Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPP 86-21 COMMERCIAL/FRED WARING DRIVE 1986 PRECISE PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT ZONE CHANGE PARCEL MAP VARIANCE G.U.P. REFER TO: APPLICANT: LOCATION REQUEST: EXISTING ZONE: PREPARATION PROGRESS DATE BY COMMENTS _APPLICATION RECEIVED LEGAL PUBLICATION SENT _NOTICES SENT _FIELD INVESTIGATION I )_EPTS. NOTIFIED BUILDING ENGINEERING FIRE POLICE _RECREATION & SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FLOOD CONTROL PRELIMINARY MEETING :,GAFF REPORT FINAL PLAN APPROVAL '- 1 T PRECISE PLAN (6) 1 F 0 LANDSCAPING PLAN (5) PLAN. DIRECTOR MOD. (6) HEARINGS & ACTIONS _ DATE ACTION VOTE REVIEW BOARD HEARING PC. HEARING PUBLISHED PC. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT W)TIFIED C.C. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. RESOLUTION NO. EFFECTIVE DATE RECORDED FOR DATA BANK ZONING MAP CORRECTED Shopping center has 'problems' Wednesday,June 4, 1986—PO A-3 By HERB PASIK Shopping center... Post staff writer - PALM DESERT A lCoolued from A-1) chairman of the city presentation to the Newport Beach develop- Wilson and Coun- Planning Commission council, architect ment firm may not be aware cilwoman Jean Benson who was in the Greene said that of it yet, but City Council about a proposed ranch audience,said, "I think although t h e members 'are not very market and clothing I can safely carry that developers were aware receptive to the firm's plans stores, the ,only message to the drive-throughs were for a 9-acre shopping center comments while the Planning 'C o m- prohibited, they hoped at Highway 111 and Fred representatives were mission." the city would Waring Drive. still present came from The project "modif(y) the code to The council did not voice Mayor Dick Kelly and previously was allow (drivethroughs)' its specific objections to-thin Councilman Walt outlined to the com- on a case by project until Santa Anita Snyder. mission by the case. . .basis." Development Corp. When Kelly told developers at an in- Greene said the representatives had left the project architect Bruce formal study session proposed Del Taco May 22 council meeting at Greene it would be on May 6. At the time, restaurant w a s which they made a lengthy difficult for the council Planning Director Ray "designed to blend into presentation on their plans. to digest the in- Diaz, noting that the the site" and would be Except for brief questions formation presented by commission was "a convenience and from Councilman Roy the developers all at scheduled to conduct a asset" for handicapped (Continued on A-3) once, Greene replied, formal public hearing persons and mothers "We hope some on the project on June accompanied by I direction can be given 3, suggested that the children. to us and the planning developers make the He also defended the commission so we can informal preliminary proposed 30-foot get on with the presentation to the height of the project's project." council at the May 22 buildings, asserting it, Snyder told the meeting because of the would not interfere, developers he had sensitivity of the with views of the hills. "problems" with the project site. After the council proposal, but he added Commissioner me- later criticized that the council's mbers stressed during elements of the project,- responsibility would be the study session that Sandy Baum, a local to review the plans and drive-through restaur- real estate broker, elicit the planning ants were not per- suggested the council staff's views on the mitted in the city's refer the proposal to project. commercial zone. They the economic Some time after the also raised other development com- development firm's issues, which were mittee being set up by representatives had addressed by the the city for review; left, however, Wilson developers on May 22. "rather than flatly, noted that the council During the shoot it down." really hadn't said much to the developers about their proposal. Benson, noting the 9- acre site is adjacent to the one on which a multi-story Raffles Hotel already has been approved, said the proximity of a Del Taco drive-through restaurant to a sup- posedly luxurious hotel "doesn't seem com- patible." Joining in the d critique, Snyder said he e had "a big concern" s about the two proposed s drive-through restaur- k ants at the entrance to the city and potential traffic problems related to a service station envisioned "relatively, close" to the northwest corner of Fred Waring and 111 by the developers. "I don't think putting those things at the entrance to the city is compatible with what we want in the way of a beautiful city,"he said. At that point, Mayor Dick Kelly, voicing concern about "one, let alone two drive- throughs," said, "We should have let (the developers) know (how the council felt about the project before they left). Stepping to the speaker's stand, Buford Crites, 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 23, 1986 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C/Z 64-15, PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT for approval of change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial project of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway III , more particularly described as: APN's 640-020-010, 011, 012 640-032-001 , 006, 011, 012, 013 PR.-7,1 -r `• S.P ' C-I © �... RFI ` d P. R. P.R. w o R" 2 N r i• t t- + z iy-1 �?> AHD S.P. -' `920^0 --L - _ P.R. 22 --- e o I R I oo (ns C-1 P.C. w 5 12 0 0 Z C CQ (4). — D TA 2 al OiGV a C = R I 1 0 a S.P. R2SF ' i-I FRED WARING CRI`• E PC. P. R.-6 ' R (4) p R-( " ' S.P. SUBJECT PROPERTY P.C. (4)+ 5T7�! I E R-L ',` • :." ';, ,, S.P. W -V r • ,. U SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 14, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk August 1 . 1986 City of Palm Desert, California SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Joseph L.Seitz Vice President April 8, 1986 Mr. Ray Diaz A PQ i 0 1986 Planning Director c014MI rrrorvEta-,;,., CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY c,PAtIlVESEc'" ME-W 73-510 Fred Waring Drive RT Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Palm Desert - Highway Ill & Fred Waring Drive Dear Ray: Pursuant to our meeting on Monday, April 7th, I am enclosing the findings of a study performed by the Urban Land Institute regarding parking ratios for retail/commercial projects. I believe you will find that the parking standards recommended by ULI are less than the 5 cars per 1,000 square feet of GLA due to the widely accepted use of mid-size and compact cars. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this, please feel free to contact me. I ' ll look forward to seeing you at the upcoming study session meeting regarding our Palm Desert property. Thank you. Sincerely, Joseph L.. Seitz JLS/j m� Enclosure 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192658-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92266 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 January 13 , 1987 i' Mr . Joseph Seitz Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr . Seitz : At Its meeting of January 8 , 1987 , the Palm Desert City lCouncII approved a precise plan . of design , tentative tract map , and . negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail /resort commercial development of some 90, 636 square feet on a nine acre site located at the northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway Ill . The Council adopted Resolution No . 86-93 , amended to . Include`, several new conditions . A fully executed copy of the resolution Is enclosed for your records . If you have any questions or require any additional information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, SHEILA R. GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG:mpf Enclosures (as noted) cc : ,.Department of Community Development/Planning m MUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR CITY COUNCIL•MEETING • • • • • •AUGUST 14, 1986 Farmers ' Market and felt it was nothing more than a Jensen ' s Market or Safeway Market_ -- a grocery store. Mayor Kelly declared the hearing open and invited testimony, and the following spoke in FAVOR of the project . MR . BRUCE GREEN, Project. Manager, addressed Council in support of the request . He said that the farmers ' market was a unique concept and an appropriate use adjacent to a hotel . He reviewed the changes they had made to the project to mitigate Council concerns . Mayor Kelly invited testimony in OPPOSITION to the project, and the following spoke : MR. DAVE EVERS, 72-450 Manzanita, said he was an adjacent neighbor of the project . His neighborhood had a traffic Problem now , and he felt a hotel would only make the problem worse. He said he and his neighbors did not want sidewalks. from their area to this project as was proposed. He also asked what this project would do to his property values . Mr . Diaz responded that there was not .drive through or walk through from this residential area. The sidewalk that ran adjacent to the property could be eliminated if the residents so desired it to be. Mayor Kelly declared the hearing closed . Councilmember Benson said she did not feel the proposed uses were in accordance with the PC4 zoning. She did not feel the project was of the deluxe quality the City wanted for its entrance. Mayor Kelly said that this project was not in keeping with the commercial uses the City wanted there. He said there was another gas station across the street from this project, and he did not feel the area needed two. Councilman Snyder said he had a problem with the proposed commercial uses in this PC4 , Scenic Preservation zone. He said that whatever goes on this property must take into consideration there is a residential zone next to it and it must protect it . 17 +M2 ' ORDINANCE NO. 227 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, RELATING TO PER- MITTED USES IN THE PC(4) ZONE DISTRICT. CASE NO. ZOA 04-80 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of June, 1980, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider amendment of Municipal Code Title 25, Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) , containing Planned Commercial District Regulations, relative to permitted uses in the PC(4) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 607 has recommended approval ; and, WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32" , in that the subject project has not been found to present an adverse impact on the environ- ment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments , if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is more consistent with the adopted General Plan and Redevelopment Plan. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. 4. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better clarify the per- mitted uses in the PC(4) Zone District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows : 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, as provided in the attached Exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.30.020, 25.30.240 and the addition of Section 25.30.025, specifying Permitted Uses in the PC(4) Zone District and other matters relating thereto; 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, and shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this loth day of July , 1980, by the following vote, to wit: 1 AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, Puluqi , Snyder & Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None S ;gOY WI/LSON, MAYOR w ATTEST: SHEILA R. GI - IGAN, CIT LERK City of Palm Desert, C fornia Page Two ORDINANCE N0. 227 { EXHIBIT "A" 1. Section 25.30.020 SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS: 25.30.020 Uses permitted by approved development plan or conditional use permit. The following uses are permitted upon approval . A. District Commercial Center (PC2) : Such uses include but are not limited to supermarket, professional offices, variety store, drug store, banks, hotel , and restaurants, except drive-in or drive-through; B. Regional Center (PC3) : Such uses include but are not limited to supermarket, department stores, banks , variety stores, professional offices,. restaurants, except drive-in or drive-through, and general retail uses. C. Resort Center (PC4) Hotels, restaurants, except drive-in or drive-through, entertainment facilities and related commercial uses ; D. Specialty Commercial Center (PC1) : Medical related offices and research facilities , hotel facilities, and ancillary convenience commercial uses. 2. Section 25.30.025 SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS: 25. 30.025 Related commercial uses permitted in the Resort Center Zone District. The uses considered to be related commercial uses shall be liberally construed as those uses customarily connected, associated, and affiliated with the principal uses established for the Resort Center Zone District. The following uses shall be permitted subject to 1 approval as a part of the development plan or conditional Juse permit: A. Related to Hotels - Restaurants Entertainment facilities Appurtenant services and retail shops determined to be available for the convenience of the guests of the hotel such as: Art Galleries Automobile Rental Agencies (where five (5) or fewer cars are kept on-site, and no maintenance is performed) Book and Card Shops Clothing and Apparel Shops Convention and Visitors Bureau General Medical Care and Services when provided ancillary to, and in conjunction with the operation of a hotel Gift and Accessories Boutiques (including small antiques) Health, Figure and Exercise Salons and Spas Jewelry Shops Liquor, Beverage and Food Items Shops (excluding grocery markets) Luggage Shops Optometrists Office Personal Care/Products Shops and Services (including barbering and cosmetology) Secretarial Services (including ancillary duplicating services) Sundries Shops (general merchandise) Tour and Ticket Agency Offices Travel Agencies Wearing Item Repair, Tailoring and Cleaning in conjunction with a hotel operation ORDINANCE NO., 227 Page Three EXHIBIT "A" (Continued) B. Related to Restaurants - Entertainment facilities General offices not exceeding 20% of the gross floor area Appurtenant services and retail shops determined to be available for the con- venience of the patrons of the restaurant or related to the operation of the res- taurants, such as : Art Galleries Automobile Rental Agencies (where five (5) or fewer cars are kept on-site, and no maintenance is performed) Book and Card Shops Clothing and Apparel Shops Convention and Visitors Bureau Gift and Accessories Boutiques (including small antiques) General Medical Care and Services Health, Figure and Exercise Salons and Spas Jewelry Shops Liquor, Beverage and Food Items Shops Luggage Shops Personal Care/Products Shops and Services (including barbering and cosmetology) Sundries Shops (general merchandise) Tour and Ticket Agencies Travel Agencies Wearing Item Repair, Tailoring and Cleaning C. Related to Entertainment Facilities - Restaurants l Appurtenant services and retail I shops determined to be available JI for the convenience of the patrons of the facility and designated as an integral part of the entertain- ment facility D. Similar Uses - The Commission may permit other uses which it may determine to be similar to those listed above. 3. Section 25.30.240 SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS: 25.30.240 Resort Center Development Standards. The resort center concept is established to provide for the development of low-rise bungalow scale hotel , entertainment, and restaurant facilities with related commercial uses particularly for that area along Highway 111, westerly of the Palm Valley Channel . A development in the PC(4) Zone District shall conform to the following develop- ment standards : A. The minimum site size shall be four (4) acres. B. Hotels shall have a maximum density of thirty (30) units per acre. C. The front yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet. D. The rear yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet. E. The side yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. F. The maximum building height shall be thirty (30) feet. G. For hotels , a minimum of forty percent (40%) of the site area shall be developed as usable landscaped open space and outdoor living and recreation area with an adequate irrigation system. H. For other uses, a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the total site shall be in landscaping. J RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 A 'RESOLUTiON OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL/RESORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOME 90,636 SQUARE FEET ON A NINE ACRE SITE, ZONED PC (4) AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND HIGHWAY Ill . CASE NO: PP 86-21 E TT 21624 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California did on the 14th day of August, 1986 hold a duly noticed public hearing and subsequent continued public hearings on November 13, December 11 , 1986 and January 8, 1987, for the above noted cases. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of June 1986 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by SANTA ANNTA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,636 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 , more particularly described as: APN 640-020-010, 011 ,012 640-032-001 , 006, 011 , 012, 013 WHEREAS, the planning commission did at its July 1 , 1986 meeting adopt its resolution no. 1157 approving the cases subject to conditions. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of community develop- ment has determined that the project will have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be head, said city council did find the following facts and reasons as specified In the staff report dated July I , 1986 to exist to justify the approval of said precise plan of design. 1 . The design of the precise plan as revised will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan as revised will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 3. The precise plan as revised will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons as justified In the staff report dated July 1 , 1986 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map. 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements Is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the design of the subdivision will not restrict solar access. 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 council in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan 86-21 and Tentative Tract Map 21624 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 PASSED., APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this 8th day of January, 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, SNYDER, WILSON, AND KELLY NOES: BENSON ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE R HARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILL. AN, Ci Y/ lerk City of Palm Desert, Ca fornia /dlg 3 RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. PP 86-21 3 TT 21624 �I 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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which included, but are not limited to, architectural review and building permit procedures. i 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, other- wise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contem- plated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commi ssion � 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. 5. Major truck deliveries and trash pick-up for market and other businesses to be only between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday only. 6. Only delivery diesel trucks built after 1974 shall be used. 7. All architecture of future buildings to be compatible with architectural commission approval of plans. 8. Trash enclosures for each detached building and the main building to be provided; with design and location to be approved by city and local trash company. 9. All conditions of the architectural commission shall be met. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 10. Detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval , subject to applicable lighting standards; plan to be prepared by qualified lighting engineer and pay particular attention in the area of the east driveway. 11 . Parking space and aisles shall comply with Palm Desert design standards for off-street parking facilities. 12. Three to 3.5 foot decorative wall and/or mounding shall be provided to sufficiently screen parking lot area from streets. 13. Market operator to submit letter indicating that he has read the conditions of approval and will abide by same; letter to be submitted prior to issuance of building permit. 14. Parking lot directional striping and safety signs to be provided; plan to be submitted with final working drawings for approval . 15. That the easterly landscape strip adjacent to the existing single family dwellings be planted with a variety of coniferous planting materials to provide an effective barrier and yet not create leaf problems for adjacent owners. 16. That the applicant shall install a masonry wall along the east property line adjacent to the single family dwellings. Said wall to be installed immediately upon certification of the rough grading in this area. No building permit for any building on the site shall be issued until the easterly wall is completed. 17. That the applicant shall comply strictly with the provisions of Ordinance 294, specifically municipal code section 27. 12.067 entitled "Blow sand and dust control". 18. That any compact parking spaces or spaces designated for employee only parking be so designated by appropriate signing. 19. That the parking spaces located in the east and northerly loading areas be designated employee only parking areas to limit parking turnover. 20. That building permits for the main building, including the "farmer's market" must be issued and substantial construction activity ( i .e. : foundation work) commenced prior to issuance of building permits for any of the satellite pads. 21 . That If the development is constructed in phases each phase must fully comply with all code requirements prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. If the development is to be constructed in phases, the director of community development must give his prior approval to the phasing. 22. Service station building to be setback a minimum of 30 feet from Highway III and Fred Waring Drive property lines per municipal code requirements. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 I 23. Raised landscape center median shall be provided to satisfaction of city in both Highway IiI and Fred Waring Drive. 24. The service station facility shall not provide repair or service work. 25. Items to be sold in the service station facility shall be strictly limited to those normally and customarily associated with the sale of gasoline and automotive products. The facility shall not operate as a mini-market or convenience store. 26. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) month from the date of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 27. All on-site utilities shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of community development. 28. All dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval if any shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 29. The CCBR's for this development shall be submitted to the director of community development for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits except for a permit for construction of the easterly wall which may be constructed as soon as the rough grading Is certified. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: ' a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners/operators of the businesses in the project. 30. Any revisions to tentative tract map required by approval of PP 86-21 shall be made prior to recordation of final map. 31 . That change of zone, Case No. C/Z 84-15, recommended for approval by the planning commission to the city council on October 16, 1984 for the south east portion of the subject property be forwarded to the city council and approved prior to issuance of any permits on this project. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of the director of public works. I 6 I RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 4. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 5. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any Improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. All private streets and parking areas shall be Inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 7. Landscaping maintenance on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 8. Existing utilities on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. 9. Traffic safety striping on Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided to the specifications of the director of public works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the director of public works before placing pavement markings. 10. 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. 11 . Dedication of 60 feet of right-or-way on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans. 12. installation of curb and gutter, matching paving and sidewalk on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive, said streets shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 13. Waiver of access to Highway III and Fred Waring Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 14. Close unused driveway with full height curb and gutter. 15. Offsite Improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. 16. Installation of one-half landscaped median in Fred Waring Drive or cash payment for one-half the cost of landscaped median at the option of the director of public works. 7 • V I RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 II 17. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval and be recorded before issuance of any permits associated with this project. 18. The most westerly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be restricted to right turn only ingress-egress by means of raised P.C.C. curb. 19. The most easterly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be designed so as to align with approved access points for Parcel Map 20894. 20. Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be cul -de-saced to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Cul-de-sacs shall be designed to city standards. 21 . Parcel Map 21412 shall be recorded prior to filing of the final map for Tract 21624. 22. Reciprocal access agreements between PM 21412 and Tract 21624 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 23. Prior to map recordation Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be vacated. 24. All improvements relating to State Highway III shall be per state standards and specifications. City Fire Marshal : 1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 3000 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. 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. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system in PP 86-21 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal". 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. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over 5,000 square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. City Council: 1 . Construction of the project, except for grading, shall not commence until foundations for the Raffles Hotel are placed. 2. There shall not be a convenience store on the site and the only non-automotive products at the service station shall be limited to products normally sold in vending machines, a description of which must be approved by the city; sale of alcoholic beverages from the service station site is expressly prohibited. 3. The landscape plans at the corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway III shall include a water element. /dig 9 J - )1 A T INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert 0� TO: MAYOR KELLY AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1986 SUBJECT: SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT - NORTHEAST CORNER HIGHWAY III AND FRED WARING DRIVE As directed by city council at its August 14, 1986 meeting, planning commission at its September 2, 1986 meeting reconsidered the application by Santa Anita Development. The matter was discussed extensively in study session as well as during the regular meeting. After much discussion planning commission reaffirmed its previous decision. The basis of the reaffirmation (3-2) was as follows: Municipal Code 25.30.025 states: The uses considered to be related commercial uses shall be liberally construed as those uses customarily connected, associated and affiliated with the principal uses established for the Resort Center Zone District. Code therefore directs the city to "liberally construe" uses in addition to the long list of permitted uses contained in the ordinance. The only limit being that the uses must be related to a hotel . Commission concluded that there is no question that the proposed development is associated with the hotel site to the northwest. The site plan provides driveway connections, sidewalk and walkway connections, the sites will have a uniform landscaped theme as well as uniform architectural theme. Pl commission concluded that the proposed farmers market while not being di air marke does offer a needed service. Commission concluded t ers market as proposed ( 16 000 square feet is significantly different from the r store (Vons, Ralphs, etc. ) which. range in size from 40,000-75 e feet. In addition it was noted that this tseplaced� proposed 65,000 square foot AIbertson's store proposed on his pLan_w.heA it was originally submitted in October, 1985. The farmers market will h 'mited ran e o i t mea s fruits an f j_ne_wjD_m This type of facility would obviously lend itself to the all-suite hotel proposed by Raffles in that each suite will have its own kitchenette facilities. Having a farmers market of the type proposed within walking distance should result in less traffic congestion. L SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 13, 1986 The service station on the site will be a real convenience to guests of the hotel in that they will not need to leave the site to obtain gas and create traffic conflicts on Fred Waring and Highway Ill . In addition, commission felt that everyone should remember the gas lines of 1979. The city has lost several service stations since then and should not take an anti-service station position given that the developer has given staff and architectural commission assurances that this service station will be designed to their total and complete satisfaction. In fact, the architectural commission has already given a preliminary approval with a . long list of required additions specifically related to the service station design and landscaping. With respect to the concern that this commercial development is so close to the residential uses to the east it was noted that the applicant had written to Mr. Evers, the gentleman who appeared at the August 14, 1986 hearing, and expressed a willingness to cooperate in all respects and has done so. In response to the overall question, "Is this project appropriate for the zoning on the land?" Commission first looked at the overall appropriateness of this development in this location. Commission discussed at length whether the city could reasonably expect to see this nine acre site develop with another hotel to the city' s high standard or another restaurant park. Considering that five restaurants are approved for the property south of Fred Waring Drive and five restaurants exist in the Las Sombres center across Highway Ill and a restaurant wi l l be included in the Raffles project it was felt that that ruled out additional restaurants in the foreseeable future. Planning Commission considered the type and quality, of hotels which have shown a desire and commitment to locate on the busiest street in the valley. Except for Raffles these hotels would not meet our present hotel standards. Commission felt that the only type of hotel the city would approve at this point in time would be a Hyatt Regency or similar quality of project. Given the limited success of the recently completed hotels on Palm Canyon in Palm Springs it was felt unlikely that more quality hotels would be constructed unless they are on their own golf course. Commission thus concluded that it was unlikely that either of the primary uses for PC (4) zone (hotel or restaurants) would occur on this site. Commission then discussed the desirability of the proposed development and concluded that with the revisions to the plan it is a reasonable, logical and desirable use for the property. 2 i SANTA ANITA.DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 13, 1966 Commission, having agreed that the proposal was desirable, then discussed whether it was acceptable in the PC (4) zone. Commission decided that given the overall integration of the proposal with the Raffles Hotel development and the direction from the ordinance that additional uses should be "liberally construed" then voted and reaffirmed its decision of July 1 , 1986 and recommends approval of the project as revised. / � s RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMM ITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/SRS/tm 3 V INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: MAYOR KELLY AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1986 SUBJECT: SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT - CASE NO. PP 86-21 August 14, 1986, city council continued the above noted request and referred same to planning commission for further consideration. Planning commission at its September 2, 1986, meeting reconsidered the case. The minutes of that meeting will not be reviewed and. adopted by planning commission until its meeting of September 16, 1986. In addition, the applicant in a letter dated September 5, 1986, has requested that the matter be continued to allow Santa Anita to solidify certain financial commitments. Staff has no objection to granting the continuance and would suggest that the matter be continued to the city council meeting of November 13, 1986. 1 MON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMMU ITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/tm CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER 1. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council 11. REQUEST: Approval of change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environ- mental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial project of some 90,636 square feet on a nine acre site located at the northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway Ill . I11. APPLICANT: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Developmer 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92E IV. CASE NO: C/Z 84-15, PP 86-21 8 V. DATE: August 14, 1986 V1. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation - B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution No.86-93 and draft Ordinance No. 469 D. Planning Commission minutes involving Case No. C/Z 84-14, PP 86-21 8. TT 21624. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 999 and 1157. F. Planning Commission staff report dated June 17, 1986. G. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 469 to second reading. Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 86-93 approving PP 86-21 and TT 21624. B. DISCUSSION: Development of the Highway Ill frontage between Park View Drive and Fred Waring Drive has been a long time in coming. On the northerly portion of the area adjacent to Park View Drive the city recently approved a proposed Raffles Hotel . Discussions with the hotel people indicate it should open for business by Fail of 1987. C/Z 84-15, .PP 86-21 1 TT 21624 A development plan for the southerly area, adjacent to Fred Waring Drive has been in the works for almost a year in that Santa Anita Development made a presentation to the city in October 1985. At that time the developer was advised that a farmers market might help to make the overall development more acceptable. An operator of a farmers market was secured and subsequently a plan submitted. This plan included among other uses two drive thru restaurants. The development plan as approved by the planning commission provided for a farmers market along with a service station and several restaurants (drive thru facilities deleted) as well as other retail and office facilities. Planning commission felt that the changes agreed to by the developer would result in the project being an asset to the community. Commission discussed at length the appropriateness of these uses in the P/C (4) zone. Staff advised commission that given the extent that this project is integrated with the hotel development to the north and restaurants and service station included in the plan, then it was felt that the remaining uses in the plan were acceptable ancillary uses Pursuant to the zoning ordinance. The city attorney concurred with this position however, he felt that if commission had major concerns then a general commercial zoning would be more appropriate. Commission at its July 15t, 1986 meeting approved the cases, subject to conditions, on a 4-0-1 vote with Chairman Crites abstaining in that he was not present at the hearing of June 17, 1986. The portion of the property located at the northwest corner of Joshua Road and Fred Waring Drive Is zoned R-1 . In October of 1984 planning commission held a hearing and by its resolution no. 999 recommended approval of a change of zone to P/C (4) . The change of zone request was not forwarded to city council in that the city did not have an acceptable development plan to implement the zone change. We now have a plan approved by the Planning commission and hence it is appropriate to forward the change of zone request to city council for final action. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /d I g (LG{GG✓ 3�L0++CCl�� 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C I TY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107 OF THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-1 TO P\C (4) S.P. FOR APPROXI- MATELY .76 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND JOSHUA ROAD. CASE NO: C/Z 84-15 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION l : That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46. 1 of the zoning ordinance, the zoning map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) Is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 2: That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this day of 1986 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /dlg 7 �� 7111ectil � 5 r---T- .. r W F- ,. P. R.-17 W P "Ttt t' � i n� 9L S AHD _ . P. rr - r. .. RR. 22 — S.P. 5. 45 ANilANIfA G Z FRED WARING DRIVE ' j ja t s P C. 9I v (4)9 S.P. - `_ 4), b I 07Y OF -'A . A DF$F;;T RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL/RESORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOME 90,636 SQUARE FEET ON A NINE ACRE SITE, ZONED PC (4) AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 111 . CASE NO: PP 86-21 E TT 21624 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California did on the 14th day of August, 1986 hold a duly noticed public hearing on the above noted cases. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of June 1986 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,636 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway III , more particularly described as: APN 640-020-010, 011 ,012 640-032-001 , 006, 011 , 012, 013 WHEREAS, the planning commission did at its July 1 , 1986 meeting adopt its resolution no. IIS7 approving the cases subject to conditions. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of community develop- ment has determined that the project will have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be head, said city council did find the following facts and reasons as specified in the staff report dated July 1 , 1986 to exist to justify the approval of said precise plan of design. .1 . The design of the precise plan as revised will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan as revised will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. RESOLUTION NO. 3. The precise plan as revised will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff report dated July 1 , 1986 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map. 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable ,for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably, injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. B. That the design of the subdivision will not restrict solar access. 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 council in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan 86-21 and Tentative Tract Map 21624 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative , declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. 2 RESOLUTION NO. _ PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this day of 1986 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 91CHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /dlg 3 RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. PP 86-21 E TT 21624 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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which included, but are not limited to, architectural review and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless.a time extension is granted, other- wise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contem- plated 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. 5. Major truck deliveries and trash pick-up for market and other businesses to be only between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday only. 6. Only delivery diesel trucks built after 1974 shall be used. 7. All architecture of future buildings to be compatible with architectural commission approval of plans. 8. Trash enclosures for each detached building and the main building to be provided; with design and location to be approved by city and local trash company. 9. All conditions of the architectural commission shall be met. 4 RESOLUTION NO. _ 10. Detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval , subject to applicable lighting standards; plan to be prepared by qualified lighting engineer and pay particular attention in the area of the east driveway. 11 . Parking space and aisles shall comply with Palm Desert design standards for off-street parking facilities. 12. Three to 3.5 foot decorative wa 1 1 and/or mounding shall be provided to sufficiently screen parking lot area from streets. 13. Market operator to submit letter indicating that he has read the conditions of approval and will abide by same; letter to be submitted prior to issuance of building permit. 14. Parking lot directional striping and safety signs to be provided; plan to be submitted with final working drawings for approval . 15. That the easterly landscape strip adjacent to the existing single family dwellings be planted with a variety of coniferous planting materials to provide an effective barrier and yet not create leaf prob]ams for adjacent owners. Syr• y�`"�i� 16. That the applicant shall install a masonry �wall '`albng�y��g���� the east property line adjacent to the single family dwellings. Said wall to be installed Immediately upon certification of the rough grading in this area. No building permit for any building on the site shall be issued until the easterly wall is completed. 17. That the applicant shall comply strictly with the provisions of Ordinance 294, specifically municipal code section 27. 12.067 entitled "Blow sand and dust control". 18. That any compact parking spaces or spaces designated for employee only parking be so designated by appropriate signing. 19. That the parking spaces located in the east and northerly loading areas be designated employee only parking areas to limit parking turnover. 20. That building permits for the main building, including the "farmer's market" must be issued and substantial construction activity ( i .e. : foundation work) commenced prior to issuance of building permits for any of the satellite pads. 21 . That if the development is constructed in phases each phase must fully comply with all code requirements prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. If the development is to be constructed in phases, the director of community development must give his prior approval to the phasing. 22. Service station building to be setback a minimum of 30 feet from Highway III and Fred Waring Drive property lines per municipal code requirements. 2 5 /� RESOLUTION ND_ 23. Raised landscape center median shall be provided to satisfaction of city in both Highway III and Fred Waring Drive. 24. The service station facility shall not provide repair or service work. 25. Items to be sold in the service station facility shall be strictly limited to those normally and customarily associated with the sale of gasoline and automotive products. The facility shall not operate as a mini-market or convenience store. 26. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) month from the date of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the . final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 27. All on-site utilities shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of community development. 28. All dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval if any shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 29. The CCBR's for this development shall be submitted to the director of community development for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits except for a permit for construction of the easterly wall which may be constructed as soon as the rough grading is certified. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners/operators of the businesses in the project. 30. Any revisions to tentative tract map required by approval of PP 86-21 shall be made prior to recordation of final map. 31 . That change of zone, Case No. C/Z 84-I5, recommended for approval by the planning commission to the city council on October 16, 1984 for the south east portion of the subject property be forwarded to the city council and approved prior to issuance of any permits on this project. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of the director of public works. 6 // RESOLUTION NO. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that Is approved by the department of public works. 4. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 5. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. All private streets and parking areas shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 7. Landscaping maintenance on Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 8. Existing utilities on Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. 9. Traffic safety striping on Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided to the specifications of the director of public works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the director of public works before placing pavement markings. 10. 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. 11 . Dedication of 60 feet of right-or-way on Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans. 12. Installation of curb and gutter, matching paving and sidewalk on Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive. 13. Waiver of access to Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 14. Close unused driveway with full height curb and gutter. 15. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. 16. Installation of one-half landscaped median in Fred Waring Drive or cash payment for one-half the cost of landscaped median at the option of the director of public works. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 17. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval and be recorded before issuance of any permits associated with this project. 18. The most westerly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be restricted to right turn only ingress-egress by means of raised P.C.C. curb. 19. The most easterly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be designed so as to align with approved access points for Parcel Map 20894. 20. Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be cul -de-saced to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Cul-de-sacs shall be designed to city standards. 21. Parcel Map 21412 shall be recorded prior to filing of the final map for Tract 21624. 22. Reciprocal access agreements between PM 21412 and Tract 21624 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 23. Prior to map recordation Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be vacated. 24. All improvements relating to State Highway 111 shall be per state standards and specifications. City Fire Marshal : 1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 3000 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. 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. / 8 �� RESOLUTION NO. _ 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 86-21 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal ". 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. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over 5,000 square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. /dig 9 /'I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 1984 restaurant on 2.27 acres in the PC (4) S.P. zone located on the south side of Highway ill, approximately 285 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. A TEN MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 3:51 P.M. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report. He explained that staff's was concerned regarding open space and specified that the findings could not be met in this case. Staff recommended denial. MR. GEORGE HOLQUIN, architect, expressed his intent to asked for a continuance to November 20, to allow time to work with staff. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this case to the meeting of November 20, 1984. Carried 4-0. F. Case Nos.C/Z 84-15 and PM 20212-D&D DEVELOPMENT,Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-I (single family residential) to PC (4) S.P. (resort commercial with scenic preservation overlay) for approximately .76 acres at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Joshua Road and for approval of a parcel map to create six (6) parcels on 17.78 acres located on the east side of Highway 111, between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. _ Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the project. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. - MR. CHARLES HAVER, 74-390 Highway I11, felt that the conditions were acceptable except that public work's were broad. He thought they applied to the precise plan, and not a part of the parcel map. Mr. Cablay explained that it did not say prior torecordation of final map. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Haver if that answered his concerns. Mr. Haver replied yes. Mr. Sawa said that that was something that Mr. Haver would show on the final map. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. Chairman Crites asked staff if the Highway 111 access should be discussed at that time. Staff concurred. Chairman Crites suggested that a condition be established that any entrance off Highway 111 be right-turn only and that provision not be made for a break in the median for a left-turn lane. Commissioner Wood asked if this would also apply to PP 84-43. Mr. Cablay replied yes. MR. HAVER felt that this should be put to a traffic study. He expressed concern with the limitations of only right-turns in and at least want a left turn in. Mr. Diaz explained that at the present time there were not breaks in any medians. He noted that the applicant may apply at any time for one in the future. . Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Phillips if granting the change of zone was in any way contiguous with granting the parcel map. Mr. Phillips responded yes. Action: -5- /8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' OCTOBER 16, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt the findings as proposed by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Wood voted nay.) Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 998, approving PM 20212, subject to conditions as amended by Chairman Crites. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Wood voting nay.) Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, recommending approval of C/Z 84-15 by the adopting of Planning Commission Resolution No. 999. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Wood voted nay.) G. Case No.PP 84-43-BIRTCHER-DUNHAM,Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 165,000 square foot one story commercial center (restaurants, retail uses and offices) on 13.7 acres located at the southeast corner of Park View Drive and Highway 111. Mr.-Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed_ project. Mr. Cablay clarified that the condition 637 was contingent upon the approval of the Gene Sally precise plan regarding signalization. Commissioner Downs and Chairman Crites expressed concern regarding the signalization and occupany by the applicant. Mr. Cablay indicated that the money for the signalization was not included in the budget. Mr. Diaz replied that the applicant could be conditioned to pay or bond for the signalization of the intersection for his fair share as determined by the director of public works. The applicant could then apply to the city council for reimbursement. Commissioner Downs agreed with that except for the limit on tenant occupancy. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CURT DUNHAM, applicant, asked for and received clarification of the suggested condition. Mr. Dunham felt that the project did not warrant a traffic signal and felt that not having left-turn access would hurt the project. Commissioner Downs suggested deleting condition 637. Mr. Diaz indicated that the new condition replace #37 and add that the applicant may request that the cost be credited against his signal fees. Chairman Crites clarified that the traffic analysis would determine if the project needed a traffic signal. Commissioner Downs indicated that the traffic signalization and occupancy should be two separate issues. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like the signal there, regardless of any traffic study. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Phillips if the commission could condition the applicant to install a signal without the analysis. Mr. Phillips recommended having the study done. Mr. Cablay explained to the applicant that the traffic study could work in favor of the applicant with regard to a median break in Highway 111. �- MR. DUNHAM then described the proposed project. -6- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1, 1986 design to allow construction and operation of a church facility (and use of temporary modular structure for church services) on five gross acres in the PR-5 zone (planned residential , maximum five dwelling units per acre) , located on the east side of Portola Avenue, approximately 660 feet north of Country Club Drive. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. AL BROMLEY, representative, requested a two week extension to discuss conditions of approval with public work's staff. Commission concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing PP 86-32 to July 15, 1986 as requested by the applicant. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos. PP 86-21 and TT 21624 - SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Resolution of approval . Staff explained that this was the resolution requested by the commission at its meeting of June 17, 1986. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairman Crites abstained. ) Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1157, approving PP 86-21 and TT 21624 subject to conditions. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairman Crites abstained. ) Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to return to the regular order of the agenda. Carried 5-0. 8 .. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1986 from 10 feet to a maximum of 21-1/2 feet, with the average being 14.9 feet. Property owners association requested a minimum 10 foot setback. He noted that Frank Urrutia requested the larger setback on his side of the lot. Applicant stated that he was requesting a reasonable setback variance. Commissioner Richards asked the applicant the size of the home he would be building. Mr. Zarenejad replied 2100 square feet. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards stated that he felt the project was good, indicating that the applicant was building a modest size home that is right for the neighborhood. Commissioner Wood concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1151 , approving VAR 86-2, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0 C. Case Nos. PP 86-21 and TT 21624 - SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design , tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/commercial project of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site. zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway ill . Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addressed the commissions five basic concerns of the May meeting. He explained that city council had reviewed the project on May 26 and made no comment at that time. Mr. Smith then proceeded to outline the changes to the site plan and noted that the architec- tural commission had granted preliminary approval . The architectural commission also endorsed the drive-thru restaurants and the location of the service station on the corner lot. Mr. Smith felt that the location of the service station was inappropriate in that the state 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1986 could control the signage and that the station should not have been incorporated in a complete plan. He did not want the service station to appear as the Monterey and Country Club station has. Commissioner Wood explained that many of his friends living near the Monterey service station feel it is very attractive. He felt that a service station at that location, if properly landscaped, would be more appropriate for traffic flow reasons. He indicated that the architectural commission should have a strong hand in the design of the service station. Commissioner Richards noted that staff did an excellent job on the Monterey center. He felt that the price signs are convenient for people who wish to know prices before entering a gas station., He explained that his concern was with the overall picture of the PC 4 designation. He felt that the zoning was being twisted around to fit the proposed type of use and recommended the possibility of the property being rezoned to more appropriately accommodate the project. Mr. Diaz suggested that the commission first look at the project itself and then determine if the zoning needs to be changed. Vice Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOE SEITZ, applicant, stated that he had a formal presen- tation if the commission wished to hear it. He indicated that they felt they had been reasonable to the concerns of the commission. MR. BRUCE GREENE, project architect, presented a height and a solar study which indicated that the adjacent single family homes would not be adversely affected. He explained that the gas station was to have no service or repair work only some sales of convenience items. He then proceeded to outline the changes made to the site plan. Mr. Diaz suggested that the gas islands be reduced from three to two and the landscaping increased. MR. JIM HUNTSBORO, of Mobil Oil , felt that the three islands were needed to service the needs of the customer. He indicated that they would be selling vending machine type products only and no service or repairs would be done there. Mr. Seitz noted that they had discussed having one sign on the corner that would satisfy the state. 5 o�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1986 Vice Chairman Erwood asked if any one wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. FLORENCE LOPEZ, 4850 Pepperwood Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90808, submitted a letter which listed her concerns with the proposed project. She explained that she co-owned two homes adjacent the property which might be negatively impacted traffic noise, lighting, pollution, garbage and odors from the nearest restaurant. She was also concerned with the dust during construction, the location of equipment storage, drainage problems existing on the site and access to the homes. MR. JOE SEITZ, explained that the delivery hours will be limited to day hours only and that landscaping and buffering will provide screening from the rear of the project and the restaurant. MR. BRUCE GREENE noted that construction will be done quickly from October to early spring. During construction there will be appropriate watering to keep dust down. MR. BARRY McCLELLAN, engineer, stated that the east bound traffic would be unchanged. He explained that there is a drainage problem to which they have a solution. Santa Anita Development and D & D Development will be building a storm drain. The city engineer has agreed to extend the drainage pipe across Highway III to Fred Waring Drive. He explained that all the water from the site would be put into enclosed underground pockets. MR. JOE SEITZ indicated that they have set up a fund that offers neighbors $300 to $500 for additional landscaping on their property. With no further discussion Vice Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards felt the developer has been generous in the changes that, have been made. He thought that the service station was in an appropriate location but felt that the complete project was being stretched to fit into the PC 4 zoning. He noted that he would rather see a hotel development on this site. Commissioner Wood questioned counsel on the legality of approving this project under the current zoning of PC 4. He felt it was a good project that would provide services to the community. Commissioner Downs agreed with Commissioner Wood and felt that the applicant has made acceptable changes to the commissions concerns. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1986 Mr. Phillips felt that the project could be approved under the current zoning but indicated that a commercial zoning would be more appropriate. Vice Chairman Erwood stated that he would have a problem approving this .project under the PC 4 zoning. He recommended that the applicant request a zone change. Commissioner Wood suggested approving this project now and ask for a study on the PC 4 zoning. Commissioner Richards suggested that staff look into the remaining PC land available in the city and discuss whether the zoning should be changed. Action• Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs to grant conceptual approval of the revised development plan dated June 13, 1986 and to direct staff to return with a resolution of approval with appropriate findings and conditions based on testimony and discussion given today to the meeting of July 1 , 1986. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Richards opposed) . D. Case No. PP 86-23 - KEN INGHAM, Applicant Request for approval of plans for a 6,000 square foot single story retail /furniture store located in a C- 1 zone at the northeast corner of San Carlos and Palm Desert Drive. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance to July 15, 1986. He noted that the applicant was in the process of selling the property and the buyer would like to continue with the hearing process. Vice Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being no one, the public hearing was continued. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs , seconded by Commissioner Richards continuing Case No. PP 86-23 to the meeting of July 15, 1986. Carried 4-0. 7 a� _ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.999 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 TO PC(4)S.P. CASE N WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of October, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of D & D DEVELOPMENT for approval of a change of zone from R-1 (single family residential) to PC (4) S.P. (resort commercial with a scenic preservation overlay) for approximately .76 acres at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Joshua Road, more particularly described as: A portion of APN 640-030-013 I WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will 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, if any;of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their actions,as described below: 1. The requested change of zone would be in conformance with the adopted general plan. 2. The site is no longer appropriate for residential use due to its proximity to a - major thoroughfare(Fred Waring Drive). 3. The existing boundary line between the PC (4) zone and R-1 bisects one of the lots proposed for rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in these cases; 2. That tl:e Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a change of zone from R-1 to PC (4) S.P. per the attached Exhibit'A.' - 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby recommended. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of October, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, RICHARDS,AND CRITES NOES: WOOD ABSENT: ERWOOD ABSTAIN: NONE ✓� l� BUFORD CRITES, Chairman ATTEST: 1 RAMON A. DIAZ,SecreV , /tun RAP LS - , - -- --- --r- ? 1 � - — --- -- -7 1r--r-- � a : ♦Y C L L >� p RR.- , P �TTJ S -- r I 'f' r - r . AHD S. P _ _ _ E P.R. 22 ( 4 ) �eRuHtv000 z g�• S.P --��-; _ to P• E — - w JMAH�ANITA .- \ FRED WARII DRIVE P C. f v (4), P. 6, S.P. F r L. y o ,E C 0 z^ CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL C� ORDINANCE NO. DATE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL/RESORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOME 90,836 SQUARE FEET ON A NINE ACRE SITE, ZONED PC (4) AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND HIGHWAY Ill . CASE NO: PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 WHEREAS. the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California. did on the 17th day of June 1986 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,636 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway I11 , more particularly described as: APN 640-020-010, 011 ,012 640-032-001 , 006, 011 , 012, 013 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the director of community develop- ment has determined that the project will have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be head, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons as specified in the staff report dated July 1 , 1986 to exist to justify the approval of said precise plan of design. 1 . The design of the precise plan as revised will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan as revised will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan as revised will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 report dated July I , 1986 on file .in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map. 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the design of the subdivision will not restrict solar access. 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 86-21 and Tentative Tract Map 21624 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. 2 �J 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this let day of July, 1986 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, ERWOOD, RICHARDS 8 WOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: CRITES ABSTAIN: NONE / BBUUFFORD CRITES, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secret r /dig 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 r , Rrr;' . r+'rw�. ►. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. PP 86-21 a TT 21624 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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which included, but are not limited to, architectural review and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is -granted, other- wise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contem- plated 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. 5.. Major truck deliveries and trash pick-up for market and other businesses to be only between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday only. 6. Only delivery diesel trucks built after 1974 shall be used. 7. All architecture of future buildings to be compatible with architectural commission approval of plans. 8. Trash enclosures for each detached building and the main building to be provided; with design and location to be approved by city and local trash company. 9. All conditions of the architectural commission shall be met. 4 . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 10. Detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval , subject to applicable lighting standards; plan to be prepared by qualified lighting engineer and pay particular attention in the area of the east driveway. 11. Parking space and aisles shall comply with Palm Desert design standards for off-street parking facilities. 12. Three to 3.5 foot decorative wall and/or mounding shall be provided to sufficiently screen parking lot area from streets. 13. Market operator to submit letter indicating that he has read- the conditions of approval and will abide . by same; letter to be submitted prior to issuance of building permit. 14. Parking lot directional striping and safety signs to be provided; plan to be submitted with final working drawings for approval . 15. That the easterly landscape strip adjacent to the existing single family dwellings be planted with a variety of coniferous planting materials to provide an effec tive ctive barrier and yet not create leaf problems for adjacent owners. 16. That the applicant shall install a masonry wall along the east property line adjacent to the single family dwellings. Said wall to be installed immediately upon certification of the rough grading in this area. No building permit for any building on the site shall be issued until the easterly wall is completed. 17. That the applicant shall comply strictly with the provisions of Ordinance 294,' specifically municipal code section 27. 12.067 entitled "Blow sand and dust control". 18. That any compact parking spaces or spaces designated for employee only parking be so designated by appropriate signing. 19. That the parking spaces located in the east and northerly loading areas be designated employee only parking areas to limit parking turnover. 20. That building permits for the main building, including the "farmer's market" must be issued and substantial construction activity (i .e. : foundation work) commenced prior to issuance of building permits, for any of the satellite pads. 21 . That if the development is constructed in phases each phase must fully comply with all code requirements prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. If the development is to be constructed In phases, the director of community development must give his prior approval to the phasing. 22. Service station building to be setback a minimum of 30 feet from Highway III and Fred Waring Drive property lines per municipal code requirements. / 5 �l PLANNING COMM I SS ION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 23. Raised landscape center median shall be provided to satisfaction of city In both Highway III and Fred Waring Drive. 24. The service station facility shall not provide repair or service work. 25. Items to be sold in the service station facility shall be strictly limited to those normally and customarily associated with the sale of gasoline and automotive products. The facility shall not operate as a mini-market or convenience store. 26. The applicant shall have twenty-four. (24) month from the date of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 27. All on-site utilities shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of community development. 28. All dedicated . land and/or easements required by this approval if any shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 29, The CCBR's for this development shall be submitted to the director of community development for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits except for a permit for construction of the easterly wall which may be constructed as soon as the rough grading is certified. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners/operators of the businesses in the project. 30. Any revisions to tentative tract map required by approval of PP 86-21 shall be made prior to recordation of final map. 31 . That change of zone, Case No. C/Z 84-15, recommended for approval by the . planning commission to the city council on October 16, 1984 for the south east portion of the subject property be forwarded to the city council and approved prior to issuance of any permits on this project. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of the director of public works. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 1157 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the Private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 4. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed In accordance with city standards. S. Complete Improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the Improvements by the city. 6. All private streets and parking areas shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 7. Landscaping maintenance on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 8. Existing utilities on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. 9. Traffic safety striping on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided to the specifications of the director of public works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the director of public works before placing pavement markings. 10. 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. 11. Dedication of 60 feet of right-or-way on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans. 12. Installation of curb and gutter, matching paving and sidewalk on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive. 13. Waiver of access to Highway III and Fred Waring Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 14. Close unused driveway with full height curb and gutter. 15. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. 16. Installation of one-half landscaped median in Fred Waring Drive or cash payment for one-half the cost of landscaped median at the option of the director of public works. 7 �� PLANNING ODN"ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 R' r r' p. M nf•. ,.: 17. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval and be recorded before issuance of any permits associated with this project. 18. The most westerly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be restricted to right turn only ingress-egress by means of raised P.C.C. curb. 19. The most easterly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be designed so as to align with approved access points for Parcel Map 20894. 20. Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be cul-de-saced to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Cul-de-sacs shall be designed to city standards. .21. Parcel Map 21412 shall be recorded prior to filing of the final map for Tract 21624. 22. Reciprocal access agreements between PM 21412 and Tract 21624 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 23. Prior to map recordation Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be vacated. 24. All improvements relating to State Highway III shall be per state standards and specifications. City Fire Marshal: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a 3 hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a m i n i mum of 20 psi residual operating pressure In the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 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. 8 4/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 1157 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 86-21 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal". 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. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over 5,000 square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. /dlg 9 �d CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 17, 1986 CASE NO: PP 86-21 and TT 21624 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway Ill . APPLICANT: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 I. BACKGROUND: In October 1985 the applicant made a presentation to a subcommittee of planning commission and city council . At that time the proposal was anchored by a major supermarket. The subcommittee indicated that a supermarket was not a permitted use in the zone and suggested that a. farmers market would be a use that could be considered more favorably. The applicant subsequently found a farmers market operator and came back with the proposal presently before you. The applicant filed the various necessary applications on April 22, 1986. Due to certain aspects of the request, staff requested that the applicant make a presentation to planning commission in study session to obtain preliminary comment. The presentation was made at the May 6, 1986 planning commission meeting. Planning commission raised the following concerns based on the presenta- tion. 1. Location of the east loading area and it's adjacent residential neighbors. 2. The heights of the building (30 8 32 feet). 3. The appropriateness of large retail uses in the PC (4) zone (basically hotel and restaurants only with accessary uses) . PP 86-21 a TT 21624 4. Whether an amendment to the code is necessary to permit a service station in the PC (4) zone. 5. Whether the city is prepared to consider a code amendment to permit a drive-thru restaurant (Del Taco). Given the extreme sensitivity of the site as part of the gateway to the city, planning commission felt that some of the above issues were policy matters which require direction from city council prior to formal evaluation by the planning commission. Accordingly, the commission, by minute motion, directed staff to place the matter on the next available city council agenda for a presentation by the applicant and subsequent direction from the council to the planning commission. May 22, 1986 the applicant made a presentation before the city council . The city council offered no comment on the presentation and consequently no direction was obtained. In the presentation to the city council the applicant provided a detailed response to the concerns which had been raised by the planning commission May 6, 1986. Whether or not the responses adequately addressed the concerns in the minds of the city council members is not known. As a result staff has been left in a quandary: should the project be rejected based on the broad problems associated with the drive-thru restaurants; the question of the service station in the PC (4) zone; the question of the ranch market and the large clothing store or if these uses are not objectionable than the project should be reviewed in the normal fashion. Staff has chosen to follow the latter course (modified as will be shown) and reviewed the plan in the normal fashion and will suggest changes which would result in a superior development for the city should the first list of questionable matters be resolved satisfactorily. With this major policy matter still being unanswered staff will not .be able to recommend in favor of the project at this time. 11. PROPERTY: A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The property is an irregularly shaped parcel of approximately nine acres located at the northeast corner of Highway III and Fred Waring Drive. The flat vacant site is bounded on it's east side by three single family units and on it's north by the recently approved Raffles Hotel . The other two sides are bounded by streets. 2 PP 86-21 a TT 21624 B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PC (4) S.P./Approved Raffles Hotel South: PC (4)/Approved restaurants & hotel plan East: R-I/Single family residents West: PC (4)/Across Hwy ill restaurant park C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Resort Commercial III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to develop a 90,836 square foot retail/resort commercial develo9ment comprised of an 'L' shaped 64,200 square foot building tucked into the northeast corner of the lot and six satellite buildings (26,636 square feet) on the perimeter along Fred Waring Drive and Highway ill . The 64,200 square foot building would have, among other uses, the ranch market ( 16,000 square feet) and a large general retail store (25,000 square feet) . Other uses are general retail and restaurants both unspecified. The six satellite buildings are proposed as one general retail/ office, two general retail/restaurants, two drive-thru restaurants and a service station on the corner. B. SITE DESIGN, PARKING AND ACCESS: As noted previously the project consists of an 'L' shaped building tucked into the northeast corner of the site and six satellite buildings. Access to the site is provided from two driveways onto Fred Waring Drive. The westerly one being right turn in and right turn out while the easterly driveway will have a median break and provide full ingress - egress. One access point will be provided from Highway 111 . This will be right turn in and right turn out only. No median break or signalization will be provided. One final point of site access will come from the Raffles Hotel site. Access to the site is adequate. 3 PP 86-21 E TT 21624 Circulation on the site is provided via the main Fred Waring driveway which extends northerly and circles in front of the 'L' shaped building turns west and ends at Highway 111 . This same driveway provides access to the perimeter driveways which provide service to the loading docks on the east and north sides of the 'L' shaped building. For the most part the on site circulation is adequate. The one problem area of circulation involves the area of the service station. The driveway system in this area is convoluted, confusing and poorly defined. Staff has other concerns with placing of a service station on the corner but this circulation failure is enough to require that the service station be relocated on the site to a position where it will not negatively impact traffic circulation. Staff would also expect that traffic circulation will be altered in the area of the two drive-thru restaurants. This could be accomp- lished quite easily, provided more parking and not negatively impact the circulation. This is based on the assumption that the city will not amend it's policy prohibiting drive-thru restaurants. Specialty and district centers require five parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross leasable area. This plan has been prepared to provide 5.08 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. City code requires that 454 spaces be provide whereas 461 spaces are provided. Unfortunately most of the spaces have been designed below the size standard provided by code (9' X 20' requires, whereas 9' X 19' and 9' X 18-1/2' are delineated) . Given the circulation changes that will be required and the amount of property it Is possible to make the necessary changes and still conform to the code provisions. Extensive landscaping is proposed on the perimeter of the site as well as in the parking lot itself. C. CODE PROVISIONS IN CHART FORM: Code Requirement Provided Street Setbacks Fred Waring 20' 32' Highway 111 32' 32' Joshua Road 20' 32' Interior Setbacks East 20' 35' North 20' 50' Maximum Coverage No Limit 22% 4 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 Parking Space Count 454 461 Parking Space Size 9' X 20' 9' X 19, 8-1/2' X 17'* 9 X 18-1/2 Parking Lot Landscaping 20% 20.4% *Compact spaces permitted not to exceed 16% of total . D. ARCHITECTURE: Buildings are to utilize the same design theme as that developed for the Raffles Hotel and to extend it into the commercial and service area. Major elements of the design work are the use of off-white stucco, clay roof tiles and low slope roof structures. These elements will be enhanced by the use of tile, cast stone, and wood accents, and flattened arches, and other traditional forms. The ranch market will feature a raised central area with clerestory window lighting, creating the ranch or barn atmosphere. All satellite buildings will be subject to using the same materials and forms, and will further be required to meet the developer's architectural standards, as well as the city's. The preliminary architectural review of this project was conducted June 10, 1986 and staff will report on same at the hearing. IV. CONCERNS: Planning commission on May 6 expressed a series of concerns which the applicant has addressed. Staff will comment on the responses and then raise other concerns. 1 . Planning commission was concerned with the loading clock located in the east driveway area. The applicant responded as follows: 1 . Location of East Loading Area: Placing the loading area on the east side of the clothier actually provides additional separation from the adjacent residential . The loading area can be relocated to the north side of the building, but in doing so It will cause the building to move closer to the adjacent residential . As a possible solution, we would recommend leaving the loading area in its present position, but reducing its size from 20 feet to 14 feet, and increase the landscape buffer by an additional six feet. 5 'PP 86it2l 3 TT 21624 Staff Response: Staff feels that this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately by narrowing the loading dock the landscaping would only be widened in the area of the loading dock. Staff would suggest that the easterly landscape strip (presently 5 feet in width) should be increased to a minimum of 10 feet which will allow for significantly increased planting, specifically large, vertical trees which in addition to the seven foot high block wall and the four foot drop in the driveway should mitigate any impacts. As a further protection to the three single family dwellings located to the east of the site, limits should be placed on the gage. size and type of trucks that may deliver to the businesses and strictly limit delivery hours. The parking areas located in this area could also be designated employee parking only to limit turn over and subsequent traffic movements In this area. This additional five feet of landscaping can be achieved by deleting five feet from the southeast corner of the 'L' shaped building. This reduces the building area by 300 square feet. 2. Planning commission was concerned with the height of some of the buildings. The applicant responded as follows: 2. Height of Buildings: As stated earlier, all of the buildings are lower than the height limit of 35 feet, and only 2/100ths of 1% of the buildings are within five feet of the height limit, and less than 15% of the building area is within ten feet of the height limit. If we further reduce the height of the project, we will eliminate its architectural richness and it will be less in keeping with the intent of emulating the Raffles Resort Hotel . Staff Response: The applicant also provided a detailed height analysis which indicated the buildings should not negatively impact views in the area. Code limits height to 30 feet within 100 feet of residential property and 35 feet more than 100 feet from a residential zone. Most of the buildings will be 16 feet in height. Two of the buildings (ranch market and clothing store) will go to a maximum at the ridge of 30 feet. Immediately adjacent to the east property line the buildings will be 22 feet in height. Architectural features on the ranch market provide a maximum height of 32 feet at a distance of 272 feet from the east property line. Staff has no suggested height changes although the architectural commission may. 6 PP 86-21 a TT 21624 3. Planning commission was concerned with the larger retail uses (ranch market and clothier) in the PC (4) zone. The applicant responded as follows: 3. Larger Retail Uses in PC (4) Zone: The farmer's market building is 16,000 square feet in size and the clothier is 25,000 square feet in size. There are no size restrictions described in the PC (4) development standards (Section 25.30.240) for either use. The clothier is a permitted use in this zone and the farmer's market was a use request by the city during a study session occurring in October 1985. Staff Response: None 4. Planning commission was concerned with the operation of , a service station in the PC (4) zone. The applicant responded as follows: 4. Operation of a Service Station in PC (4) Zone: Although a service station is not specifically listed as a permitted use in a PC (4) zone, the use is not expressly restricted and this use presently exists in other PC (4) zones within the city. We appreciate the city's concern regarding service station operations, however, they do provide a needed use to the community and to the customers utilizing the adjacent hotel . We share in this concern and have intelligently integrated this use into the overall site planning of the project both architecturally and from a traffic standpoint. Further, this use will also be governed by CC & R's recorded against the entire project. Staff Response: Service stations do presently exist in the PC (4) zone and specific action was taken by planning commission and city council to allow the remodel of the Flying J. This was an existing station and city wished to see it improved. Therefore, the city should not feel compelled to permit a new service station in this zone. If it is determined that a service station is a permitted use in the zone then staff has some specific concerns with this station. As was mentioned in the circulation portion of this report the service station on the corner negatively impacts traffic circulation on the site. As well , staff is very disappointed with the result of the new Mobil Station at Monterey and Country Club. In addition city control of signage for 7 PP 86-21 3 TT 21624 service stations has been usurped by the state and we have very little control of the signage. Therefore, if a service station is deemed appropriate in the zone then on this plan staff would require it be relocated to a less prominent and less impacting location. 5. Planning commission was concerned with the operation of a drive-thru restaurant. The applicant responded as follows: 5. Operation of a Drive-Thru Restaurant: We understand the city's prohibition against drive-thru restaurants, however, we respectfully request the council 's consideration of a modification of the existing code to permit such a use only on a subjective, case-by-case basis. We believe that where the incorporation of a drive-thru can be intelligently integrated into a master-planned development, its use should be permitted. In the project before you, Del Taco has agreed to modify the archi- tecture of it's building to blend with the design of the center. The exterior building materials will be the same as those used in the center and a trellis will be used to soften the building, create shade and further enhance its appearance. Del Taco has worked and will continue to work closely with the project's architect to insure the compatibility of its design. The schematic elevations of the Del Taco building depict the character of the proposed building and indicate how the landscape berming along the street will eliminate visibility of the drive-thru from the public streets. Del Taco has found this treatment to be very successful on several other projects that were also sensitive in nature. To further guarantee the compatibility of the drive-thru with the project, we have: ( 1 ) performed a traffic study to insure adequate traffic circulation; and (2) the operation of the proposed Del Taco will be governed by CC & R's recorded against the entire center to insure proper management and maintenance. Finally, the proposed drive-thru service is a convenience and an asset to the handicapped, mothers with young children and others who desire not to have to leave their vehicle due to weather conditions. 8 7 � PP 86-21 a TT 21624 Del Taco has successfully integrated it's drive-thru facilities into many centers and cities concerned about creating an aesthetically appealing atmosphere. If afforded the opportunity, we will work diligently with the City of Palm Desert to design and operate a restaurant that will be an asset to all concerned. Copies of the study performed by BSI Consultants, Inc. have been made available to the planning commission and city council for their review. Staff Response: The matter of whether the city should change it's policy relative to prohibiting drive-thru restaurants is just that, a policy matter which must be resolved by the planning commission and ultimately the city council . Regardless of the result lie: whether the drive-thru's are deleted or not) the plan will need to be amended to provide for additional parking within closer proximity to the building. Presently there are only five spaces convenient to the one restaurant pad. Other Concerns: Trash facilities have been located in the landscape planter areas in the parking lot areas. These facilities should be placed in sunken pits and enclosed with proper landscape treatment. Lighting has been a major problem at the rear of the Monterey-Country Club center. We do not want to repeat this problem. Therefore, no light fixture wi I I be permitted above the height of the top of the wal I and they will be strictly controlled ( i .e. down shinning boxes. with shields only) . V. CONCLUSION: The plan as presently presented is not adequate to be approved by the planning commission, however, given all of the uncertainties facing the applicant some action is necessary. If the basic project is inherently objectionable to planning commission then by minute motion staff should be directed to prepare a resolution of denial . If the basic project is not inherently objectionable to commission should grant approval in concept subject to the plan being revised in accordance with all of the concerns raised by staff in it's report dated June 17, 1986. This revised plan will then be returned to planning commission at a future hearing. 9 PP 86-21 3 TT 21624 If this revised plan then obtains approval of the commission then the matter could be forwarded to the city council . If this occurs then a zone change from R-1 to PC (4) , affecting the extreme southeast corner of the site could be concluded in that the planning commission recommended approval of such a change of zone October 16, 1984. The case (C/Z 84-15) was never forwarded to the city council for it's approval due to the lack of an approved precise plan for the property in question. j Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg 10 (Utn� o:ff nDM T= 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 86-21 & TT 21624 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Precise plan of design to allow construction of a 90,836 square foot retail/resort commercial development on a nine (9) acres site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway Ill . 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. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /dig 7 � INITIAL STUDY CASE NO'S. PP 86-21 a TT 21624 PARADISE PALMS NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) I . EARTH a. The project will result in grading to a maximum depth of five feet. Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures. The site is relatively flat so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions. b. . As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place on the site. C. The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties, and better direction. d. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site, through proper grading resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. _ MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits `procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifica- tions and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed by UBC requirements to insure that the building s are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth therein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. 2. AIR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential . dust problem is a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. T 7 PP 86-21 a TT 21624 Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a 1985 draft environmental impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park View Drive Land Use Study. Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. b. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. C. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. b. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, .however, the landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material . The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a control manner. C. See b. In addition, the Palm Valley Channel was constructed to protect the area in general and site in particular from f l ood waters coming from the areas that devastated Palm Desert in 1976 and 1979. d. There is no ground water present on the site. e. See d. f. While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies; the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. 2 PP 86-21 6 TT 21624 4. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the site contains weeds and sagebrush. The project when completed will introduce , a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be introduced to the site will , however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The site doe snot contain any unique, rare or endangered . species of plant life. C. It is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. 5. ANIMAL LIFE a. The project will not increase or decrease the variety of animal life on the site. b. The site does not contain any rare or endangered species of animal. C. See b and' c. d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable habitat for wildlife. 6. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project while obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. b. All material resources used on the site are renewable. 7. a & b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature. 8. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials. 9. a. As discussed earlier the project will have a positive impact in terms of drainage impacts on adjacent properties. 3 PP 86-21 a TT 21624 b. Properties in the area are not subject to unusual geologic hazards. The project will not effect that hazard. 10. NOISE Construction and subsequent operation of commercial center will increase ambient noise level . The increase may be detrimental or create an annoyance to the residential properties to the south. Single event noise impacts from truck deliveries will create disturbances to the neighbors to the south (see staff report for complete discussion of noise impacts) . MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise from truck deliveries will have to be mitigated so that noise levels set In General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded. il . LAND USE The project will not alter the present developed land use in the area. The planned land use for the area is identified as resort commercial ; the project would develop land uses permitted in the resort commercial land use designation. 12. OPEN SPACE The site in question is designated as resort commercial ; its development therefore will not result in a reduction in the amount of designated open space. 13. POPULATION a. The project is resort commercial project on vacant land and will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 14. EMPLOYMENT While the project will provide a number of new jobs, in terms of the value as a whole in and of itself it is minor. However, when the cumulative effects of commercial/resort development is analyzed the Impact on employment is significant. Most of the jobs created, 4 neem 3 azexe nxwJim �Jsoa � aaaws uaxw asc OOQL 1aa � 1 � I ' w I I / F K / G 6a� � e l K � w t w W J \ l I �Ig ji y 1s , —`l� jr�� .e f i F '' i_a n..S- Yc \J ♦�;"�.'[ ..K.ca ir{ ��7 ��. i 1�. r ES•'t� _r i� I �•.' i US 57 Ent ;a O f l i Q� • � - .�." IIWW11ii as 1 Description of Site & Surrounding Area: The site is an irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 9 acres, located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. The existing condition of the site is flat. Elevation of 200 feet above sea level with no existing vegetation of significance. On the easterly boundary are located 3 single family homes on two dead-end streets. Northerly boundary is bordered by vacant land and to the northwest by the Raffles Hotel Resort complex which will soon be under construction. Across Highway 111 to the west is a commercial development while across Fred Waring Drive to the south is a service station at the corner and vacant land to the east. Description of Proposed Development: This project is to be developed as an integral part of the Raffles complex and will be architecturally and functionally a part of the resort. The design concept of the project is to extend the spanish atmosphere of the hotel into the commercial center of the village. Free-standing restaurants and service buildings are spaced around the street perimeter of the site, spreading the parking load and allowing good site lines to a compact composition of moderately sized retail buildings at the northeast corner. These buildings are 2 to 3.5 times the required set-back from the adjacent residences. The set-back area is being used for the required 7 foot screen wall, landscape screening, service drive and parking. Service traffic to the buildings is expected to be light, and will be limited to the -3- hours of--8:00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m., 6 days a week. The major truck loading areas are sunken to hide them from the adjacent properties. Vehicular & Pedestrian Access: Automobile circulation is shared with the Raffles project. There are three major points of access to the center, two from Fred Waring Drive and one from Highway 111. No left-hand turning movements are proposed from Highway 111, and one of the Fred Waring access openings is restricted to right-in/right-out turning movements only. No access is taken from the residential streets to the east. Pedestrian access is provided to the residential area and from the hotel. A bike path/sidewalk combination has been provided at the street perimeter throughout. Landscaping & On-Site Lighting: The walk/bikeway meanders through a mounded landscape border which is a minimum of 26 feet and averages more than 30 feet deep. The berming will effectively screen much of the parking area and will be planted with grass and deciduous trees with accents of shrubs and flowers. The interior landscaping features both date palm and fan palm trees, ground cover, potted trees and flowers. Site lighting will be provided by "Form 10" type high pressure sodium lights at low mounting height. Shielding will be provided on lights so that no spill light will leave the site. Architectural Design: Buildings are to utilize the same design theme as that developed- -4- much lower than the imposed height limit. All of the proposed buildings are below the height limitation imposed by code. In fact, only 2/100ths of 1% of the buildings are within 5 feet of the height limit, and less than 15% are within 10 feet of the limit. Buildings are so positioned that they do not interfere with solar access to the homes, nor do they block the view to the foothills and mountains to the west and southland. The larger buildings are set wall back (400 feet minimum) from the street so they do not cut off views to create the "concrete canyon" common in commercial areas. In fact site lines from adjacent areas are lower over this development than over a typical residential project. (For additional details and further information, please see the enclosed Height Study.) Response To Concerns Raised by the Planning Commission There are five points which the Planning Commission has requested direction from the City Council. 1. Location of East Loading Area: Placing the loading area on the east side of the clothier actually provides additional separation from the adjacent residential. The loading area can be relocated to the north side of the building, but in doing so it will cause the building to move closer to the adjacent residential. As a possible solution, we would recommend leaving the loading area in its present position, but reducing its size from 20 feet to 14 feet, and increase the landscape buffer by an additional 6 feet. -6- for the Raffles Hotel and to extend it into the commercial and service area. Major elements of the design work are the use of off-white stucco, clay roof tiles and low slope roof structures. These elements will be enhanced by the use of tile, cast stone, and wood accents, and flattened arches and other traditional forms. The ranch market will feature a raised central area with clerestory window lighting, creating the ranch or barn atmosphere. The clothier building is a moderately large size building and special care has been taken to keep its profile low adjacent to the residential areas, while keeping the front of the building high enough to give scale to the village atmosphere which we are seeking. The shop buildings are low profile, small scale, and are broken up to provide interest. All satellite buildings will be subject to using the same materials and forms, and will further be required to meet the developers architectural standards, as well as the City's. The service station .and the proposed drive-thru restaurant are master planned into the design of the center, using a "back-to-front" layout which buffers these uses from public view with over 30 feet of landscaping. Signage is being developed in conjunction with the Raffles Hotel and all signage including site stop signs, skateboard signs, etc. will be coordinated. Neighboring Residential Considerations: A special effort is being made to be a good neighbor to existing uses. Set-backs for buildings adjacent to the residential area are much greater than required, and buildings are consistently -5- entire project. 5. Operation of a Drive-Thru Restaurant: We under- stand the City's prohibition against drive-thru restaurants, however, we respectfully request the Council's consideration of a modification of the existing code to permit such a use only on a subjective, case-by-case basis. We believe that where the incorporation of a drive-thru can be intelligently integrated into a master-planned development, its use should be permitted. In the project before you, Del Taco has agreed to modify the architecture of its building to blend with the design of the Center. The exterior building materials will be the same as those used in the Center and a trellis will be used to soften the building, create shade and further enhance its appearance. Del Taco has worked, and will continue to work, closely with the project's architect to insure the compatibility of its design. The schematic elevations of the Del Taco building depict the character of the proposed building and indicate how the landscape berming along the street will eliminate visibility of the drive- thru from the public streets. Del Taco has found this treatment to be very successful on several other projects that were also sensitive in nature. To further guarantee the compatibility of the drive-thru with the project, we have: (1) performed a traffic study to insure adequate traffic circulation; and (2) the operation of the proposed Del Taco will be governed by CC&R's recorded against -g- _ 2. Height of Buildings: As stated earlier, all of the buildings are lower than the height limit of 35 feet, and only 2/100ths of 1% of the buildings are within 5 feet of the height limit, and less than 15% of the building area is within 10 feet of the height limit. If we further reduce the height of the project, we will eliminate its architectural richness, and it will be less in keeping with the intent of emulating the Raffles Resort Hotel. 3. Larger Retail Uses in PC-4 Zone: The "Farmer's Market" building is 16,000 square feet in size, and the clothier is 25,000 square feet in size. There are no size restrictions described in the PC-4 Development Standards (Section .25.30.240) for either use. The clothier is a permitted use in this zone, and the "Farmer's Market" was a use requested by the city during a Study Session occurring in October, 1985. 4. Operation of a Service Station in PC-4 Zone: Al- though a service station is not specifically listed as a permitted use in a PC-4 zone, the use is not expressly restricted, and this use presently exists in other PC-4 zones within the city. We appreciate the city's concern regarding service station operations, however, they do provide a needed use to the community and to the customers utilizing the adjacent hotel . We share in this concern, and have intelligently integrated this use into the overall site planning of the project both architecturally and from a traffic standpoint. Further, this use will also be governed by CC&R's recorded against the -7- the entire center to insure proper management and maintenance. Finally, the proposed drive-thru service is a convenience and an asset to the handicapped, mothers with young children, and others who desire not to have to leave their vehicle due to weather conditions. Del Taco has successfully integrated its drive-thru facilities into many centers and cities concerned about creating an aesthetically appealing atmosphere. If afforded the opportunity, we will work diligently with the City of Palm Desert to design and operate a restaurant that will be an asset to all concerned. Copies of the study performed by BSI Consultants, Inc. have been made available to the Planning Commission & City Council for their review. -9- a_ r r �\ 3p 8 ff= ZWQ Q�W NaN J� oN a � md � W p 00 '\ \\ 7 v Illi ' % �,. ,,- a a , I Presentation To City Council Study Session Retail/Resort Commercial Development NEC Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California Submitted By: Joseph L. Seitz Santa Anita Development Corporation 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone: (714) 644-6440 May 22, 1986 -1- Table of Contents Description of Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Description of Proposed Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Vehicular & Pedestrian Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Landscaping & On-Site Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Architectural Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Neighboring Residential Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . 5 Response to Planning Commission Concerns. . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix Site Plan of Resort & Retail Developments. . . . . . . . 10 Site Plan of Retail Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Elevations (Farmer's Market/Clothier/Shops) . . . . 12 & 13 Height Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Elevations (Del Taco) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Elevations (Service Station) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 -2- a, k. }A Cl[G.�t f6A lxx f end.d0 EA4,f 6"¢vA1iON i'tn vwt r rya Pv nt+h. �..p,.Puh1 -«rf a..o•.w Pt Lt N05¶I ELEVAj ION ipu��'o ' JS+Gr.r'urn( yr 11 Gqf \VE,f E6k,�Af1m-I n...c.•u.nn(f.cc f,r r..»..�s) V��'•�'n ww'oP""'f�w fw P.../ AVM uunsv. .n:/N a. �rym+ {W•we my uuf✓m / •u'nvnt fm rv.•�o.p ew{iK �•'. .>�wa•J4C . b4_ BARADRSE PALMS CENTER r�..O CORP. �Greene Jenseno SEP. JOH L. BWTZ • i • m I s1�11 �I* 4 0 , ). .i L, Y � : x = a a a : • ' ! T � I i i I I ZOGI Nf ° gum ` f tl I = �a a M LIZ zi 0,0 { _ IY� � � S a w 48 640 033 004 58 640 020 005 46 640 033 006 Donald & Evelyn Penningroth FAR WEST SERVICES, INC. George Stone Florence Lopez, Sd. 2701 Alton St. Blanca Figueroa, Sd. _ Irvine, CA 92713 43831 Joshua Rd. P.O. Box 1984 Palm Desert, CA 92262 Palm Desert, CA 92261 49 640 033 003 59 640 020 006 Robert Fredmonsky CAL WEST REAL, ESTATE FUND 80 8502 Cleta St. c/o August Fin Corp Las Sombras Downey, CA 90241 P .O. Box 22630 Long Beach, CA 90801 50 640 033 002 60 640 020 007 Nathon & Etta Cetner PDR Associates 1439 Castello Ave. 1600 Dove St. , Ste. 130 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Newport Beach, CA 92660 51 Sydney Cetner 61 640 020 008 1 Joe & Isabel Coelho 439 Castello Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90035 2862 McCaw Ave. Irvine, CA 92714 i I 640 040 010 62 640 020 013 52 6 PD 111 Partnership CVCWDc/o Mission Bay Inv Inc. c/o CVCWD P.O. .O. Box 82838 .O. Box 1058 Coachella, CA 92236 San Diego, CA 92138 i 53 640 040 009 - 63 640 020 003 ONE QUAIL PLACE Jan Mitchell 2182 Dupont Dr. 595 Madison Ave. Suite 214 New York, NY 10022 Irvine, CA 92715 54 640 110 006 64 640 032 006 CVCWD DSL Service Co. P.O. Box 1058 21791 Lake Forest Dr. 200 Coachella-; CA 92236 El-Toro, CA 92630 I i 55 640 110 002 John Boler 4001 13th Ave. S Fargo, ND 58103 56 640 110 001 NESTE, BRUDIN & STONE Robert Hatch, Tr. P.O. Box 851 P.O. Box 30007 Hemet, CA 92343 Salt Lake City, UT 84130 57 640 090 076 CARMA DEVELOPERS, INC. 16592 Hale Ave. Irvine , CA 92714 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: MAYOR KELLY AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1986 SUBJECT: SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT - NORTHEAST CORNER HIGHWAY III AND FRED WARING DRIVE As directed by city council at its August 14, 1986 meeting, planning commission at its September 2, 1986 meeting reconsidered the application by Santa Anita Development. The matter was discussed extensively in study session as well as during the regular meeting. After much discussion planning commission reaffirmed its previous decision. The basis of the reaffirmation (3-2) was as follows: Municipal Code 25.30.025 states: The uses considered to be related commercial uses shall be liberally construed as those uses customarily connected, associated and affiliated with the principal uses established for the Resort Center Zone District. Code therefore directs the city to "liberally construe" uses in addition to the long list of permitted uses contained in the ordinance. The only limit being that the uses must be related to a hotel . Commission concluded that there is no question that the proposed development is associated with the hotel site to the northwest. The site plan provides driveway connections, sidewalk and walkway connections, the sites will have a uniform landscaped theme as well as uniform architectural theme. Planning commission concluded that the proposed farmers market while not being the traditional open air market does offer a needed service. Commission concluded that the farmers market as proposed ( 16,000 square feet) 1s significantly different from the typical grocery store (Vons, Raiphs, etc. ) which range in size from 40.,000-75,000 square feet. in addition it was noted that this farmers market replaced a proposed 65,000 square foot Albertson's store proposed on this plan when it was originally submitted in October, 1985. The farmers market will have a limited range of goods including gourmet meats, fruits and fine wines. This type of facility would obviously lend Itself to the all-suite hotel proposed by Raffles in that each suite will have its own kitchenette facilities. Having a farmers market of the type proposed within walking distance should result in less traffic congestion. a , SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 13, 1986 The service station on the site will be a real convenience to guests of the hotel In that they will not need to leave the site to obtain gas and create traffic conflicts on Fred Waring and Highway Ill . In addition, commission felt that everyone should remember the gas lines of 1979. The city has lost several service stations since then and should not take an anti-service station position given that the developer has given staff and architectural commission assurances that this service station will be designed to their total and complete satisfaction. in fact, the architectural commission has already given a preliminary approval with a long list of required additions specifically related to the service station design and landscaping. With respect to the concern that this commercial development is so close to the residential uses to the east it was noted that the applicant had written to Mr. Evers, the gentleman who appeared at the August 14, 1986 hearing, and expressed a willingness to cooperate in all respects and has done so. In response to the overall question, "Is this project appropriate for the zoning on the land?" Commission first looked at the overall appropriateness of this development In this location. Commission discussed at length whether the city could reasonably expect to see this nine acre site develop with another hotel to the city's high standard or another restaurant park. Considering that five restaurants are approved for the property south of Fred Waring Drive and five restaurants exist in the Las Sombres center across Highway Ill and a restaurant will be Included in the Raffles project it was felt that that ruled out additional restaurants in the foreseeable future. Planning Commission considered the type and quality of hotels which have shown a desire and commitment to locate on the busiest street in the valley. Except for Raffles these hotels would not meet our present hotel standards. Commission felt that the only type of hotel the city would approve at this point in time would be a Hyatt Regency or similar quality of project. Given the limited success of the recently completed hotels on Palm Canyon in Palm Springs it was felt unlikely that more quality hotels would be constructed unless they are on their own golf course. Commission thus concluded that it was unlikely that either of the primary uses for PC (4) zone (hotel or restaurants) would occur on this site. Commission then discussed the desirability of the proposed development and concluded that with the revisions to the plan it is a reasonable, logical and desirable use for the property. 2 SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 13, 1986 Commission, having agreed that the proposal was desirable, then discussed whether it was acceptable in the PC (4) zone. Commission decided that given the overall integration of the proposal with the Raffles Hotel development and the direction from the ordinance that additional uses should be "liberally construed" then voted and reaffirmed Its decision of July I , 1986 and recommends approval of the project as revised. RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/SRS/tm 3 1 618 291 006 8 618 300 010 1 16 640 031 00 3obert H. 7 Clark , Jr .. Tr Michael A. Remblis �/o rt . Co. Kristine A. Stark William & Jonnalea Cox 4805 S• Maple St. 72310 Barbara Dr. C/o Wm. J. Cox 3ardena, CA 90248 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Palm Desert, CA 92260 9 640 031 010 9 618 301 001 6 17 640 031 008 9 640 031 015 Roy W. Sanders 18 640 031 009 Joseph & Marie Mc Gaffin Evelyn E. Sanders William & Jonnalea Cox 6723 E. Aire Libre Ln. 1 72311 Barbara Dr. c/o Wm. J. Cox Scottsdale , AZ 85254 RanchoMirage, CA 92270 palm Desert, CA 92260 2 618 291 002 10 616 300 009 1 19 ph 031 010 3 3 618 291 003 Margot V. Morrison Joseph & Marie M. McGaffin 6723 E. Aire Libre Ln. Pauline Morrow 72334 Barbara Dr. Box 234 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Scott-sdale , Az 85254 Cedar Pines. Park, CA 9232� I I 5 618 291 004 11 618 301 002 7 20 640 031 011 4 Charles Berry R. Thomas & Christine Wayne Louis Fernberg Jr. 72335 Barbara Dr. 72435 Cholla Dr. 20696 S. Woodland Rd. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Shaker Heights, OHIO 4412,2 j > 4 618 290 010 12 618 301 003 8 21 640 031 012 5 Linda Ivey Eddv L. Vincent & Elaine M. Robert B. & Natalie T. Patricia Naae, Sd. 1 72361 Barbara Dr. Schelly 45998 Ocotillo Dr. $,5 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 72445 Cholla Dr . Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA. 92260 6 618 290 009 1 13 618 301 004 9 22 640 031 005 9 Sarah E. Miller Ursula Glissman Joan Lomonaco James Bocheck 431 Amber Ln. 72440 Cholla Dr . 72268 Barbara Dr- Santa Maria, CA 93454 Palm Desert , CA 92260 Rancho Mirage , CA 92270 7 618 291 005 0 14 640 031 001 5 23 640 031 004 8 Wm. & Gullan E. Chase Robert R. McLachlan Mabel E. Dayton P.O. Box 181 75075 El Paseo 72450 Cholla Dr . Rancho Mirage , CA 92270 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert , CA 92260 24 640 C33 013 2 32 64 '. C31 018 40 660 G32 00" Sally L. Vade 33 640 031 019 Coieta Vasquez 43600 Joshua Rd. 72450 Brushwood Dr . palm Desert , CA 92260 William & Jonnalea Cox Palm Desert , CA 92260 C/o Wm. J. Cox P.O. Box 967 Palm Desert, CA 92260 41 640 032 005 25 640 033 012 1 34 640 032 002 9 Donna Owens Sally C. & Donald D. Donald Lee & Geraldine 72440 Brushwood Dr. Allen Faulkner Palm Desert, CA 92260 P.O. Box 256 72435 Cactus Dr . Palm Desert, CA 92261 Palm Desert, CA 92260 26 640 033 011 0 35 640 032 003 42 640 032 007 Herbert Elkie Richard & Dolores Moreno Donald G. & Brenda J. 72445 Cactus Dr. Rowan 72435 Brushwood Dr . Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 75255..Stardust Ln. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Indian Wells, CA 92260 640 031 013 6 36 640 033 010 43 640 032 008 27 Daryl & Sandra Phillips Bobby & Gayleen Snyder Terry B. Henderson Michael Levine, Sd. 72445 Brushwood Dr. 72450 Cactus Dr. c/o Michael Levine Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 16069 Sherlock Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 28 640 031 014 7 37 640 033 009 44 640 032 010 Harold R. & Helen Steele Stephen & Frances Hiscok Donald & Evelyn Penningroth 72440 Cactus Dr. P.O. Box 1578 Florence Lopez, Sd. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92261 222 Teague Dr. San Dimas , CA 91773 29 640 031 015 8 38 640 033 008 45 640 032 009 Joseph & Marie M MCGaffin Clayton & Pamela Preble Thomas & Sandra Castle 6723 E,./Aire Libre Ln. Richad & Marilyn Fromme 72450 Manzanita Dr . Scottsdale, A2 85254 c/o Ricahrd Fromme Palm Desert, CA 92260 71467 Estellita Dr. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 39 640 033 007 47 640 033 005 30 640 031 01 Joseph & Jeanne Salvo 31 640 031 017 2153 Southridge Dr. Russell & Elva Jean Barr William & Jonnalea Cox 73260 Lone Mountain c/o Wm. J. Cox Palm Springs, CA 92262 palm Desert, CA 92260 P .O. Box 967 Palm Desert, CA 92260 48 640 033 004 56 640 020 005 46 640 033 006 Donald & Evelyn Penningroth FAR WEST SERVICES, INC. George Stone Florence Lopez, Sd. 2701 Alton St. 43631 Joshua Rd. Blanca Figueroa, Sd. Irvine, CA 92713 Palm Desert, CA 92262 P.O. Box 1984 Palm Desert, CA 92261 49 640 033 003 59 640 020 006 Robert Fred onsky CAL WEST REAL ESTATE FUND 80 8502 Cleta St. c/o August Fin Corp Las ScMbras Downey, CA 90241 P.O. Box 22630 Long Beach, CA 90801 50 640 033 002 60 640 020 007 Nathon & Etta Cetner PDR Associates 1439 Castello Ave. 1600 Dove St. , Ste. 130 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Newport Beach, CA 92660 i 61 640 020 008 51 Sydney Cetner 1 Joe & Isabel Coelho 439 Castello Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90035 2862 McCaw Ave. Irvine, CA 92714 i 52 640 040 010 62 640 020 013 PD ill Partnership CVCWD c/o Mission Bay Inv Inc. c/o CVCWD P.O. Box 82838 P.O. Box 1058 San Diego, CA 92138 Coachella, CA 92236 53 640 040 009 63 640 020 003 ONE QUAIL PLACE Jan Mitchell ' 2162 Dupont Dr. 595 Madison Ave. Suite 214 New York, NY 10022 Irvine, CA 92715 54 640 110 006 64 640 032 006 CVCWD DSL Service Co. P.O. Box 1058 21791 Lake Forest Dr. 200 r,o4chella-; CA 92236 El Toro, CA 92630 55 640 110 002 John Boler 4001 13th Ave. S Fargo, ND 58103 56 640 110 001 NESTE, BRUDIN & STONE Robert Hatch, Tr. P.O. Box 851 P.O. Box 30007 Hemet, CA 92343 Salt Lake City, UT 84130 57 640 090 076 CARMLk DEVELOPERS , INC . 16 92 Hale A'.'e • 618 291 006 8 618 300 010 1 15 640 031 00c <obert H. Clark, Jr . Tr Michael A. Remblis 16 640 031 007 ;/o Cosway Co. Kristine A. Stark William & Jonnalea Cox _4805 S. Maple St. 72310 Barbara Dr . C/o Wm. J. Cox ;ardena, CA 90248 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 palm Desert, CA 92260 640 031 9 640 031 010 9 618 301 001 6 17 640 031 008 9 640 031 015 Roy W. Sanders William & Jonnalea Cox Joseph & Marie Mc Gaffin Evelyn E. Sanders 6723 E. Aire Libre Ln. 72311 Barbara Dr. c/o Wm. J . Cox Scottsdale , AZ 85254 RanchoMirage, CA 92270 Palm Desert? CA 92260 2 618 291 002 10 618 300 009 1 19 640 031 010 3 3 618 291 003 Margot V. Morrison Joseph & Marie M. McGaffin Pauline Morrow 72334 Barbara Dr. 6723 E. Aire Libre Ln. Box 234 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Scottsdale, Az 85254 Cedar Pines. Park, CA 92322 291 004 11 618 301 002 7 20 640 031 011 4 5 618 uis F291004 Jr. Charles Berry R. ' Thomas & Christine Wayne Lo 2696 S. Woodland Rd. 72335 Barbara Dr. 72435 Cholla Dr . Shaker Heights, OHIO 44122 Rancho Mirage, C , CA 92260 A 92270 Palm Desert 4 618 290 010 12 618 301 003 8 21 640 031 012 5 Linda Ivey Eddv L. Vincent & Elaine M. Robert B. & Natalie T. Patricia Naae, Sd. 72361 Barbara Dr. Schelly 45998 Ocotillo Dr. #5 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 72445 Cholla Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA. 92260 6 618 290 009 1 13 618 301 004 9 22 640 031 005 9 Ursula Glissman Joan Lomonaco Sarah E. Miller James Bocheck 431 Amber Ln. 72440 Cholla Dr . 72268 Barbara Dr. Santa Maria, CA 93454 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 7 618 291 005 0 14 640 031 001 5 23 640 oil 004 8 Wm. & Gullan E. Chase Robert R. McLachlan ton P .O. Box 181 75075 E1 Paseo 72450 Cholla Dr. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 013 2 32 � 4 '' IC 4C 6 4 C CSC Sall,_ L . Dade 33 640 C31 019 Coleta Vasouez 43600 Joshua Rd. 72450 Brushwood Dr . Palm Desert, CA 92260 William & Jonnalea Cox Palm Desert , CA 92260 C/o Wm. J. Cox P.O. Box 967 Palm Desert, CA 92260 91 640 032 005 25 640 033 012 1 34 640 032 002 9 Donna Owens Sally C. & Donald D. Donald Lee & Geraldine 72440 Brushwood Dr . Allen Faulkner Palm Desert, CA 92260 P.O. Box 256 72435 Cactus Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92261 Palm Desert, CA 92260 26 640 033 011 0 35 640 032 003 42 640 032 007 Herbert Elkie Richard & Dolores Moreno Donald G. & Brenda J. 72445 Cactus Dr. Rowan 72435 Brushwood Dr . Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 75255..Stardust Ln. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Indian Wells, CA 92260 27 640 031 013 6 36 640 033 010 43 640 032 008 B. Henderson Daryl & Sandra Phillips Bobby & Gayleen Snyder Terry Terry Cactus Dr. Michael Levine, Sd. 72445 Brushwood Dr. 72450 Palm Desert, Dr 92260 c/o Michael Levine Palm Desert, CA 92260 16069 Sherlock Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 28 640 031 014 7 37 640 033 009 44 640 032 010 Harold K. & Helen Steele Stephen & Frances Hiscok Donald & Evelyn Penningroth 72440 Cactus Dr. P.O. Box 1578 Florence Lopez , Sd. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92261 222 Teague Dr. San Dimas, CA 91773 29 640 031 015 8 38 640 033 008 45 640 032 009 Joseph & Marie M McGaffin Clayton & Pamela Preble Thomas & Sandra Castle 6723 E✓Aire Libre Ln. Richad & Marilyn Fromme 72450 Manzanita Dr. Scot .'dale, AZ 85254 c/o Ricahrd Fromme Palm Desert, CA 92260 71467 Estellita Dr. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 30 640 031 016 39 640 033 007 47 640 033 005 31 640 031 017 Joseph & Jeanne Salvo Russell & Elva Jean Barr William & Jonnalea Cox 2153 Southridge Dr .palm Springs CA 92262 73260 Lone Mountain , C/o Wm. J. Cox Palm Desert, CA 92260 P.O. Box 967 Palm Desert, CA 92260 MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING • • . • • • • • • , • • • • AUGUST 14, 198 Councilman Wilson said that the project looked too heavy to be Just general retail . He said the Intent of the PC4 zone is not what was being proposed ; it was to be auxilliary services to a hotel zone. He said to him a farmers ' market was an outdoor market with a festive atmosphere, not a deluxe grocery store. He said he had a problem with restaurants being as close to a residential area as proposed in this project. Councilmember Benson moved to Instruct staff to prepare a of dental and to refer the matter to the Planning Commission foreso comment,� said comments and resolution of denial to be presented to the Council at its meeting of September 11 , 1986. . Motion died for lack of a second. With Council concurrence, Mayor Kelly reopened the hearing for further testimony. MS . CAMILLE COURTNEY , D & D DEVELOPMENT, said her firm owned the land which was now In escrow for this project. She felt the farmers' market was festive and a desirable ancillary use for the hotel . She said the uses proposed were dictated by the market place. She .said they were agreeable to a continuance if it expedited approval . Mayor Kelly declared the hearing closed. Councilman Wilson moved to continue the matter to the meeting of September 11 , 1.986 , with direction to staff to take it back to the Planning Commission with Council ' s concerns and to particular a closer look at the. question of "i s this project appropriate for the zoning on the land? " Councilmember Benson seconded the motion . Motion carried by unanimous vote. D . REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SENIOR OVERLAY CHANGE OF ZONE , PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 113 CONVENTIONAL SENIOR APARTMENTS ON 7 . 2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE BETWEEN SAN TROPEZ VILLAS AND THE FOUNDATION FOR THE RETARDED ( PALM DESERT VILLAS, INC. , APPLICANT) . Mayor . Kelly declared the hearing open report . and asked for staff s Mr . Diaz reviewed the report and recommendation for approval . 18 i i L -- MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST` Y,, 1986 12 . Special attention shall be given to assure that cars are adequately screened even if higher berming Is needed. Upon motion . by Wilson , second by Benson , Resolution No. 86-92 , amended to include revised Conditions 12 and 23 , was adopted by unanimous vote of the City Council . C . REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE , PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN , TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL/RESORT COMMERCIAL PROJECT OF SOME 90 ,636 SQUARE FEET ON A NINE ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND HIGHWAY III ( JOE SEITZ , APPLICANT) , I Mr . Diaz reviewed the staff report and recommendation, noting that the Commission, in its review and approval of the project ; had dealt with concerns about the building i heights , a farmers market , a service station, and drive -through restaurants . He said a e drive roug �• restaurants had teen eliminated because current City policy prohibited them. He said that concerns about - the other items had been mitigated by the developer . He suggested that the Council add a condition of approval -that would require: "buildings on the Independent pads be brought to the City Council for final approval after i Architectural Review Commission approval . " He concluded by stating that both staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project . Councilman Wilson stated there was over 47 , 000 sq. ft . of commercial uses in this project , and he did not think that At fit into the PC4 zone . He asked if that was discussed -at .the Planning Commission and if so, what were some :of the conclusions that justified these uses in the PC4 zone. Mr. Diaz responded that the Commission had concluded that the hotel project and this project were one entire project and that these buildings were ancillary to the hotel . Councilmember Benson said she did not consider a grocery store an ancillary use to a hotel . Planning Commission Chairman Buford Crites said that the Commission felt that the farmers ' market was unique and would be good adjacent to a hotel . In response, Council - member Benson said she had visited the Christian Bros . 16 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St. Rm 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92502 FROM: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the public resources code. Protect Title/Common Name: Paradise Palms Center Date of Pro3ect Approval : January 8, 1987 State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted): N/A Contact Person: Steve Smith Project Location: Northeast corner Highway III and Fred Waring Drive. Project Description: 90,636 square foot retail/resort commercial center This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project ( ) will , (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An environmental impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the environmental impact report may be examined at the above city hall address. _X A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures (X) were, ( ) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for this project. Signature -title Date Received for Filing Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope. 1 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 86-21 3 TT 21624 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Precise plan of design to allow construction of a 90,836 square foot retail/resort commercial development on a nine (9) acres site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 . 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. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /dig INITIAL STUDY CASE NO'S. PP 86-21 a TT 21624 PARADISE. PALMS NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) I . EARTH a. The project will result in grading to a maximum depth of five feet. Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures. The site is relatively flat so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions. b. . As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced. over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place on the site. C. The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid Increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties, and better direction. d. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site, through proper grading resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifica- tions and the settlement and. expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed by UBC requirements to insure that the building s are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth therein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. 2. AiR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem Is a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. I _ _ PP 86-21 i TT 21624 i Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air ion is orted by the iscussions quality. This conclu relating to air quality conteinedsup ln a 1985 draft environmental Impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park View Drive Land Use Study. Completed. development of the site will result in less dust 1 eav i ng the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. b. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. C. Development of this site will not result in any climatic _ changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be constructed to acceprected to rainage t the water from thef ties designed and sitei b, The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however, the landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material . The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a control manner. c,, See b. In addition. the Palm Valley Channel was constructed to prott the ara in d site in ular ood waters coml gefrom the eareas ral nthat devastated cPalmfDesert rom l in 1976 and 1979. d. There is no ground water present on the site. i i e. See d. f, While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies: the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition. the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. 2 PP WZ1 a TT 21624 4. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the site contains weeds and sagebrush. The project when completed will introduce a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be introduced to the site will , however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The site 'doe snot contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. C. It is extremely doubtful that the project will Introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production In the area. 5. ANIMAL LIFE: a. The project will not increase or decrease the variety of animal life on the site. b. The site does not contain any rare or endangered species of animal , C. See b and c. d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable habitat for wildlife. 6. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project while obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the .rate of usage of these resources. b. All material resources used on the site are renewable. 7. a & b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage wi I be less than on previous projects of a similar nature. 8. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials. 9. a. As discussed earlier the project will have a positive impact in terms of drainage impacts on adjacent properties. 3 Y PP W21 a TT 21624 b. Properties in the area are not subject to unusual geologic hazards. The project will not effect that hazard. 10. NOISE Construction and subsequent operation of commercial center will increase ambient noise level . The increase may be detrimental or create an annoyance to the residential . properties to the south. Single event noise impacts from truck deliveries will create disturbances to the neighbors to the south (see staff report for complete discussion of noise impacts) . MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise from truck deliveries will have to be mitigated so that noise levels set in General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded. 11 . LAND USE The project will not alter the present developed land use in the area. The planned land use for the area is identified as resort commercial ; the project would develop land uses permitted in the resort commercial land use designation. 12. OPEN SPACE The site in question is designated as resort commercial ; its development therefore will not result in a reduction in the amount of- designated open space. 13. POPULATION a. The project is resort commercial project on vacant land and will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 14. EMPLOYMENT While the project will provide a number of new jobs, in terms of the value as a whole in and of itself it is minor. However, when the cumulative effects of commercial/resort development is analyzed the Impact on employment is significant. Most of the jobs created, 4 PP 86-21 i TT 21624 however# will be filled by residents of the area or those who have come to Coachella Valley for other reasons. i 15. HOUSING a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in items 13 and 14. in addition this is currently being projected some 8,000 unsold housing units in the valley: in addition to the number of rental units being developed over 600 in the City of Palm Desert alone. b. None - covered in item 15 a. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. Projected trip generation per 1000 square feet of leasable area is 40.7 for a total of 3704 weekday trip ends. As part of the conditions of approval the applicant shall be required to provide for three travel lanes. It should be noted that the Rancho Mirage environmental impact report alluded to a cumulative traffic impact of developments including the develop- ments in both cities. Currently the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage are seeking state funds to complete the widening of Highway 111 from the .Palm Valley Channel to Magnesia Falls. MITIGATION MEASURES Applicant shall widen Highway III adjacent to their project at 86 foot ultimate width. b. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the project on site. c: Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. In addition these systems have extensive additional capacity. d. Principal access to the project will be from the existing State Highway III and Fred Waring Drive. e. Implementation of the mitigation measures setforth by item 16a in addition to the required sidewalks, the impact should be positive. There are problems currently existing on Highway ill 5 PP 86-21 a TT 2162.4 and the public Improvements required of the applicant will alleviate some of them. 17. PUBLIC SERVICE a-f. None The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated the area for commercial development. Infrast- ructure improvements ( i .e. storm channel , streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed develop- ment. The proposed land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE i The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert. All property tax generated on the site after 1979 including those generated by the Improvement of this project wi I l go to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. The city will receive 1% of the 6% state sales tax collected from the sales on the property. 19. UTILITIES All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the proposed develop- ment. 20. HUMAN HEALTH The project will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 21 . SOCIAL SERVICES The project will provide a service to full time residents as well as tourists to the area and thus no increase In the demand of general social services are anticipated. 22. AESTHETICS a. The closest inhabited residential structure will .be 62 feet from the edge of the nearest structure on the site. The development will have its lower structures around the perimeter 6 !0 PP 86-21 i TT 21624 of the site and the higher structures toward the center. Line of site drawings provided by the applicant indicate that any obstruction of any scenic vista will be less than would have resulted had the site been developed with single family dwellings having their normal 20 foot setback. b. The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive. The proposed development must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission. C. For reasons stated in items 22 a and b. 23. LIGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition the requirement for a engineered lighting plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled. As well , the plan will be required to be amended to provide a minimum 10 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the seven foot high masonry wall . This landscape buffer will be planted with substantial vertical plantings to help mitigate any noise and light impacts. 24. There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical signifi- cance of this site. in addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. 25. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal wi I I not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. i 7 v/' ,� � • CdS� YO• � I =TPI:?OY3,r"_1'Te.L, SL�VI Ca IL ZTI.II STw Y �I30a`T}>rr;.�L y 7AI.JdTI02l0'S'i.IST h NOTE: The availability of data ne__ssar to address below shall for-r the basis of a decision as tot.-Pic`4listed application is considered ccm let `Per t6 assess,"Ient. P z for Purposes of env ircnmentai �1V IROfAtelTAl IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe, answers measures and c:=ents are Provided on attacyed. Possible mi`igation. _ 1 • Earth. Will the Les Mavbe No Proposal result in: a• Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Oisrvptians, displacementb, crmpaction, or e soil? averroverIng of th ✓. _ c• Change in features? topography or ground surfaca relief d. The destrlction; covering or modification , of any unique geologic or Physical features? _ e. Any increase in wind or water Plan of soils, either an or off the site? 2. Air- Will the proposal result in: — L a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b• The crTation of objectionable odors? V c• Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? / 3. Jot=r• Vlti1 1'er Mavhe the pnpcSal result in: rrents No a ChargeS, in cu , `or rec..' ar w t.,e course ar at�r' movements? b. Changes in-absorat,bn rat_" Rat.ar i �s, °r the s, drainage rat_sumac water and'a^scant rsncrf? C. Aitarawater,? aoes to the course or ow of flood ter, fT d. Alteration of.the direction or. rate ✓ flow of ground waters? of Chan e. either Mrou e in hquantity °f ground waters drawals t direct additions or wit h- aquifer�bY cuts ugh inte:-ception of an or excavat., . f. Reduction in the amount = / °f water wise available f °?.tie 4 or public water r- su¢Rii Plant Lif= _ �• ' l toe p eS? roposal result in: a- Change in the diversity of species, or (Urtclus of any species of plants Crops)? 9 �r=os. shr,Ibs, grass , an d b Reduction .of the numbers of any unique. ra or endangered s pecies of plants? r e. / c. lntrcductaeninfanew sRecies of plan ✓ an area replenishment of barrier tc the normal existing species? -- Anirai. lifer Will 8 , .Jill the proposal r _ esult in: —' a. Chan9e5 in the diversity numoers of of species, or Land anySUCIe of animals (birds, insects n )? g reptiles , or b: Reduction of the numbers1 rare, or endangered °f any 'unique, species of animals; c. Introduction of / Into an area n�" sRecies of an the migration or result in a barrier to m°venent of animals? d Oeteriaratian to exist""" Wildlife habitat? . i r 6. Nbturai Res s the r Y` :. r-.a M`be yo proposal result in: a. Increase i resources?":-the rate of use of any natural b• Depietion of any non_rene'�abie natural resource? —' i/. 7' E_e=?L Will the propasai result in: a. Use of — subs,.3ntial amounts of fuel a energy? b• Oe:rsand upon existing sources oP quire the.dezelopment of energy. or re- energy? neN sources of 8• Risk of Uoset risz o explosion other tproposalinvolease oflve a to hazardous substances (including, but not limited the eventcofean oil ' -chemic3ls, or radiation) in , accident or upset conditions? g• E-onorric loss _ Wi1l the Proposal result in: a. mprovge in the value of property gents endangered b I and y flooding? b improngeinsthe value of property and beyard acre p°Sed t0 geologic hazards Peed co:runitv risk standards? 10. s2. Nai Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted co""-"unity noise and vibration levels are . exceeded? ii. land use. Will .thL Proposal result in the V a l t3ra"On f Planned land the present developed ar use of an area? . 1Z. Ooen Soace _ detr�e3� Will the propasai lead to a JG the :arr>ount of designated open space? / 13. Poov— la—o_• Will the proposal result f a. Alteration or irt: — density. or rthe Tac3tian, distribution. Population of tp rate of the human the Citv? b' Change I. the pop age ulation distribution by �• . income, religion, racial , group, occupational class, household or ethnic type? 4. I4. E^rolovrrent, Y� Labe No aoottiarta Wiil the Proposal resuit in C. in t'yesrniortg�ta .t fobs provided, or a unemployed, anduer and per cant employed, underemployed? t/I5. Hausina, WiTI the Proposal resuit in: a. Change in number, and per ca. — units h Rt of housing zoningy type (price or rent rang,, catt", owner-occ:pied and rentai , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of famines in various inccm, classes in the City?b Impaci•.s on existing housirt demand for additional or housing? creation of a I6. Transaortatian/Cir:ulatiort, r"-suit in: Will the Proposal a•" Generation of additional .vehicular. I b. Effects an existingmovement? demand for. new Parking facilities, or parking? ✓ _ C. Impact upon existing transPertation systems? d• • ATterati goods? ons to present pattern, of or mcvement of people and/or Circulation t/ e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehices , bicyclists , or pedestrians? l / 17- Pub1t r-rfc,s Will the proposal — v upon , or resT in a need for, han ave governmental services in any f new ar the following S o are! , a. Fire protection? " "b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreation., facilities? e. Maintanance of roads? Pubiic facilities , including —/ f. Other governmental services? — v I8. P_1 is Fiscal Balance lets _ ..�.Mayb. resu t in • WITT the proposal flow a net change in government fiscal and annualizes Tess operating expenditures zed capital expenditures)? I9• ut�flitles. Wi11 the proposal result in a g followin n utilities: ilities:ew systems , or al Ia. ations to the. a. Power or natural gas? ~ b• CCM-Munications system? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f• Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Hearth. _— the proposal result in: a. The creati Will on of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? _ b, careann prov{ded a level of ccn:minity health 21. Social Service _ an— in�Sea dandifcrthe proposal result in social .services? provision of general 22. pest=S WiTi the Proposal result a. Obst • • t. in: open to tile Pu blic.any scenic vista. or view'Public? b. the creation of an aestheticalOff site open to public view? • l y ensive C. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? 23. Light- anda _ "er �gnt o g�areiiil the proposal produce 24. Archealcaical/4istorical .resu t in an a tee of Wilt the proposal archeological or historical a significant object, Or. building? site, structure, 6. 0000000000 Yes Ma_be, No 25. Mandatory Firtdincs of Sfani�icartc�: a. Oces the project have the t potential to degrade te quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? / 6. Oa es the project have the potential to achieve V short-term, to the disadvantage of iong-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. ) - V c. Oees the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A Project may impact an t1wo or more separate resources where the impact an each resource is relatively small but where the effect of the total of those impacts an the environment is significant. ) / d. Goes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects /on human beings , either directly or indirectly? _ Initial Study prepared By: INTEROFFICE MEMORA"OUM Plrr_11`017 OF rMV!RQMMFtffAL ;ERVICV ofim- ritrrf7jor or rIJIM17 W(MV5 5I.!!r-ICCT: 171:1'11' I ,?'I - rp CIA I E 1­4 I'l b,? rtins id^r art -nrid It ions F I and iin-i 1 1 i: it I,-,, Fund Fies, -is maul t­d t:2y C i r-,i I(I F,t ior Fo if final ts !,hn I I hip prov IdCd. ner 11r,.11 ,,,nt P '10 1 tit! tl n I -r Ur;j 1 miis" Plan. to Lji, p^o;; r I la 17 1 i.f of -f Fit,I I, Weir ks 11 "I'll t I Ul t 1011 - h.,I I b- :,,rtt I V ,,:-on i it .1 t"I v liz It 11, it i,I va t,- pnj i i,n-it r t 11 3 t is 1 FjP ro,/1- I by I h P I I tili.In I :)IF P"u I is Wo rr I-, 37 rull pill,1 11: ;mprovemen t s. including I-T a F I, I V I I•Jr.I- All ""I'll' red I.-I "Ili'l-111:e -11,11 I`lt! Dirv,,tor or P,M,I I c Wo r It% 01•1 I I ti,­ installed in accorritance with C I ty 3t intiard 5 I Cirri,"1-1,-- improvement plans and spec I F I cat: inns s lia I I be -ulim I t r ,it. .3 reitt I reel by o t-d I mince, to i hi:% City Engineer f trr 1'ho-rk fmg .end j;)flri)va I before conatruct lon of iny I- commenced. The tnqIri,-P.r shall -,uUmil. ;1$ Isuill " plans prior- to the acceptance of the impru,,moiii., try t,". Cilly. vr' iv,'iJ17 •.Jreeti and ilarkinq areas Shall tps• Inspoit:tpi-I by deP.urtmenf and a :tandilrrj fn^r-ctloii F",,, 'jid crior to r-rvorrIatI,.)rj or the fin.ji m.1p. maintenance in Hwy 111 and Fred WAcing Of-. :hall t1P Pfoljldefl by the pruperty owner, 11t1111 IPA ,,, HAV III and Fred Warinu If,. Stroll be unilpt tlrtilmrjo+rl per each rq!,peCtfvP Utility distrlct'5 recommemjat I on. T rri f 1'1 r g;3 Fit t v Str 1pfn,l or, Hwy III and rrp,F W,iring Or. ;11.1 1 1 I P v u f .1 v I I',,it to the specIf leallf,ris or the Ui i ei-1:c,j- nk Put,] W­r (,,, 6 A t"af-Fir control 0 lam must he stibmi t I t(I to 11r,r] !l141rrFvt'1I by I ho Of rector' of Pubf is Wo"k 5 bpr,,rp p]dr 1 nizi bark ir,gls. r,I et.e rtra,lin9 Plons and lie,trilati,ins 1h,1II be submit fe-1. I- re.cillirmirl by orcifn3nle. to the City Fnrjinoer for ch.rkirio and arv,ruvml prior to I -,uu;inc:e of any permitli. o F C�510 F n c t of r lght-ofo-w.ty oil Hwy III ;,nrl l'i—,! W li r illy Or , hA I I be done or inr to issuance of :jl,y permits .11141 .1pril1 -Val of plans. I 11-t I` I ,1: lot, n F curb Zjl,.j. not ter, mat r 1.1 ng U.j v- nil u nct I k m llwv III and Iced Waring. II r4;0,,vv ..F lt k­;rr to llwv 111 Ind Fr_rl W3?'Inl Vr.Pxcrrjt ji. •:1JP? 0v(`1.I 10C.11oh)n'• Shall be granted on the final in3rr. UIIU eel dfiVf-willy with cull helejhL curt, and gutter. 1 ljf-Fjfr.• 11ripcovorrent olanr to be •i;.%pvovpd by Plibi is Works 3 1urt!tItY posted to ounrontep I`It p r eq!j I re,:! of (^-i to h,1P,'nv,-i,,cntS prior to recordation or t I I e Final m_, IdntlScabed mpti i 1,, in Fred W. r I mt,i i t f-,,r ,i,F, h.1 I 1 1,1 1. •dF I ......1 -,Fit I,,,, ,V f P,it,I i W.,i k S tflhm I t I-i'd i f od L, v Fn 7ine^r !or chr— I, inn w! ,v I ,I- 3my rwermi t rt, i,jt ,if r Iv rl r Ivr w.Iv r,n F!-P,.I W,j I i r,a 0 r 0 1 0 Corn n only I nqr es s-i,--ir by m II; r the s 0: r I v 1 r i vewav nri F rpct W)ring V v� S In 1 1 1 t, M".- C' 35 to al 1 Ig fl v,I I!,h �V u r'n v C it I C C e ;.-v i nt- r c)i f':It 1 1 m:jr, 20834 n-u'hwcer Cr I p and Manzar,1 to Drive sha I I I rn I hr '..It i sF,3-.i I on uF I'hi- Cl tv Eria ine,vr, il I cfk, -5 j,5 "C-5 i'Med to city standards. l r r. 11,jr, 2 1 112 hall be r e rr,r fj ctj I.,r I I to F i I i ng of thr !'-,I fr: rt 21624. Pu,:I Ur • Pf!ffterlt I between P.H. 4 1 2 and I ra c-t f,v rprerded p, ior to I:he or dnv ;,I .d with (105 r,r,,ject. mac' I ecwd.-.tlon 13tushwood Drfvc an,j Mjn_anitji Or ive '11-31 1 he Vacated. irfmfovenik-rol.s relating to State Highway III shall he nor, e tandard5 ;j nd 3 p t!c I F I r_d 1.1011.3 J F z ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY � COACHELLA VALLEY WATER OISTR �, a POST OFFICE 90X 1058•COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92238•TELEPHONE(819)39&2651 J 7986 DIRECTORS 'ER-CFRSu' [ RA LIS CO R.RUM VICE PR SIDENPRESIDENT 7HOMAS E LEW,GENERAL MANAGER-QiTELIBF fiNGIryE6iv! pF F,;,q�••gyp,. JOHN A POWELSVICE PRESIDENT BERNAROINESUITON.SECRETAtMFgfpf �PAUL P NICHOL NEITH H.AINSWORTH,ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGERIAUDITOR THEOD.NICHOI S REDWINE AND SHERRILL ATTORNEYS TNEOOORE J.FISH May 19, 1986 File: 0163. 1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1.977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Tract 21624, Precise Plan 86-21, Portion of Southwest quarter, Section 18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. Yours very truly, -:Z�IiCJ y Tom Levy 7S•L General Manager-Chief Engineer CS:ir cc: Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 Attention: Don Park TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY i RIVERSIDE COUNTY �p�of CAjjrU� *r _ Vic; FIRE DEPARTMENT ' IN COOPERATION WITH THE f'l,r\'TI' : •:'Q1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT e RAY HEBRARD NT of f - FIRE CI;IEF_ 210 WESTSAN JACINTO AVENUE M Il` 2 �' PERRIS.CALIFORNIA 92770 Raymon Dial / � — '-.� Y TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 Planning and Community T Development Director vow Z z 1986 73510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Reference: PP 46.2f Applicant: Squra Amirq OE/eL4fµEar Dear Mr. Ramon 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 delivering30a0GPM 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. - 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 86.21 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal .' 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. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over 5000 square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. Very truly yours, RAY HEBRARD '1►U.J Fire Chief �r BY. 0� cr— MIKE MCCONNELL Fire Marshal INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: Steve Smith FROM: Brent Conley RE: PP86-21 DATE: May 12, 1986 The plan as proposed has a number of traffice flow considerations. These considerations are: I . E/B traffic on SR 111 is not able to turn into the complex . This restriction is needed, but the entrance on Fred Waring will be effected. 2. Traffic flow into the proposed Raffles complex from this complex should be restricted or eliminated. _ 3 . A merging traffic lane should be installed to allow smoother access onto W/B SR 111 and into complex. 4. The entrance onto Fred Waring will be impacted turning into the complex , creating a possible need for a future traffic signal . This cross traffic from W/B Fred Waring traffic to E/B Fred Waring into the complex could pose a serious problem. Any additional comments concerning building construction will have to made at time of plan proposal. Any questions or comments call me at ext. /30�. Brent Conley Crime Prevention Officer BC/rrt I ?41CCL" PEAR 11NE. FAW _ RYL13 a0 Ir '_ MCSVZ (714) 346-Crzii b1A7 1 9 i9a6 - �.�.A,Y.G,tiIIY pE:'EIGt�ERf DEYAK LMENf 1 a sl`f C t !um � �..���.•�.�+1.1. ?r�Si..��i�al :iru7 Ccr'i..r....aL�>�1 0 u DIZEC OR OF 3=-OZNC, CITY OF PALM DESERT I TRANSMITTAL LETTER I I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Preliminary comments on a development proposal for a retail /resort commercial development of some 90.836 square feet on a 9 acre site. zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. III. APPLICANT: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach. CA 92660 IV. CASE NO: PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 V. DATE: May 22. 1986 VI. DISCUSSION: The applicant filed the various necessary applications on April 22, 1986. Due to certain aspects of the request, staff requested that the applicant make a presentation to planning commission in study session to obtain preliminary comment. The presentation was made at the May 6. 1986 planning commission meeting. Planning commission raised the following concerns based on the presentation. 1. Location of the east loading area and it's adjacent residential neighbors. 2. The heights of the buildings (30 S 32 feet) . 3. The appropriateness of large retail uses in the PC (4) zone (basically hotel and restaurants only with accessary uses) . 4. Whether an amendment to the code is necessary to permit a service station in the PC (4) zone. S. Whether the city is prepared to consider a code amendment to permit a drive-thru restaurant (Del Taco) . Given the extreme sensitivity of the site as part of the gateway to the city. planning commission felt that some of the above issues were policy matters which require direction from city council prior to formal evaluation by the planning commission. b� PP 86-21 5 TT 21624 Accordingly. the commission, by minute motion, directed staff to place the matter on the next available city council agenda for a presentation by the applicant and subsequent direction from the council to the planning commission. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg i i 2 r.. ITOE!'.dl K,*h'.vdy 8f?3. C3iifOffl:d 752i r " 1 -CO vat- 3-,:.ford Crites . Cnai==a_n_ C-tv oS ?a:' ]esert i 3JiC =eo, Na=.-g ]_ _':e . ?a:= -�eserz, CA 9226C Corner o= ^ed Wa=-ng --r . 5t _'A Proposed =eta-: 7___ace, -•- - - yea= Cna-r=a= C=-:es : Soo^ vo : will be asked to ate on ?a=ad-se ?al=s ?:aza. a =eza-- v-::age to be developed by Santa Anita ]eve:o?re^: ISCC : . SAC nas p :rc:lased .ne-= site -=or o::= coapanv, a=d yo : ra? =eca-_ we are developing^ .ne 226-=oor ?a=ad-se ?a:ems Resort , ad ace-z to ne sub;ecz p=o;ecz. Since -neepz-on, SOC` s p=o`ec -as been care_ ::;v_ coo=di^a.ed ^az ' z be co-s-dered as wizn .he note: a=o.4ec`_ . -s _npo=car_= t - _ as -.zegra: pa=z of zne overall deve:opaent _o= ne a =e 2Q acres . -s -oz j,:sz anot'-e= =eza-: center . Vol: =ay be fa=i.:a= wit: a series o= resoz- 7=0pe=z-es -__ A=izo:a. K-Owr. as the ?ointe Resorts . mac: resort -as a related =eza-: v=__ace, designed in a comp:-zenza=? a:c^-zecza=a: szyl--c, and size access and :a^dscap-nc are coordinated. S7C -s propos`ng to do zne sa„e , to design and b—1 :d a reza-: ':=-' -ace wnica con?:iWe_^_zs z ne note: and is _._zecrazec to .ne ove=a_- size des-4-in. ? °n =_nd when e-:al:.az-nc zn e prc;ecz . rre _ease lee? . s _ ca=efal:y inze=v-ewed co=pet-rig =ezail deve:one=s Prior to selecting S.C. Cbv-os:v C-ven zne ;s-ze ' s pro--_n_e-ce, we had .-ero::s _ze=eszed parties. we chose s,C because tnev are willing -a coordinate arc izeczaxa::v and are se-s-tire to zne eoa-.•.nizy' s des-=es. :-ev also are =--a-c-a::y so :nd w_zn an exce::e::z zrack record =o= developing s.Lecess retail centers . We ^ave coordinated on e.erc .iss.ze ine: :diac ccac __: access., ?art=ng design, _andsca?inc, arc itect•.:re .and s_cnace, We are mg forward to viac. _ as neig^'oors, ar_d ^ome row co too . /P t_ ..:v o.1rs ?residenz 33]: ci N ESTE, S A U D I N & STONE Engineers • Planners INCORPORATED - 73210 EL PASEO • SUITE 20. -• PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 922W • TELEPHONE e19A40.3Q3 14-73-027 . 004 May 27, 1986 Mr . Steve Smith City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Faring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21624 STREET VACATION REQUEST The westerly portions of Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive lie within the proposed Paradise Palms Center . As the residences on the two streets and the proposed commercial development do not require these streets for access, we request that you commence proceedings to vacate these streets as part of the development application. This request is for that portion of those streets which lie within the boundary of Parcel Map 21624 only.. Thank you for your assistance with our request . Please let us know if you need anything further from us . BARRT McCLELLAN Senior Principal Engineer dm cc: Joe Seitz CORONA HEMET • PALM DESERT RANCHO CALIFORNIA SAN BERNAROINO SAN OIEGO Ibl 73-510 FRED WARINO DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 02260 TELEPHONE(019) 34"11 July 23. 1986 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO- C/Z 84-I5. PP W21 i TT 21624 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT for approval of change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and - negative declaration of environmental Impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial proJect of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site - located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway ill. more particularly described ast APN's 640-020-010. 011, 012 640-032-001. 006, 011. 012. 013 .JJi ? P.R:7,I S.P C-I P.R. C J °>S"P� P.R: 2�1��°° ' 1 g N r►fr AHD S.P. a i R-I ' )�0^ P.R.22 C-1 P.C. 2 R i Cn S. 2S ? FRED WORING CRI+ E i-I PC. P. R.-6 (4), j R I , R-I S.P. SUBJECT PROPERTY i P.C. M, • ECG - „t=, 41 yc ` ; s -aweLJ JJOJ JJ1E >R` 4 PC.(3), W ® FNz .. L S.P. z .aa�MQ -.3 y T• SAID public hearing wlII be held on Thursday, August 14, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. California. at which time and place all Interested_ persons are Invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions In court. you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone also raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at. or Prior to. the Public hearing. PUBLISHt Oesert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN. City Clerk August 1. 1986 City of Palm Desert, California i C' 2 no c/z 8 �F-�s, /�a� �� l �' -z�6sf f s�L/�� � c.� c�ir✓�- tu' 4' • s - 6 3e. '�" e r�• f 46 z SANrA AN?A OEVELOPMENr CORPORATION n co j C .. G7 , Joseph L.Seitz r - vice President - - - _;J -73 G r fa � August 6,. 1986 cn Richard S. Kelly, Mayor CITY OF PALM DESERT 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Palm Desert - NEC Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mayor Kelly: I have been advised by the Staff at the City of Palm Desert that the City Council has requested Santa Anita Development Corporation to appear before them on August 14th. However, we have not been informed as to the specific reason for the appeal being requested by City Council . We are very willing to work with the City to provide any additional information you may need in order to evaluate the project we are proposing. In order to properly prepare for this hearing, we would appreciate receiving any advance notice you can give us regarding the details you wish us to cover. Thank you. Sincerely, Josp6h L. SeitJ JLS/jm 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,Dali/ornia 92660/P.O.Boa 1880192658-8924/Phone 1714) 644-6440 r' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 May 24, 1989 AR HUTECPJRAL REVIEW QI IIIEMION CASE NO: PP 86-21 9F��ONTO APPLICANT (AMID ADDRESS): AHMANSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 1123 Parkview Drive, Suite 360, Covina, CA 91724. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOLKW: Final plan approval of pad 1. LOCATION: Highway 111 and Town Center way ZONE.• PC (3), S.P. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the architectural ccnmission approved this case by minutes motion. Date of Action: May 23, 1989 Vote: Carried 3-0 (Chairman Gregory abstained) (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STAFF COMMENTS: Please read the attached minutes. Upon receiving final approval it is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the architectural cartnission to the department of building and safety. OONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meetings agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday prior to the next meeting. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Negative Declaration TO: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. ( ) Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St. , Rm 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92502 FROM: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or . 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title/Common Name: Santa Anita Development, PP 86-21 Date of Project Approval : State Clearinghouse Number ( if submitted) : N/A Contact Person: Steve Smith, Associate Planner Project Location: Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 . Pro.iect Description: 90600 square foot retail commercial center. This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project ( ) will , ' (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. . 21. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared in connection with this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of 'the Negative Declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures (X) were, ( ) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for this project. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S gnature --r Title I H L° JE 1_v Date Received for Filing FFB e 1QA7 Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelopenERhmfhaWAROr. oKft M RNvui3&,+were on,wftnlFi RY �.�,,�,Al9iat4rs: SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A Member of lire Santa Anita Companies Joseph L.Seitz Vice President V, ®r Or PtON. Ul-F!Z� November 7, 1986 Mr. Ray Diaz Planning Director CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92262 Re: Proposed Retail/Commercial Development Palm Desert - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mr. Diaz: Please consider this letter a request by Santa Anita Development Corporation to postpone the matter to be heard before the City Council regarding the referenced property to December 11, 1986. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Joseph L. Seitz JLS/jm cc: Mr. Steve Smith 1601 Avocado 0 Newport Beach,California 92660 0 P.O.Box 1880 0 92658 8924 Cl Phone(714)644 6440 i= STA-E OF Cf-LIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gown r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI ,`f - DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 Ld ci 1 W Ld SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92102 O� 1 0 Ld o _j Development Review maz �October ID /9B& va oa a a3 o (Date) V C-D y - te-PM)W w z ��ss U 0 Wagner-Stanford ConsultAs 41 One - E/tyen- Taws-Ceivfer 201 East Yorba Linda Blvd . � -- (Your Reference) Placentia, CA -, 92670 Attention: Dana Halladay Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed sfio�Diy�p Ceh.tP. r located tpn Zko atorffiea rtet- S-Id 64 Sz4zi z/ xiy4t sou-&/T f -iAe- A/m Vzzlleu F/oad r.JKfra / C'Aannpsl :h AIA-, Drse 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-arr-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 Mr. Patrick M. Connally at (714) 383-4384 . signed R. G. lvtd R. G. POTE District Permits Engineer Att. cc: C:fy of Pa/rn.DeserY"� Form 8-PD22 (Rev,. 4-86) r5 K:v- /�/f�Yo.oa�40.23 L° Onenele✓en J&,rn Ceti for (Cc-Rte-PPI) (Sour Reference) WE WOULD LIKE TO NC _ Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal do not appear to nave a significant effect on the state highway system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the ccaulativc impact of traffic and drainage should be provided prior to or with development of the area that necessitates them. It appears that the traffic generated by this proposal could have a significant effect on the state highway system of the area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts should be included with the development. _ This portion of state highway is included in the California Plaster 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 levels adjacent to heavily traveled hiqhways. Land development, in order to he 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 S�half-width on the state highway. Normal street improvements to provide-half-width on the state highway. Curb and gutter along the state highway, State Standard A2-8. Parking be prohibited along the state highway by painting curb red. radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway. A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns. Positive vehicular barrier such as AC dike, substantial fence, or physical topographical features be provided to limit access to the state highway. Landscaping along the state highway be low and forgiving in nature. 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 bye&standarddriveways. 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. T Access points to the state highway be developed in a manner that will provide sight distance adequate forr��mph along the state highway. A left-turn lane, including any necessary widening, be provided on the state highway at _ Consideration be given to the provision, or future provision, of signalizaticn and lighting of the intersection of and the state highway. A traffic study indicating on- and off-site flow patterns and volumes, probab:e impacts, and proposed mitigation measures be prepared. XAdequate off-street parking, which does not require backing onto the state highway, be provided. XParking lot be developed in a manner that will not cause any vehicular moveme-t conflicts, including parking stall entrance and exit, within ,�� 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. XNoise attenuation be provided as part of the development of this property. X Please refer to attached additional comments. WE WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE: i A copy of any conditions of approval or revised approval. A copy of any documents providing additional state highway right of way. WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS: X 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. 8-Riv-111-R40 .02/R40 . 23 (Co-Rte-PM) One-Eleven Town Center (Your Reference) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Street improvements for this development should be coordinated with . the City of Palm ,Desert' s widening project between El Paseo Road and Bob Hope Drive. The coordinator for that project at Caltrans is Hiep Bui (714) 383-4164 . The access drive to this project should be 35 ' wide with 35 ' radius curb returns. A 12 ' wide raised median is proposed at this location; therefore, the exit should be marked "right turn only" . If 35 ' curb returns are provided in lieu of the standard driveway aprons, then wheelchair ramps should be provided in the returns at the sidewalk. The monument sign next to the driveway must not block sight distance on Route 111. We suggest the sign be moved east a minimum of 5 ' back from the location shown. At the time of application for an encroachment permit, the developer is required to provide a signing and striping plan. i 1 a INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: MAYOR KELLY AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DATE: SEPTEMBER 11 , 1986 SUBJECT: SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT - CASE NO. 0 P 86-21 August 14, 1986, city council continued the above noted request and referred same to planning commission for further consideration. Planning commission at its September 2, 1986, meeting reconsidered the case. The minutes of that meeting will not be reviewed and adopted by planning commission until its meeting of September 16, 1986. In addition, the applicant in a letter dated September 5, 1986, has requested that the matter be continued to allow Santa Anita to solidify certain financial commitments. Staff has no objection to granting the continuance and would suggest that the matter be continued to the city council meeting of November 13, 1986. 1 0N A.R DIAZ OMMUI(DIRECTO OF C TY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/tm . SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Joseph L.Seitz - SEP 8 1986 Vice President COMMUNHY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF FAIM DESERT in September 5, 1986 Mr. Ray Diaz Planning Director CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92262 Re: Proposed Retail/Commercial Development Palm Desert - Highway Ill & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mr. Diaz: I would appreciate the City's consideration of a request by Santa Anita Development Corporation in postponing the submission to the City Council of the Planning Commission's recent decision regarding our development until such time that we are able to solidify certain financial commitments necessary in order to proceed with the project we are proposing at the referenced intersection. We would like to avoid any unnecessary effort or time on the City's part regarding this project until such time as these commitments can be confirmed. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, o3 h L. Seitz JLS/jm cc: Mr. Steve Smith, Planning Department 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1680192668-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT/ON Joseph L.Seitz Vice President 5EP 8 1986 COMMUNITY OFELOPSIEDESRIAR1MCNi CITYn September 4, 1986 . Mr. Tony Evers 72450 Manzinita Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Proposed Paradise Palms Shopping Center Palm Desert - Highway Ill & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mr. Evers: I am writing this letter to confirm our discussion on Tuesday, September 2, 1986, wherein Santa Anita Development Corporation has agreed to increase the height of the wall around Manzinita Drive and Joshua Road to 61. I al so understand that you and the neighbors across the street are desirous of eliminating any sidewalk along the wall . Naturally, the height and placement of the wall will be subject to City approval , as well as the elimination of the sidewalk, but I wi11 make the City aware of your requests. Further.., Santa Anita Development Corporation hereby agrees to have your pool cleaned for the initial 4 months after we commence construction of our project. Should you have any additional suggestions regarding this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jos, ph L. Se.itz I JLS%jm cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Planning Director Mr. Bruce Greene, Greene & Jensen 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192658-8924 1Phone (714) 644-6440 MINUTES p 86 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 . B. Lago de Palmas Mr. Diaz indicated this item had been discussed during study session and needed a minute motion to refer the matter to council . Action: Moved . by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, referring to city council Lago de Palmas for review access onto Portola by minute motion. Carried 5-0. C. Ordinance Statement of Intent Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, determining that statement of intent for all ordinance shall be first. Carried 5-0. Santa Anita Development After discussion, the planning commission reaffirmed its previous decision based on the fact that the uses considered to be related commercial uses can be liberally construed with the only limit being that the uses be related to a hotel . Commission felt that a farmer's market would be unique and in no way similar to the typical grocery store. After further discussion on the appropriateness of this type of development on this site, it was determined a better use than more restaurants or hotels and commission felt it would be a reasonable, logical , and desirable use for the property. Action: Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, reaffirming the previous approval in the PC (4) zone. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Richards and Whitlock voting no. ) E. Zoning Ordinance Clarification Commissioner Richards requested staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment defining "congregate care" facilities and clarification as to how they pertain to the senior overlay. Commission concurred. 22 AUGvi o a 196 cl1MMUtilly VELOPMEO1 "P RiN (m^ n G' Joseph L.Seitz Vice President i —ZD r August 6, 1986 1-11 co Richard S. Kelly, Mayor CITY OF PALM DESERT 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Palm Desert - NEC Highway Ill & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mayor Kelly: I have been advised by the Staff at the City of Palm Desert that the City Council has re_quested Santa Anita Development Corporation to appear before them on August 14th. However, we have not been informed as to the specific reason for the appeal being requested by City Council . We are very willing to work with the City to provide any additional information you may need in order to evaluate the 'project we are proposing. In order to properly prepare for this hearing, we would appreciate receiving any advance notice you can give us regarding the details you wish us to cover. Thank you. Sincerely, Jos4h L. Seitz JLS%jm 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192658-8924/Phone (7141 644-6440 SANTA AN/TA OEVELOPMENT CORPORAT/ON R�C�B�1�D Joseph L.Seitz Vice President AUG 2 2 1986 CC.iMDNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY CF PALM DESERT August 18, 1986 Mr. Tony Evers 72450 Manzanita Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Proposed Paradise Palms Shopping Center Palm Desert - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mr. Evers: I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation today wherein Santa Anita Development Corporation has agreed to construct a (6') wal 1 at the end of Manzanita Drive and a 3' to 3.5' wal 1 around the remainder of Manzanita Drive, outlined in red on the enclosed site plan. It is my understanding that you, and the other neighbors in the area, do not wish to have a sidewalk permitting pedestrian access from Manzanita onto our proposed project. We are very willing to go along with this request. Secondly, at a later date (but within 6 months after the project opens) if you and the other neighbors in the area desire, we will increase the 3' wall to 6' for additional buffering. Should you have any additional suggestions regarding this project, please feel free to contact me. We appreciate the sensitive nature of your residence being near this project and we will work with you in any way we can. Sincerely, Joseph L. Seitz JLS/jm Enclosure cc: 'Mr. Ray Diaz,_ Planning_Director. Mr. Buford Crites, Chairman of Planning Commission Mr. Dick Kelly, Mayor of Palm Desert Mr. Bruce Greene, Greene & Jensen 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/RO.Box 1880192658-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 1=Y4I30Nt TIAL SZ_41VICZS DE�rT. INITIAL, STUDY I7 IAQ1 3 __7AL EVAL'JATIOZI CZZC'=1ST c NOTE: The availability of data necessary to ision as to whether the assessment. address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a dec application is considered complete for purposes of environmental ENVIRONMEYTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided an attached sheets ) . • Yes Mavbe 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 erasion of L sails, either on or off the site? Z. 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? / '' Water, Will the proposal result 1n: Y� � vbe No a.._. Changes. in currents, or. the course or 1 ` dir•ecticn of watar' movements? ~ b. Changes in-abscrpt'On rats 1/ Patterns, or , drainace the rate and-amount surf Of ac- water runoff? c- Alteratiens to flood waters? the course or flow Of —/ d. Altao ti flow on Of-the direction or rate Of v flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity either through of ground waters, direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception Of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? / f. Reduction in the amount Of. water Other- 1/ wise available for public water suPpiies? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Chance in the diversity Of specie numbers of any speci s , or es of plants crops trees , shrubs, grass , and b. Reduction of the numbers Of or endangered species Of plants unique rare, c. Introduction Of new species of plant —"an area , or in a barrier to the normalinto replenishment of existing species? / c Animal. Life Will 'the — J� proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers Of any species Of animal - land animals including s (birds , Insects)? reptiles , Or b: Reduction Of the numbers of any unique, — rare, or endangered species Of anir„a1s? Into an area, c. Introduction Of new species Of animals or result in a barrier to the migration Or movement of animals? d. Oeterioration to existing wildlife habrtn}? I — 3. 6• Natural Resource YesM e No s Will the proposal result in: a• Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural resources? b• Depletion of any no n-renesvahie natural resource? / ?• Enercv. Will the Proposal result in: — a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of quire the.deselopment of nev energy' ar re— energy7 sources of $• Risk of Uoset risk explosion or thetp proposal Oes involve a hazardous substances (includinto g c , but not limited the event ofean accidentmoraus, or radiation) in / upset conditions? / 9. E,anomic loss — vvv ---�_• Will the Proposal result in: a. A change in fhe value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and improvements exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted cor::runity risk standards? / 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing V noise levels to the Paint in which accepted exceedCOMMuned? noise and vibration levels are exceeded? / ii. Land 'use. Wi1l .the proposal result in the V aI .ation of the present developed or Planned land use of an area? 12, ooen Soace Will the — JG decr— e— 1 in the :amountp space? ofpdesignatedosal leadtopen 13. Poou�ion• Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn or 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 9r'0 occupational class, household t ? h, a. 14. Emo1n 0_7T Will the proposal result in Yes Mavbe No aodttionai new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cant employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Ho us ino. 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 , mand familieslinive variouseincomerclasseto sber of iin the City? _ b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? / 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal V result tn: / a.. Generation of additional vehicular movement? 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 mcvement 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 V upon, or resu t in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following arels: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? _ / C. Schools? IV d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ — e. Maintenance of public facilities . in roads? V�_ // f. Other governmental services? — / 18. Public Fiscal Balanc_. Will. the Yes Ma_be No result in a net change in proposal flow (revenues less geinovernment fiscal and annualized capital operating expenditures expenditures)? 19. Util Will the proposal result in a — —— need for new systems , or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ~ / b- Communications system? -- v C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? -- ✓ e. Storm water drainage? L/ f. Solid waste and disposal? v 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 co=unit care provided? Y health 21. Social Se rlices. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics Will the proposal result in: a a- obstruction open to publithe of anyc. scenic vista. cr view b. The creation of an aesthetically offensi site open to public view? ve C. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? / 23 Licht and orar� Will the proposal produce g are. 24. Archeoiooical/Historical . Will the proposal 1/ resu t in an a teration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? / Yes Maybe Na 25. Mandatory Findinas of Sicni"icanca. a. Does the project have the patential 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 environmevel nt is one which occurs in a hperitive od of time ile�long-termrimpacts�will endure well into the future. ) I 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. ) V d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By; ` INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM I III P I-C TOR OF ENVI QCINM( h I A L 5ERV I rL9 r f' I rZF(-I OP OF r I 1$31, 1 C 14OR VS 4I,!9,IECT 1 1,o!.4 - PP B G-2 I I'A I E M;o,, I I I'firo ,I I u, I it be cons I do r Pd rnnd it ion of =Irnr"v,o I If r,j I j 1,1- and s i(I fl.2 I I zrj t inn fund fees, r!S required by C.I I y to I 'I ,.:"I"", r.linI be paid prior ior to re I,o r(,I a t I nil of rho final I be provided. rie r )rd I uLini a :1, I vf :f.j I lot, 11 l�,i D r a I n ioo,. Plan. to Lhf-, F 1 c a It I :-11, r,F r I I r cf Pull I I I Works. air: cnnstrUCt 10'1 `.hall lie -,out I Iron m do I P, Ludy lay the is �jppr-jv,d by I hr- private eng I engineer that i r tm.-Til F P,i b 1 1 c Works. . Fu I I pub I I I: imp-n v emer,t s, including traffic I f etv I I g I I 11^ required by ordinance Iind the Director Or Pull I 1 17 Works. s b.i I I he In L a I led 1 n accordance with City sL.,jndards. rl (-,(Imp I I,o, improvement: plan, and t;OL c 1 f I cat Inns shall be tit,m I t t, ,(. as required by of d I nance, to the City Engineer f ,,r .-he c k Ing a of(I approval before co n:;If-u c t I on of .i if v I MITI I T-1)V It C FI t 5 1 -, corlinfeucild. T If e engineer 5 h-3 1 1 s u b r1i I 11a,; I I if II"" plans prior to the acrepl:ance of Elie I I"Pr ovi-mi",I. toy the i 1 11 y. All pr I v a I c ;tree is and parking arras T ha I I be inspected terl by Elie 01112 i neer I nq dt.-partmeril and a standard 1 ri-.npr t ion F, ,h,i I I , paid or I or to r ncordat loti of the f I n 3 1 map. L 3 if I:1 .I--;,-p I ng in o I n I en a n c e of n [I w y 1 1 1 and [ red Waring Of h a 1 1 1,e provider) by the prupef ty owner. prI Existing for! I jtles on Hwy III and Fred Wariri,-I Dr. shall be urine,groluiderl per each respective utl I i tv distrirt' 5 racoomendaltion. Traf [-I, c.aretv str ipinq of, HWY III and Fred Waring Dr . 51i.il I I.- pr,,vidod to the specifications of the Director of public A tiaffic, control plan must be submitted to and :ti,firov,,I by the Director of Public Works be Fore placing p,1v,!fner,L markings. In) Foinr,I -1:, cira,f I too plans and spec I r I cat I ons sha I I be quibm I t I cri. as required by ordinance, to the City Enq inQer For cif,yino and ai,u u v,-.i I prior to Issuance OF :any permits. I of feet Feet of tight-of-way on Hwy 1 1 1 and [-I PfI to War it,o [Ir. sha I I be done prior to issuance of any permits and 'up"I '-va 1 uF P laos. 1 1 111 of C LI I b a[I d gather, matching o.'.,v 3 not and sid(,%iflk iIu 11w, 11 1 and Fred Waring. ill 4lniver of occes. to Ilwy III and Frcd VJ3rInq Dr.excPPt al. norf? ovod oratlons shall be granted Off the F I Tta l map. u,u7,,.-1 elh ive,av with full height curb and gutter. 151 0 F I's 1 1-e I npf ovemen t Plans to be approved by Public Works Uronr'I.(nell t _end a surety posted to guarantee If 1,e -equ I r e(I off s I fit imp,nvi-menIts prior to recordation Of the final M1r'. t ., i i i t i o n r--I a I F I ds`aued m e d i ... in Fled W,;' i I i vmc 0 (In r .,if F, hall I the f J 1 .3 t, r I i o r of the.e. L)i t o t r f V i I i WurkS. mu li, L i rn.,odull b u 111 1 t:I L! as cl!I i I e J Lt- i:,.: , 1,,� (; Engineer f o r c c, inn :i n d p,, -1 1 r t o c! D^fore 1 s 3 u a t i e of a n y rse r m j c,C i at Pd v!i I 1 ; . , t. 'i I I!, in, e ,r I v v[wav on F ,­_l W 3 r i n a Dr . 7,ha I I be t kr r i ih t turn ri only i na i e s s-ti r e F, by means of C. curb. I w m,,.t e.,i,t­r I v driveway off Fred Waring Drive sh-i i I t­ fl, q i i err! sr, as to a I i gn Y,i th approved ac,rp, s f,c)i nt, For fleT , u i IlDr, -0094. P.--ti-hw,,,f Drive and Ma n z a r,i t a Drive sha 1 1 be 'ff I -rill -E ac d t, I If, :a t 1 s Fa, i i on of the City E n o i n e,.,i . C if I d u -s a --a 5 h. bf- de; i o r i c cl to city s tandcir d3. ill Parcel 11,j n 21112 shq I I be rec,,rded fnrior to Filing of t I,e F 1 r,,i I ii,jp for I r art 21624. e- : i m o i a I access a-A, e f!rn e r)t s between P.M. 1 2 and rf I r a,t 21,2n s h'",I I be I Pen? ded prior to the issuar,cr or a n y ..... .. f u, i r,i H d with this project . Prior iu mr, recur flat ion Or ushwood Or i ve and flanzanita Dr i vp sha I I be vacated. All i mr,r ovemetit s relating t 0 Stat I? Highway III shall be per slate standards and 3perifir:dItIons. It 14 d I of P.E. A/R,IF W ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY OEST RICj r, �, COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRI ' ,w; POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)398-265j ��IAY `-' 3 1986 DIRECTORS OPFI�EA31c C 1 nw... RAYMON DEKAS,MON PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL BERN MANAGER-CON,SE JgfJ{EEA41 (IEFq�j i1!Ey! JOHN P. POEELS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON.3ECRET RE�fiI JOHN P.NICHOL KEITH H.PINSKORTH,ASSISTANT GENERAL RRILL,AGER/AATTORNEYS T YS PAUL W.REJ.FISH RECWINE AND 3HERRILL,ATTORNEYS THEODORE J.FISH May 19, 1986 File: 0163.1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Tract 21624, Precise Plan 86-21, Portion of Southwest quarter, Section 18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. Yours very truly, �/ Tom Levy �l+,L General Manager—Chief Engineer CS:ir cc: Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 TRUE CONSERVATION Attention: Don Park USE WATER WISELY L41// 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY VE of o4 FIREDEPARTMENT 5 IN COOPERATION WITH THE t4IIl'•. 7'(17'.c%'1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY o RAY HEBRARD '4,�FNi of foP�S — FIRE CI;IIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE Raymon Diaz M q 2 q PERRIS.CALIFORNIA 92370 / � � -��v°�.� �S, 1;4' !TELEPHONE- 714 657.3I63 Planning and Community Development Director tVIAY221986� 73510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 C;,. _p;;r;;, r/r 1F.- ov?.;Ire PI Reference: PP g6.zl Applicant: $Qiaia AN7rq DeveLoPµEN, Dear Mr. Ramon 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 3vopGPM 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. ` ice,te e_ 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than2oo 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 PPiI;-21 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal ." 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. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over 5000 square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. Very truly yours , RAY HEBRARD Fire,,,� n Chief ! �� By, W.e `�' Uhl` MIKE MCCONNELL Fire Marshal INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: Steve Smith FROM: Brent Conley RE: PP86-21 DATE: May 12, 1986 The plan as proposed has a number of traffice flow considerations. These considerations are: 1 . E/B traffic on SR 111 is not able to turn into the complex . This restriction is needed, but the entrance on Fred Waring will be effected. 2 . Traffic flow into the proposed Raffles complex from this complex should be restricted or eliminated. 3 . A merging traffic lane should be installed to allow smoother access onto W/B SR 111 and into complex. 4 . The entrance onto Fred Waring will be impacted turning into the complex , creating a possible need for a future traffic signal . This cross traffic from W/B Fred Waring traffic to E/B Fred Waring into the complex could pose a serious problem. Any additional comments concerning building construction will have to made at time of plan proposal. Any questions or comments call me at ext. 303. - Brent Conley Crime Prevention Officer BC/rrt 43--71 ?41CXL" PSAR LANE, PALM CZSc::;, ;.:L7CRNL 35,-7=C T-�'?HCNE (714) .346-061I MAY 1 9 1986 CWMNLINVITY OEVELOPMEM O PAHTMU.4 CITY PF PALM OESEP.T Tr (00 pk-�x AIL asici QAtd�4 S' D.RA;vM1 arl C� s7Wr.�a1: C1 Qom'_.— C-v�DTtiG r'�.`S 0231:CiOA OF 3UITJT INC CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mavor and City Council II . REOUEST: Preliminary comments on a development proposal for a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,836 square feet on a 9 acre site. zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Hiahwav Ill and Fred Waring Drive. III. APPLICANT: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 IV. CASE NO: PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 V. DATE: May 22, 1986 VI. DISCUSSION: The applicant filed the various necessary applications on April 22, 1986. Due to certain aspects of the request, staff requested that the applicant make a presentation to planning commission in study session to obtain preliminary comment. The presentation was made at the May 6, 1986 planning commission meeting. Planning commission raised the following concerns based on the presentation. 1 . Location of the east loading area and it's adjacent residential neighbors. 2. The heights of the buildings (30 8 32 feet) . 3. The appropriateness of large retail uses in the PC (4) zone (basically hotel and restaurants only with accessary uses) . 4. Whether an amendment to the code is necessary to permit a service station in the PC (4) zone. 5. Whether the city is prepared to consider a code amendment to permit a drive-thru restaurant (Del Taco) . Given the extreme sensitivity of the site as part of the gateway to the city, planning commission felt that some of the above issues were policy matters which require direction from city council prior to formal evaluation by the planning commission. PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 Accordingly, the commission, by minute motion, directed staff to place the matter on the next available city council agenda for a presentation by the applicant and subsequent direction from the council to the planning commission. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by ` /dlg 2 DEVELOPMEiNT COMPANY, INC 711 E. Imperial Highway Brea, California92621 7I4/671-1400 BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS M--v '_o , 1-938 3-afOrd C r f es , C'-a-_-a^ C-tv of Pair Desert 73510 Fred War-na Dr-ve ?al- Desert , CA 92260 Proposed =eta-! V___ace, Corner of Tred riar-r_c wear Cha-gran Crites : Soon you wii_ be asked to vote on Parad-se ?a_rs Plaza, a retail v-_l,-ge to be developed by Santa An-ta Development {SDC1 . SDC has pnrchasec .he-r site from our company, and you rav re--a!! we are develop!^.c .^e 226-root ?arac;se ?aims Resort , adjacent to __e sub;ect protect. S-nce -ncept-on, SDC ' s protect has been carefully coorc;r_atec wit- ^_e hotel project . s important t_^_at _z be cons:cerec as an - -teeral part of the over,-!! deve'_opment for re 20 acres . It -s not jzst another ^eta-! center . You rav be far-l-ar wit= a ser_es of resort orooert-es Arizona, !crown as z e Po-nte �esorts . Sac: resort has a^related meta-! v-_!age , designed a co-pl--c_^_zany aachitectural stye-rg, and s-te access and '_ar_cscaal_^.c are coorc__^_atec. SgC ?s propos-ng to dotne same, to des-an and bu-_d a _ _ta-_ v-_lace w'r.-ch coral-re_^_ts ,he hotel and -s -r_tecrated _ to .he overall si'_e des'cn. ?lease keep .=_-s __. =f nd when zhe _ _ ;ect . *Fie careful_v -nterv-ewec co-pet-ng seta-_ developers pr-or to select-ng SDC . 0bv4ous_v dive^ the s-te : s prom-r_ence , we had __ serous ___terestec part-es . we chose SDC because thev are to cooed--ate arc:-tectural_v and are seas-t--re to e co^^=_4tv' s des-res . _hev also are f-nand-a__v sound wit:. an esce!lert .rack record for developing saccessfu'_ retai_ centers . We have coord_r_a:ed on e7erq issue iac=::diac =cvc- _:, access , dart ng design_, ;ar_dscaninc, arc ..ec re and s_c-ace . We are iooci^c forward to ',7--C -Fn as neichoors, and hope go;: co zoo . IP" L ._c 0 '=S sru _ice Do'._.. Preside_^_t 3_D:ci CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Approval of change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environ- mental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial project of some 90,636 square feet on a nine acre site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 . III . APPLICANT: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 IV. CASE NO: C/Z 84-15, PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 V. DATE: August 14, 1986 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution No. and draft Ordinance No. _ D. Planning Commission minutes involving Case No. C/Z 84-14, PP 86-21 & TT 21624. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 999 and 1157. F. Planning Commission staff report dated June 17, 1986. G. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. _ to second reading. Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. approving PP 86-21 and TT 21624. B. DISCUSSION: Development of the Highway Ill frontage between Park View Drive and Fred Waring Drive has been a long time in coming. On the northerly portion of the area adjacent to Park View Drive the city recently approved a proposed Raffles Hotel . Discussions with the hotel people indicate it should open for business by Fall of 1987. C/Z 84-15, PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 A development plan for the southerly area, adjacent to Fred Waring Drive has been in the works for almost a year in that Santa Anita Development made a presentation to the city in October 1985. At that time the developer was advised that a farmers market might help to make the overall development more acceptable. An operator of a farmers market was secured and subsequently a plan submitted. This plan included among other uses two drive thru restaurants. The development plan as approved by the planning commission provided for a farmers market along with a service station and several restaurants (drive thru facilities deleted) as well as other retail and office facilities. Planning commission felt that the changes agreed to by the developer would result in the project being an asset to the community. Commission discussed at length the appropriateness of these uses in the P/C (4) zone. Staff advised commission that given the extent that this project is integrated with the hotel development to the north and restaurants and service station included in the plan, then it was felt that the remaining uses in the plan were acceptable ancillary uses Pursuant to the zoning ordinance. The city attorney concurred with this position however, he felt that if commission had major concerns then a general commercial zoning would be more appropriate. Commission at its July Ist, 1986 meeting approved the cases, subject to conditions, on a 4-0-1 vote with Chairman Crites abstaining in that he was not present at the hearing of June 17, 1986. The portion of the property located at the northwest corner of Joshua Road and Fred Waring Drive is zoned R-I . In October of 1984 planning commission held a hearing and by its resolution no. 999 recommended approval of a change of zone to P/C (4) . The change of zone request was not forwarded to city council in that the city did not have an acceptable development plan to implement the zone change. We now have a plan approved by the planning commission and hence it is appropriate to forward the change of zone request to city council for final action. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107 OF THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-1 TO P\C (4) S.P. FOR APPROXI- MATELY .76 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND JOSHUA ROAD. CASE NO: C/Z 84-15 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1 : That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46. 1 of the zoning ordinance, the zoning map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 2: That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this day of 1986 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor i, SHEILA R. G ILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /dlg RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL/RESORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOME 90,636 SQUARE FEET ON A NINE ACRE SITE , ZONED PC (4) AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 111 . CASE NO: PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California did on the 14th day of August, 1986 hold a duly noticed public hearing on the above noted cases. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of June 1986 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by SNNTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,636 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 , more particularly described as: APN 640-020-010, 011 ,012 640-032-001 , 006, 011 , 012, 013 WHEREAS, the planning commission did at its July 1 , 1986 meeting adopt its resolution no. 1157 approving the cases subject to conditions. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the director of community develop- ment has determined that the project will have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be head, said city council did find the following facts and reasons as specified in the staff report dated July 1 , 1986 to exist to justify the approval of said precise plan of design. 1 . The design of the precise plan as revised will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan as revised will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. RESOLUTION NO. _ 3. The precise plan as revised will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following. facts and reasons as justified in the staff report dated July 1 , 1986 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map. 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the design of the subdivision will not restrict solar access. 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 council in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan 86-21 and Tentative Tract Map 21624 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. 2 RESOLUTION NO. _ PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this _ day of , 1986 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /dlg 3 I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 23, 1986 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C/Z 84-15, PP 86-21 E TT 21624 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by SANTA ANNTA DEVELOPMENT for approval of change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial project of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111, more particularly described as: APN's 640-020-010, 011 , 012 640-032-001 , 006, 011, 012, 013 -J Q S.P > � 0I 2 oC C-1 0 (nPR.aa�4Tts` tr CV a ,> _ i R-I u (. AHD S.P. �72 0r`0 P.R. 22 --- 1 R I a: ~ PC. __ t . 0 W C-I p i N 12 D U N D (4). _ TG C I i wlp,y (r C s. R 2S ^r. , S—I FRED WARING CRl '- E s P. C. P. R-1 R.-6 > , W v (4) R I ' �, "•° ' '• `�• ' S.P. , a SUBJECT PROPERTY P.C. (4), '• • •,, ' �i�• W5 _ d VISTA T yR�l '•::. e' 3 -AMp•Co DF VE w ' y R-t w +• .•. •i• S.P. W p-VCnC cpev^_ U SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 14, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLiGAN. City Clerk August 1 , 1986 City of Palm Desert, California i 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: July 2, 1986 JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Dev. 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: PP 86 2 ND TT 21624 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at Its meeting of July 1 , 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO 1157 CARRIED 4-0-1 (CHAIRMAN CRITES ABSTAINED) Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. y RAMON A. DIAZ, SECR TA PALM DESERT PLANNING C MISSION RAD/tm PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL/RESORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOME 90,836 SQUARE FEET ON A NINE ACRE SITE, ZONED PC (4) AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 111 . CASE NO: PP 86-21 S TT 21624 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of June 1986 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,636 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and. Highway Ill., more particularly described as: APN 640-020-010, 011,012 640-032-001, 006, 011 , 012, 013 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of community develop- ment has determined that the project will have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be head, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons as specified in the staff report dated July 1 , 1986 to exist to justify the approval of said precise plan of design. 1 . The design of the precise plan as revised will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan as revised will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan as revised will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering al.l .testi- mony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff PLANNING COMMISSION RESCLUTICN NO. 1157 report dated July 1 , 1986 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map. 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for i access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. i 8. That the design of the subdivision will not restrict solar access. NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: i 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 86-21 and Tentative Tract Map 21624 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. I 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of July, 1986 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, ERWOOD, RICHARDS 8 WOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: CRITES ABSTAIN: NONE BUFO�, Chairman ATTEST: / ., ��V I• /� RAMON A. DIAZ, Secret r /dlg 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. PP 86-21 E TT 21624 Department of Community unity 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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which included, but are not limited to, architectural review and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year I ! from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, other- wise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contem- plated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: I 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 li presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. I' I 5. Major truck deliveries and trash pick-up for market and other businesses to be only between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday only. i 6. Only delivery diesel trucks built after 1974 shall be used. 7. All architecture of future buildings to be compatible with architectural commission approval of plans. 8. Trash enclosures for each detached building and the main building to be provided: with design and location to be approved by city and local trash company. 9. All conditions of the architectural commission shall be met. i '� 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 10. Detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval , subject to applicable lighting standards; plan to be prepared by qualified lighting engineer and pay particular attention in the area of the east driveway. 11 . Parking space and aisles shall comply with Palm Desert design standards for off-street parking facilities. 12. Three to 3.5 foot decorative wall and/or mounding shall be provided to sufficiently screen parking lot area from streets. 13. Market operator to submit letter indicating that he has read the conditions of approval and will abide by same; letter to be submitted prior to issuance of building permit. 14. Parking lot directional striping and safety signs to be provided; plan to be submitted with final working drawings for approval . 15. That the easterly landscape strip adjacent to the existing single family dwellings be planted with a variety of coniferous planting materials to provide an effective barrier and yet not create leaf problems for adjacent owners. 16. That the applicant shall install a masonry wall along the east property line adjacent to the single family dwellings. Said wall to be installed immediately upon certification of the rough grading in this area. No building permit for any building on the site shall be issued until the easterly wall Is completed. 17. That the applicant shall comply strictly with the provisions of Ordinance 294, specifically municipal code section 27. 12.067 entitled "Blow sand and dust control". 18. That any compact parking spaces or spaces designated for employee only parking be so designated by appropriate signing. 19. That the parking spaces located in the east and northerly loading areas be designated employee only parking areas to limit parking turnover. 20. That building permits for the main building, including the "farmer's market" must be issued and substantial construction activity ( i .e. : foundation work) commenced prior to issuance of building permits for any of the satellite pads. 21 . That if the development is constructed in phases each phase must fully comply with all code requirements prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. If the development is to be constructed in phases, the director of community development must give his prior approval to the phasing. 22. Service station building to be setback a minimum of 30 feet from Highway III and Fred Waring Drive property lines per municipal code requirements. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 23. Raised landscape center median shall be provided to satisfaction of city in both Highway III and Fred Waring Drive. 24. The service station facility shall not provide repair or service work. 25. Items to be sold in the service station facility shall be strictly limited to those normally and customarily associated with the sale of gasoline and automotive products. The facility shall not operate as a mini-market or convenience store. 26. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) month from the date of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 27. All on-site utilities shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of community development. 28. All dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval if any shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 29. The CCBR's for this development shall be submitted to the director of community development for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits except for a permit for construction of the easterly wall which may be constructed as soon as the rough grading is certified. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners/operators of the businesses in the project. 30. Any revisions to tentative tract map required by approval of PP 86-21 shall be made prior to recordation of final map. 31 . That change of zone, Case No. C/Z 84-15, recommended for approval by the planning commission to the city council on October 16, 1984 for the south east portion of the .subject property be forwarded to the city council and approved prior to issuance of any permits on this project. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of the director of public works. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 4. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 5. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. All private streets and parking areas shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 7. Landscaping maintenance on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 9. Existing utilities on Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. 9. Traffic safety striping on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided to the specifications of the director of public works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the director of public works before placing pavement markings. 10. 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. 11. Dedication of 60 feet of right-or-way on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans. 12. Installation of curb and gutter, matching paving and sidewalk on Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. 13. Waiver of access to Highway III and Fred Waring Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 14. Close unused driveway with full height curb and gutter. 15. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. 16. Installation of one-half landscaped median in Fred Waring Drive or cash payment for one-half the cost of landscaped median at the option of the director of public works. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 17. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval and be recorded before issuance of any permits associated with this project. 18. The most westerly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be restricted to right turn only ingress-egress by means of raised P.C.C. curb. 19. The most easterly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be designed so as to align with approved access points for Parcel Map 20894. 20. Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be cul-de-saced to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Cul-de-sacs shall be designed to city standards. 21. Parcel Map 21412 shall be recorded prior to filing of the final map for Tract 21624. 22. Reciprocal access agreements between PM 21412 and Tract 21624 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 23. Prior to map recordation Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be vacated. 24. All improvements relating to State Highway III shall be per state standards and specifications. City Fire Marshal : 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 3000 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 1n the supply main from which the flow Is measured at the time of measurement. 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. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1157 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 86-21 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal ". 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. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over 5,000 square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. /dig 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1, 1986 design to allow construction and operation of a church facility (and use of temporary modular structure for church services) on five gross acres in the PR-5 zone (planned residential , maximum five dwelling units per acre) , located on the east side of Portola Avenue, approximately 660 feet north of Country Club Drive. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. AL BROMLEY, representative, requested a two week extension ! to discuss conditions of approval with public work's staff. Commission concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing PP 86-32 to July 15, 1986 as requested by the applicant. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos. 8 and TT 21624 - SNNTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT, App l i carrt Resolution of approval . Staff explained that this was the resolution requested by the commission at its meeting of June 17, 1986. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairman Crites abstained. ) Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded- by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1157, approving PP 86-21 and TT 21624 subject to conditions. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairman Crites abstained.) I Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to return to the regular order of the agenda. Carried 5-0. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1986 i i from 10 feet to a maximum of 21-1/2 feet, with the average being 14.9 feet. Property owners association requested a minimum 10 foot setback. He noted that Frank Urrutia requested the larger setback on his side of the lot. Applicant stated that he was j requesting a reasonable setback variance. I j Commissioner Richards asked the applicant the size of the home he would be building. Mr. Zarenejad replied 2100 square feet. Vice Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards stated that he felt the project was good, indicating that the applicant was building a modest size home that is right for the neighborhood. Commissioner Wood concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner, Richards, seconded by, Commissioner Downs adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1151, approving VAR 86-21 subject to conditions. Carried 4-0 C. Case Nos. PP . 86-2 and TT .21624 - SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental .impact to allow construction of a retail/commercial project of . some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addressed the commissions five basic concerns of the May meeting. He explained that city council had reviewed the project on May 26 and made no comment at that time. Mr. Smith then proceeded to outline the changes to the site plan and noted that the architec- tural commission had granted preliminary approval . The architectural commission also endorsed the drive-thru restaurants and the location of the service station on the corner lot. Mr. Smith felt that the location of the service station was inappropriate in that the state 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1986 could control the signage and that the station should not have been incorporated in a complete plan. He did not want the service station to appear as the Monterey and Country Club station has. Commissioner Wood explained that many of his friends living near the Monterey service station feel It is very attractive. - He felt that a service station at that location, if properly landscaped, would be more appropriate for traffic flow reasons. He indicated that the architectural commission should have a strong hand in the design of the service station. Commissioner Richards noted that staff did an excellent job on the Monterey center. He felt that the price signs are convenient for peop 1 e who wish to know prices before enter 1 ng a gas station. He explained that his concern was with the overall picture of the PC 4 designation. He felt that the zoning was being twisted around to fit the proposed type of use and recommended the possibility of the property being rezoned to more appropriately accommodate the project. Mr. Diaz suggested that the commission first look at the project itself and then determine If the zoning needs to be changed. I Vice Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the Il applicant to address the commission. MR.' JOE SEITZ, applicant, stated that he had ' a formal presen- tation if the commission wished to hear it. He indicated that they felt they had been reasonable to the concerns of the commission. MR. BRUCE GREENE, project architect, -presented a height and a solar study which indicated that the adjacent single family homes would not be adversely affected. He explained_ that the gas station was to have no service or repair work only some sales of convenience items. He then proceeded to outline the changes made to the site plan. ' Mr. Diaz suggested that the gas islands be reduced' from three to two and the landscaping increased. MR. JIM HUNTSBORO, of Mobil 011 , felt that the three islands ` were needed 'to service the needs of the customer. He indicated that they wou 1 d be selling vending machine type products only "> and no service or repairs would be done there. - Mr. Seitz noted that they had discussed having one sign on the corner that would satisfy the state. I i i i I � i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1986 r Vice Chairman Erwood asked if any one wished to speak in FAVOR or I OPPOSITION to the proposed project. i FLORENCE LOPEZ, 4850 Pepperwood Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90808, submitted a letter which listed her concerns with the proposed project. She explained that she co-owned two homes adjacent the property which might be negatively impacted traffic noise, lighting, pollution, garbage and odors from the nearest restaurant. She was also concerned with the dust during j construction, the location of equipment storage, drainage problems existing on the site and access to the homes. MR. JOE SEITZ. explained that the delivery hours will be limited to day hours only and that landscaping and buffering will provide screening from the rear of the project and the restaurant. MR. BRUCE GREENE noted that construction will be done quickly from October to early spring. During construction there will be appropriate watering to keep dust down. MR. BARRY McCLELLAN, engineer, stated that the east bound traffic would be unchanged. ., He explained that there is a drainage problem to which they have a solution. Santa Anita _ Development and D .8 0 Development will be building a storm drain. The city engineer has agreed to extend the drainage pipe across Highway III to Fred Waring Drive. He explained that all the water , from the site would be put into enclosed underground pockets. MR. JOE SEITZ indicated that they have set up a fund that offers neighbors $300 to $500 for additional landscaping on their property. . . . . With no further discussion Vice Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. . Commissioner Richards felt the developer has been generous in the i changes that have been made. He thought that the service station was in an appropriate 1 ocat i on but felt that the comp 1 ete project was being stretched to fit into the PC 4 zoning. He noted that he would rather see a hotel development on this site. I Commissioner Wood questioned counsel on the legality of approving this project under the current zoning of PC 4. He felt it was a good project that would provide services to the community. Commissioner .;.Downs agreed with Commissioner Wood and felt that the applicant has made acceptable changes to the commissions concerns. f I 6 I I 1 I I � I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1986 I Mr. Phillips felt that the project could be approved under the current zoning but indicated that a commercial zoning would be more appropriate. Vice Chairman Erwood stated that he would have a problem approving this project under the PC 4 zoning. He recommended that the applicant request a zone change. Commissioner Wood suggested approving this project now and ask for a study on the PC 4 zoning. Commissioner Richards suggested that staff look into the remaining PC land available .in the city and discuss whether the zoning should be changed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs to grant conceptual approval of the revised development plan dated June 13, 1986 and to direct staff to return with a resolution of approval with appropriate findings and conditions based on testimony and - discussion given today to the meeting of .July A , 1986.':.-.Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Richards opposed). D. Case No. PP 86-23 - KEN INGHAM, Applicant Request for approval of plans for a 6,000 square foot single story retail/furniture store located ^° in a C-I zone at -the northeast corner of San Carlos and Palm Desert Drive. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance to JulyT15, �1986.:i 'He noted that the applicant .:i=,wasn the process of j selling the property and the buyer would like to continue with the hearing process. - Vice Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and.asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being no one, the public hearing was continued. Action: . Moved . by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards --continuing Case • No. PP 86-23 to the meeting. 'of .-July 15, 1986. _nCarried 4-0. .. I 7 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: July 1 , 1986 CASE NO: PP 86-21 and TT 21624 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 . APPLICANT: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 1. BACKGROUND: June 17, 1986 following a public hearing the applicant, Joe Seitz on behalf of Santa Anita Development was given approval in concept for a 90,636 square foot retial/resort commercial development and staff was instructed to prepare a resolution with findings for approval and appro- priate conditions. Appendix "A" attached hereto delineates the findings necessary for the precise plan and tentative tract map. As was noted in the June 17, 1986 staff report the extreme southeast corner of the property is zoned R-1 yet is designated resort commercial in the general plan. A zone change request from R-1 to PC (4) was before planning commission in October 1984 and was recommended for approval . The case (C/Z 84-I5) was never forwarded to the city council for it's approval due to the lack of an approved precise plan for the property in question. When this case is approved we will forward the change of zone request to the city council . An appropriate condition, number 31 under community development requires that this change of zone be completed prior to issuance of any permits for the development. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg APPENDIX 'A' PP 86-21 & TT 21624 A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. Justification: The project as revised is attractive and acceptable from a design aspect and not incompatible with other uses existing 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. Justification: Existing and approved uses in the immediate area include restaurants, hotels and single family dwellings. The development in question has been designed so as to minimize any impacts this use may have on the single family dwellings. In addition to physical barriers such as a seven foot high masonry wall and an intensively planted landscaped planter area; the type of delivery vehicle and the days and hours for deliveries will be strictly limited and controlled. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Justification: The project as revised and as conditioned is designed in a manner that will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. B. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: The proposed map is consistent with the zoning and the zoning is consistent with the general plan 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: All public streets will be dedicated and improved and sufficient drainage facilities will be provided in conformance with the general plan guidelines and city ordinances. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. APPENDIX 'A' Justification: The 389,800 square foot site is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed project and the topography of the site does not create significant problems. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Justification: The design of the project indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed density of development because the site can be served by respective utilities and is designed in compliance with all city codes. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Justification: The design will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because it will be constructed in compliance with applicable regulations and the proposed negative declaration has determined that there will be no related adverse environmental effect which cannot be mitigated. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Justification: The design will not cause serious public health problems because it will be in compliance with applicable health, safety and building codes. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Justification: There have been no easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. Justification: The applicant has provided line of site and solar access line of vision drawings which indicate that solar access to adjacent properties and to the subject property will not be restricted. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL/RESORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOME 90,836 SQUARE FEET ON A NINE ACRE SITE , ZONED PC (4) AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 111 . CASE NO: PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of June 1986 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,636 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway ill , more particularly described as: APN 640-020-010, 011 ,012 640-032-001 , 006, 011 , 012, 013 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of community develop- ment has determined that the project will have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be head, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons as specified in the staff report dated July 1 , 1986 to exist to justify the approval of said precise plan of design. 1 . The design of the precise plan as revised will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan as revised will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan as revised will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff report dated July 1 , 1986 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map. PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the design of the subdivision will not restrict solar access. 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 86-21 and Tentative Tract Map 21624 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. 2 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this lst day of July, 1986 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD CRITES, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /dlg 3 PP 86-21 a TT 21624 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which included, but are not limited to, architectural review and building permit procedures. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, other- wise said approval shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contem- plated 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. 5. Major truck deliveries and trash pick-up for market and other businesses to be only between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday only. 6. Only delivery diesel trucks built after 1974 shall be used. 7. All architecture of future buildings to be compatible with architectural commission approval of plans. 8. Trash enclosures for each detached building and the main building to be provided; with design and location to be approved by city and local trash company. 9. All conditions of the architectural commission shall be met. 4 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 10 Detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to 0 P 9 9 9 9 staff for approval , subject to applicable lighting standards; plan to be prepared by qualified lighting engineer and pay particular attention in the area of the east driveway. 11 . Parking space and aisles shall comply with Palm Desert design standards for off-street parking facilities. 12. Three to 3.5 foot decorative wall and/or mounding shall be provided to sufficiently screen parking lot area from streets. 13. Market operator to submit letter indicating that he has read the conditions of approval and will abide by same; letter to be submitted prior to issuance of building permit. 14. Parking lot directional striping and safety signs to be provided; plan to be submitted with final working drawings for approval . 15. That the easterly landscape strip adjacent to the existing single family dwellings be planted with a variety of coniferous planting materials to provide an effective barrier and yet not create leaf problems for adjacent owners. 16. That the applicant shall install a masonry wall along the east property line adjacent to the single family dwellings. Said wall to be installed immediately upon certification of the rough grading in this area. No building permit for any building on the site shall be issued until the easterly wall is completed. 17. That the applicant shall comply strictly with the provisions of Ordinance 294, specifically municipal code section 27. 12.067 entitled "Blow sand and dust control ". 18. That any compact parking spaces or spaces designated for employee only parking be so designated by appropriate signing. 19. That the parking spaces located in the east and northerly loading areas be designated employee only parking areas to limit parking turnover. 20. That building permits for the main building, including the "farmer's market" must be issued and substantial construction activity ( i .e. : foundation work) commenced prior to issuance of building permits for any of the satellite pads. 21 . That if the development is constructed in phases each phase must fully comply with all code requirements prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. If the development is to be constructed in phases, the director of community development must give his prior approval to the phasing. 22. Service station building to be setback a minimum of 30 feet from Highway III and Fred Waring Drive property lines per municipal code requirements. 5 PP 86-21 S TT 21624 23. Raised landscape center median shall be provided to satisfaction of city in both Highway III and Fred Waring Drive. 24. The service station facility shall not provide repair or service work. 25. Items to be sold in the service station facility shall be strictly limited to those normally and customarily associated with the sale of gasoline and automotive products. The facility shall not operate as a mini-market or convenience store. 26. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) month from the date of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 27. All on-site utilities shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of community development. 28. All dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval if any shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 29. The CC8R's for this development shall be submitted to the director of community development for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits except for a permit for construction of the easterly wall which may be constructed as soon as the rough grading is certified. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners/operators of the businesses in the project. 30. Any revisions to tentative tract map required by approval of PP 86-21 shall be made prior to recordation of final map. 31 . That change of zone, Case No. C/Z 84-15, recommended for approval by the planning commission to the city council on October 16, 1984 for the south east portion of the subject property be forwarded to the city council and approved prior to issuance of any permits on this project. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of the director of public works. 6 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 4. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 5. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. All private streets and parking areas shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 7. Landscaping maintenance on Highway III and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided by the property owner. 8. Existing utilities on Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. 9. Traffic safety striping on Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided to the specifications of the director of public works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the director of public works before placing pavement markings. 10. 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. 11 . Dedication of 60 feet of right-or-way on Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans. 12. Installation of curb and gutter, matching paving and sidewalk on Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive. 13. Waiver of access to Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 14. Close unused driveway with full height curb and gutter. 15. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. 16. Installation of one-half landscaped median in Fred Waring Drive or cash payment for one-half the cost of landscaped median at the option of the director of public works. 7 PP 86-21 b TT 21624 17. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval and be recorded before issuance of any permits associated with this project. 18. The most westerly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be restricted to right turn only ingress-egress by means of raised P.C.C. curb. 19. The most easterly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be designed so as to align with approved access points for Parcel Map 20894. 20. Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be cul -de-saced to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Cul-de-sacs shall be designed to city standards. 21 . Parcel Map 21412 shall be recorded prior to filing of the final map for Tract 21624. 22. Reciprocal access agreements between PM 21412 and Tract 21624 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 23. Prior to map recordation Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be vacated. 24. All improvements relating to State Highway III shall be per state standards and specifications. City Fire Marshal : 1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 3000 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. 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. 8 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 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 86-21 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal ". 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. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over 5,000 square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. /dig 9 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION June 20, 1986 SANTA ANNTA DEVELOPMENT Joe Seitz 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: PP 86-21 and TT 21624 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of June 17, 1986. GRANTED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL CARRIED 3-1. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision , v RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRE Y PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/dlg CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 17, 1986 CASE NO: PP 86-21 and TT 21624 REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 . APPLICANT: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 I. BACKGROUND: In October 1985 the applicant made a presentation to a subcommittee of planning commission and city council . At that time the proposal was anchored by a major supermarket. The subcommittee indicated that a supermarket was not a permitted use in the zone and suggested that a farmers market would be a use that could be considered more favorably. The applicant subsequently found a farmers market operator and came back with the proposal presently before you. The applicant filed the various necessary applications on April 22, 1986. Due to certain aspects of the request, staff requested that the applicant make a presentation to planning commission in study session to obtain preliminary comment. The presentation was made at the May 6, 1986 planning commission meeting. Planning Commission raised the following concerns based on the presenta- tion. 1. Location of the east loading area and it's adjacent residential neighbors. 2. The heights of the building (30 8 32 feet) . 3. The appropriateness of large retail uses in the PC (4) zone (basically hotel and restaurants only with accessary uses) . PP 86-21 a TT 21624 4. Whether an amendment to the code is necessary to permit a service station in the PC (4) zone. 5. Whether the city is prepared to consider a code amendment to permit a drive-thru restaurant (Del Taco). Given the extreme sensitivity of the site as part of the gateway to the city, planning commission felt that some of the above issues were policy matters which require direction from city council prior to formal evaluation by the planning commission. Accordingly, the commission, by minute motion, directed staff to place the matter on the next available city council agenda for a presentation by the applicant and subsequent direction from the council to the planning commission. May 22, 1986 the applicant made a presentation before the city council . The city council offered no comment on the presentation and consequently no direction was obtained. In the presentation to the city council the applicant provided a detailed response to the concerns which had been raised by the planning commission May 6, 1986. Whether or not the responses adequately addressed the concerns in the minds of the city council members is not known. As a result staff has been left in a quandary: should the project be rejected based on the broad problems associated with the drive-thru restaurants; the question of the service station in the PC (4) zone; the question of the ranch market and the large clothing store or If these uses are not objectionable than the project should be reviewed in the normal fashion. Staff has chosen to follow the latter course (modified as will be shown) and reviewed the plan in the normal fashion and will suggest changes which would result in a superior development for the city should the first list of questionable matters be resolved satisfactorily. With this major policy matter still being unanswered staff will not be able to recommend in favor of the project at this time. 11. PROPERTY: A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The property is an irregularly shaped parcel of approximately nine acres located at the northeast corner of Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive. The flat vacant site is bounded on it's east side by three single family units and on it's north by the recently approved Raffles Hotel . The other two sides are bounded by streets. 2 PP 86-21 6 TT 21624 B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PC (4) S.P./Approved Raffles Hotel South: PC (4)/Approved restaurants 8 hotel plan East: R-I/Single family residents West: PC (4)/Across Hwy III restaurant park C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Resort Commercial III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to develop a 90,836 square foot retail/resort commercial develo9ment comprised of an 'L' shaped 64,200 square foot building tucked into the northeast corner of the lot and six satellite buildings (26,636 square feet) on the perimeter along Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 . The 64,200 square foot building would have, among other uses, the ranch market ( 16,000 square feet) and a large general retail store (25,000 square feet) . Other uses are general retail and restaurants both unspecified. The six satellite buildings are proposed as one general retail/ office, two general retail/restaurants, two drive-thru restaurants and a service station on the corner. B. SITE DESIGN, PARKING AND ACCESS: As noted previously the project consists of an 'L' shaped building tucked into the northeast corner of the site and six satellite buildings. Access to the site is provided from two driveways onto Fred Waring Drive. The westerly one being right turn in and right turn out while the easterly driveway will have a median break and provide full ingress - egress. One access point will be provided from Highway 111 . This will be right turn in and right turn out only. No median break or signalization will be provided. One final point of site access will come from the Raffles Hotel site. Access to the site is adequate. 3 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 Circulation on the site is provided via the main Fred Waring driveway which extends northerly and circles in front of the 'L' shaped building turns west and ends at Highway 111 . This same driveway provides access to the perimeter driveways which provide service to the loading docks on the east and north sides of the 'L' shaped building. For the most part the on site circulation is adequate. The one problem area of circulation involves the area of the service station. The driveway system in this area is convoluted, confusing and poorly defined. Staff has other concerns with placing of a service station on the corner but this circulation failure is enough to require that the service station be relocated on the site to a position where it will not negatively impact traffic circulation. Staff would also expect that traffic circulation will be altered in the area of the two drive-thru restaurants. This could be accomp- lished quite easily, provided more parking and not negatively impact the circulation. This is based on the assumption that the city will not amend it's policy prohibiting drive-thru restaurants. Specialty and district centers require five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. This plan has been prepared to provide 5.08 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. City code requires that 454 spaces be provide whereas 461 spaces are provided. Unfortunately most of the spaces have been designed below the size standard provided by code (9' X 20' requires, whereas 9' X 19' and 9' X 18-1/2' are delineated) . Given the circulation changes that will be required and the amount of property it is possible to make the necessary changes and still conform to the code provisions. Extensive landscaping is proposed on the perimeter of the site as well as in the parking lot itself. C. CODE PROVISIONS IN CHART FORM: Code Requirement Provided Street Setbacks Fred Waring 20' 32' Highway 111 32' 32' Joshua Road 20' 32' Interior Setbacks East 20' 35' North 20' 50' Maximum Coverage No Limit 22% 4 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 Parking Space Count 454 461 Parking Space Size 9' X 20' 9' X 19, 8-1/2' X 17'" 9 X 18-1/2 Parking Lot Landscaping 20% 20.4% "Compact spaces permitted not to exceed 10% of total . D. ARCHITECTURE: Buildings are to utilize the same design theme as that developed for the Raffles Hotel and to extend it into the commercial and service area. Major elements of the design work are the use of off-white stucco, clay roof tiles and low slope roof structures. These elements will be enhanced by the use of tile, cast stone, and wood accents, and flattened arches and other traditional forms. The ranch market will feature a raised central area with clerestory window lighting, creating the ranch or barn atmosphere. All satellite buildings will be subject to using the same materials and forms, and will further be required to meet the developer's architectural standards, as well as the City's. The preliminary architectural review of this project was conducted June 10, 1986 and staff will report on same at the hearing. IV. CONCERNS: Planning commission on May 6 expressed a series of concerns which the applicant has addressed. Staff will comment on the responses and then raise other concerns. 1 . Planning commission was concerned with the loading clock located in the east driveway area. The applicant responded as follows: 1 . Location of East Loading Area: Placing the loading area on the east side of the clothier actually provides additional separation from the adjacent residential . The loading area can be relocated to the north side of the building, but in doing so it will cause the building to move closer to the adjacent residential . As a possible solution, we would recommend leaving the loading area in its present position, but reducing its size from 20 feet to 14 feet, and increase the landscape buffer by an additional six feet. 5 PP 86-21 & TT 21624 Staff Response: Staff feels that this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately by narrowing the loading dock the landscaping would only be widened in the area of the loading dock. Staff would suggest that the easterly landscape strip (presently 5 feet in width) should be increased to a minimum of 10 feet which will allow for significantly increased planting, specifically large, vertical trees which in addition to the seven foot high block wall and the four foot drop in the driveway should mitigate any impacts. As a further protection to the three single family dwellings located to the east of the site, limits should be placed on the gage, size and type of trucks that may deliver to the businesses and strictly limit delivery hours. The parking areas located in this area could also be designated employee parking only to limit turn over and subsequent traffic movements in this area. This additional five feet of landscaping can be achieved by deleting five feet from the southeast corner of the 'L' shaped building. This reduces the building area by 300 square feet. 2. Planning commission was concerned with the height of some of the buildings. The applicant responded as follows: 2. Height of Buildings: As stated earlier, all of the buildings are lower than the height limit of 35 feet, and only 2/100ths of 1% of the buildings are within five feet of the height limit, and less than 15% of the building area is within ten feet of the height limit. If we further reduce the height of the project, we will eliminate its architectural richness and it will be less in keeping with the intent of emulating the Raffles Resort Hotel . Staff Response: The applicant also provided a detailed height analysis which indicated the buildings should not negatively impact views in the area. Code limits height to 30 feet within 100 feet of residential property and 35 feet more than 100 feet from a residential zone. Most of the buildings will be 16 feet in height. Two of the buildings (ranch market and clothing store) will go to a maximum at the ridge of 30 feet. Immediately adjacent to the east property line the buildings will be 22 feet in height. Architectural features on the ranch market provide a maximum height of 32 feet at a distance of 272 feet from the east property line. Staff has no suggested height changes although the architectural commission may. 6 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 3. Planning commission was concerned with the larger retail uses (ranch market and clothier) in the PC (4) zone. The applicant responded as follows: 3. Larger Retail Uses in PC (4) Zone: The farmer's market building is 16,000 square feet in size and the clothier is 25,000 square feet In size. There are no size restrictions described in the PC (4) development standards (Section 25.30.240) for either use. The clothier is a permitted use in this zone and the farmer's market was a use request by the city during a study session occurring in October 1985. Staff Response: None 4. Planning commission was concerned with the operation of a service station in the PC (4) zone. The applicant responded as follows: 4. Operation of a Service Station in PC (4) Zone: Although a service station is not specifically listed as a permitted use in a PC (4) zone, the use is not expressly restricted and this use presently exists in other PC (4) zones within the city. We appreciate the city's concern regarding service station operations, however, they do provide a needed use to the community and to the customers utilizing the adjacent hotel . We share in this concern and have intelligently Integrated this use into the overall site planning of the project both architecturally and from a traffic standpoint. Further, this use wi l l also be governed by CC & R's recorded against the entire project. Staff Response: Service stations do presently exist in the PC (4) zone and specific action was taken by planning commission and city council to allow the remodel of the Flying J. This was an existing station and city wished to see it improved. Therefore, the city should not feel compelled to permit a new service station in this zone. If it is determined that a service station is a permitted use in the zone then staff has some specific concerns with this station. As was mentioned In the circulation portion of this report the service station on the corner negatively impacts traffic circulation on the site. As well , staff is very disappointed with the result of the new Mobil Station at Monterey and Country Club. In addition city control of signage for 7 PP 86-21 S TT 21624 service stations has been usurped by the state and we have very little control of the signage. Therefore, if a service station is deemed appropriate in the zone then on this plan staff would require it be relocated to a less prominent and less impacting location. 5. Planning commission was concerned with the operation of a drive-thru restaurant. The applicant responded as follows: 5. Operation of a Drive-Thru Restaurant: We understand the city's prohibition against drive-thru restaurants, however, we respectfully request the council 's consideration of a modification of the existing code to permit such a use only on a subjective, case-by-case basis. We believe that where the incorporation of a drive-thru can be intelligently integrated into a master-planned development, its use should be permitted. In the project before you, Del Taco has agreed to modify the archi- tecture of it's building to blend with the design of the center. The exterior building materials wi l l be the same as those used in the center and a trellis will be used to soften the building, create shade and further enhance its appearance. Del Taco has worked and will continue to work closely with the project's architect to insure the compatibility of its design. The schematic elevations of the Del Taco building depict the character of the proposed building and Indicate how the landscape berming along the street will eliminate visibility of the drive-thru from the public streets. Del Taco has found this treatment to be very successful on several other projects that were also sensitive in nature. To further guarantee the compatibility of the drive-thru with the project, we have: ( 1 ) performed a traffic study to insure adequate traffic circulation; and (2) the operation of the proposed Del Taco will be governed by CC & R's recorded against the entire center to insure proper management and maintenance. Finally, the proposed drive-thru service is a convenience and an asset to the handicapped, mothers with young children and others who desire not to have to leave their vehicle due to weather conditions. a PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 Del Taco has successfully integrated it's drive-thru facilities into many centers and cities concerned 'about creating an aesthetically appealing atmosphere. If afforded the opportunity, we will work diligently with the City of Palm Desert to design and operate a restaurant that will be an asset to all concerned. Copies of the study performed by BSI Consultants, Inc. have been made available to the planning commission and city council for their review. Staff Response: The matter of whether the city should change it's policy relative to prohibiting drive-thru restaurants is just that, a policy matter which must be resolved by the planning commission and ultimately the city council . Regardless of the result (ie: whether the drive-thru's are deleted or not) the plan will need to be amended to provide for additional parking within closer proximity to the building. Presently there are only five spaces convenient to the one restaurant pad. Other Concerns: Trash facilities have been located in the landscape planter areas in the parking lot areas. These facilities should be placed in sunken pits and enclosed with proper landscape treatment. Lighting has been a major problem at the rear of the Monterey-Country Club center. We do not want to repeat this problem. Therefore, no light fixture will be permitted above the height of the top of the wall and they will be strictly controlled ( i .e. down shinning boxes with shields only) . V. CONCLUSION: The plan as presently presented is not adequate to be approved by the planning commission, however, given all of the uncertainties facing the applicant some action is necessary. If the basic project is inherently objectionable to planning commission then by minute motion staff should be directed to prepare a resolution of denial . If the basic project is not inherently objectionable to commission should grant approval in concept subject to the plan being revised in accordance with all of the concerns raised by staff in it's report dated June 17, 1986. This revised plan will then be returned to planning commission at a future hearing. 9 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 If this revised plan then obtains approval of the commission then the matter could be forwarded to the city council . if this occurs then a zone change from R-1 to PC (4) , affecting the extreme southeast corner of the site could be concluded in that the planning commission recommended approval of such a change of zone October 16, 1984. The case (C/Z 84-15) was never forwarded to the city council for it's approval due to the lack of an approved precise plan for the property in question. Prepared by i Reviewed and Approved by zs /dig 10 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 86-21 8 TT 21624 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Precise plan of design to allow construction of a 90,836 square foot retail/resort commercial development on a nine (9) acres site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 . 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. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /dlg INITIAL STUDY CASE NO'S. PP 86-21 & TT 21624 PARADISE PALMS NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) 1. EARTH a. The project will result in grading to a maximum depth of five feet. Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures. The site is relatively flat so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions. b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place on the site. C. The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties, and better direction. d. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site, through proper grading resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifica- tions and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed by UBC requirements to insure that the building s are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth therein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. 2. AIR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a 1985 draft environmental Impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park View Drive Land Use Study. Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. b. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. C. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. b. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however, the landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material . The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a control manner. C. See b. In addition, the Palm Valley Channel was constructed to protect the area in general and site in particular from flood waters coming from the areas that devastated Palm Desert in 1976 and 1979. d. There is no ground water present on the site. e. See d. f. While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies; the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. 2 PP 86-21 9 TT 21624 4. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the site contains weeds and sagebrush. The project when completed will introduce a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be introduced to the site will , however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The site doe snot contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. C. it is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. 5. ANIMAL LIFE a. The project will not increase or decrease the variety of animal life on the site. b. The site does not contain any rare or endangered species of animal . C. See b and c. d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable habitat for wildlife. 6. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project while obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. b. All material resources used on the site are renewable. 7. a & b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage will be less than on previous projects of 'a similar nature. B. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials. 9. a. As discussed earlier the project will have a positive impact in terms of drainage impacts on adjacent properties. 3 PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 b. Properties in the area are not subject to unusual geologic hazards. The project will not effect that hazard. 10. NOISE Construction and subsequent operation of commercial center will increase ambient noise level . The increase may be detrimental or create an annoyance to the residential properties to the south. Single event noise impacts from truck deliveries will create disturbances to the neighbors to the south (see staff report for complete discussion of noise impacts) . MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise from truck deliveries will have to be mitigated so that noise levels set in General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded. II. LAND USE The project will not alter the present developed land use in the area. The planned land use for the area is identified as resort commercial ; the project would develop land uses permitted in the resort commercial land use designation. 12. OPEN SPACE The site in question is designated as resort commercial ; its development therefore will not result in a reduction in the amount of designated open space. 13. POPULATION a. The project is resort commercial project on vacant land and will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 14. EMPLOYMENT While the project will provide a number of new jobs, in terms of the value as a whole in and of itself it is minor. However, when the cumulative effects of commercial/resort development is analyzed the impact on employment is significant. Most of the jobs created, 4 PP 86-21 E TT 21624 however, will be filled by residents of the area or those who have come to Coachella Valley for other reasons. 15. HOUSING a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in items 13 and 14. In addition this is currently being projected some 8,000 unsold housing units in the valley; in addition to the number of rental units being developed - over 600 in the City of Palm Desert alone. b. None - covered in item 15 a. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. Projected trip generation per 1000 square feet of leasable area is 40.7 for a total of 3704 weekday trip ends. As part of the conditions of approval the applicant shall be required to provide for three travel lanes. It should be noted that the Rancho Mirage environmental impact report alluded to a cumulative traffic impact of developments including the develop- ments in both cities. Currently the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage are seeking state funds to complete the widening of Highway III from the Palm Valley Channel to Magnesia Falls. MITIGATION MEASURES Applicant shall widen Highway III adjacent to their project at 86 foot ultimate width. b. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the project on site. C. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. In addition these systems have extensive additional capacity. d. Principal access to the project will be from the existing State Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive. e. Implementation of the mitigation measures setforth by item 16a in addition to the required sidewalks, the impact should be positive. There are problems currently existing on Highway 111 5 na1T TT a is-an 9q evrA o(N Otool ,o .ntio ®111 90 C?+79bt.'91 vryt milli ed 111w .,Svt w-4 .rnr.;e_•sl „nta r,4 �1IrY t.l ,en-c» CJ �:=-� iwl?:`i' w .fit Mt ni n"tut3lq Vr'st-A .,lt M>nrth 1":7 111w 7'»(6i1 e:±T .b C^Jt n) O9dl, l 4nr t:v9 .lw1 rii no r! ri,R .arlserl i3 ,3�j RMt.19('1'lq poinfl ti.tMtul-, el C1 ) n'mllftri nI tl ves Et oAJ C3 noitit)t=: nt rY`3ticv ctt nt , Jir.+ rrlievid bfw:nj 000.E V31J n'll nt frtl! -1"vo - t_golgvob cll:t'd aJinu (Orni to 1-e-k.wn ,i)rN:Ii3 5,.:_oQ tnit.v 10 �"r71TAp' 7"ltllit!'IIATSMSa A.1A�� ,at 9ICa't»t 10 :1741 1e.1 nollelom o ql,J ". 19s1ns9 .G mill 10 ir'r ) ri -o) i.0? ct [2,5 at If&,,% 7mwilGots. 0,11 Tnorzlc 10 Cr^1J:t;,C'7 ylit iq tu.l LA bo J r► no ti f uai; It few,-it "inl iOl -t-A vc va r t t;�9 Lr,-, T t% Ot MhAt0 J,o a, 1"CZl f"11M MuM-v ") 3cr11 -uctov--b Cat pib Lnl rin �lov5b to 12cmrl rill:11 Ovltc'v^a') .41!it'7 r11G;1 nt . 77,4-7 pu bt,nitM J-" ntq Cne #,^^+!' m1c*4 to c,3I11a arU vtt,lo,tu) moll IIf vt;. tt M to pnitv,,5Hw ,vil n; of v7 tt-TO -10e tntOnz .iltty c7ronC' t r ± tq:r>crfJ vtaiitV mtf�y c,1t S�3 r'9 ;tts i1PnJ 'al 2;.%3cLla CIt v:wr'.�IH astlw Ilcn., #.-"i1q,A .rll:�iw DJrmlllu t171 r1w q�t.i I (.t;bin psrt itiW. i r+tr) )Ttes ,c't k7nCnb t, trd t 1 !r h,:srt'f .Q htitr rk^ 3�9lrrva ena va t* noua fd tll» pA1 DVC�: Oot:tP�^l:q C3r:"?l+t)vaR! `7�"lr.�ltiw 1r�jliit.'i✓CC. �Oj iq�'� 7 ,0, Onii„tltI no t'5m m. t7 16*3111hac oic-+9h9n 3?n t tuufL tollo,q oved em-11—fa .9CJt1) pollf 'o nj ,ai1.";z nciJc7,4knG� J .v t[ac ax:, Iuw11lt>t� rni�ix9 OW-1 p"Mixq SM moll Ix) 111w 3Ya n'1 C.'" pJ "1' +6 tu:I7r j-m .b .tv;,U tvr f-V;W ttlI tlr:4 III vbwrivIH Cal rvJ1 rit- ni)^3 r«11ukr0m noi,teniIta 607 In ri!t+�ln�ahla7! .0 9d DtuW tocrm_ i Grit .1#54iclrbtd tat;vr31 ". 01 'nutlibbb ni III vttsxrt>IN n0 pr.Wlx.9 vltno„v5 ,ar,idwr) vto ntv:'tT ovfsI:cJ , r PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 and the public improvements required of the applicant will alleviate some of them. 17. PUBLIC SERVICE a-f. None The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated the area for commercial development. Infrast- ructure improvements (i .e. storm channel , streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed develop- ment. The proposed land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert. All property tax generated on the site after 1979 including those generated by the improvement of this project will go to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. The city will receive 1% of the 6% state sales tax collected from the sales on the property. 19. UTILITIES All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the proposed develop- ment. 20. HUMAN HEALTH The project will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 21 . SOCIAL SERVICES The project will provide a service to full time residents as well as tourists to the area and thus no increase in the demand of general social services are anticipated. 22. AESTHETICS a. The closest inhabited residential structure will be 62 feet from the edge of the nearest structure on the site. The development will have its lower structures around the perimeter 6 PP 56-21 S TT 21624 of the site and the higher structures toward the center. Line of site drawings provided by the applicant indicate that any obstruction of any scenic vista will be less than would have resulted had the site been developed with single family dwellings having their normal 20 foot setback. b. The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive. The proposed development must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission. C. For reasons stated in items 22 a and b. 23. LIGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition the requirement for a engineered lighting plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled. As well , the plan will be required to be amended to provide a minimum 10 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the seven foot high masonry wall . This landscape buffer will be planted with substantial vertical plantings to help mitigate any noise and light impacts. 24. There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical signifi- cance of this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. 25. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 7 N ESTE, S R U D!N & STO N E Engineers III Planners INCORPORATED 73210 EL PARED SUITE 2G PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE 619/340-3435 H-73-027 . 004 May 27, 1986 Mr . Steve Smith City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21624 STREET VACATION REQUEST The westerly portions of Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive lie within the proposed Paradise Palms Center . As the residences on the two streets and the proposed commercial development do not require these streets for access, we request that you commence proceedings to vacate these streets as part of the development application. This request is for that portion of those streets which lie within the boundary of Parcel Map 21624 only. Thank you for your assistance with our request. Please let us know if you need anything further from us . /J�t2vy BARB McCLELLAN Senior Principal Engineer dm cc: Joe Seitz CORONA HEMET PALM DESERT • RANCHO CALIFORNIA S A N BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO PROOF OF PUBLICA`ON This space Is for the COL Clerk's Filing Stamp u (201S.SC.C.P.) STATE OF. CALIFORNIA, E I V JUN 10 1986 County of Riverside 86 JUN 6 PA I 21 comw.uNay DLVELOPf,?[ i DFPi RTS`,:RT CITY OF PALM DE ERT .� I am a citizen of the United States and a ri; resident of the County aforesaid; 1 am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Publication of Of interested In the above matter. I CASE NO PP 86-2I. &• TT •21624 ......••. am the principal clerk of the printer of the ........ASE.....:........... DESERT .......... POST............................ ... ............................................ CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE ............:... CASE NO.PP W21&TT 21624 ••••••••" NOTICE IS HEREBY GI EN that a public hearing will be held before the ission to consider a •••••••••••••••••••.•••• TA SIT aractma and negative for vapproval declaration Ueonhi ost by f a newspaper of general circulation, printed 1, more particularly to fast on a nW*acre site ed B 1—weekly Waring Driveand Highwayheld 1,more of environmental 966 described as: p.m. and published .............................:.... allow construction of a retallfresort commercial project of some 90,636 013 in the City of ...Palln•DBsa"........ ••• SA pblO°ic h°Okg will1be on uesday.W6, 17, 986 at2 County of Riverside, and which news' in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall,73-510 Fred War- a newspaper ing Drive,Palm 0~.California,at which time and place all interested paper has been adjudged persons are invited to attend and be heard.If you challenge the propos- of general circulation the Superior ed actions in court.you may be limited to raising only those issues you Court Of the County of Riverside, State of or someone corres ondiatcafted at d liver hearing described c u in this(o plance,or ning in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning 1 U/5 commission)at,or prior to,the public hearing. 19 64. Ramon A.Diaz.Secretary California,under the date of.•..... . Palm Desert Planning Commission - : (Pub.D.P.June 6, 1966) 83658 • that the notice. Case Number ................. the annexe is a nted of whictype not smaller than pnionparei)Y has in type been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not In any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: ............g/.4.................................... all in the year 19.8b.. I certify (or declare) under penalty of Rerjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at...P. TR.Rg.9e-F.t:................... California,this• 6th.... ayof.june� 1986 d .. •Si atur�• Free goo,,al thiUlaaa Iona"IaY b,facar&d lean CALIFORNIA RE AU NC.RSERVICE BU ,Legal Advertising Clearing House 120 west Second sit., Los Angeles. Calif. 90012 Telephone: 1213) 625.2541 PIN"/arla9a IRAIM, ofublicatlw wiles I1 i I" S' i 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 29, 1986 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SANTA ANNTA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial project of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 , more particularly described as: APN's 640-020-010, 011 , Olt 640-032-001 , 006, 011, 012, 013 SAID public hearing wi 1 I be held on Tuesday, June 17, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. In the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary June 6, 1986 Palm Desert Planning Commission DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC 711E, Imperial Highway Brea, California92621 714/671-1400 BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS Nay 19 , 1986 Buford Crites , Chairman City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 1-: Proposed Retail Village, tiB Corner of _ red Waring Dr. & Hwy iii . Dear Chairman_ Crites: Soon you will be asked to vote on Paradise Palms Plaza, a retail- village to be developed by Santa Anita Development ;SDC; . SDC has purchased their site from our companv, and you may recall- we are developine the 228-room Paradise Palms Resort , adjacent to the subject project . Since inception, SDC 's oroject has been carefully coordinated with he hotel project . it is important that it be considered as an intea_rai *)art of the overall- deveio-imeat for the entire 20 acres. It is not just another retail center . You may be familiar with a series of resort properties in Arizona, known as the Pointe Resorts. 'sack resort has a related retail viilaae, designed in a comniimentary architectural styiing, and site access and landscaping are coordinated. SDC is proposing to do the same , to design and build a retail village which compliments the hotel and is integrated into the overall site design. Piease keep this in mind when evaluating t^e project . Wie carefully interviewed competing retail developers prior to selecting SDC. 0bviousiv giver. the site 's nrominence , we naa numerous interested parties . We chose SDC 'because they are wining to coordinate architecturaliv and are sensitive to the community's desires . ihev also are finarciaiiv sound with an excellent track record for developing successful retail centers . We have coordinated on every issue inciudinc Vvv iii access , parting design ianascapine, architecture and signage . we are iooiring forward. to Invi__-a s neia:^.bors , and hope you do too. truly ours _uce )o*._, .. President 3-D :ci RIVERSIDE COUNTY of CALIF, FIRE DEPARTMENT ~ I IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY ,.lt/I�F,N tilf)f;:��lr',,:� � •n�9 may,¢ •'OIca1 RAY HEBRARD i OF F�� -- FIRE C IEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE M 4. _1 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 Raymon Diaz EPHONE:(714)657.3183 Planning and Community MAY 2 Development Director 2 1986 PalmODesert,f aCa. 92260 COMMUNCM OFED4`M1I DESERT iM 1 Reference: PP g6 21 Applicant: $QuTa Aa11q O&IeLaIµFpT Dear Mr. Ramon 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 delivering300VGPM 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. - 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than200 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 9 6.21 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal ." 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. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over 5000 square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. Very truly yours, RAY HEBRARD Fire Chief �l By,'1►I�JO L�e �o"..�.V�l` MIKE MCCONNELL Fire Marshal I CITY OF PALM DESERT i TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Preliminary comments on a development proposal for a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,836 square feet on a 9 acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. 11I. APPLICANT: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 IV. CASE NO: PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 V. DATE: Mav 22, 1986 VI. DISCUSSION: The applicant filed the various necessary applications on April 22, 1986. Due to certain aspects of the request, staff requested that the applicant make a presentation to planning commission in study session to obtain preliminary comment. The presentation was made at the May 6, 1986 planning commission meeting. Planning commission raised the following concerns based on the presentation. 1 . Location of the east loading area and it's adjacent resident,81 neighbors. 2. The heights of the buildings (30 8 32 feet) . 3. The appropriateness of large retail uses in the PC (4) zone (basically hotel and restaurants only with accessary uses) . 4. Whether an amendment to the code is necessary to permit a service station in the PC (4) zone. 5. Whether the city is prepared to consider a code amendment to permit a drive-thru restaurant (Del Taco) . Given the extreme sensitivity of the site as part of the gateway to the city. planning commission felt that some of the above issues were policy matters which require direction from city council prior to formal evaluation by the planning commission. PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 Accordingly, the commission, by minute motion, directed staff to place the matter on the next available city council agenda for a presentation by the applicant and subsequent direction from the council to the planning commission. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by ` /dig a 2 W ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY �TSTRIOt COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTR& �g4V,'LP6 POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)39&2TOA V ��''ii I 2 3 1986 DIRECTORS CD`%AA bRg1E; pppp RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-O.PI g�J0p''E/pp VT DEPARTMENT TELLISCODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINESUITON,S C C, ESERT JOHN P.POWELL KEITH H.AINSAORTH,ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS THEODORE J.FISH May 19, 1986 File: 0163.1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Tract 21624, Precise Plan 86-21, Portion of Southwest quarter, Section 18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. Yours very truly, �/ Tom Levy /—L'"_ , General Manager-Chief Engineer CS:ir cc: Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 TRUE CONSERVATION Attention: Don Park USE WATER WISELY INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: Steve Smith FROM: Brent Conley RE: PP86-21 DATE: May 12, 1986 The plan as proposed has a number of traffice flow considerations. These considerations are: 1 . E/B traffic on SR 111 is not able to turn into the complex . This restriction is needed, but the entrance on Fred Waring will be effected. 2 . Traffic flow into the proposed Raffles complex from this complex should be restricted or eliminated. 3 . A merging traffic lane should be installed to allow smoother access onto W/B SR 111 and into complex. 4 . The entrance onto Fred Waring will be impacted turning into the complex , creating a possible need for a future traffic signal . This cross traffic from W/B Fred Waring traffic to E/B Fred Waring into the complex could pose a serious problem. Any additional comments concerning building construction will have to made at time of plan proposal . Any questions or comments call me atex�t. 303. �,.,� Brent Conley Crime Prevention Officer BC/rrt / ��� �i ram'. `�a...�]�� �....^ •i i '—��Vi 4-5-M PRICXL" PEAR LANE, PAL4 OESL7T, CALIFCRNIA 9Z50 Iit =?HQNE (714) 346-0611 MAY 19 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY Of PALM DESERT A. m._A.N ==1 . (oa� , ANY FM - cr*�=ram carr r r�ai�, A= —r%m 21d:=N :s 2I0 tm 37-7=7... IxtAIMM AbID TiC� ^L5 Cg'v*` : S=M—MI, MUM,��7G5 CST Q.V.A.0 MZC== AIM . . =_..-•= II CCtA-'-T� MBA= ?-�4S II 7ma 3 <wx DIRT-7-TOR OF BUILDING 6 SAS D L N ESTE, B RU DI N & STONE Engineers • Planners INCORPORATED 73210 EL PASEO • SUITE 2G PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 • TELEPHONE 619/340-3435 H-73-027 . 004 May 27, 1986 Mr . Steve Smith City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260' TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21624 STREET VACATION REQUEST The westerly portions of Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive lie within the proposed Paradise Palms Center . As the residences on the two streets and the proposed commercial development do not require these streets for access, we request that you commence proceedings to vacate these streets as part of the development application. This request is for that portion of those streets which lie within the boundary of Parcel Map 21624 only. Thank you for your assistance with our request. Please let us know if you need anything further from us . CA,Y'j BARR MCCLELLAN Senior Principal Engineer dm cc: Joe Seitz CORONA • HEMET • PALM DESERT • RANCHO CALIFORNIA • SAN BERNARDINO • S A N DIEGO i� 16 ) Installation of one-half landscaped median in Fred Waring Dr . or cash payment for one-half the cost of landscaped median at the option of the Director of Public Works . 17 ) Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the City Engineer for checking and approval and be recorded before issuance of any permits associated with this project . 18 ) The most westerly driveway on Fred Waring Dr . shall be restricted to right turn only ingress-egress by means of raised P . C. C. curb . 19) The most easterly driveway on Fred Waring Drive shall be designed so as to align with approved access points for Parcel Map 20894 . 20 ) Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be cul -de-saced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer . Cul -de-sacs shall be designed to city standards . 21 ) Parcel Map 21412 shall be recorded prior to filing of the final map for Tract 21624 . 22 ) Reciprocal access agreements between P. M . 21412 and Tract 21624 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project . 23 ) Prior to map recordation Brushwood Drive and Manzanita Drive shall be vacated . 24) All improvements relating to State Highway III shall be per state standards and specifications . Richard J . 6ole P .E . RA/RJF 1. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 29, 1986 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 66-21 6 TT 21624 NOTICE iS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SANTA ANNTA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial project of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 , more particularly described as: APN's 640-020-010, 011 , 012 640-032-001 , 006, 011, 012, 013 — — ......... III P.R.-7, W c.P y p 12 �7. 6 C-I _ �H` L �-(1 00 0 - w 8 v1 H.P. R. P.R: wR'Z 1r �L It fi1I I , ¢ -� P`' •n,.,us e N ♦ I �ACTGS OR.j 1� P R ' R-1 rr -r A H S D S. - P.R. 22 __ � PQptEDA E CL �f C—I P.C. r , I2 0 O 1 C FRED K WARING DRI`-- E S-1 s PC. ,•�.;. �♦ ,:.; � o SUBJECT PROPERTY _ 1 P.C. (4), Li 4 =' 441 ti LL LLLLW �f • PC.(3) SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 17, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions In court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary June 6, 1986 Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT 7REASURERI RECEPTN° 3705 RECEIVED OF: 6 i o PL c 11Gln/J Y�l .lid cl j �� / Ail- DATE S"-�� AMMMOUNTD FOR AJ r 4&i) RECEIVED I Y EASURER BY: wzl A COUNT NO. AMOUNT CHECKS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO BANK CLEARANCE PAYOR 1 �j'l��"f OO � s�nlZflil .L�Q ®b�C@IP�10 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 29, 1986 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 86-21 S TT 21624 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial project of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 , more particularly described as: APN's 640-020-010, 011 , Olt 640-032-001 , 006, 011 , 012, 013 • - N �/ P.S. R.-7, 1 —f i I� © a _ RBI o 12 0 C-1 ���( P.R: w 00 R- T�T- r a A H � S.P. _ I2 Or`0 L__ - o P.R. 22 C-1 P.C. <; a Q o to y S—I FRED WARING DRI' E - • P. C. (4), S.P. v R I R-i. Oa"n � SUBJECT PROPERTY - 1 P.C. (4) J° 41 y •• "x• u C 3 z -AMP�CO -' VE UJ S.P. W -VCXC :RG SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 17, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Pa 1 m Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary June 6, 1986 Palm Desert Planning Commission CUft + 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 29, 1986 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 86-21 a TT 21624 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/resort commercial project of some 90,836 square feet on a nine acre site located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway ill , more particularly described as: APN's 640-020-010, 011, 012 640-032-001 , 006, 011, 012, 013 i i SAiD public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 17, 1986 at 2:00 p.m, in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hail , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary June 6, 1986 Palm Desert Planning Commission I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE. PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 Cer REQUEST FOR COMMENTS A�D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO(S): PROJECT: �'c/a Cl'sF v�Ci'L{v!J CFV=' : `•'� "-?/'i+� /i%✓'/�+ `L"G� � . APPLICANT: _ -roe Se�f� jS�i� � �./r✓if•9 �cJeGo�.:�e:� 1 Enclosed please firs materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Ar��lro la L Qr ,s �iCc/SL ��n/ Di= C�es�G/✓, �NT:� /G� iYlat� aniP Ne9B7-i1 e c��cLn✓ rx7�/G/J G/ �a✓�RdnlrHc�ivT/�L �:�� PeLetoemen.Ti d)= Sotne 9(), 936 s8aar, -Pee ad ,9 9 crcre s)'4e Z o N eCl P C Ly� v C,g rc,� 47 . -7 ee �{�e�T y�Jes,� Co�rl�l� e F Frei aJA�+)lG Dr,'U e✓ cwv( 1 -1911w.4y >ll 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. i-,NE¢fi�L DAi e Your comments and recom elided conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to a�30 qq M. �v,q < g p , in order to be discussed by the land division Committee. -A*e 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 :he receipt deadline will not be discussed by the land division committee. iincerei% . . RAMON A. i IAZ ^IIZECTOR 0= °V\ ,:i):NMENT•\L SERVICE5 RD%Ir Attachments " " PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMFNTS CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council I1 . REQUEST: Preliminary comments on a development proposal for a retail/resort commercial development of some 90,836 square feet on a 9 acre site, zoned PC (4) and located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. III. APPLICANT: JOE SEITZ Santa Anita Development 363 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 IV. CASE NO: PP 86-21 & TT 21624 V. DATE: May 22, 1986 VI. DISCUSSION: The applicant filed the various necessary applications on April 22, 1986. Due to certain aspects of the request, staff requested that the applicant make a presentation to planning commission in study session to obtain preliminary comment. The presentation was made at the May 6, 1986 planning commission meeting. Planning commission raised the following concerns based on the presentation. 1 . Location of the east loading area and it's adjacent residential neighbors. 2. The heights of the buildings (30 & 32 feet) . 3. The appropriateness of large retail uses in the PC (4) zone (basically hotel and restaurants only with accessary uses) . 4. Whether an amendment to the code is necessary to permit a service station in the PC (4) zone. 5. Whether the city is prepared to consider a code amendment to permit a drive-thru restaurant (Del Taco) . Given the extreme sensitivity of the site as part of the gateway to the city, planning commission felt that some of the above Issues were policy matters which require direction from city council prior to formal evaluation by the planning commission. PP 86-21 8 TT 21624 Accordingly, the commission, by minute motion, directed staff to place the matter on the next available city council agenda for a presentation by the applicant and subsequent direction from the council to the planning commission. /J n Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by ` /dlg 2 ' 4 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT : TRACT 21624 - PP 86-21 DATE : May 14 , 1986 The following should be considered conditions of approval : 1 ) Drainage and signalization fund fees , as required by City ordinance , shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map . 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 that is approved by the Department of Public Works . 4) Full public improvements , including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the Director of Public Works , shall be installed in accordance with City standards . 5) Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the City Engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced . The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. 6) All private streets and parking areas shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map . 7 ) Landscaping maintenance on Hwy III and Fred Waring Dr . shall be provided by the property owner . 8) Existing utilities on Hwy III and Fred Waring Dr . shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district ' s recommendation . 9) Traffic safety striping on Hwy III and Fred Waring Dr . shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works . A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works before placing pavement markings . 10 ) Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submit- ted , as required by ordinance , to the City Engineer for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits . O 11 ) Dedication of � feet of right-of-way on Hwy III and Fred Waring Dr . shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans . 12 ) Installation of curb and gutter , matching paving and sidewalk on Hwy III and Fred Waring. 13 ) Waiver of access to Hwy III and Fred Waring Dr . except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 14) Close unused driveway with full height curb and gutter . 15 ) Offsite improvement plans to be approved by Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. • AND V PLANNING & ARCHITECTURE April 30, 1986 Planning Department City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred waring Drive Palm Desert, Calif. 92660 Attn: Mr. Steve Smith Ref: Paradise Palms Shopping Center NW. Corner Hwy.111 and Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Calif. Dear Steve, Please find herewith one copy of a completed Environmental Assessment Form and our check No. 3014 for $30 to cover the review fee. Should you require additional materials or information on the form or on any other part of the application or project please give me a call . I look forward to seeing you at the May 6 Study Session. /S Bruce Greene AIA cc: Mr Joe Seitz w/ enc. 4542 RUFFNER STREET,SUITE 130 SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92111 (619) 560-4600 f + CASE NO.� °aG-2I Environmental Assessment Form TO THE APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completing this form and supplying the information requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required to make .an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be considered complete until all information necessary to make the environmental assessment is complete. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name, address , and telephone number of owner, appl 'cant or project sponsor: ��JIf/�, nleoo� A 1 S ;ll� a►, �a 1 eJ - falo K, e-t4t //C���jjDY n I •c/V • 170K �,0�90 �vF�nrsrrt �ea,�N (.�� "l- ZG�O/o�( Z� 2. (Name address and telephone number of person to be contacted con- cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, or other repre- sentative) : arue-e__ - AS 4 1 RU ����✓ ��- 3_ Common name of project (if any) :_ IA,A , 4. Project location (street addressr or general location) : LaV'w ^ 14 � w t�� FY�i� ✓ ', a Ar 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets & bounds) : ,�,�'�Q�___ -(-,T •J`, 6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is filed; describe the total undertaking, not just the current application approval being sought): f2Ve -0 t L2 Q 12r020 � Y�yeJ I G/O�MVN e_V—e' r� t%)e (Vr wta i- #h Vivc�e,F s&(e-h dt /ao 1 -a-I 6 rv,cei5 'j S�tN✓�av� 6t oYe✓�o�,er� e& e, eKt 1�5or 7. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects (describe how this project relates to other ctivities, phases , and develop- ments planned, or now underway) :�� 1"o raovk w ��� a K� b �o `f���. - ` i } -- o4cc� —� e- ut o 0t k . 8. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, to go forward, including those required by the City, Regional , State and Federal agencies (indicate sub- Sequent approval agency name, and/hype of approval required) : _ Ilt7N DY /Q`Wt�LVPI�OI ,'tf� I�✓e l�sP �/ l EN� ltJ2- �.�i� rli�.a t r 2i 1 "J Yl✓l tt o � O CJ EXISTING CONDITIONS: 9. Project site area: �tGLyr`i (Size of property in sq. ft. or. acreage) 10. Present zoning: (4)6p (Proposed zoning) : 64-me, 11 . General Plan land use designation: 12. Existing use of the project site: 13. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example - North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ). �QU+� 12 a _- / 'eN �\�P 4T GU wt Nt CJ'Gin l 14. Site topography (descri.be): Lar 5� o�ey 6K2 C ) A-6 15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or adjacent to the property? N0. Y, _ YES 16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) : ( DOO L/, it, alu, ;K bearsx ) H tK2 rt. r�i.c 17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed: tJ o N e. 18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scenic aspects of the project site:__W o t, e� 19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer) A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) : B. Schedule of unit sizes : C. Number of stories Height feet. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) (hgt. ) E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities : G. Is there any night lighting of the project: H. Range of sales prices or rents : $ to $ I. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . % Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . . % 20. Commercial , Industrial , Institutional or Other Project: A. Type of use(s) and major functions) (if offices, specif,Y type & number) : Gyeherwl r� }i i ( �[Lrrxarh /2aµc l� N1a erv"e,l� �fc +ion t B. Number of square feet in total building area : 1 C. Number of stories Height 3 2 ma feet. l 321 D. Largest single building (Sq. Ft. ) Z-4+ 00o (Hgt. ) 3U ` E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area: CJ F. Total number of required parking spaces s� , number provided 461 q6/ _ /� G: Hours of operation: Va r; eh - fzo rue, ILLAke-fi akh '?AM — Z AM H. Maximum number of clients, patrons , shoppers, etc. , at one time: I. Maximum number of employees at one time: G O J. If patron seating is involved, state the number: k1of ue`f Gcaoa,,, K. Its there any night lighting of the project: Yes Not I r Y4.-A /'C�i4UrL 6oi�iUw Year tci,•a lu {y I1� t4y 11Krn (4 L. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2J•3 % ± Paving, including streets. t rmr� iK 3 l0f. LjG 3 % ,I � Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation). . 2.0. 4 Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects : Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 21 . Change in existing features of hillsides, or substantial alteration of ground contours. x 22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the project vicinity. 23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind or flooding. x 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in . the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport noise (has the required acoustical report been submitted?) X 26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances , flammables or explosives. X 27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. 28. Changes the demand for municipal services (police, fire, sewage, etc. ) X 29. Changes the demand for utility services , beyond those presently available or planned in the X near future. 30. Significantly affects any unique or natural Y features, including mature trees. 31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public land or public roads. 32. Results in the dislocation of people. �_ YES NO 33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or other features of the project. [ ✓, Additional explanation of "yes" answers attached. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the facts , statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my,knowledgee and belief. . �t^NLe �. G�(Y`e-ErNG, ��N�'a �t4��lti �'e-oe- p?ys gK ({ 64V- Name Print or Type For 3d a G SicffiAture Date INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and sub- mit with this form. ) ITEM EXPLANATION 21. In as much as the site for the proposed development is now very flat, varying by only one (1) foot plus or minus over the entire site area, the mounding and berming of the proposed landscape areas and the excavation of loading docks and depressed service areas will make substantial alteration to the existing contours. 23. The existing lack of vegetation on the site and the extreme flatness of the area contribute to wind and water errosion. This condition will be corrected by the completion of the project with it's landscaping and controlted.drainage;system. \�pJOE SSEEITZ VZ..J 5/9/86 MAY 15 1986 Ray: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT I have notified all of the adjacent property owners by mail , and I have enclosed copies of those letters for your reference. I intend to meet with them prior to the upcoming study session meeting with -the City Council on May 22nd. If you could provide me with any addi- tional information or guidance which would assist us in processing this development, it would be sincerely appreciated. JS/jm SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT/ON Joseph L.Seitz - Vice President May 8, 1986 EXPRESS MAIL Donald and Evelyn Penningroth and Florence Lopez, S.D. 72440 Manzanita Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Proposed Commercial Development Palm Desert, CA Highway III & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Penningroth and Ms. Lopez: Santa Anita Development Corporation is proposing to construct a retail shopping center on the property located at Highway III and Fred Waring Drive. This property would be adjacent to the residence you own at 72440 Manzanita Drive. Shortly you will be receiving in the mail a notice of a pubic hearing before the Planning Commission with regard to our proposed plans for this project. The purpose of this letter is to request a time when I can meet with you personally, prior to the public hearing, to give you advanced viewing of our proposed development and discuss its layout with you. Would you kindly contact Ms. Janet Mondon at the telephone number listed on this letterhead in order that an appointment can be set up with you to review this matter. Because our records indicate two different mailing addresses for you, we have simultaneously sent a copy of this letter to both your San Dimas and your Palm Desert addresses. Please disregard the second letter. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, ,io�eph L. Seitz JLS/jm .—cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/PO-Sox 1880/92658 8924/Phone 17141 644-6440 SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT/ON Joseph L.Seitz III Vice President May 8, 1986 EXPRESS MAIL Bobby and Gaylene Snyder 72445 Brushwood Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Proposed Commercial Development Palm Desert, CA - Highway Ill &Fred Waring Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Snyder: Santa Anita Development Corporation is proposing to construct a retail shopping center on the property located at Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. This property would be adjacent to the residence you own at 72445 Brushwood Drive. Shortly you will be receiving in the mail a notice of a pubic hearing before the Planning Commission with regard to our proposed plans for this project. The purpose of this letter is to request a time when I can meet with you personally, prior to the public hearing, to give you advanced viewing of our proposed development and discuss its layout with you. Would you kindly contact Ms. Janet Mondon at the telephone number listed on this letterhead in order that an appointment can be set up with you to review this matter. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely. Joseph L. Seitz.; JLS/jm cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192658-8924 /Phone (714) 644-6440 SANTA AN/TA OEVELOPMENr CORPORA77ON Joseph L.Seitz Vice President May 8, 1986 EXPRESS MAIL Ms. Coleta Vasquez 72450 Brushwood Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Proposed Commercial Development Palm Desert, CA - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Dear Ms. Vasquez: Santa Anita Development Corporation is proposing to construct a retail shopping center on the property located at Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. This property would be adjacent to the residence you own at 72450 Brushwood Drive. Shortly you will be receiving in the mail a notice of a pubic hearing before the Planning Commission with regard to our proposed plans for this project. .The purpose of this letter is to request a time when I can meet with you personally, prior to the. public hearing, to give you advanced viewing of our proposed development and discuss its layout with you. Would you kindly contact Ms. Janet Mondon at the telephone number listed on this letterhead in order that an appointment can be set up with you to review this matter. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, Joseph L. Seitz JLS/jm cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192658-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Joseph L.Seitz Vice President May 8, 1986 EXPRESS MAIL Thomas and Sandra Castle 72450 Manzanita Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Proposed Commercial Development Palm Desert, CA - Highway Ill & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Castle: Santa Anita Development Corporation is proposing to construct a retail shopping center on the property located at Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive. This property would be adjacent to the residence you own at 72450 Manzanita Drive. Shortly you will be receiving in the mail a notice of a pubic hearing before the Planning Commission with regard to our proposed plans for this project. The purpose of this letter is to request a time when I can meet with you personally, prior to the public hearing, to give you advanced viewing of our proposed development and discuss its layout with you. Would you kindly contact Ms. Janet Mondon at the telephone number listed on this letterhead in order that an appointment can be set up with you to review this matter. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, _ Joseph L. Seitz JLS/jm cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1680192658-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Joseph L.Seitz - Vice President May 8, 1986 EXPRESS MAIL Richard and Dolores Moreno 72435 Brushwood Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Proposed Commercial Development Palm Desert, CA - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Moreno: Santa Anita Development Corporation is proposing to construct a retail shopping center on the property located at Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. This property would be adjacent to the residence you own at 72435 Brushwood Drive. Shortly you will be receiving in the mail a notice of a pubic hearing before the Planning Commission with regard to our proposed plans for this project. The purpose of this letter is to request a time when I can meet with you personally, prior to the public hearing, to give you advanced viewing of our proposed development and discuss its layout with you. Would you kindly contact Ms. Janet Mondon at the telephone number listed on this letterhead in order that an appointment can be set up with you to review this matter. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, _ Joseph L. Seitz JLS/jm cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach.California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192658-8924/Phone 1714) 644-6440 ill SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Joseph L.Seitz Vice President May 8, 1986 EXPRESS MAIL Donald and Evelyn Penningroth, and Florence Lopez, S.D. 222 Peague Drive San Dimas, California 91173 Re: Proposed Commercial Development Palm Desert, CA - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Penningroth and Ms. Lopez: Santa Anita Development Corporation is proposing to construct a retail shopping center on the property located at Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. This property would be adjacent to the residence you own at 72440 Manzanita Drive. Shortly you will be receiving in the mail a notice of a pubic hearing before the Planning Commission with regard to our proposed plans for this project. The purpose of this letter is to request a time when I can meet with you personally, prior to the public hearing, to give you advanced viewing of our proposed development and discuss its layout with you. Would you kindly contact Ms. Janet Mondon at the telephone number listed on this letterhead in order that an appointment can be set up with you to review this matter. Because our records indicate two different mailing addresses for you, we have simultaneously sent a copy of this letter to both your San Dimas and your Palm Desert addresses. Please disregard the second letter. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, Josep� L. Seitz JLS/jm cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach.California 92660/P.O.Box 1860/92658 8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION _ Joseph L.Seitz Vice President May 8, 1986 EXPRESS MAIL Donna Owens 72440 Brushwood Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Proposed Commercial Development Palm Desert, CA - Highway Ill & Fred Waring Drive Dear Ms. Owens: Santa Anita Development Corporation is proposing to construct a retail shopping center on the property located at Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. This property would be adjacent to the residence you own at 72440 Brushwood Drive. Shortly you will be receiving in the mail a notice of a pubic hearing before the Planning Commission with regard to our proposed plans for this project. The purpose of this letter is to request a time when I can meet with you personally, prior to the public hearing, to give you advanced viewing of our proposed development and discuss its layout with you. Would you kindly contact Ms. Janet Mondon at the telephone number listed on this letterhead in order that an appointment can be set up with you to review this matter. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, Joseph L. Seitz JLS/jm cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1680192658-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 Y r Oz I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM OESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 i M TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS A�D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO(S): PROJECT: APPLICANT: Enclosed please fird materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: ?12j2r6 t/a ` jr— q lr21�d/ or= 0'es,-d'n J -Ally i Ge l o-r arop May eTi?le 7�16 jJ G/ �ti✓i��n✓vn�i�T/L 2.��a� �� f��Lac✓ �oNs,E'ucTioru d/� /� ' -AaiL� �Sac760/71 /. peveLL)tarvlenri a)= So;vL q6) 936 -fUare Z o N eC( P C Ly) J-v crgTc;D q-F 7 jU�o�T�f6�2s Co nerd e j� OF Frecl 4L W�` 1�riUP� Cwd HJ6/taay Ill The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for i 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. .'�fEE>I')G DA?E Your comments and recom (ided conditions of .approval must be received by this office prior to 5130 qq.m. Y �13 199A , 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 CVWO) 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. �incereh : R.AMON A. JfA: ^l4.ECTOF OF `ii):NNIENT,\L SERVICES RD%Ir Attachments PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH (70mmFNTS A�' 73-510 grad Waring Dr., Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 i PRECISE PLAN fF'ORN : Dept.of Planning and Community Development Mr. Joseph L. Seitz .Santa Anita Development Corp Applicant (please print) P.o.Box 1880 . Mailing Adore" (714)644 6440 Newport Beach, .Calif. Teiepnone city 92658/8924 State Zip-woe REQUEST: (Descrite specific nature of approval requested I. Precise .Plan approval is requested for.the resort commercial development shown on.the accompanying preliminary siteplan, elevations and landscape plans all dated 4/21/86 and covering an area of approximatly 9 acres. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: An irregularly. shaped parcel located at the northeast corner of Highway 11l and Fred Waring :Prive, please see Tentative .Map No. 21412 for more information. 640-020-010, Oil, 012 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL No. 640-032-001, 006, 011, 012, 013 EXISTING ZONING PC (4) Sp Property Owner Authorization The undersigned states that they are the owner(s) of the property described herein and hereby give autnor- izotlon for the filing of this ap H etteron. Q (Please see .attached l ` I from property owner. ) B Gree� Z Si nature Dare Agreement a0solving in City of "`lm Desert Of all liabilities relative to any deed restrictions. 1 00 BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, Absolve me City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions that be the property described herein. Signature Date Applicants Signature �D Bruce D. Gre n Signature Data (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) Environmental Status. Accepted by: ❑ Ministerial Act E.A. No. ❑ Categorical Exemption❑ Negative Declaration � CASE HOO �/� — � / ❑ Other 6�=—�,LrL Reference Case No. reweorrzrra�szmicrsi�ra a�r•ez TERRAND V PLANNING &. ARCHITECTURE April 22, 1986 CITY OF PALM DESERT Planning Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 Ref: Paradise Palms Shopping Center N.E. corner, Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert Gentlemen, Please find herewith fifteen (15) copies of preliminary siteplans, elevations and landscape plans all dated 4/21/86, completed "Precise Plan" and "Architectural Review application forms, and Supporting Statments, along with a letter from the property owner authorizing my signature on the forms, and a check for $400 to cover costs. Should you require any additional infromation please feel free to contact me. Si Bruce D. Gre AIA BDG/ dg Enclosures cc: Mr Joseph L. Seitz 4542 RUFFNER STREET,SUITE 130 SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92111 (6191560-4800 73-510 Fred Waring Dr., Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 PRECISE PLAN F-CRN : Dept.of Planning and Community Development Mr. Joseph t . Seitz Santa Anita Development Corp Applicant (please pant) P.O.Box 1880 Mailing Address -- - (714)644 6440 Newport Beach, .Calif. Telapnana city 92658/8924 Slate Zip-Code REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested). Precise ,Plan approval is requested for the resort commercial development shown on.the accompanying preliminary siteplan, elevations and landscape plans all dated 4/21/86 and covering an 'area of approximatly 9 acres. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: An irregularly. shaped parcel located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 .and Fred Waring Drive, please see Tentative Map No. 21412 for more information. 640-020-010, 011, 012 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 640-032-001, 006, 011, .012, 013 EXISTING ZONING PO (4) SP Property Owner Authorisation The undersigned states that they ore the owner Is) of the property described herein and hereoy give autnor7120t1an tar the filing of this tlon. Q (Please see attached letter from :property .owner. ) BaP 0641Gree� 2 Signature Dare Agreement aasolving the City of Wlm Oasert of all liaollitles relative to any deed restrictions. I DO By My SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, Absolve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any dead restrictions that be appticobf the property described herein. Rruc rra L Z Signature Date Applicants Signature �Q Bruce D. Gre Z Z01-f! Signature Dote (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) Environmental Status. Accepted by: ❑ Ministerial Act E.A. No. ❑ Negative a tive D Exemption CASE Ho. ❑ Negative Declaration /may ❑ Other Reference Case No. rvwaorrtrra�seave:p/era ear-as SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Joseph L.Seitz Vice President Re: Palm Desert - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Gentlemen: The project being proposed. will bring to the City of Palm Desert certain uses, goods, and services which are not presently being provided the area, together with other uses which may be available to the City, but not as convenient. This will result in less travel for the people in the trade area, as well as providing similar convenience to the clientele of the Raffles Resort Hotel which is being developed in cooperation with this project on the adjoining property. The architectural and landscape design of this project will be consistent with and an extension of the hotel project. The result will be a combination resort hotel /retail development which will have utility value to the surrounding community, as well as providing an attractive and integrated development at the entry to the City of Palm Desert. 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/RO.Box 1880192658-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Joseph L.Seitz Vice President Re: Palm Desert - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Gentlemen: The project being proposed will bring to the City of Palm Desert certain uses, goods, and services which are not presently being provided the area, together with other uses which may be available to the City, but not as convenient. This will result in less travel for the people in the trade area, as well as providing similar convenience to the clientele of the Raffles Resort Hotel which is being developed in cooperation with this project on the adjoining property. The architectural and landscape design of this project will be consistent with and an extension of the hotel project. The result will be a combination resort hotel/retail development which will have utility value to the surrounding community, as well as providing an attractive and integrated development at the entry to the City of Palm Desert. 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192658-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Joseph L.Seitz Vice President Re: Palm Desert - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Gentlemen: The project being proposed will bring to the City of Palm Desert certain uses, goods, and services which are not presently being provided the area, together with other uses which may be available to the City, -but not as convenient. This will result in less travel for the people in the trade area, as well as providing similar convenience to the clientele of the Raffles Resort Hotel which is being developed in cooperation with this project on the adjoining property. The architectural and landscape design of this project will be consistent with and an extension of the hotel project. The result will be a combination resort hotel/retail development which will have utility value to the surrounding community, as well as providing an attractive and integrated development at the entry to the City of- Palm Desert. 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192668-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Joseph L.Seitz Vice President Re: Palm Desert - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Gentlemen: The project being proposed will bring to the City of Palm Desert certain uses , goods, and services which are not presently being provided the area, together with other uses which may be available to the City, but not as convenient. This will result in less travel for the people in the trade area, as well as providing similar convenience to the clientele of the Raffles Resort Hotel which is being developed in cooperation with this project on the adjoining property. The architectural and landscape design of this project will be consistent with and an extension of the hotel project. The result will be a combination resort hotel/retail development which will have utility value to the surrounding community, as well as providing an attractive and integrated development at the entry to the City of Palm Desert. 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192658-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 r. SANTA AN/TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Joseph L.Seitz Vice President Re: Palm Desert - Highway 111 & Fred Waring Drive Gentlemen : The project being proposed will bring to the City of Palm Desert certain uses, goods, and services which are not presently being provided the area, together with other uses which may be available to the City, but not as convenient. This will result in less travel for the people- in the trade area, as well as providing similar convenience to the clientele of the Raffles Resort Hotel which is being developed in cooperation with this project on the adjoining property. The architectural and landscape design of this project will be consistent with and an extension of the hotel project. The result will be a combination resort hotel/retail development which will have utility value to the surrounding community, as well as providing an attractive and integrated development at the entry to the City of Palm Desert. 363 San Miguel Drive,Newport Beach,California 92660/P.O.Box 1880192658-8924/Phone (714) 644-6440 1 AND LOAN ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 6000 • 3200 BRISTOL STREET • COSTA MESA, CA 92626 • (714) 549-8811 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS April 18 , 1986 1 The City of Palm Desert Planning 'Department, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , California 92260 Gentlemen: DSL Service Company hereby authorizes , as its Agent , Santa Anita Development Company or Bruce Green of Green and Associates to submit to The City of Palm Desert the Site Plan for that certain real property legally described as tenative parcel 'map number 20212. -Very truly yours , LAURA B. STEELE Associate Counsel and Assistant Secretary LBS: jkp cc: Bruce Dohrman Joe Seitz J __ _ __ _ _ - _�,., l� --,i .,,- % ( /' d \ \ x , Aeo' 2 ` )1 ! "�( \ l� Ala � ,� 4 - .� f , r 1 ,. �. -;� I�11 1^1 pa �pI� , r -' . . . ,� ,F , ,__ - - r n", i - Y'1` , 'r\t!r,• i^li'ti - 1. , �,,: i t '[ 't. i {' I ,°i R'1i'Y... R E f ��.�.,. _I: i"'' r is , 1' h F^," /` 'r', '?1 il-.` 4 + " //J�//( ' �. .-r sr �/M.•!r �st✓4,+,-, � ice,,.�� rh ����•5 ; '•i p�, f jr#r�}�1�i, is t eNi ! '' U� hh{1Stti MI {', — i ���/ �_'1} 1 :I �t 7 1 i �. i ! 4. ' fl R- ...,t +, I{ 1 ;i. ! I A'+ /ti -Il ,/ill i- r-N^ ;,-^a'v4Pti. , ':^rt r').r,r ! ,,A�_ , : ��" , I. i.��el, y �' '/'ti; I� ;i f- A ,b r.:r.rs i.rti a►'�INa'ti, n J•i�ev%."im I a.-,;;41.L, e ' l r` �y ^,f-1,.i ,;11 r.}•,a ill ' ��.✓` ! ,p"i t i , f 131! ! L, - nEr�+^�, o-- �•'+�'Y R-^01il^^ I t ^ yr-v10<-I y r%"k .'C,.•�, r. b r.R i I- :i+'+�/llr� �R� :•t'.n: j�n*lytr YVi I W,'i�,4 , I C. al i ('�'7Y"'; .l �I:_ �a I f 'I'l . rl .} ►!r'`. 1^. ,•� 1 s t� .4 _ ,r,;�i-ii! }; nr,;� rt i iw,rt Mi' r"°�r•1 v 11.^1y�; -- 1' i' l `t h r, 'n-.tt04 yltW-4 n; it ;rw^1n; 1' i'ti , ! �' 3 ♦ j tom. ') C �/'� - I- h } e '3 '. i ' . ! - l:'l 1"+ -11tAli 1: Yam` '.I li _ }r l ';} i' r "40%i d �� p t R Y'r „ 7+1 I' •1, �^, r't'n 'I+'!*i►"n T'. '. r"t "Vvtir-iv�' w"+f I I f; V �Ik1/��"}'^E�' ...,.+n itn!'ii+"! I l'�VY'' +' { , i f: r I ONE � '1 6 E I 11 { t i' iS �• li r, `i r 4 I 'd i i;' I i 4 n l F ! t 'i K. t I 'E f.}jj �i. r 1•' ! i i .i,'1 4�t f' 'Y )) d ,}1 k'i 'i ,I �RI .i Ii Y t i pi 1f. � i !I. r ,r �) i !i'a I 1'.t 't '.^ . 'i 1' i' BV t. , , f �. . _, _. .� ,• u a.�a. , . _ _ �w tlt 1 , 4 �* - _ 11 ✓•+..� �•�. kl1.r',.y+r,o-^. ar..++.:,�*♦-4+�r�: ^ .^-ram ♦t ...� ,,,,,,..,� • .. f^'�M�/4 IY1, /"ti r^t !'fj/Kti �./"Y /+ /% ,I1, , d` ; .n rt r`... tyres !"� ^I'�^,rt .-. '�: • ..,,.>- i ' •. .: -. ,. :.. �..�..- •,', .."r",..Y I'�IY , �� ,..-� r ^' . ate... •a ..- ,... . ... .."�.,.: _ ", ,:: _. -' -'K .. - -X-- ., rf n r, M r r"t '.-�nn v►r,i s-^^I ^rM1^ .^+.�^ I\ op%04 ,e. .-,Ar r. ,�' �Y�r•i+\' � E v!*,�► ? ��Mry o-^, :. : , L r i .+, 1 �,.;�'" IT '{ I"f �.,./tR�/► ^_.. ^''*`'^ /1^ 0%are/r MrMr��r+rV✓1 I 'w'1n:r.It ,rwru!\; ��-. , -'� � SI �' 4 'i „i^ nn^ 1e' �^+t' .**wN w' '�*%-1 f`sn - ^^r, .-:'o-*" A..: " ,r,..^.-- r',n; !R .IrN'e%r'/1 s�•; ,r,�. b-�'t"'�a/ ^ W, ,it s.. I►.+'.,.i.y t' I► .•'}/'cif`:ri H�I1'!'1: a/�/,':P'�, ! -�^ •y /{rv'v'.I^v r�r•r ,� ✓t f /, r, ;;,/hh h lrY.+-� r i' r :. IW n f� n rw /�' " a/►n"'•k-,n rIR► ., t ., MI � r+ I s s,'r,!r ,'a +;�, i' �' M 1 1:' Y +►� ! '!.- i•1✓\1MNY^. n:r"1 /',yy✓� ,Itr11 '�trf.. r r'`tlk r /1'n'Pf v+lY', t :.•.: +..;, ,nr1 `' a ',+„- .�,,y 1t i' i 04 1fNd r� .�.,�'5 1_�Y� —, .� h I� i i+r' E , i t I R a �7 !-f ,, i , ,t t s ; 1 f' s ,tli '.i i{ r} {.e 't i, 11 F, is iR p { �S` 7 ii i.11 R :i F '�1 A` fd: t. t V I i r t i+ i�� R-. t- 2 i S 1 # t 'tI- ,F ;i is t' i, :�- � � ei, ,'; '.�{, a t, 'P R! to iF' j �^ # ,{ 3, R , INS i° F� iit' I '1 �I'. �, }' ,If' i-.. , ,,, .. „ :7 I , .: �, .. f .i:; ,:, , ;,,.,J.. i F �,: ," �S, „ r S^ , �A i. f 'i 1: .7 `SI • # � I ( �; ► a -R I :i .a....,. F J ,e i 44 11 { i e .€ 6 +r't'+w .a s, , t. ,1'f t - r:► I i a� e t` i � � x ;I {{; � ' R, ! ifil $ s , I; g r t" i a ,.. ,-. ,. r. t a, :. ,; ,:..,5 ;.,i, -� ' ._ - !? it ' u:: r ° + t•= 3 Pl� E � p 1 .#.. ,i :i } 1. i. +-v.• .1 :F 5, ))i 11 1 1'' , 1 �ii ,.r ,. 6. _... a- t , ... ,Y ...l: I e. , :i{ S,i -. -_ <{.� .i f .i=o a i r s 'R: ii .i% ,t ^ E ! i•-- 1 .1 !4 i � 1 ,f E f : , , i :. t _..,-__ : • � , s t r. � 5 ' ?•,: -:. S s, { 1 i €€ 1 �j;jj­�4E i i ,,: t a i 'fi �. ,--.'.� R i : ti . P,,: 1. .+ .It I f ...0 ,,. t �; .,. R: � , ,R .. ;; ( �: t ,I "•Y - ! • is 1' ! �'I � I i ! t• 1: , , r 4f ,< - _ ., l I:,, .. ! , N. 1 i , ,�.. 5 1 ... a .: i Y d ': • t. • d-- R M1 , �r 1 � R , ,E, , ( � t I 1 ! y ! k } # i1 r # Y ,1 _ t fF u t ! a r {_ $ r j.` `-^c et�_ t ,' i s -- 1 i i 1 / _iI: It f U I __ I, I , # i c k { _� i 1 I r: R 1 1 E i ; , . .11 1-1 { t .:f, - •t I, is ,,r :i1iq i' .E t. . ,i rt :!'. I' �, Y' ! ,q 1 i:$ 1'R i fY I If p , i I �} JJ i .. 1 ,, y- , i rP .}�._. + - I, .;;., - 1. 1 S__, :b,- ,i a ''S'-• . . + - - - 1 , i I , t i i; I 11 - , i � .. � !1 { �. ,^1, i ♦ _ ! (; �, a,c••: � I �I�: .aA.,y }f J fj .l. R 1 ;. It i �y „y., r 4 �1 1 1 T-�-I.�T Li L LL. S t ._ _ 1 1_ _a_ _ - _ P t ' 7i'*-:.: i' `«3 I ' - ,.,..M_...,a _. uC 'l L-h, \V �Nr''� ,�-,' r�t G t G�7 N4-, f��a�h -t-'�-`'f', �'`� `����•-R f�' -I C''�- �D•i. ��L n r I / -:� I L...-., , 4 Ir- I A'.11;; I I a L -.-IL 4�;au -�ILL��- 1 6�- N — �b VC-1 , e7 � , -, . . -- - - - - 11vt )k)-�r-- . p _. ,y u N"\ ( E \I --& . - - �t : �� y '�� N r: I� - . MI�g10 N TIW. r-90r 3C C R 1gefK I � _ i � I - - --,« _ _ , ,q i^Y..�t' ^I^}^.r n tr-It y°1 d' ^a 1^4-�-f , _ i - �F r.` �el LT (�C•''l�1 RA7,�r /j N n/.,•, 1 Y, /.. L P^n,"' "+ ^IYn,}}, i(, ,`fin �. i. �y,_,r1 ^fq,�," ^� s f! ., r,,, ^ Y a � " II✓"'0 ,A. "�Y'S,^,r 1,ry. rP. I ,✓"a r.,-„�•E` /y, :-a., 'ten h rv�' ir P"'Ii►•^.. h r +-" ` ( ''' �i ryl/`ni.^• "^P*r-,-„v�- � V%oli I ,� ' If4'•�*Z t'` �/�1 , n nl,; n, n, ..��Oft— �^.^',.•� r. } t r { _ran - K v r+r. 4, 1 V r r^.r I /r n rin i- rrr r t!'i r .� M s':' + r�F.. Ml lam'♦'^: I1 'r fir, r't r.)^f-,ei,- ,r�,'1y ✓'ti .-„•`� r+..},r ,�f� '' r /`,r't r',!r, ,/°9'^"'Y _, -1, N a'Y 1: ,Oi . t I r', -�•"n •R iv rarr �' rtnrM� I+'`S�r� - , .:fir'!. ,,.,,.y.••'r•....'t:h✓)/'♦ rr•-Y^'- r rt "'`firm.,n:r r.n�^,/-•,.,•.y, ,••,Y�'►� ' nri; o�y,. '�r°�'1 /y! f4,^;,-.^.,-,-/ ►.'�/R- '� I ..,�:'V r'u',� �5•�••"u�,,� � �•rn^ "�� �hl�I'►^�r`r+r+�ll �^ '.�..n r.nrt, ry�',♦ ! ."5r`�'r.' �. r","M1r't .vim /1i.tiY-,r',:^ /� :^ ^,.� ^r-- '.^e l a f _ I (I" - , L I i ! -� r � I . I I� L I L U . � I�I!� 1�1 /� 1 + Ah'f -. "�_ `\tir ryYV, c'! _1k j :a .:.T - t .y '7 I► ?w �,,�y.i �� If/s•,,ow 'r' .•ss ;�'wrt...'A I .., '� — —�^_ ram. i_.''l._.�,.,.T^,/l� ,L'..' �- a� '!n.-.+•,.ri,sit/' ,d .', +. . :-.,. _ . IF wl_:e . 1 J >'.ll •,•'.n 1 _— - _ R i .a.t„ , w, `. ,.._.T„_ , ,......�.-..-}_.---' _ _ ____. _ ._. -- --- i�r'ir,,•^v .'s�+^a„-t w�9,'.'a•'•.+IIC^y,...., rl'.0 .,,('»,I _ _.. Q , .. ..+,{ 4f-i47}:4LM1,yi"�"..,. *r,.tt yy ...ro-... a . -+-,..} f. '- _ _w TW; 1"'t , , } i �r I , t, ♦ 1st ,..r , S }t 1 i i i l t} R ..+r.�-- I 'S. h, g,' }, 1, i I s 4 _. S _��-}1 -4 ,,..., ,_,< _ ,,r,, ,.,,,, f } 4 ► . .._ . , , ,. . . A w �: _, r . - ••-_3�, II ,:,1, ,, •,d_.- .,p ,.. a- _ . i :., I�I- + :- �� -.# ,t ., -, l + .'- iv - _ -- - ._ - _ ,ba,,,,. t,.'t - ¢;: ;: , . a �,1;. ! �% I i _ — —at '�tt _ ,t; ,: ,. } T"i, 4} ^rat! f �, i a., :, .a.r { i p,. ;,: g ,, , ,I + I I • 1 �- �. r i t, -_... - _ - i E • _ i t i f R'.1 1' i' x' f , # J I a }' , i f. / 4 ai i 1 �! i. I , t" R---, i F r i 1 _ �;; I ,Y: I - , J, J-. -, , . i ,, ! F ,-- li ! I ,_. . 4 - •{: E a' I �t t _ ; y :, � � i,I' 1 I 1, i : � . �I ,. I I� : __ ; ..: .I _._._. _"___ _. _ ,;z -- ti•. 1._... •---.-t_ :..4.. _ /� t. L.., .-'{ :r.-,_J 1, it 46-,,, ttr ;; -� , I I � 0 r ; rt _ t?t, , f 1 I! r . l .,• "Y S Nr. r }tF• I'I -0.3 J..:_. --.._L 3t.. i l L-' r .. _.-..,.... .L..,-L-a., ...t.T T._♦_;� 1 �' �..}y - t - ..f,. - - 'y.+...+++M1j`�+��-' l-tEu m , �.,.. �.r.i.J 6.., ....,:,.. -L •-...�-l.l. j.i r ..�..._..-+_._ .L1-X_LL .-.ww1r.�...., .__ ._._...„_ .._.. ._.._.J.,•�.- �.r„ ai - E" _ . �p _.._ .......__._.a.,-,.�.:.R._�..._.,._..�a.: -+ - _max.-J�.t�-_. . .._ ao •'-,...:.,.:.:. -. �.; •K�'' 6[[' I`i•A, 1,r'E , -rlL.1� e� ,.e7 TtI ( 6(t,,f�1 It1Ly t� \\/9, ��•j�' %�-� j�'d? MA'+ ; '" � )L-" /��� 'd�,��4 I 1 t 12�)�����6,e�� �L., oo16't-- ` f�L r ,� 1, I v � I ( G _._.__. '\ - �-. .-e- - ,0 , 4;;-,**** -� - A� f r; _ �FrW ' ;� F -`i' V,N,V-, .� _ v - I Jr � • � ,r 1 il} j �' r r i z 1L � -,' rA. f 6"4"- �� L-!N K/ 1,. ' -f 1(/% 7 , i + ` / F'1 f r ,- - , _ �� _.�--_..-.Lr.✓ ^� r x¢ i ff/( , V� r ! , 1' ., . r -.r r,. r•� ��- I. r. r ('+ : ^' :, -.•+-.-•i,r �•M"-' -•.'."... �fr `a• + - A �M1 >.. �`'._"i 1114�•-.r-• ram, ^ . --{�, .-a �.A. - �. , ISr,nr.+ r Y �i �,-e.' �A ,i ''i �""\ ( ..�': , ,p�,p+,r.r. ^^^ f-^!`r r"r- „✓ - r'-,,. r (',✓..!' ..•,r, r� �` .,a ' #t I. a 1 .' , r r,ram.r ,- V r-i i n.. 1. �`i L r ( r r r p ,. r, �. f + , Y it i r J" '.� .; f ,t .,; : ,' ,: k.,.: i' .I' X' ,f�. �. i} '3: Sa aS , k, ,. �'- ' ,. ', 1, l i .{ 11 1 1 t `+�. } it 9 f i .i: t .R: 7` { '{ , ✓ i 7 I ,Y: 1 a! I' } i '7 1 "! R' S }. i •j r 9} f �g !, r a ii 1 i 1' ,t i' 1 N i t'; . F R d , f: �'#I /n I ; �L t' I F� s 7 '7 t* A i ,.I r I`iF I , 1 l-17/ e % ti �4 !''', � is '. i 6�1 -. silt! 1S _ } iy2�1 j 1+-�- .._ ... � �,tR,1' •+'' :s5. i� ,I. Iles t'I 6f 1 l t1 !'.. 4 i of - ., . I - _ F 0,a i..r.+� '!, }. its 1 (f i, / t i `i, T'' �''. 1 " I -: E f'.#....•�'_:::i -„'q •- .i - t 21 ,1 .1 1 l i r - - - - 4�/ J;� I 1 „{^ i i -li � `f !i'} it 7 Y r ��! It f 1-+.i ! l' r 7 a 6! 1 I - r y' R j t_ a ` i. Y� //, �.... � -.�(/ .. } i f ,i i t: � ,, �,., :) i{j{ r ,+•1. '� , I ..-'.�..-.. .' ': �,,. .,:t� 4{'"""'Y4" �^'. Rj �'� a.�' -Y B i,F- { i'�f 4 SR'.�. 1V i i �. i --f ;;i t , �'U -- F '. 4 !!! 't t 4: _.,. t t` ( ';�_' +1 9`;t - , , f I , # it U �! } y a� 3': �I �: 1; "'* i 0 . R E. 'r +, _ (/�� 11 Y A '' y P ! 'I ''" N ,r' �ylw � - -� 1, j` t r i . , .! �. �'�'i i ,.: i 1l I E ' I illi F.. }�, „' �'{ e. T,- i r t y r/ 7: t 'A �, r { , ,< �- --- - __�.. i.i_r.f-r-, =,�,_, - �' � � � 'ram , � - } -ild 1, I _ L I ........w...N- 11 4-- 1 -r I .- i I 1 --1.4, '. D D 'A I ,----� �. �� i_ r ,!SARM.- T, A A Ni . '''or ` �'\ - ", r---- x �- �, - V L- - , ; : / -- � � � � � ! - - - --- - -- 0 - � L I-L, . . . m J� r� H- - •. g ,Y ': a .. .. 6 , - .,,,. ..: , ,: --.. ,,.. ,. - x'. h.. .F .: :� , e ,.: -.'� - .. , ,... .._ �: ,-. ,. _ . - . .4 ., ,. a,..., , z ..z... Fi .. F. .. .>. {... .. �.. i e.. .,. ,�. i. «. r : t. tir , :'fi ... , -d, _ 'T. u. h.. , r a rv.-. :. k ,, ,. .. .. -." 3.. _ Mi" t, c �_ Y ! x . ._,, ,. is _ , _ 1 ;_ w,. ,. _,a -i , k i, _ r,. t. ,.: 1,. il- ...". -,.t. ., f - .. $ qq r.. .. .,. u- , .::. .:e_...s _. -.: , t :<. t ... ,...8. S :R-. T+. t'.. ,+.. a �: s„. _ „ r, e. a ,. n. ., < ,. ... fi„ . . .: w. t. a.x. _, - ,. ., •:, , .. .. �_. k hit :. , _,,.. , , , �: , .. .,.. , .. .., -, ,.. ..- ,.. ...v .-. y ,..,/, ",. 11� �1,;. .. , ..• :.. f -... :,. .. , .. .... ,. -..t. i do ? - , ..,.. ..». , .�. , .. p s ,.y .: , Y ... y� ,. .... : ::, ,.. },&, -.,::"y , - :�.. u �...� yr, f�L _ _ �, 1_ s. +. + , 11 fi �, „ ., lm�w _ , .. <.s.. , ., . P , -. -- ., x. .- _. . , ,t +r r - JR r x u. fi rt, ,e. .. ., _ , _. r , s _.. - :, .: f tt. M M , i i. �I I , t �' I ► ,I _ ,«. ,i •ail � � u _, ' 1 .l J . V J ) J q : , I i �. `X 17' M1 t 7 i i 1 i .r �. ..�_..__._r ....... ETA � � '` .�, ': � � � G!Zhu� , i �'��V'"�Y `,►s/ ��/ 'f L+*�• ___ �" C7 I w• c �=�, �i 7, f�-x� �., �•, f t �,t-�, �Li Zh,���f<�'�,.G, � ;f'J � ` � �¢its"��� t'l.. �� � •"' _ � � I may} �S I i � r tz- 1 i s ---- 7 'v l 21' , 24! 20' / ® Ile r / Ive �q i -17or1 tom , , 61 Sir, All 1 - 1 , ll f �+ ? ----- ----- --------- _� A w 3-' � \ �� � ,� .�' 'if, � Cam► _ \ � S JF l s I L 7 9 J 1/ O [.l s i► 70, 0 rAs Y , s. , , ....>.. -.i, �.. ].. ,". ..>- <" r .,. .., ,5ry .. u,+, �.. ... :. , , .: :.., ..,.din` ,,:. ,.. .. t +. .... c �.. -..... -.. �� _ ,. ,.. .. . ,-. a �.. .... a : r ,.:. - .,. i. ,. ....r. t, r,a 4 ft ... 3.- 3... .. .. .* ., .- - ... , a ' :! ... , . �rY _, ,....:: . .w. . 3, ...�.. f.. ,.. . x.. ., z.. r-.. ,� ,.,. ..�.. ^Y ,.. ..>r [ ti.. .a .. .x :... - :.., ,. A ,. ... <. ,"t ... e,.. .-_ . ,. .. _.,' '�- _ a f , .1 P r J , ! ! a °1. t � I �, J , I 3 / h 'i EUCALYPTUS GROVE FOR PROJECT SCREENING 0 CONCRETE ENTRY WALK �r Q y �j Q BLDG. #6 e BLDG . #4 «����? / a AA BLDG. #5 BLDG. #7 8' — 0" M ANDERING CONCRETE WALK / BIKEPATH F o PYRUS KAWAKAMIT c r\ ink BLDG, #8 \ / CAROB TREES \ CURVILINEAR WA PLANT PALETTE PHOENIX' DACTYLIFERA PROJECT SIG GE >r - STREET TREES SCHINUS TEREBINTHIFOLIUS BLDG. #9 - 3 �r WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA WASHINGTONIA ROBUST# % a PARKING LOT TREES PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA PYRUS KAWAKAMTI 0! a SITE PERIMETER & I NFI LL TREES CONCRETE ENTRY WALK . EUCALYPTUS CITR(ODORA f�, .Sµ (� s CERATONIA SILIQUA SCHINUS MOLLE v - • AF SCHINUS TEREBINTHIFOLIUS WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA STOREFRONT & ACCENT TREES E / 4 JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA My LAGERSTROEMIA iNDICA PYRUS KAWAKAW-1 ' ' + RAPHIOLEPIS STANDARDS WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA I } I IAGERST`ROEM?A iNDICA — SHRUBS I BLDG. # 10 s ' — BLDG. # 1 f JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA CURVILINEAR ALLS NERIUM:PHOTINIA=RAPHIOLEPIS : STRELITZIA:CHRYSANTHEMUM : ' } PROJECT SI AGE CHOYSIA:DODONAEA:MORAEA:PITTOSPORUM!=JUNIPER*LIGUSTRUM , r " GROUND COVER BERMUDA LAWN 6ZANIA: EUONYMUS : ANNUAL COLOR I i BLDG. NOTE. °r # 1 _ ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE AUTOMATICALLY IRRIGATED 75 71 IAI� 0 a, e CURVILINE WALL SYSTEM ENTRY STATEMENT CURVILINEAR WALLS :; PROJECT SIGNAGE _ WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA r a' — 0" MEANDERING CONCRETE WALK / BIKEPATH HIGHWAY 111 1 30 0 — ! i 77 rr DOUGLAS NEW COMB INC. T _ E y 1ondscope architects _ r )MEW- QTY C2,11F PALM DIESMT �Lr�1L`�� OLI�I t1Lr'U 180 E Min Sc Ste 18t1 luscin.C t+4rX0 (7 I4)8 ? +' 5 - - '�v WNIA A DUM 0 » „ r ` f .. r - r v , wfu , A 1 i A L T { go to lip do to MIO. z . . rAW19 MAI<M41 61 71! �` �.-ter, `( x F p � i r C 'a •.T{ t r � E n , fir; � - � • j , . - I • tom• , la MIN. wt` ,r v 1 r s k !F• k bey KATO Of 2.41 q� ,r r 4 n ti , _ 1 - 1 y r A 2 � n .¢ K�i ,._ . _ L.A ,itil M12 "PE',. AVr ...>..-,*�"r.w�r R 4'"�:• i \ ��}... s a^'F E L!&+G'✓f a \ - g Will WAM k'02— `I M A- N\ .......... oo � 77) 7-14 i x , _ F r ay ,4 1 9 � J T _ .✓�' r _ . ,� a n 1 , 0 , 7T, x ... N r.c _ :: § M, ..-,.: • .V .. _. ... _ . ... .. � x ., } .. ..,. . ., ... ,.._... _a.. ,z. t µ5... -.. ._.. .q . 1 f' n- >F- d',: - r va ,�a[ ... ., ,� _. .: �. ... <i. , rya ;. .� _. 4y ,,.. .. .. ,. :. .. ,. :. _, -•: h :: : - ,: - t M _}� ..$ ` _ . r - .