increasing tourism and supports the continuing need for medium-priced lodging. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 - - TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO(S): P-P oT ` � i PROJECT: -70 004 Ww$+~1 APPLICANT: (3Ito yl rbal/1Gj CS(,1� . g Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: c4 +0 a��ow co �c-rlov� o� �o i lv) i�, �� on 1,361 Acmes ivt ✓ l occ=' beA oA- -Ae Sou4- , p(�x (Ma�l.r s(-aAt-'Ow 41 I Jl�s D — {po ELT iaY� bF Id 6 I Tip A cT f 1%9 3 The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the environment (including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and recommended conditions of approval based on your expertise and area of concern. Your comments and recommend d conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 4:30 p.m. q--7— ?1 , in order to be discussed by the land division committee. The land division committee (comprised of director of environmental services, city building official, city engineer, fire marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the planning commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the land division committee. Sincerely, RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RD/Ir Attachments PLEASE RETURN MAP'WITH COMMENTS BROWN, BROSCHE FINANCIAL, INC. 411 BOREL AVENUE, SUITE 620 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 • '(41 5) 572-9033 - P.O. BOX 270 San Mateo, CA 94401 v� I� October 26 , 1984 v, onT FcONM 919g Mr. Stan Sawa Op FN�- City of Palm Desert °qt q< S 73-510 Fred Waring Drive �OFSFRT�S Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Sawa: This letter will confirm that our firm wishes to withdraw our Planning Commission Application to develop a 70-room motel in Palm Desert. Please address any comments or questions to my attention at this office . Sincerely, BROWN, BROSCHE FINANCIAL, INC. Richard M. Brown Vice President RMB:bhk JAMES M. COOPERMAN & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS SHELARD TOWER MINNEAPOLIS, MN. 55426 16121 545-0409 DATE: September 11 , 1984 TO: City of Palm Desert PROJECT: Super 8 Motel 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTN: Stan Sawa COMM. NO. o 8440 TRANSMITTED VIA: FOR YOUR: 0 Our Messenger Files c/�yorv�y� L9pQ ter' 0 Receivers Messenger Approval OF pnTq� [� Blueprinter Bids 444; Is, First Class Mail Corrections �FSFRTFs 0 Parcel Post C7 Estimates 1-71 Federal Express Approved as Noted COPIES TO: Q Prints C7 Shop Drawings 17-1 t= Specifications 17-1 Q Sepias 17-7 Drawing No. Copies Description & Remarks PL6r2 2 Site Plan By: gh c off\ --- - ---- De '�a i fDG nt : OGT Z , tgI3 it-gQ - approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 70 unit motel on 1.39 -- {acres in the PCM S.P. zone located �;on the south side of Hwy 111, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road,;" ',-- — - ___. _FiOaQr-tdL� 0poic or 1) kr-rN; Q.ic1-1 azow#J p rr .?4AT,-5 Goo pr-, M Pk r-J, AND ArSS OG . 5H!9L.A tJ D TOWS - - A-PrrJ_:_ SwK ?a u isT . -- �- �QnotJ A . srrz; i5__L_3g �N� wes ca -tip as ul-b o P,►u�l W`a{� -Ioai'7 pro - ---- -- �— -- �►z,'y s v r AND __ d.-ri vwy - �l►►vp'C .I.Y--- - IT &%S6octz- rex>w�1Wy - ,P�. '�P.SAG��T 71�h�t,NC�_/�tiS_I� L1�.P.1 P Ll-S� '•_ is't ' _ GCL1� I - 1- ct LAI"J4) LESS (AEG IG, �I,d"ttoN . : f�� �r�w•-�i e L y D. Previous Pertinent Cases�4u — brm AND LAUD' r DP 08-81 - 7DF FINANCIAL CORPORATION - Development Plan for 1'68=_room,condotel approved on December 16, 1981. Approval has expired. TT 11883 - U.S. LIFE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION - Tentative - Tract Map for on lot hotel site, 65 lots for condominiums and 7.single - family lots approved by City Council Resolution No. 78-18. Map recorded in 1978. DP 11-77B - AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Development plan for 168 hotel units approved by City Council Ordinance No. 172 on December 1, 1977. Approval has expired. 92 MF - AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Design Review case for 168 hotel units approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 299 on November 1, 1977. Approval has expired. Thy- P(40pn=.- A- 1s -�'o GovtSuc -70 .., �oo,v.. s t.� � Y►�1�f E� orJ -(?�o.. S i� 1�- �- - _ (ACC.! L A-r) c) ' Brr—A.uSE -E-fi _ s ►s b - 2 cn�ay v�h�u.►taiZ o i.t \1k P-TI 15-::LbS�.yu Ze lob �60 OOZAA" -IQpkae�-T �bW\( 1 u IIeiD V t K L L.l./d L, -- >�_ -�ONe ;, �1C��1�D�-v �Go ��.E�1P-�erC�Ls T� T•L•�� �sT �6F.i� eA.'f�D ' (bJ Tkb� !M t bDt Zt, STC . -- _1�2ovlfJI� -77 - C . .�� CCU�Tt�t2��►�D L��s►U�I, : - - WaU�.1x� 64 p oVlpW eYy=�M�i'v�W !WioG •}lea.-" U7Ie�rY1g Jxltii{+ 4o`iFa OlSlCy. —_-� olk�s_�'D� � � �Ui �i�_S�IzV_t✓D Pay oUT- St De Garr?l ( S T�_FXi�-t_f� S` 1�W31/�5 aM�• one �I�ya�co►ti, �p>z.�oV-tom=ac.�� -{� --lea. s�v+d -�p b�j—�, ap�l icaruti-6 w ou �d� . " � lK5 �1dI�C 30 `7 op AU_.* 1.39 to otald• AaOCL S ►-M - &PC Poo\/ I DiA l IJ. Cq&,e k., aeea . 1' .:ts i1AclU8Ac> a SwmmiVrI poo Na-A bhJ 4- . ►,,ov{�, ---7 (op, c4 -Rjz "-cal and cs> �.5 -�oo-6 by ID-5 -��4 ol, jc ,« sO l-�i s ( [ w.,) of -6\n. t✓t� I s 6e,►'Y\ P9OY► �Da Soatlh1 P w PtA+b� :. v VSU-a, _ aMd. Tia. CO.I u Iat-N 4� . 40 0-70 cf4 4ka-� s i�o I:e, P go v I d.mil. /V,-- Off, space. og� �a nil s ivl� -rh iSi-E- PIG,�ZG� aOc,�C;Ja , . 0 lam, w'r4N. 3 0 O Pew spa Cw 15 a C{gP Waff and.. �s�Ab2�. n.�ee���•a:�. a�.�s A. f/UDING,s _F09— AfrXoVAi 01r At -(PMCtS5fW 1. The design of the precise plan not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. Justification: wou(a ha. The use is. attractive and acceptable from a design aspect and compatible with other uses existing in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan�Hl not unreasonably interfere with the use of enjoyment of property in vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. Justification: The surrounding land in the vicinity is zoned for a compatible type of ii i i ; use and owners would not be deprived the use of their land, nor would 1 they be negatively impacted by traffic due to improvements to }bWy 11 1 ai}eeeAt-&inserts and ability to handle increased traffic. W W kL 3. The precise plan wit} not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Justification: WwlcL The project is designed in a manner that Ak not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare due to compliance with code requirements, and compatibility with surrounding properties. eouWI Staff feels these findingsearrbe justified in this case. ', 7� �l Q2c��. o� ��►V� 1e oUJ w�.E'l�7TA�- 8E2..V i cis has d.e,Axn m 1 h-O k `U 4a, Peon .�a, ���jh,i�'i�avt-fi �-v�,�� � v►� �r.� `�.. �rJv1� t . RZOT 0 kajvbv-e� he.e� u &gip e a ,�. - FOa- gu -::s-rs a'=� 41> a cls ' I I I ------ --- ----- - ------------ —Gory wuww -- - m �.—AVl -AA o_- I - —i_,_•�. _ -�l�s---=awl---.eac�.ib i�s . ----- — ---- I --- - --fir- -- ----- =- --- -- - -- -- - i ---- - -------------- 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: B9oL W 69io5C,44r, r-IW6Mci INN- , 1-&C PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: — 7 u Q IT +4=YTV L 60 I ,3 G1 dGfZ t o I IJ �L y 3,0" Lx2� at) -HN-4, 73 OAL 91 pc. o 1-�wy 111 1 y Al S o-PCa,- e� O-P- Shaw -W i 11 B The director of the department of environmental services, 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. yak RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Ar - -- 1�- W;��_ ��e,�-� ►new I igk—�ng_i�. �� IcJba0aonln:a. dui idiv . a✓►d 46"Vi:oep u), L sV,s sl ° Parking lot lighting system shall be designed to comply with municipal code requirements with light standards to be maximum 20 feet hig Lights to be down- I — shining box type light. Plans, specifications, computer lighting print-out to be; approved by city:during architectural review process. i i i �9 0 i . j e (�"�> ��Gr�� I � � � I -- - . i�� , -- - - --- -- - ---- - - -- --- oc 1y, Lj---- xis -- -_ -- ' Asa�� ��b _o-� -- _ �1�� �--b; ��-s ►�c�,---►��-- _� 0 - ------- --- --- --- '- `�-- -..evUl�p N rrn�►�,-6�v_aol; a_ r���►_u�.e� f' f PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A PRECISE PI-6 OF DESIGN CASE NO. PP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the day of hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of D WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design: 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or Sz 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 Precise Plat is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this \day of by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr '3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. PPS $ty _ 44 1 Department of Environmental Services: nt 1 1. The develoCment off the property shall conform substantially with Exhibits (Case No. PP ➢Y�g) on file with the department of environmental services, as modified by the following conditions. S)n.e A I be- 2. Construction of the total development i�ldNddual�phase�-slaadl—rnee� jea36� phases; taeatever--each de 8 .�^« .� r�exee�d—ald=rr�anicipai—code--rec}�ireffrer�ts--to—the � -•-•a�.n�.a;.�-cotifd-consider-each-ptrase�s-a-sing}e-project. 3• Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within 'bmwft"d*"w4W months from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted by the planning commission, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. 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. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall where appropriate first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District 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. 6• All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed underground, if practicable, as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed. ` 6— �u-6k Feqp 06 ro LaAA spa-j�� .p1a� -,all b� - �o ram, iy d F S . XtsT11J� W2�-�.� �,oAn so ,!�--ja L.L hie K A�D -ro 9vZ5,, - Pe�t�_r - Poo v i � P40Pe4l' 014» C)f wecJI A4n>gV�; LdbL _ -Ex- T��►aJ 'Co Yv�li-tC�-6 �xt-�t'l�J� }off a,�►c� �fGoJi,DeD �Ji� '� eoubh C1 Parking lot lighting system shall be designed to comply with municipal code requirements with light standards to be maximum 20 feet hig Lights to be down- shining box type light. Plans, specifications, computer lighting print-out to be approved by city during architectural review process. }o �cneZ);✓-p lS:5Gt4-tJc.:17—, OP 6U1Lr> •V, C-00-f- 434 ;4oZ�_t -7. ko ac6a cAA.b Ij s l v�� t la PLC 'off cten - wn, LA P, f above- 35 4o4 4,Jhk ^^ ,6 h^,- sci lnn u u& II`` 13. , P.� nn GPAM, O" 6UL1 ' dddd SVWIA 6. la1S2A f l-o mcae, '{1'b7'1, Y�o cQ/ySarr�/ +0 f�Jlcw� pgcw-,,. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by City ordinance, shah be paid prior to permit issuance. Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. ` Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the City Engineer for checking and approval prior to is- suance of any permits. I 1) Only 1 driveway approach will be allowed to serve this property. Size and ` location to Public Works specifications. f �) The traffic signal at the entrance to Hwy 111 must be energized prior to opening the hotel . _�� consw Install a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM fire flow from any fi e - hydrant for a 3 hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon .a. minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. Fire —--- flow requirements will depend on built-in fire protection provisions of buildings . Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building "is more than 200 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. _ a. exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. b. curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. —� c. hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval , one copy wi11 be sent to the Building Department, and the original will be returned to the developer. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in PP 84-41 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed -- by the Fire Marshal ." Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water -- — system-shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. �— Drive under canopy must be 13' 6" high for emergency vehicle access. Fire , 1 ands ;wi11 be required. Secondary`emergency access via join access is required. f� f �. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant - submits specific plans for consideration and approval . STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY _ GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, G*v r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 Development Review 010 Date ' Co-Rte-PM Director of Public Works SC? City Of Palm Desert st v1cEs TP,n'7a0a17- P, 0, BOX 1977 O oNnEN Eg RT Your Refe'rence. Palm Desert, CA 92260v�Nc�1 . OF' ?A"In Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Ieita7� Vgy , arce % Vag No. and Plof 1 located /ln LLF Y-A .sidc- 07' .STQ-f� i er_.0 RoaZe, j// dC I jeee-7 z�L-e,o Ca,2#or7 2oa arid. fife Pe lw1 Lk-.Ce-F-t l': a A/, '7� /iae. Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under additional comments. It should be noted that if any work is necessary within the state highway right of way , the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the District 8 office of the State Department of Trans^^rtation prior to beginning the work. If additional information is desired , please call Mr. Frank Bocanegra at ( 714) 383-4384. J . R . SAUCIER Chief, Development Review Branch RECEIVED SEF 2 0 9: . Form 8-PD22 ( Rev 9-84) ENGINEERiIdG UcPARfMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT 08-Riv-111-38 . 1 (Co-Rtc-P;d) TPM 20217 $ Plot Plans (Your Reference) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The Tentative Parcel Map shows a 20 ' drainage easement along the east side of the tract. The plot plan shows improvements in that area . Neither plan sh.ows where storm runoff goes after reaching the northeasterly corner of the tract . Attached is a copy of our comments sent to Mr . Charles Haven - - — (Charles Haven and Associates) on September 4 , 1984 . Those comments apply to this Tentative Parcel Map and plot plan. 1 .STATE4; C.icUYlRNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY - GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gome r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT B. P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 September 4, 1984 08-Riv-111-38,128 4- Mr. Charles J. Haver Charles Haver Associates Civil Engineering 74390 Highway 111 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Haver: Thank you for the opportunity to review and a plot plan for Parcel Map 20217 . Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under additional comments . It should be noted that if any work is necessary within the State highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the District 8 office of the State Department of Transportation prior to beginning the work. If additional information is desired, please call Air. Frank Bocanegra at (713) 383-4384. Very truly yours , J. R. SAUCIER Chief, Development Review Branch Att cc : City of Palm Desert, Planning Dept. aoai7 our a erence -jb WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE: _ This proposal is considerably removed from any existing or proposed state highway. Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal do not appear to have a significant effect on the state highway system, consideration must a given to the cumulative effect of continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and drainage should be provided prior to or with development of the area that necessitates them. It appears that the traffic and-4r*irage generated by this proposal could have a significant effect on the state highway system of the area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the traffic and-dsai.na.ge impacts should be included with the development. .. This portion of state highway is included in the `California Master Plan of State Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Highway Designation, and in the future your agency may wish to have this route officially designated as a. state scenic highway. This portion of state highway has been officially designated as a state scenic highway, and development in this corridor should be compatible with the scenic highway concept. It is recognized that there is considerable public concern about noise Ievels adjacent to heavily traveled highways. Land development, in order to be compatible with this concern, may require special .noise attenuation measures, Development of - _ property should include any necessary noise attenuation. WE RECOMMEND: Normal right of way dedication to provide half-width on the state highway. _ Normal street improvements to provide half-width on the state highway, X_ Curb and gutter, State Standard -.4, along the state highways 35'radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway, A standard handicap ramp must be provided in the returns at legal crosswalks, Positive vehicular barrier such as AC dike, substantial fence, or physical topographical features be provided to limit access to the state highway. Vehicular access not be developed directly to the state highway. Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by existing public road connections, _ Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by—standard—driveways. Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by a road-type connection:- - Vehicular access connections be paved at: least within the state highway right: of way, Access points to the state highway be developed in a manner that will. provide sight distance adequate for C' mph along the state highway. A left-turn lane, including any necessary widening,. be proviaed on the state highway at`e,4 Vravin die. A?nW& le- in'tPr_s c-024.0i'1 Consideration be given to the provision, of signalizati.on and lighting of the intersection off ++�_-'>y nd the state highway.* A traffic study indicating on- and off-site flow pa.tterns and volumes, probable impacts, and proposed mitigation measures be prepared. A' Adequate off-street parking, which does not require backing onto the state highway, be provided, Parking lot be developed in a manner that will not cause any vehicular movement conflicts, including parking stall entrance and exit, within r of the entrance from the state highway. Handicap parking not be developed in the busy driveway entrance area. Care be taken when developing this property to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the state highway. Particular consideration should be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure that a highway drainage problem is not created. Any necessary noise attenuation be provided as part of the development of this property. Please refer to attached additional comments. WE WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE: A copy of any conditions of approval or revised proposal. A copy of any documents providing additional state highway right of way. WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS: Any proposals to further develop this property. _ A copy of the traffic or environmental study, if required. A check print of the Parcel or Tract Map, if required. A check print of the Street Improvement Plans for the state highway, if required. 08-Riv-111-38 . 128 .:.. (Co Rte 'M Plot Plan for PM 20217 our Re erence ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :, The developer must provide a separate signing and striping plan showing all existing and proposed signing and striping. A 20-scale signal. plan will be required at the time of application for an encroachment permit. Curb setbacks should be similar to the design of the hotel improvements on the opposite side of State Highway 111, CASs; NO. s4-4 1 ENVTAONP.IENTAL SERVICES DEPT . INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: \ a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? \ b. Disruptions , displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soil ? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering ., or modification \ of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air• movement, moisture , or temperature, or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? _ _ _ 2. Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? b. Changes in absorption rates , drainage Patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _ •w d.. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals , or through interception. of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- — — wise available for public water supplies? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs , grass , and crops )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, \ or endangered species of plants? �r c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? �, 3. Yes_ Maybe No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in : a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? 7. End. Will the proposal result in: \ a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? V b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the development of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal i.nvolve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,-but not limited to, pesticides , oil , chemicals ,, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9. Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in: a. A. change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property_ and improvements exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted community risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? 11. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the a t'era on of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the amount of designated open space? 13. Po ulation. Will the proposal result in: Y a. Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human — - population of the City? b. Change in the population distribution by age, income, religion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class , household type? _ _ 4. Yes Maybe No 14. Employment. Will the proposal result in additional new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? v b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in : \ a . Generation of additional vehicular movement? y b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists, or pedestrians? 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: \ a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? y c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including \ roads? b f. Other governmental services? 5. Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or alterations to the following utilities : ` a . Power or natural gas? y b. Communications system? c. Water? V d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ _ V e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal ? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or — — potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health \ care provided? r 21 . Social Services. Will the proposal result .in an increased demand for provision of general social services? V 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result---in:- a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? y b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive - site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? 23. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce \ new lig t or glare? y 24. Archaeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an a� tnration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? ` 6. Yes M�be No 25. Mandatory findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into \ the future. ) Y c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) _ _ — d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects \ on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: S57Af_ .�----S_kWA ___.. 46-273 PRICXLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 IVAEMIM;T OF BU=INGG & SAFELY PRELTMMIdM LAW OF PLANS THIS IS NOT A PLAN C=l Do cQ�arLs: � , � i✓ � o V S' a LSE CCF ?P� z- BEFORE ANY FMMM MIIENTS CAN BE r1AM, AMITIONAL I1 MOWIM IS t� FOR RE71F3d.. . CMIF= ARLIIZIECT[MAL MAWIMS AND SPECIFICATIC NS C MT= S MXTLMAL DRAWINGS AND CALCMA1T IS C 21PLFE H.V.A.C. , FZE=C:AL AND PMMING PLANS & SPECIFICA3 CNS (CLEIN TITLE 24 MPEY CCAMMVATTAN DOCLMEETTP,TT:CY.1 Q C31PLETE GRADING FLANS arm �o N S`C�1�Prl @�llaly S -1�C�1 I FE PALM M, SR. DATECTOR OF BUILDING & SAFETY City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 2, 1984 CASE NO: PP 84-41 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 70 unit motel on 1.39 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. APPLICANT: BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL INC. (Super 8 Motel) 411 Borel Avenue, #620 San Mateo, CA 92402 ATTN: RICH BROWN ARCHITECT: JAMES COOPERMAN AND ASSOC. Sheland Tower ATTN: Jim Palmquist Minneapolis, MN 55426 I. BACKGROUND: A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site is 1.39 acres and was created as a result of Parcel Map 20217 which was approved September 18, 1984. The property is vacant and relatively flat. The site if set back approximately 214 feet back from Highway 111. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: PC (4) S.P./Vacant SOUTH: PR-6/Condominiums EAST: PC (4) S.P./Vacant WEST: PC (4) S.P./Vacant C. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Resort Commercial. D. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES: DP 08-81 - JDF FINANCIAL CORPORATION - Development Plan for 168 room condotel approved on December 16, 1981. Approval has expired. TT 11883 - U.S. LIFE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION - Tentative Tract Map for on lot hotel site, 65 lots for condominiums and 7 single family lots approved by City Council Resolution No. 78-18. Map recorded in 1978. DP 11-77B - AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Development plan for 168 hotel units approved by City Council Ordinance No. 172 on December 1, 1977. Approval has expired. 92 MF - AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Design Review case for 168 hotel units approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 299 on November 1, 1977. Approval has expired. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. GENERAL: - 1 - PP 84-41 Continued The proposal is to construct a 70 room Super 8 Motel on the site in a single three story building. B. ACCESS PARKING AND CIRCULATION: Because the site is back away from Highway II I vehicular access would be provided by easement thru the east side of the lot to the north. Indirect access to Highway 111 would be provided by virtual of the vehicular access provided to the proposed hotels to the east and west. Parking would essentially be provided around the entire building which is located in the middle of the site. The parking provisions are as follows: Required: 1.1 per person or 77 spaces Provided: 77 spaces C. ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN: The architectural style of the proposed structure would be Spanish with exterior materials consisting of stucco walls and columns, wrought iron rails and a tile roof. A covered tile porte cohere will be provided on the north side of the building adjacent to the lobby/office. The rooms would have exterior entries on the outside of the building served by outside corridors. The exterior stairways and one elevation provide access to the second and third floors. The height of the three story structure as indicated by the applicant would be 35 feet which is the maximum height allowed provided the structure is at least 100 feet from residentially zoned property. A small portion of the stucco parapet appears to be higher than 35 feet. While permitted by code, staff is recommending that the height above 35 feet be no more than three feet since from certain vantage points the wall appears to be solid structure height. D. LANDSCAPING/OPEN SPACE: The plans indicate 30% of the 1.39 acre site would be provided in green area. This includes a swimming pool area on the north side of the motel and a 25 foot by 125 foot landscaped area on the south side of the motel. A ten foot deep landscaped strip is being provided adjacent to the south property line for a visual and aesthetic buffer. The code requires that 40% of the site be provided in open space or landscaping. This could be waived if the project proposes an acceptable alternative. Staff feels this plan with 30% open space is acceptable since adequate parking lot landscaping and useable recreational areas would be provided. III. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS FOR PRECISE PLAN: 1. The design of the precise plan would not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. Justification: The use would be attractive and acceptable from a design aspect and compatible with other uses existing in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan would not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. - 2 - PP 84-41 Continued Justification: The surrounding land in the vicinity is zoned for a compatible type of use and owners would not.be deprived the use of their land, nor would they be negatively impacted by traffic due to improvements to Highway 111 and ability to handle increased traffic. 3. The precise plan would not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. Justification: The project is designed in a manner that would not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare due to compliance with code requirements and compatibility with surrounding properties. Staff feels the findings could be justified in this case. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of environmental services has determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. IV. CONCLUSION: The project with minor modifications would be acceptable. The open space proposed would provide adequate useable area for guests. Furthermore, access to adjacent projects is provided for, insuring an integrated development with adjacent lots. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; and B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving PP 84-41, subject to conditions. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study D. Comments from city departments and other agencies E. Plans and Exhibits Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved By: Am - 3 - INITIAL STUDY . CASE NO. PP 84-41 Environmental Evaluation Checklist Comments and Possible Mitigation Measures (Categories pertain to attached checklist) 14. EMPLOYMENT: It can be expected that the use would create new jobs. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: a. It can be expected that the proposed hotel would generate additional traffic. . b. The use would create a demand for new parking which the project is providing. C. It is possible that the use would impact the existing transportation system. MITIGATION MEASURES: a. Access would be provided fo Highway Ill which can handle projected traffic and which would be signalized to control traffic and insure safe movements. b. The project would provide the requited parking on site which would be adequate for the cars generated. C. Most of the traffic would utilize Highway 111, which would be adequate to handle any traffic from this project. 23. LIGHT AND GLARE: It could be expected that the use will create new lighting in the parking lot and on the building. MITIGATION MEASURES: Parking lot lighting system shall be designed to comply with municipal code requirements with light standards to be maximum 20 feet high and provided with shields on sides towards south. Lights to be down-shining box type light. Plans, specifications, computer lighting print-out to be approved by city during architectural review process. - 5 - \'�tzj�r off 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP 84-41 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL INC. (Super 8 Motel) PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Construction of a 70 unit hotel on 1.39 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. The director of the department of environmental services, 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. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Am PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW A 70 UNIT MOTEL. CASE NO. PP 84-41 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of October, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of BROWN BROSCHE FINANCIAL, INC. (SUPER 8 MOTEL) for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 70 unit motel on 1.39 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 450 feet east of Shadow Hills Road, more particularly described as: Portion of Lot 1, Tract 11883 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that .the project would not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design: 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan 84-41 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 2nd day of October, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD CRITES, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary AM -1- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. PP 84-41 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits (Case No. PP 84-41) on file with the department of environmental services, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of the total development shall be done in one phase. 3. 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 by the planning commission, otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. 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. 5. 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: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District 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. 6. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables which are adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed underground, if practicable, as a part of the development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed. 7. Adjacent to south property line the ten foot wide landscaped planter shall be planted heavily and include vertical trees for screening. 8. Existing wall along south property line shall be raised to seven feet provided property owner of wall agrees; wall extension to match existing. 9. Parking lot lighting system shall be designed to comply with municipal code requirements with light standards to be maximum 20 feet high and provided with shields on sides towards south. Lights to be down-shining box type light. Plans, specifications, computer lighting print-out to be approved by city during architectural review process. 10. Reciprocal access agreements to be recorded prior to issuance of building permits between subject property and parcels to east, west, and north contained in Parcel Map 20217. 11. Vehicular access drive to adjacent parcels shall be provided as shown on site plan; vehicular access drive to Parcel 2, Parcel Map 20217 to be installed by applicant if deemed necessary by city at time Parcel 2 is developed; all accesses to be approved by the department of environmental services. 12. Parapet walls shall not be more than three feet above 35 foot height maximum. 13. Pad grade of building shall be raised no more than necessary to provide proper . drainage. -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Department of Public Works: 14. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to permit issuance. 15. Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. 16. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. 17. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the city engineer for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 18. Only one driveway approach will be allowed to serve this property. Size and location to public works specifications. 19. The traffic signal at the entrance to Highway III must be energized prior. to opening the hotel. City Fire Marshal: 20. Install a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a three (3) hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. Fire flow requirements will depend on built-in fire protection provisions of buildings. 21. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 200 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. a. Exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. b. Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. C. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. 22. Prior°to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the building department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 23. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in PP 84-41 is in accordance with requirements prescribed by the fire marshal." 24. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 25. Drive under canopy must be 13' 6" high for emergency vehicle access. 26. Fire lanes will be required. 27. Secondary emergency access via joint access is required. 28. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for considertion and approval. Am -3- a Smartest Address on the Gold, desert POLM 01/111T Clmmbee of Commerce GOLF AND TENNIS VACATION CAPITAL OF THE WORLD � n HIGHWAY 111 AT MONTEREY/ PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 / (619) 346-6111 DON MC NEILLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR iu October 10, 1984 -- c Planning Commission City of Palm Desert OCT 1 1 IS84 City Hall I-NVIRONMENTgL S E` Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 CITY OF PALM DESERT Gentlemen: In recent discussions with Mr. Curt Dunham of BircherDunham Inc., we have been _ made aware of pending hotel developments for Palm Desert with which they are associated. We have been apprised of their general construction, visual properties and of the rate structure which they will carry. We trust you will be receptive to the rapidly growing need for additional hotel rooms m our City, particularly in the middle to upper middle price ranges...which these 3 proposed developments are going to fulfill. Palm Desert City's recent cooperative effort (along with 5 other cities) with the newly formed Desert Resort Communities Convention and Visitors Bureau, certainly tends to amplify the need for Palm Desert to provide new hotel facilities. We trust you will make a correct decision as you have in the past concerning this elemental need for a continuing healthy economy in our City. SUN-cerely, Don Mc Neilly, Executive Director 5e Smartest Address on the Goh Desert POLM DOIERT Chamber og Commerce GOLF AND TENNIS VACATION CAPITAL OF THE WORLD HIGHWAY ill AT MONTEREY/PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 / (619) 346-6111 DON MC NEILLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR October 10, 1984 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert " City Hall Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 " Gentlemen: In recent discussions with Mr. Curt Dunham of BircherDunham Inc., we have been made aware of pending hotel developments for Palm Desert with which they are associated. We have been apprised of their general construction, visual properties and of the rate structure which they will carry. We trust you will be receptive to the rapidly growing need for additional hotel rooms in our City, particularly in the middle to upper middle price ranges ..which these 3 1 proposed developments are going to fulfill. Palm Desert City's recent cooperative effort (along with 5 other cities) with the newly formed Desert Resort Communities Convention and Visitors Bureau, certainly tends to amplify the need for Palm Desert to provide new hotel facilities. We trust you will make a correct decision as you have in the past concerning this elemental need for a continuing healthy economy in our City. SUN-cerely, Don Mc Neilly, Executive Director �// A - a ,. „ _ ,. IZ -o 2 -o ' �Z -o 12 0 1Z i , Y/ O i e QY t e N s i o ! N i, 10 N, H-- Q c'� O O U O C� O O d ' a N , t 4L I _ I - N ' 'G/s.i.Lo w �► S-R` ':C ES ci- Ld0 Tz, T�'r--�c I - Ln e4-. j �' GC�t +G�'t'�• vtir.�.L.�- C �*.i1_of►a� ?3v�/F. � FdVi�. F �..DT'b� VJ w wcn J � o �►,�r�picY ! -�� � w I ! rz z U Q c O O O O1 O O O 10Lo r r Q i Q og Il z w p � Q n r 0 , � SHEET NUMBER q, 2-1 v ram — c �o rt,�,_ _ D �0 0 _ o : o u u � J n L t 0 j r w � r L } � i 1 TCY• � p,{yG 5 S V i fa 14 To I � 0 Q _ E 1 sr�,r►T nl i i I N 4-61 �' ,z' L O , P�D Y'o J+� *'�' h'1r''G +.- 1 i►A�+IG.IN Ls' LILb�"�7 ; '77 -T-r 4Ln j i T 1 i T I z ri , Z z ° / I Q c� � -•'��?t�`�11�Ot?:;, Qp�1c.l'•a(�' 'SJ��A•li�r ----- =' 1 Z h w Q uJ U Q p w o z = r � QCf) *4 O SL i H sJ G /� L. 1 1 .Zoo , $MEET *UMBER vt. �l_l7 O ! o ! R� s 0 a c M O O M_ t t O O ! y�1 _ 2,- , /rwy++a="A^"♦.s*' w.•"IMI� ...^,r.-^'1. ,•�'�. 4R "�1,�'r fie"�*�"h�i.. "*►*+� . _ '+r .d,�;A�sY��•��� a ���i•xf'✓� wx7�y,�w•s'R.+�Rw^�w..-:-+.+�v I IN {�a` `s:v°".. . �,...t r.;�,, YF°A"w.'�`'z"'� .- I^.. ./r'°�+ _,;1.n,'�, ,:.,p,,s• ./a.� �►-^—tl-- * �v « i `r o \ 7 �y � ,. ::., t.-s..',.n.�1•.�t.� ..rr.> wr..N'v�'"+r. -< -'tr`t�`'L ti^r+-`c-•N��tW- ' r..,, '.. lit _.r,. 1' _ w'k'_.�*!Y."r' t '4r �•�`7nr�... .,, I.--,.. � ,�,, �✓e I 77 _.Mi 14, it 34* l _ s , 1' 1 r 'I , A r 1 1 l Y ... ,.�. ;--.. p _ , -. __ .., � � 1 ..r •. i k ' i- r 4� `_: •._ 1. ,� .?....:�.w .q' �' x �, +1 k;� if _ . _vd _ ; .f J .X, t 1 1 �-�. \ =. I � �`�:�.'... • ---.-_.' �IT P11 } CD cu LID i - r i i i ' - Lu y s z S ✓ 1 n; S. x'a ', »1,.;,... _�, t. z z z I — a , v.. e t Cj UJ ; � ' { � 7 � � � � .,�,.�,.. � �, rye •l T� � AMR I '! f--` ..♦ ._ ��� � �. A � , I}� �` O cc i i AA ` .. r CIO w Lu Q � o cc .' a Z Q � P � SHEET NUMBER p A. r Y Y FL dL.- 56 O s i Y'Rv Po•��s' s y, s �{Nt r F • o N _a f4 C, 4 � N 4 i t fit— .VX PDD6- plc,vi. 1 Iwo t Qf � 1 .per._.•..-.... m-... Fy..�__....-.,.... 5 _ I ---�- y _ - Q � S1T G ,�att�c►a. � � ,L'A I��.�.*r. �. �I �, �� =5� 1� � � �-b" ...�...___._.__.__._.. �► ��� _. S► � r Rea►o s s a �t.o•K '?d v k t-t� ��► y?�!�Y • e ?% t7W1 7� lT` f"� ... o t'�►fr k-1 NG► ie.�ba'�! i "77 ''0 4 - 3 � .`� I Po�t��►�r• TRW 1��► i 77 ST/►��..5 + i I C.otrl C. , W*%.v— C+►1�•A.Pf.� can �!�Oy 1.�•I N-! �1! L"• U W �f- 4 Z z En /o 7 I t c � Q W C ' o0 A En � � � ' 7 rl Z AW 4 d EnFIN r -- -, MET some 12L r z.,:.vK".J€-qa.X +"*.n:. fi..;, i,.,cry,.xaA?:++te'RFei:4A+i1.,T?it§:'. - -... _ .,'8f..'.rm,Y.. '-#k.F.T-'F'^3P.fi4ti'. SAt+t+ AA48md-'d, ♦._a. IN THE CITY OF P41M DES RT L M U ;d TEN IVE CE �A vg"k Nv"'No 2 44" 0*4 1OWNER HU7r�H//VSO1V CD. 24 72 AL H.4MBRA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 'TP!% GT N? B 107/84 -5 �.4,CM .5f'r5''/N A �'GS, C . 92to 2 ALSO BEIN`' A OPI10I�? w THE � 114 ;?1 �r{1 '�I'J w fS; Rr I'Ev�: jULY 19814 ';H4 L 5 HAVES 6 C A F-L I''=e ti> ,DEYEL DPE"R C?Z.I/1/f/.4.�1'' 73480 .EL P,45E® . .. 4 r..._... ...._Y... .._..._. P.41/yf 1?ESEtPT �'A, 92 2G O • VA Y J.!', e ; T s G/V C.T f N.—E Cr I/'7 Z 4 5 / ,AI Ze ANO A 55DCi/A7,eE,/ S XJ,I ',5wf"lzr L'� i /1/89 3/:4 �c"Yo`e7 _. Ne�'9 ,33 c�ro Ica 2 7 \ �' .� .. _ .. .... .. ACRE 28 w t, :y 't, i f' GEL s'3•B2= ;� " }} -' ` -�� .E"X/ST. ZDNI/VG PC4 SP � `7_, %, a^�i r+ Z 1. { b 4S )OR0P. ZONING L r k y n EX/.5'T. LA/W USE_" 1/AC4NT ' r- i r�i�?lJf?,�.AN,CJ 115,E ,f fDT�'L �C'ES TAL/f?AN T , a� 40. s C0,4CHELLA 04ZL E'Y 0f47-,ER .01STR/CT D C YVATE'r�' C A NEGLA VALLEY It1/s47�,ER PAR t 67A s SO4IrhW1,?N,r,41- IPN A GA5' Co 1. 15 .�C, �= _ ,E'L�cT,r�/c ,.�1r'7•��"r�N D�?�.o�'D,�rV/A �.D�s�J�V �c.� 7"EL Eio �10N,5 GENERAL T4L.4 ,,gOWE 6'a. t '.� / f' 'C "L r 7',ELEVISION CD,4Cf/ I-L,4 bALL,EY T,EL4'V1.5ION ate. M , i : 'C.yl>Gal ,D1S7, 16"7 An5,54 . 7 S�11V�C7S tJNt'Fl�"I.� s'C�O�! �sT�iC`T" a W0 71 : s. � „w. rf�LE OW o ti J 2. 4N 517,E Y72dWr!/fWATEI? YY1L L ole,41AI TO N/�',h A Y I I U , :s P�4R 'ELL ",4SE/V�.E1V T.S: y ' 1 /.14 2DrCT �'A�EMENT" P�r�' �1,8 �~ 2 A CC,E 57.5' .EAS.EIWEN7 y x v'Q o } Ives Yry +, fled' VICINI7 P raw i 2aa k �(/✓ . . gym ..` y/ry/J/y ' YQCD TAT PAR A SCALD ! , "' !T'1C.4L C7_10N ,g" Y ,