Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTT 27964 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE CONDOS 1994 - L✓ ��« -. t4r ��,�E��r���� III ,P �9 QAvY'3 41 4 darn off FOR � :. - CA nsa680 U.S.POSTA 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 Ld 3 4 6 4 5 a/e °macr� w sd Cathedral OC'4' 92234 EJ w I aui lititutit ili fill rltiumi!i:i:(titltlit!irt;llii,IdIifIf 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to review a proposed preliminary site plan and Environmental Impact Report therefore for 515 . 5 acres bounded by Frank Sinatra Drive on the north, Cook Street on the east, Country Club Drive on the south, and Portola Avenue on the west. In �o Emerald Frank Sinatra Drive Desert Sonta Rosa Country Club - Desert Fall Avondale Palm „ Country Club Golt Club Desert I Greens I .' Pcdm Voley Suncrest s CountryClub Country $~tea* I Club - -8�Ouniry Guo Drive anasvwrsoaen - --� D m > lokm I m, m Marbtrs Desert m �� 11. . > Q wand Spa Crings Resort Ylu .. Q Monterey O 0 �• lD Country Club t 0 �I Chaparral Country Club - -? L- - r -- :I Palm Desert OI I - ICollege HIDE School of the Dirt Fred WaringDrive ' - - - SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/ planning at the above address between the hours of 8 :00 a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ , Secretary Desert Sun Palm Desert Planning Commission August 31, 1994 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 27964 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert. Planning Commission to consider a request by' REGENCY HOMES . for approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 .67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200-021 AND 620-200-029 i P.R. 5 ITEI I I a SI p 4 4 L M •i---' :s /ice-vlTe[-`` I ip QB C+ (--� P9 4 1-,. ..Jr;`, 1;';`11 it ' rr.` J I • � 1__!_, v- O '1 n n rI I C. :4�.' i o0 V� .'�iJ�l 1 =:` .. 1 01 OAN Si ISILV ERII _i; SANDS j i6- li�ACQU[a _�„u�91 II `\II CLUB �� `� C� _� .o II R�(ARRICITTe sl OESEaT SPRINGS and SPA, ,, SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, at,, 7 : 00 'p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or environmental impact information is available for review in the department of community development/ planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary August 31, 1994 Palm Desert Planning Commission HAMIL ON & SAMUELS 1 0 0 B A Y V I E W CIRCLE , SUITE 6 0 0 0 FREDERICK H.KRANZ N E W P O R T BEACH , CALIFORNIA 9 2 6 6 0 TELEPHONE:(714)721,7200 PARTNER ® i e p FACSIMILE:(714)721.7400 RECF-I tl ED SEP 2 2 1g94 - Se September 20 1994 OUR FILE NUMBER P gNMBN Cs O OffALMEDEBEPARTM tII ' CITv OF PALM DESERT 9999-001 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAI (619) 341-7098 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive . Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Ladies/Gentlemen: This office represents Mr. eter Solomon and Regency Homes in connection with the ten acre parcel identified in t e Draft Environmental Impact Report for Section Four--North Sphere Project as th "46 additional condominiums" (pages 1-11 and 8-2 to 8-11). We assume that Mr. RaIr. n Diaz, with whom we have corresponded, has kept you apprised of the concerns ofr. Solomon. Thus, I'will not rehash the rather lengthy history of the dispute between Solomon and the City and Redevelopment District of the City of Palm Desert. In brief, we believe that Solomon has been deprived wrongfully of procedural and substantive due process by th City and the Redevelopment Agency by the City's failure to issue a negative declar ion on the Solomon Property. We do not believe that the City has discharged its obliga ions under the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Constitution and tif United States Constitution. Mr. Solomon was entitled to an independent envirmental assessment of his project and a resulting negative declaration. Instead, heinds his property as a virtual footnote and only an alternative to a grandiose and hily speculative project. The City has now tied the environmental review of a simple 46 condominium project to one that contemplates an 18-hole golf course (with clubhou e, driving range and short game center), 250 room conference center, a five story 500 room luxury hotel, two smaller hotels with a total of 300 rooms, 600 timeshare units, secialty shops, restaurant and sports facility. We believe that there has been delib rate and actual connivance by the City and the Redevelopment Agency to delay pproval in order to devalue the property and frustrate Mr. Solomon's development plan . We again put the City on notice that Mr. Solomon's Project should have been approv, d months ago and construction already commenced. Planning Commission City of Palm Desert September 20, 1994 Page 2 You are advised that Mr. Solomon holds the City responsible for all damages incurred as a consequence of the delay in either granting the negative declaration or commencing a timely condemnation action. Very truly yours, HAMILTON & SAM Frederi H. •a FHK/bc r. City of alm Desert 73-510 FRED WARI G DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619) 46-0611 FAX(619) 340-0574 PLANNI G COMMISSION MEETING N TICE OF ACTION Date: December 7, 1994 Regency Homes 77-676 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, California 922 0 Re: AT 27964 The Planning Commission of he City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of December 6, 1994 . _PL_ANNING COMMISSION APPROV D TT 27964 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1670 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS'. CARRIED 5-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, C ty of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the cisiot. p� s zu . DIAZ, S C RY PALM DESERT PLANNMMI SION RAD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Wate District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal R;=Pepe, PLANNING :O:A SSION RESOLUTION NO. 1670 A RESOLUTION O H PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIF RNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW CONSTRUC ION OF 46 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 9 . 67 ACRES ON THE NO TH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 2600 FEET WEST OF COOK STREET. CASE NO. TT 27964 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th ay of September, 1994 , hold a duly noticed public hearing and continue public hearing on October 18, 1994, to consider the request of REGE CY HOMES for approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club D ive, approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street; and WHEREAS, said applicat'on has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Pro edure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, esolution No. 80-89, " in that the director p of community develoment ha determined that the project was assessed as part of the Section 4 En ironmental Impact Report SCH #94032047 and as mitigated there will b no significant adverse impacts on the environment; and WHEREAS, at said publi hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning co ission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justif approval of the tentative tract map: 1 . The proposed n;p, its design, improvements, type of development, and density are consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, the Palm Desert Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, and G neral and Specific Plans . 2 . The design of the subdivision and required mitigation measures insure that the project will not result in environmental da age, injure fish or wildlife, degrade water quality or creat public health problems . 3 . The map will not conflict with public easements . 4 . The map will allow unrestricted solar access to all lots . NOW, THEREFORE, BE I RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Cali ornia, as follows : 1 . That the abov recitations are true and correct and constitute the endings of the commission in this case. 2 . That it does hIreby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. 2� 964, subject to the attached conditions . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1670 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of December, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, FERNANDEZ, SPIEGEL, WHITLOCK, JONATHAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, 5ecylFary Palm Desert Plannihj Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTI N NO. 1670 COND ITIONS OF APPROVAL CA E NO. TT 27964 Department of Communitv Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, s modified by the following conditions . 2 . Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within two years from the dat of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; othe ise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whats ever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions an limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4 . Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this pproval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or cleara ce from the following agencies : Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marsha Public Works Dep rtment Desert Sands Uni ied School 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 . Access to trash/ser ice areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parkin areas . Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash comloning any and department of community development and shall include prvisions for recycling. 6 . All future occupantsof the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the ordinance. 7 . A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff or approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to b prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 8 . Project is subject o Art in Public Places fee per ordinance No. 473 . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1670 9 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions . Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns . 10. The applicant/owner shall contribute $5,802 to the Nature Conservancy for the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan and $563 to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan as mitigation for potential impacts on the Coachella Valley Milk Vetch. Department of Public Works : 1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2 . Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream drainage conditions as they impact this project. 3 . Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 4 . The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) . Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5 . A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6 . Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits . 7 . All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits . B . As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 . 28, and in accordance with Sections 26 . 40 and 26 .44 , complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any PLANNING COMMISSION' RESOLUTI N NO. 1670 Iimprovements i commeubl ic, ced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by th Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installat on of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 9 . In accordance with City of Palm Desert Reimbursement Agreement No. 00-221, payment for th construction of one-half of the existing landscaped median isla6d and associated street improvements in Country Club Drive shalll be provided prior to the issuance of any permits associated wit this project or the recordation of the final map. 10 . Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be drought tolerant in nature aid maintenance shall be provided by the property owner/homeowners association. 11 . Full public improvemen s, as required by Sections 26 .40 and 26 .44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with appli able City standards . Such improvements shall include, but no. be limited to, concrete curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete- sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration, and the installation of acceleration/deceleration lane for the project J entry. The proposed entry gate shall be located so as to provide for a minimum stacking of five vehicles with the access throat. The Country Club Drive project access shall be limited to ri ht-turn ingress and egress only. Secondary access shall be provi ed as required by the fire marshall. 12 . As required by Sect ons 26 . 32 and 26 .44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and i� accordance with the Circulation Network of the City' s General Plan, half-street rights-of-way at 55 feet on Country Club Drive ann,d 44 feet on the northerly east/west street shall be offered for dedication on the final map. 13 . Applicant shall com ly with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 12 . 12 , Fugitive Dust Control ( 14) Any and all offsite improvements shall b preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid enc oachment permits by the Department of Public Works . 14 . Any and all offsite i provements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the is uance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 15 . Full improvements of the interior street system in accordance with Section 26 . 40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. 16 . In accordance, with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .44 , complete grading pl ns/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted o the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior o issuance of any permits . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1670 17 . Traffic safety striping 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 prior to the placement of any pavement markings . 18. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 19 . Applicant shall agree to participate in the proposed City of Palm Desert Cook Street benefit assessment district to the extent determined appropriate by proceedings of the City of Palm Desert. 20 . Waiver of access rights to Country Club Drive and the northerly east/west street shall be granted on the Tract Map. 21 . Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002 ) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 22 . The project shall provide for on-site storm water retention designed to retain stormwaters associated with the increase in developed vs . undeveloped condition for a 25 year, storm. In addition, the project shall provide for the interim storm water retention for a 100 year, 6 hour event until such time as the installation of a master plan storm drain system to serve the subject development. On going maintenance of this system shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards: The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10 . 301C. 2 . A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3 . Provide, or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 2500 for multifamily. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for two hours duration a 20 psi residual operating pressure. ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTI N NO. 1670 4 . The required fire flow hall be available from a Super hydrant(s) ( 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2- /2" ) , located not less than 25 ' nor more than 165 ' multifamily from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . Hydrants installed below 3000 ' elevation hall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5 . A combination of on-sit and off-site Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/211 ) will be required, located not less than '25 ' or more than 165 ' multifamily from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 6 . Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction t at hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange field inspection by the fire department prior o request for final inspection. 7 . Prior to the applica ion for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the orig nal and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire D partment for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chie. . Upon approval, the original will be returned: One copy dill be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. Plans shall conform t fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall m et the fire flow requirements . Plans shall be signed by a Regist4red Civic Engineer and may be signed by the local water company w}th the following certification: "I certify that the design of t e water system is in accordance with the requirements prescrib d by the Riverside County Fire Department. " "System has been desi ned to provide a minimum gallon per minute flow of 1500, 2500, 3000. " 8 . The required fire fl w may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, oribuilt-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinkler d building. 9 . Comply with Title 4 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1, 1 90, for all occupancies . 10 . Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 . The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, not less han 25 ' from the building and within 50 ' of an approved hydrant This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered per NFPA 13 . The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total . Exempted are one and two family dwellings . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1670 11 . Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code 3803 for sprinkler system. Install tamper alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 12 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs . approved by the fire marshal . 13 . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75 ' walking distance. In addition to the above, a .40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens . 14 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150 ' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24 ' of unobstructed width and 13 ' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36 ' wide with parking on both sides, 32 ' wide with parking on one side. Dead- end roads in excess of 150 ' shall be provided with a minimum 45 ' radius turn-around (55 ' in industrial developments) . Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5 ' radius or 10 ' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 15 . Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles . Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 16 ' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 ' 6" . OTHER: 1 . Need detail on entrance gate and full width of Country Club Drive, per existing plan fire engines cannot make turns required to get in. 2 . Reference item 14, minimum 45 ' radius for turn-around on north end, maximum 10 ' diameter garden island. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 6, 1994 and continued from September 20 and October 18, 1994 CASE NO: TT 27964 REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive, approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street. APPLICANT: Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 I . BACKGROUND: This matter was continued from September 20 and October 18, 1994 to allow the Section Four North Sphere Project Environmental Impact Report to be certified by city council . The city council did so at its November 16, 1994 meeting. II . PROJECT SUMMARY: A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE North: PR-5/Vacant South: PR-4/Marriott Desert Springs East: PR-5/Vacant West: PR-5/Vacant B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is a vacant 9 . 67 acre property generally flat in topography. C. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The site is zoned PR75, five dwelling units per acre and the general plan designation is low density (3-5 dwelling units per acre) . The zoning is consistent with the general plan. D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a one lot subdivision for condominium purposes . A total of 44 condominiums will be constructed which includes 33 single story units and 13 two story units . .:4STAFF REPORT TT 27964 DECEMBER 6, 1994 The architectural review commission granted the project preliminary approval for the architecture at its June 28, 1994 meeting. Recreational amenities consist of two tennis courts and a swimming pool with jacuzzi . Access to the project consists of a single ingress/egress point off Country Club Drive. E. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PR ZONE Project PR-5 Zone Site size 9 . 67 acres 5 acres minimum Density 4 . 75 du/ac 5 du/ac Setbacks : Front 32 feet 85 feet Sides 30 feet as approved Rear 35 feet as approved Height 24 feet 24 feet Parking 149 spaces 115 spaces ( 92 covered) ( 92 covered) Open Space 55% (gross) 50% (net) III . ANALYSIS• The proposed map, its design, improvements, type of development, and density are consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, the Palm Desert Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, and General and Specific Plans . The design of the subdivision and required mitigation measures insure that the project will not result in environmental damage, injure fish or wildlife, degrade water quality or create public health problems . The map will not conflict with public easements, and will allow unrestricted solar access to all lots . An environmental impact report has been prepared and certified. No further documentation is deemed necessary for purposes of CEQA. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. approving TT 27964 subject to conditions . RAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1994 i VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A� Continued Case No. TT 27964 - REGENCY HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200- 021 and 620-200-029 . Mr. Winklepleck explained that this matter had been continued to allow city council to consider certification of the Section 4 North Sphere Project EIR. Council continued that matter to its meeting of November 16 . Staff recommended continuance of TT 27964 to the planning commission meeting of December 6 , 1994 . _ Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing TT 27964 to December 6 , 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5--0 . B. Case No. CUP 91-4(A) - JOHN CANAVAN, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow a 1210 square foot increase of medical office use in the existing building at 73-929 Larrea Street. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the original conditional use permit was approved in July, 1991 . The existing building was approximately 6876 square feet with a maximum allowable medical office use of 2200 square feet. He explained that zoning codes permitted up to 2200 square feet of medical use without requiring additional parking--that square feetbuildings u l inns parked at one parking space per 250 sq are lot had 27 loor area. He noted that this building' s parking spaces, which complied with the parking requirement. He said that staff conducted a survey of the parking between September 28 and October 12 , 1994 . The average usage was 12 cars with a high of 18 . Staff recommended approval of the 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 46 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 9 . 67 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 2600 FEET WEST OF COOK STREET. CASE NO. TT 27964 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of September, 1994 , hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued public hearing on October 18, 1994 , to consider the request of REGENCY HOMES for approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive, approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89 , " in that the director of community development has determined that the project was assessed as part of the Section 4 Environmental Impact Report SCH #94032047 and as mitigated there will be no significant adverse impacts on the environment; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts ,and reasons to exist to justify approval of the tentative tract map: 1 . The proposed map, its design, improvements, type of development, and density are consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, the Palm Desert Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, and General and Specific Plans . 2 . The design of the subdivision and required mitigation measures insure that the project will not result in environmental damage, injure fish or wildlife, degrade water quality or create public health problems . 3 . The map will not conflict with public easements . 4 . The map will allow unrestricted solar access to all lots . 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 it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. 27964 , subject to the attached conditions . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of December, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, ' Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 27964 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with .exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions . 2 . Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3 . The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4 . Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies : Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School 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 . Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas . Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include provisions for recycling. 6 . All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. 7 . A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 8 . Project is subject to Art in Public Places fee per Ordinance No. 473 . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions . Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns . 10 . The applicant/owner shall contribute $5,802 to the Nature Conservancy for the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan and $563 to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan as mitigation for potential impacts on the Coachella Valley Milk Vetch. Department of Public Works : 1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 . 49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2 . Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream drainage conditions as they impact this project. 3 . Signalization fees , in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos . 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 4 . The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) . Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5 . A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6 . Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits . 7 . All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits . 8 . As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .28, and in accordance with Sections 26 .40 and 26 . 44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of 9 PP Public Works for checkin and approval before construction of any PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 9 . In accordance with City of Palm Desert Reimbursement Agreement No. 00-221, payment for the construction of one-half of the existing landscaped median island and associated street improvements in Country Club Drive shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project or the recordation of the final map. 10 . Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be drought tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner/homeowners association. 11 . Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26 .40 and 26 .44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards . Such improvements shall include, but not be limited to, concrete curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration, and the installation of acceleration/deceleration lane for the project entry. The proposed entry gate shall be located so as to provide for a minimum stacking of five vehicles with the access throat. The Country Club Drive project access shall be limited to right-turn ingress and egress only. Secondary access shall be provided as required by the fire marshall . 12 . As required by Sections 26 . 32 and 26 . 44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City' s General Plan, half-street rights-of-way at 55 feet on Country Club Drive and 44 feet on the northerly east/west street shall be offered for dedication on the final map. 13 . Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 12 . 12, Fugitive Dust Control ( 14 ) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works . 14 . Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works . 15 . Full improvements of the interior street system in accordance with Section 26 . 40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. 16 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking f and approvalprior rior to issuance o any permits . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17 . Traffic safety striping 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 prior to the placement of any pavement markings . 18 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 19 . Applicant shall agree to participate in the proposed City of Palm Desert Cook Street benefit assessment district to the extent determined appropriate by proceedings of the City of Palm Desert. 20 . Waiver of access rights to Country Club Drive and the northerly east/west street shall be granted on the Tract Map. 21 . Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 22 . The project shall provide for on-site storm water retention designed to retain stormwaters associated with the increase in developed vs . undeveloped condition for a 25 year storm. In addition, the project shall provide for the interim storm water retention for a 100 year, 6 hour event until such time as the installation of a master plan storm drain system to serve the subject development. On going maintenance of this system shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards: The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code 'Sec. 10 . 301C. 2 . A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3 . Provide, or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 2500 for multifamily. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for two hours duration a 20 psi residual operating pressure. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4 . The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" ) , located not less than 25 ' nor more than 165 ' multifamily from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . Hydrants installed below 3000 ' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5 . A combination of on-site and off-site Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" ) will be required, located not less than 25 ' or more than 165 ' multifamily from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 6 . Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange field inspection by the fire department prior to request for final inspection. 7 . Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements . Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civic Engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. " "System has been designed to provide a minimum gallon per minute flow of 1500, 2500, 3000 . " 8 . The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinklered building. 9 . Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1, 1990, for all occupancies . 10 . Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 . The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, not less than 25 ' from the building and within 50 ' of an approved hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered per NFPA 13 . The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total . Exempted are one and two family dwellings . J \ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11 . Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code 3803 for sprinkler system. Install tamper alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems . 12 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs approved by the fire marshal . 13 . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75 ' walking distance. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens . 14 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150 ' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24 ' of unobstructed width and 1316" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36 ' wide with parking on both sides, 32 ' wide with parking on one side. Dead- end roads in excess of 150 ' shall be provided with a minimum 45 ' radius turn-around (55 ' in industrial developments) . Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5 ' radius or 10 ' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 15 . Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles . Devices shall be equipped with, backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 16 ' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 ' 6" . OTHER: 1 . Need detail on entrance gate and full width of Country Club Drive, per existing plan fire engines cannot make turns required to get in. 2 . Reference item 14, minimum 45 ' radius for turn-around on north end, maximum 10 ' diameter garden island. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ���(���� DLC - 1 1994 COMMC':OY OEYELOPMEM EEPABPC.ER7 CITY Of PALM DESERT TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Jeff Winklepleck FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager/Public Works Director SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 27964; PETER SOLOMON, REGENCY PALMS DATE: December 1, 1994 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: ( 1) Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. (2) Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream drainage conditions as they impact this project. (3) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Re solution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. (4) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) . Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. (5) A complete preliminary soils investigation , conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (6) Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits . (7) All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits : r ; (8) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .28, and in accordance with Sections 26 .40 and 26 .44 , complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is . commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. (9) In accordance with City of Palm Desert Reimbursement Agreement No. 00-221, payment for the construction of one-half of the existing landscaped median island and associated street improvements in Country Club Drive shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project or the recordation of the final map. ( 10) Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be drought tolerant in. nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner/homeowners association. ( 11) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26 .40 and 26 .44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards . Such improvements shall include, but not be limited to, concrete curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration, and the installation of acceleration/deceleration lane for the project entry. The proposed entry gate shall be located so as to provide for a minimum stacking of five vehicles with the access throat. The Country Club Drive project access shall be limited to right- turn ingress and egress only. Secondary access shall be provided as required by the fire marshall . ( 12) As required by Sections 26 .32 and 26 .44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, half-street rights-of-way at 55 feet on Country Club Drive and 44 feet on the northerly east/west street shall be offered for dedication on the final map. ( 13) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 12 . 12, Fugitive Dust Control ( 14) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. ( 15) Full improvements of the interior street system in accordance with Section 26 .40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. ( 16) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .44 , complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits . ( 17) Traffic safety striping 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 prior to the placement of any pavement markings. ( 18) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. ( 19) Applicant shall agree to participate in the proposed City of Palm Desert Cook Street benefit assessment district to the extent determined appropriate by proceedings of the City of Palm Desert. (20) Waiver of access rights to Country Club Drive and the northerly east/west street shall be granted on the Tract Map. (21) Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002 ) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. (22) The project shall provide for on-site storm water retention designed to retain stormwaters associated with the increase in developed vs . undeveloped condition for a 25 year storm. In addition, the project shall provide for the interim storm water retention for a 100 year, 6 hour event until such time as the installation of a master plan storm drain system to serve the subject development. On going maintenance of this system shall be . the responsibility of the homeowners association. CHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. (tmaps\=27966.cnd) RIVERSIDE COUNTYIVE �µ1FORRl� w [TS FIRE DEPARTMENT R E ® qVq 0 PRO fC//Oh y IN COOPERATION WITH THE p pp 2 0 1g94 A COUNTY `j - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESrTAY C E26 7 RIVER AND FIRE PROTECTION CDMMUNIfl DEVELOPMENT DEPPRTMEpIE, DF MIKE HARRI S,^'' COV OF FAEM DESERT -- FIRE CHIEF '' RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE COVE FIRE MARSHAL PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 70-801 HWY 111 TELEPHONE:(714)657-3183 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 (619)346-1870 TO: Jeff Winklepleck REF: TT 27964; PP 94-1/Regency Condominiums 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10. 301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 2500 for multifamily. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 GPM for two hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 411 x -2-1/2" x 2-1/211) , located not less than 25' nor more than 165' multifamily from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. A combination of on-site and off-site Super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2- 1/2"x2-1/2" ) will be required, located not less than 25' or more than 165' multifamily, from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 6. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange field inspection by the Fire Department printed on wyctedpepw U'f prior to request for final inspection. 7. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. " "System has been designed to provide a minimum gallon per minute flow of 1500, 2500, 3000. " 8. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinklered building. 9 . Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1 , 1990, for all occupancies. 10. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 . The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered per NFPA 13 . The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total . Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 11. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code 3803 for sprinkler system. Install tamper alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. Required for future clubhouse. 12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs approved by the Fire Marshal. 13 . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75, walking distance. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 14. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments) . Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 15. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 1316" . All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department, Coves Fire Marshal , at Phone (619) 346- 1870 or the Fire Marshal's office at 70-801 Highway ill (Rancho Mirage Fire Station) , Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. OTHER: 1 . Need detail on entrance gate and full width of Country Club Drive, per existing plan fire engines cannot make turns required to get in. 2 . Reference item 14, minimum 451 radius for turn-around on north end, maximum 10' diameter garden island. Sincerely, MIKE HARRIS �(Chief ( ��� �1y^�'YUM 1 by Mike McConnell Coves Fire Marshal bbm Interoffice Memo City of Palm Desert To: Jeff Winklepleck From: Brent Conley Re: TT27964 Date: 4-21-94 The Police Department would like to comment on the above project. The entry gate must be equipped with a nox-box set-up to allow access to the complex by responding emergency units . The police department and the fire department must be given at least two dozen keys for distribution to on-duty personnel . The addressing of the residences must be consistent with north/south addressing. Also due to the circular configuration, the directions east and west should be added to the last of the street name. This would also be useful to the cul-da-sac area. The plan does not show the width of the roadway. This could have an effect on street parking. The lighting and landscaping of the complex must be within the City of Palm Desert standards for safety. The landscaping must be trees trimmed high and shrubbery low for maximum viewing for both neighbors and patrol vehicles. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at Ext. 326 . Brent Conley Crime Prevention City of Palm Desert MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 i related to a PA system and that had been eliminated from the sports park. They would not be allowed to have one. Chairperson Spiegel stated that his feeling was that they were talking about things that were not appropriate to what the commission was supposed to do. If they changed the wording of the recommendation to a recommendation to city council to approve the certification of an environmental impact report for 515 .5 acres, all they would be saying was that the EIR was right. If the sports park wanted to have a 5, 000 person event, they would cause certain kinds of problems, lighting would cause certain kinds of problems, a hotel would cause certain kinds of problem, timeshares would cause a certain kind of problems--all those things were involved with this report. He wanted to see the motion changed to reflect that. Mr. Diaz suggested that the motion be to recommend to the city council that it certify the environmental impact report with particular attention given to the areas of lighting, noise, traffic, and special event parking. Chairperson Spiegel asked if they could also recommend that the council address the sports complex and the environmental impact on the same evening. Mr. Diaz stated that was very possible; that way that night the conditional use permit which was before the council could be heard. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did not have a problem with that, but he felt the motion for the EIR should be for it alone. Chairperson Spiegel clarified that it would be a separate recommendation. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, recommending to city council certification of the Section Four Environmental Impact Report by minute motion, with special attention being paid to lighting, noise, traffic and special event parking for the sports complex. Carried 5- 0 . Commission recommended that the city council hold the Section 4 EIR hearing and the conditional use permit hearing for the sports complex at the same council meeting. fE.l Case No. TT 27964 - REGENCY HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200- 021 and 620-200-029 . Mr. Diaz stated that this was the matter that Mr. Kibbey approached the commission and commented on earlier in the meeting. He explained that the ten acres that were involved were located just to the west of the Manor Care homes and were two 5 acre parcels north and south that abutted Country Club Drive. This matter was part of the environmental impact review procedure and was evaluated as part of Alternative 2 so that they could go ahead with the hearings on this particular item. Because it was part of that environmental impact report, until the environmental impact report was certified, which he anticipated occurring on October 13, 1994, until it was certified by the city council, the planning commission could not approve tentative tract map 27964 . Staff was recommending that after taking public testimony, the commission terminate the hearing for TT 27964 and continue the map, or continue the public hearing because they would then have the resolution of approval with the appropriate conditions, some of which would be mitigation measures set forth in the environmental impact report imposed on this project after the environmental impact report was certified. The design of the project had been through the architectural commission and received approval . In terms of all of the required findings for a tentative tract map, those could be met except for the fact that under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as Amended, they could not take a course of action until the environmental impact report was certified, and that had to be done by the city council . Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JACK KIBBEY, applicant, asked how long this procedure would take because he felt they had been here for quite a while to get it processed. He said that it had impacted on his business considerably since they bought the land to build on it. Mr. Diaz said he would review some history for the commission since Mr. Kibbey and Mr. Solomon did own the property. When the issue first arose, because this was part of the project area and the development of this particular ten acre project could have, in terms of cumulative impacts on the environment when coupled with the project and site plan before the commission, it might have a significant adverse impact on the 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 environment. There were two alternatives offered to them. One was to do a separate environmental impact report concentrating on the cumulative impact issue and going through the entire process . The other was to allow this particular project to be evaluated as part of the environmental review process . They chose the latter. They did not have to pay for the environmental impact report whereas they would have had to for a separate one. Staff recommended that they choose this route. Later on, once the draft environmental impact report was completed, Mr. Diaz communicated to their attorney, Mr. Kranz, the opportunity because he indicated again that he was held up and wanted to move faster, he said at that point in time they could, because they had the draft environmental impact report completed, pull them out and have a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. It was a mitigated negative declaration because the conditions would be imposed that were set forth in the draft environmental impact report on the tentative map. He asked if they wished to go through that process or wait. Staff gave them three weeks to respond to that alternative because staff would have processed it quicker and this hearing would have been conducted on September 6 , 1994 . For various reasons they chose not to take that particular process so that was where it stood now. He noted that staff, if they had really wanted to delay them as Mr. Kibbey said, could have waited to hold this public hearing until after the environmental impact report was certified. In other words, this first hearing would have been in October. With the environmental impact report certified on October 13 or even at the second meeting in October by the city council, this tentative tract map would have been approved well within the allowable time of the permit streamlining act as adopted by the State of California which allowed them six months for a negative declaration, or one year for an environmental impact report. It was not staff ' s intention to hold anyone up and that was why it was here tonight. He said he had some correspondence from the attorney indicating that he felt the city had held them up, but those were issues that should be argued by the council . The issue before the commission now was the tentative tract map. Staff was saying that since in actuality it could not be denied because it met all the required findings of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California except for the environmental CEQA process, and that would be resolved on October 13, 1994, so that on the 18th of October, the resolution would be before the commission with the conditions of approval for the tentative map if the council certified 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 the environmental impact report on October 13 . He noted that he would not be present at that meeting. Mr. Kibbey said that what they were referring to was that other projects had been approved with a negative declaration. Mr. Diaz said that he had communicated with Mr. Kibbey' s attorney and the city' s attorney had communicated with Mr. Kibbey' s attorney on that issue. He recommended that Mr. Kibbey call Mr. Kranz to review the correspondence. Mr. Diaz stated that those issues and the answers he could give Mr. Kibbey this evening 1) had nothing to do with the tentative map, and 2 ) were not going to be satisfactory to him. Mr. Diaz said he was willing to give them to Mr. Kibbey and if Mr. Kibbey would give him a call, he could do that. Mr. Kibbey asked if the commission had a report for approval from staff. Mr. Diaz said that yes, they had the staff report there and staff was saying that they could not approve the tentative map because the EIR had not been certified, but would want to continue this case until the commission' s meeting of October 18, 1994 . At that time the commission would have before it the resolution for approval . (A copy of the staff report was given to Mr. Kibbey. ) Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Chairperson Spiegel asked for a motion to continue TT 27964 to October 18, 1994 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing TT 27964 to October 18, 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. 40 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 27964 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by REGENCY HOMES for approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200-021 AND 620-200-029 P.R. 5 ITE ' I I i I I . I Y I P.C.-M 0 214 44 1 •` D i;•u `--J it .,. . -----�'.-� /. O I:l ;le 3T-1 46ac `lil �_� it ��``•�___�_, �/ MLeI I 'u00 L/ nJo� i V( '.11, (\\ _ O5 -___—2 ....`✓✓✓�\\\iii�"'♦ �;_�.� nnn nnn� ,♦ /ISILVER)! �li o t\ _i, SANDS I y ;RACQUEIT-c.-.-1; kI CLUB I II \\P P.R.—If MJARRIOTTe = IN.QQ ;1 I ,ti I 7 OESEAT SPRINGS - -- - , O 1 II / __ram♦NUS-___-��F `\`` ll ji II and SPA SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994 , 4t, 7 :00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or environmental impact information is available for review in the department of community development/ planning at the above address between the hours of 8 : 00 a.m. and 5 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary August 31, 1994 Palm Desert Planning Commission 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 6, 1994 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present : Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Bob Spiegel Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Joe Gaugush Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Consideration of the November 15, 1994 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the November 15, 1994 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent November 16, 1994 city council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS ( A). Continued Case No. TT 27964 - REGENCY HOMES, Applicant J Request for approval of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street, also MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6 , 1994 particularly described as : APN 620-200- 021 and 620-200-029 . Mr. Diaz explained that this matter had been continued from September 20, October 18, and November 16 to tonight to allow the Environmental Impact Report for Section 4 to be certified by the city council . That EIR was certified. He said that as noted in early staff reports, the tentative map met all requirements of zoning and the general plan and should be approved. Commissioner Spiegel asked how this would effect the current plan for Section 4 . Mr. Diaz replied that based on the current plan that was now drawn up, these ten acres would have one or two golf holes on them, but they could not deny this tentative map. Chairperson Jonathan asked if when the Section 4 master plan was created, there was some expectation of land acquisition. Mr. Diaz stated that the master plan was still being created and there were other parcels that were included that had plans that had already been approved by this commission along Portola--the office professional use. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was still an expectation that what was approved for Section 4 was going to happen or if there was something else that might come about because individual land owners were going through with their own projects . Mr. Diaz indicated that individual land owners could go through with their own projects; whether this project proceeded was up to the applicant or the redevelopment agency if it wished to acquire the vacant property. In terms of the planning commission decision, until the plan was completed this was the action that was the proper action. He noted that there was discussion on whether this would increase the value of the land--he said it did not. The courts two years ago made the decision that whether or not a tentative map was approved, the value of the land was already determined as though the map were approved. Chairperson Jonathan asked if in general for an application to come before the commission, the party making the application had to be an owner of the property. Mr. Diaz replied either the owner or have the owner' s permission. Chairperson Jonathan asked how that was done with the Section 4 plan; Mr. Diaz said that the Section 4 plan was not before the commission, just the environmental impact report. He noted that was an interesting question and felt that there were a lot of issues that needed to be addressed on the Section 4 plan because there would be some tentative parcel maps that would have to be approved when the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 plan went through and the plan itself was adopted. He knew that tentative maps could not be approved without an owner' s permission. He believed that the specific plan could be approved, however, when an applicant applied, the commission had to make a decision as though the other plan was not there. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the setback indicated for the 32 foot project in the PR-5 zone required 85 feet--he asked if the applicant was seeking a variance. Mr. Diaz stated that he would look at the zoning ordinance and clarify that later in the meeting. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. No one was present. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff knew why the applicant or a representative was not present. Mr. Diaz replied that the reason might be because the commission had gone through the public hearing and the only reason the approval was being held up was the certification of the EIR, which was done. Mr. Diaz stated that there were no reasons to deny this map. The plan met all the criteria of the general plan--he was talking about 46 units and the zoning allowed up to 50 . Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant was aware of the hearing--Mr. Diaz believed so, but in this case since the applicant had been delayed from September 20 to now waiting for the environmental impact report, staff would recommend approval of the tentative map. Chairperson' Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Spiegel noted that the applicant was present on September 20 and the commission went through the entire proposal . The big problem on September 20 was that the EIR was not approved. Now that the EIR was approved and the commission had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Jack Kibbey at that time, he would recommend approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as submitted by staff . Commissioner Beaty noted that they could not pretend that they did not know that the city was planning a project. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the applicant had a right to go forward with their project under the current zoning/general plan. The city could negotiate the purchase or go out and �. exercise their eminent domain powers . If the city at this 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 1994 point were to take action with the purpose of slowing down the project because the city had other plans, they would run into certain kinds of pre-condemnation liabilities . The aim at this point was to forget about any plans the city might have and deal with this as an application based on existing zoning laws . Commissioner Beaty asked if the project were approved, and if the city in the near future decided to proceed with the plan, if the city had a mechanism to obtain the property. Mr. Hargreaves said the redevelopment agency could exercise eminent domain. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the continued case was before them because the applicant was pushing to get the application moving forward; Mr. Diaz stated that the reason for the delay of the project was waiting certification of the environmental impact report, which was required. The reason the application was before the commission was because the applicant wanted to proceed with the project. Mr. Diaz noted that while the applicant was not present, based on comments by the city attorney, he urged that the commission approve the tentative map. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification on the 85 foot setback. Mr. Diaz stated that it should be 25 feet for the front setback. Commissioner Beaty asked what the difference was in open space if open space was 55% gross and this was 50% net. Mr. Diaz said that the project had 55% gross and the requirement was 50% of net and the project met that requirement . Mr. Diaz stated that the gross would include the street because Country Club was widened before this development took place. In the PR zone it was determined by gross density. The 55% included the land that was Country Club Drive, which was now paved. Commissioner Jonathan commented that generally he was uncomfortable taking action on a project without the applicant being present and normally he would be in favor of a continuance or denial, but under the circumstances he would go along with the motion. He called for a vote. Motion carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1670, approving TT 27964 , subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . B. Continued Case No. CUP 93-3 Gerald Ford/Cook Street - RICHARD ODEKIRK, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Negative Declaration 4,fryi0 TO: (X) Riverside Co. Clerk/Recorder ( ) Secretary for Resources P .O. Box 751 1416 Ninth St.. , Rm 1311 Riverside, CA 92502-0751 Sacramento, CA 95814 FROM: CITY OF PALM DESERT - 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 9i260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title/Common Name: Acquisition of property to implement Section 4 Date of Project .Approval : January 17 , 1995 State Clearinghouse Number ( if submitted) : N/A Contact Person: Ramon A. Diaz Project Location: Section 4 bounded by Frank Sinatra Drive, Cook Street, Portola Avenue, and Monterey Avenue. Project Description: Acquisition of property to implement Section 4 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 thX An Environmental project pu suant to the provisions ofImpact Report was eCEQAd in connection with 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, — .adopt d for this project. Signature Title �' J Date Received for Filing Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope. Attachment 1 California Department of Fish and Game CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (include county) : Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency acquisition of property to implement Section 4 plan - City of Palm Desert, Riverside County Project Description: The acquisition of 10 acres of vacant land having an approved tentative map, through eminent domain, in the area known as Section 4 . An EIR was approved and certified analyzing the entire program for this area of which this 10 acres is a small part. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary) : The acquisition of this site is merely a financial transaction, which in and of itself has no environmental impact. The development of the site has been reviewed in previously certified EIR, and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented as part of the development process . Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. - ON A. DIAZ Title: Assistant City Manager/ Director of Community Dev. Lead Agency: City of Palm Desert Date: January 23, 1995 Section 711 . 4 , F sIL and Game Code DFG: 12/90 -' CEQA3 ( 1/91) 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: October 19 , 1994 Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane PalmDesert, California 92260 / Re: �/ TT 27964 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of October 18, 1994 . PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED TT 27964 TO DECEMBER 6 , 1994 BY MINUTE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 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. m R M N A. DIAZ , §ECIjPRY PALM DESERT PLANNI61 COMMISSION RAD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1994 VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. TT 27964 - REGENCY HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200- 021 and 620-200-029 . Mr. Winklepleck explained that this matter had been continued to allow city council to consider certification of the Section 4 North Sphere Project EIR. Council continued that matter to its meeting of November 16 . Staff recommended continuance of TT 27964 to the planning commission meeting of December 6, 1994 . Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing TT 27964 to December 6 , 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . B. Case No. CUP 91-4(A) - JOHN CANAVAN, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow a 1210 square foot increase of medical office use in the existing building at 73-929 Larrea Street. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the original conditional use permit was approved in July, 1991 . The existing building was approximately 6876 square feet with a maximum allowable medical office use of 2200 square feet. He explained that zoning codes permitted up to 2200 square feet of medical use without requiring additional parking--that was for buildings parked at one parking space per 250 square feet of floor area. He noted that this building' s parking lot had 27 spaces, which complied with the parking requirement. He said that staff conducted a survey of the parking between September 28 and October 12, 1994 . The average usage was 12 cars with a high of 18 . Staff recommended approval of the 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 18, 1994 continued from September 20, 1994 CASE NO: TT 27964 REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive, approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street. APPLICANT: Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 I . DISCUSSION• This matter was continued to October 18, 1994 to allow the Section Four North Sphere Project Environmental Impact Report to be certified by city council . The city council at its meeting of October 13, 1994, continued the Section Four hearing to November 16 , 1994 . Therefore staff is .recommending that TT 27964 be continued to the planning commission meeting following that date. II . RECOMMENDATION: That the planning commission by minute motion continue TT 27964 until the Section Four North Sphere Project Environmental Impact Report is certified city council . f' F RAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MAN R/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm „Y 2,f (KANT off Ift m o 0 0 n 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 27964 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planninq Commission to consider .a request by REGENCY HOMES for approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200-021 AND 620-200-029 P.R. 5 ITEI I I i _ 1 1 1 P. C.—(2) 4 41 L 1I. c�N f' 01 � mo L'tIUSAJ'll i '� •..`, .\ + .�Q V4 .� nnn �nnr . ,'SILVERi \ _il SANDS�i-J➢LGL CLUBvv III \�P.R.-4 ,`�_ MARRIOTT' sl OESEF(T SPRINGS FS and SPA L -- SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, at, 7 :00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or environmental impact information is available for review in the department of community development/ planning at the above address between the hours of 8 : 00 a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary August 31, 1994 Palm Desert Planning Commission City ®f Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619)346-0611 . FAX(619)341-7098 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: September 21, 1994 Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: TT 27964 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of September 20, 1994 : PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED TT 27964 TO OCTOBER 18, 1994 BY MINUTE MOTION. CARRIED 5-0 . 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. RAM DIAZ , R RY PALM DESERT PLANNI COMMISSION RAD/tm cc : Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal Pape RrE Paper I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 related to a PA system and that had been eliminated from the sports park. They would not be allowed to have one. Chairperson Spiegel stated that his feeling was that they were talking about things that were not appropriate to what the commission was supposed to do. If they changed the wording of the recommendation to a recommendation to city council to approve the certification of an environmental impact report for 515 .5 acres, all they would be saying was that the EIR was right. If the sports park wanted to have Ia 5,000 person event, they would cause certain kinds of problems, lighting would cause certain kinds of problems, a hotel would cause certain kinds of problem, timeshares would cause a certain kind of problems--all those things were involved with this report. He wanted to see the motion changed to reflect that. Mr. Diaz suggested that the motion be to recommend to the city council that it certify the environmental impact report with particular attention given to the areas of lighting, noise, traffic, and special event parking. Chairperson Spiegel asked if they could also recommend that the council address the sports complex and the environmental impact on the same evening. Mr. Diaz stated that was very possible; that way that night the conditional use permit which as before the council could be heard. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did not have a problem with that, but he feilt the motion for the EIR should be for it alone. Chairperson Spiegel clarified that it would be a separate recommendation. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, recommending to city council certification of the Section Four Environmental Impact Report by minute motion, with special attention being paid to lighting, noise, traffic and special event parking for the sports complex. Carried 5- 0 . Commission recommended that the city council hold the Section 4 EIR hearing and the conditional use permit hearing for the sports complex at the same council meeting. E. Case No. TT 27964 - REGENCY HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 26.00 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT . PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200- 021 and 620-200-029 . Mr. Diaz stated that this was the matter that Mr. Kibbey approached the commission and commented on earlier in the meeting. He explained that the ten acres that were involved were located just to the west of the Manor Care homes and were two 5 acre parcels north and south that abutted Country Club Drive. This matter was part of the environmental impact review procedure and was evaluated as part of Alternative12 so that they could go ahead with the hearings on this particular item. Because it was part of that environmental impact report, until the environmental impact report was certified, which he anticipated occurring on October 13, 1994, until it was certified by the city council, the planning commission could not approve tentative tract map 27964 . Staff was recommending that after taking public testimony, the commission terminate the hearing for TT 27964 and continue the map, or continue the public hearing because they would then have the resolution of approval with the appropriate conditions, some of which would be mitigation measures set forth in the environmental impact report imposed on this project after the environmental impact report was certified. The design of the project had been through the architectural commission and received approval . In terms of all of the required findings for a tentative tract map, those could be met except for the fact that under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as Amended, they could not take a course of action until the environmental impact report was certified, and that had to be done by the city council . Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JACK KIBBEY, applicant, asked how long this procedure would take because he felt they had been here for quite a while to get it processed. He said that it had impacted on his business considerably since they bought the land to build on it. Mr. Diaz said he would review some history for the commission since Mr. Kibbey and Mr. Solomon did own the property. When the issue first arose, because this was part of the project area and the development of this particular ten acre project could have, in terms of cumulative impacts on the environment when coupled with the project and site plan before the commission, it might have a significant adverse impact on the 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 environment. There were two alternatives offered to them. One was to do a separate environmental impact report concentrating on the cumulative impact issue and going through the entire process . The other was to allow this particular project to be evaluated as part of the environmental review process . They chose the latter. They did not have to pay for the environmental impact repor''t whereas they would have had to for a separate one. Staff recommended that they choose this route. Later on, once the draft environmental impact report was completed, Mr. Diaz communicated to their attorney, Mr. Kranz, the opportunity, because he indicated again that he was held up and wanted to move faster, he said at that point in time they could because they had the draft environmental impact report completed, pull them out and have a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. It was a mitigated negative declaration because the conditions would be imposed that were set forth in the draft environmental impact report on the tentative map. He asked if they wished to go through that process or wait. Staff gave them three weeks to respond to that alternative because staff would have processed it quicker and this hearing would have been conducted on September 6 , 1994 . For various reasons they chose not to take that particular process so that was where it stood nowt He noted that staff, if they had really wanted to delay them as Mr. Kibbey said, could have waited to hold this public hearing until after the environmental impact report was certified. In other words, this first hearing would have been in October. With the. environmental impact report certified on October 13 or even at the second meeting in October by the city council, this tentative tract map would have been approved well within the allowable time of the permit streamlining act as adopted by the State of California which allowed them six months for a negative declaration, or one year for an environmental impact report. It was not staff ' s intention to hold anyone up and that was why it was here tonight. He said he had some correspondence from the' attorney indicating that he felt the city had held them up, but those were issues that should be argued by the council . The issue before the commission now was the tentative tract map. Staff was saying that since in actuality it could not be denied because it met all the required findings of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California except for the environmental CEQA process, and that would be resolved on October 13, 1994 , so that on the 18th of October, the resolution would be before the commission with the conditions of approval for the tentative map if the council certified 39 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 the environmental impact report on October 13 . He noted that he would not be present at that meeting. Mr. Kibbey said that what they were referring to was that other projects had been approved with a negative declaration. Mr. Diaz said that he had communicated with Mr. Kibbey's attorney and the city' s attorney had communicated with Mr. Kibbey' s attorney on that issue. He recommended that M4 Kibbey call Mr. Kranz to 'review the correspondence. Mr. Diaz stated that those issues and the answers he could give Mrl. Kibbey this evening 1) had nothing to do with the tentative map, and 2) were not going to be satisfactory to him. Mr I. Diaz said he was willing to give them to Mr. Kibbey and it Mr. Kibbey would give him a call, he could do that. Mr. Kibbey asked if the commission had a report for approval from staff . Mr. Diaz said that yes, they had the staff report there and staff was saying that they could not approve the tentative map because the EIR had not been certified, but would want to continue this case until the commission' s meeting of October 18, 1994 . At that time the commission would have before it the resolution for approval . (A copy of the staff report was given to Mr. Kibbey. ) Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Chairperson Spiegel asked for a motion to continue TT 27964 to October 18, 1994 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing TT 27964 to October 18, 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. 40 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 20, 1994 CASE NO: TT 27964 REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive, approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street. APPLICANT: Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 I . BACKGROUND: A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE North: PR-5/Vacant South: PR-4/Marriott Desert Springs East: PR-5/Vacant West: PR-5/Vacant B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is a vacant 9 . 67 acre property generally flat in topography. C. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The site is zoned PR-5, five dwelling units per acre and the general plan designation is low density ( 3-5 dwelling units per acre) . The zoning is consistent with the general plan.1 D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION I The project consists of a one lot subdivision for condominium purposes . A total of 44 condominiums will be constructed which includes 33 single story units and 13 two story unitsl. The architectural review commission granted the project preliminary approval for the architecture at its June 28, 1994 meeting. Recreational amenities consist of two tennis courts and a swimming pool with jacuzzi . Access to the project consists of a single ingress/egress point off Country Club Drive. r• 'STAFF REPORT TT 27964 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 E . DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PR ZONE Project PR-5 Zone Site size 9 . 67 acres 5 acres minimum Density 4 . 75 du/ac 5 du/ac Setbacks : Front 32 feet 85 feet Sides 30 feet as approved Rear 35 feet as approved Height 24 feet 24 feet Parking 149 spaces 115 spaces (92 covered) (92 covered) Open Space 55% (gross) 50% (net) II . RECOMMENDATION: That the planning commission by minute motion continue TT 27964 until the Section Four North Sphere Project Environmental Impact Report is certified city council . i RAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 2 i' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 46 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 9 . 67 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 2600 FEET WEST OF COOK STREET. CASE NO. TT 27964 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of September, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued public hearing on October 18, 1994, to consider the request of REGENCY HOMES for approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive, approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89 , " in that the director of community development has determined that the projec --�- --- WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans . (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans . (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) 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. ( f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems . (g) 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. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources . 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 it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. 27964, subject to fulfillment of the attached conditions . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 1994 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm .Desert Planning Commission 'PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 27964 Department of Community Development: SENT BY:HAMILTON & SAMUELS ; 9-20-94 17:29 7147217200� 16193417099;ti 1 T HMMILTON & SAMUE LS RECEIVED 100 BAYVIEW CIRCLE, SUITE 6000 SEP 21 M4 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 FACSIMILE: (/,14) 7*y7400 COMMMi1Y CEVELOPMEW PEPARTWIT TELEPHONE4 (714) 721-7200 CRY OF PAW DESERT FACSIMILE COWER ONSET TO: Planning Commission COMPANY: City of Palm Desert FROM: Frederick H. Kranz, Esq. PAGES: 3 (Including this Cover Sheet) DATE: September 20, 1994 TIME: 5:20 p.m. SUBJECT: MESSAGE: CLIENT: Peter Solomon FILE ND: 682-001 FAX NO: (619) 341-7099 ORIGINAL WILL/WILL NOT FOLLOW BY MAIL/FED EX/MESSENGER IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED, CALL (714) 721-7200. This FAX is intended only for its addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. The distribution and copying of this FAX except by the addressee is prohibited. If you receive this FAX in error, please telephone us immediately and return it to us by mail . SENT BY:HAMILTON & SAMUELS 9-20-94 ; 17:29 71472172004 16193417098;ii 2 HAMILTON & SAMUELS 100 BA.YVIBW CIRCLE , SUITE 60o0 1AZD6KICJ(H.KAAxz p NEWPORT BRACH, CALIFORNIA 9266 PnRTN®t T6LCVH011,18,(711)731.7200 , FACSIMILE(714)721-7400 Septe212ber 200 1994 OUR PILE mum e6N CIA FAC N Iry ILtTATL 9999.001 (619) 341-7098 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Red Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Ladies/Gentlemen: This office represents Mr. Peter Solomon and Regency Homes in connection with the ten acre parcel identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Section Four--North Sphere Project as the "46 additional condominiums" (pages 1-11 and 8-2 to 8-14 We assume that Mr. Ramon Diaz, with whom we have corresponded, has kept you apprised of the concerns of Mr. Solomon, 711us, I will not rehash the rather lengthy history of the dispute between Mr. Solomon and the City and Redevelopment District of the City of Palm Desert, In brief, we believe that Mr. Solomon has been deprived wrongfully of procedural and substantive due process by the City and the Redevelopment Agency by the City's failure to issue a negative declaration on the Solomon Property, We do not believe that the City Las discharged its obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Constitution and the United States Constitution. Mr. Solomon was entitled to an independent environmental assessment of his project and a resulting negative declaration. Instead, he Hinds his property as a virtual footnote and only an alternative to a grandiose and highly speculative project. The City has now tied the environmental review of a simple 46 condominium project to une that contemplates an 18-hole golf course (with clubhouse, driving range and short game center), 250_room conference center, a five story 500 room luxury hotel, two smaller hotels with a total of 300 rooms, 600 timeshare units; specialty shops, restaurant and sports facility. We believe that there-has been deliberate and actual connivance by the City and the Redevelopment Agency to delay approval in order to devalue the property and frustrate Mr. Solomon's development plans. We again put the City on notice that Mr, Solomon's Project should have been approved mnnths ago and construction already commenced, SENT BY:HAMILTON & SAMUELS 9-20-94 { 17:30 11472172004 16193417096 3 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert Scptcmbcr 20, 1994 Page 2 You are advised that Mr, Solomon holds the City responsible for all damages incurred as a consequence of the delay in either granting the negative declaration or commencing a timely condemnation action. Very truly yours, HAMILTON & SAM Frederi H. a ITIK/bc w HONE CALL M. FOR DATE v TIME .M. M ED OF RETURNED PHONE OHO YOUR CALL AREA CODE NUMBER E%T 51I CALL 4 MESSAGE SE WILL CALL AGAIN CAMETO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU SIGNED SECOND NATURE- ORECYCLEDFORM 74620 = MF OF FUELICATION This s� a is for (2015.5 C.C.P) the CoLulty Clerk's Stamp Proof of Publication of: R-2-9815 RECEIVED Case: LEGAL NOTICE/TT 27964 '14 SEP 7 PM 2 32 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF PALM DESERT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, i LEGAL NOTICE COLlnty of Riverside, I 1 CASE NO.TT 27964 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing am a ci.ti.ZEYI of the United will be held before the Palm Desert Planning States and a resident of the Commission to consider a request by the REGENCY HOMES for approval of a tentative tract mop to COLlnty aforesaid: I am over allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9.67 the age of eighteen years, acres on the north side of Country Club Drive a-nd not party to Or interested approximate) 2600 feet west of Cook Street, also a Pa Y particularly described as: in the above-entitled matter. I ' APN 620-200-021 AND 620-200-029 r am the principal clergy: of the SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, j September 20, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council printer of the Desert Post, Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 a newspaper of general C1rCll1 at10n, Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,California,at which itime and place all interested persons are invited to printed and published weekly in the attend and be heard.Written comments concerning City Of Palm Dc�_ert, COLUIt Of I all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be Y Y accepted up to the date of the hearing.Information Riverside, and which newspaper i canceming the proposed project and/or negative has been adjudged a newspaper Of declaration is available for review in the deportment of community development/planning at the above general Cil-CUlation by the Superior raddress between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 Court Of the CoLnt of Riverside, p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the Y proposed actions in court, you may be limited to State of California, Linder the date raising only those issues you or someone also raised at of October 5, 1964, Case N-unber 6365B•• fire public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the planningcommission that the notice, Of which the annexed j (or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing: fk /s/ RAMONA. DIAZ,Secretary is a printed copy (set in type not- Palm Desert Planning Commission smaller than nonpareil) , has been 25815(PUB AUG 31, 19941 .a' published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following date to-wit: P -— -- -- I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Desert, California, this: (Sign :R90F OF FUEQ_ICATION This st e is for (2015.5 C.C.P) the County Clerk's Stamp Proof of Publication of: R-25815 Case: LEGAL NOTICE/TT 27964 RECEIVED '94 SEP 7 PM 2 31 CITY CLERK'S OFF6QF.CEIVED SEP - 8 1994 1 COMMUMITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAI.TMEW Cm Of PAW DESEPI CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.TT 27964 I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing STATE OF CALIFORKIIA, will be held before the Palm Desert Planning ' Commission to consider a request by the REGENCY County of Riverside, I HOMES for approval of a tentative tract map to am a citizen of the United allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9.67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive States and a resident of the approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street,also County aforesaid• I am over particularly described as: ' APN 620-200-021 AND 620-200-029 the age of eighteen years, SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, and not a party to Or interested September 20, 1994—crt 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73.510 in the above entitled matter. I Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,California,at which am 'the principal clerk of the time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.Written comments concerning printer of the Desert Post, all itemscovered bythis public hearing notice shall be a newspaper Of general circulation, III accepted up to the date of the hearing.Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative printed and published weekly in the declaration is available for review in the department City of Palm Desert, Count Of of community development/planning of the above y address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 Riverside, and which newspaper p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the has been adjudged a newspaper Of proposed actions in court, you may be limited to 1 raising onl�yy those issues you or someone else raised at general circulation by the Superior the pubiftearing described in this notice,or in written Court of the County of Riverside, correspondence delivered to the planning commission 1 (or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. State of California, under the date /s/ RAMON A. DIAZ,Secretary of October 5, 1964, Case N.unber 83658; Palm Desert Planning Commission ^25815(PUB AUG 31, 1994) that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not- smaller than nonpareil) , has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following date to-wit: P I certify (or declare) wider penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Desert, California, this: 8/31/ (Sign HAMILTON & SAMUELS 1 0 0 B A Y V I E W CIRCLE , SUITE 6 0 0 0 FREDERICK H.KRANZ N E W P O R T BEACH , CALIFORNIA 9 2 6 6 0 TELEPHONE:(714)721,7200 PARTNER RE® ^�IV�p ACSIMILE:(714)721,7400 � SEP 12 1g94 COMMM#IEVELOPMEOESERPARTME12T C¶,of PAM September 9, 1994 OURFILENUMBER Post-it"Fax Note 7671 Date A/3 pages� 1 To From/ Co./Dept Co. Ramon A. Diaz Phone# Phone# / - Assistant City Manager/ Fax# �6—do 7 Fax# Director of Community Development 6 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Diaz: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 31, 1994. A more substantive response will follow. However, I want to take an early opportunity to respond to the "record" nature of your letter. For the record, and so there will be no misunderstanding, I do not agree with any of the characterizations you have made'concernirig'the actions of the City or of the events that have transpired. Quite honestly, the correspondence between the parties and the collective recollections of myself and Mr. Solomon do not support the conclusions stated in your letter. The meeting that Mr. Solomon and I attended had a much different tenor and substantive discussion than the one described in your letter of August 31. I reiterate what we have said before. The very first time the City informed Mr. Solomon that an EIR would be required on the project was at our meeting in June. Your prior letter, despite the statements to the contrary, did not contemplate an environmental impact report. At the meeting in June, and before and since, we have continued to ask two questions. 1. Where is the independent environmental assessment on the Solomon property and when was it adopted? 2. What is it about the Solomon project that makes it different from the Ralph's project and the Church project on relatively contiguous property? These are questions we have asked on a number of occasions without any response. Ramon A. Diaz Assistant City Manager September 9, 1994 Page 2 In addition, lest silence be construed as any sort of agreement or acquiescence, both Solomon and I disagree with your characterization of the correspondence between the parties and any other meetings or telephone calls between the parties or their representatives. The purpose of this letter is, only, to make sure that the flow of correspondence reaches a point of closure. You have your opinion as to what transpired and Mr. Solomon and I have our opinions. As I indicated in the last paragraph of my letter, we will be contacting your City Attorney, Dave Erwin, to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter. Very truly yours, HAMILTON & SAMUELS Frederick H. Kranz FHK/bc cc: Mr. Peter Solomon HAMILTON & SAMUELS PAUL R.HAMILTON 1 0 0 B A Y V I E W CIRCLE , SUITE 6 0 0 0 TELEPHONE:(714)721-7200 HERBERTN.SAMUELS' N E W P O R T BEACH , CALIFORNIA 9 2 6 6 0 FACSIMILE:(714)721-7400 KAREN J.LEE FREDERICK H.KRANZ WILLIAM L.STEEL LEGAL ASSISTANTS: JEFFREY S.GRIDER LOUISE M.MOORE PHILIP W.GREEN VALERIE L.HICKMAN RALPH R.M AZUREK CYNTHIA J.W ESTHAFER WILES ED O.KNOTTNERUS JULIE A.THORNTON DEBORAH M.ROSENTHAL MARK S.ADAMS EOIN L.KREDITOR ARTHUR S.MOREAU,III LINDAA.SAMPSON September 8, 1994 OUR FILE NUM BER -APROPESIONALC PORAMON ®® C ae 9ED SEP 121994 688-001 Ramon A. Diaz PBMMUMICI DEVELOPMENT EEPRRTMER CID OFEF PALM EESERI Assistant City Manager/ �J Director of Community Development 4"I City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ;I Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Diaz: This letter is in regards to your August 31, 1994 letter to Frederick H. Kranz. You mentioned in your letter that a draft EIR has been available for review since the beginning of August and, as the Assistant City Manager and Director of the Community Development Department, you would be able to assist us. I would like to request a copy of the draft EIR dated August 1994. I spoke with your secretary on September 8, 1994 about obtaining a copy of this document. I was informed that this draft EIR cost approximately $25.00. Enclosed is a check for $25.00. If there has been any deviation from the information I received from your secretary and from what I have stated in this letter, please call me at the above telephone number. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, /HAMIN & SAMUELS R. Britton Hastey RBH/bc Enclosure RECEIVED RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON AUG 91 1994 Attomeys at Law — A Professional Corporation 333 SOUTH�HOPE STREET, 38TH FLOOR COMMWm DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LOS ANGEILES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1469 cm OF PALM DESERT Switchboard (213) 826.8484 Telecepier (213) 826-0078 TELECOPY COVER SHEET THE INFORMAIIVN UONT.AINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USt OF THE INTENDER RECIPIENT -NAMED BELOW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR DISSEMINATION OR 01M.1DUTION OF IT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.CIF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY U9 AY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE UNIrED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. i TO: Ramon Diaz From: Laurence Wiener Telecopier: 619/341-7098 Total Pages (including this sheet): 6 Our File No.: _ Your File NO.: Subject: Date: 41/31/9 4 Document(s) Telecopied: III I Remarks: Richards, Watson & Gershon uses Xerox Model 7020/7021I telecopiers, This equipment is compatible with moet Group 2 and 3 teiecopy machines, If you have difficulty receiving any pages, picase telephone our services center at (213) 826.8484. BILLING NO.: TIME SENT: OPERFOR: 891016 A410.FRM i l #:660614E61916 49 'N0SiVM '9C8VH0II! wvH z: ll; 16-lE-E I H9 'NOSl�M 'S(]IJbHOIa„l9 1N3S RICKARDS, WATSON &GERSHON ArMRNgY6 AT LAW wr�e°eMruLm�atwnew MAPK Llw.MMw MM ; w�nLU�'i M�N �WNI J°MN 11MIw� T!gairHMMEWAMr MR}IA.O°II w°Ai i ��rYa n ww 71pgust 30, 1994 i.o'e�rmaes,cauFoievN.aeor�n�n AuNd M a nwve p.m osa.lu N144MI,t L NMYet �T/61 R°IM FACetNILE 214)on-ft" 4�LWpMp 11°fI MnO 60a"K owl R.YM, • .-� 1 AAOM.LL �MLL OGAMNGM° °.9°YY�IL .m�Mw vwnw -N1LLWA K IQiNeEH weUAT s.C�MfIB1 �Vllf(►.IbhYM1eN -_ °weer.r w.orwWead+ uacnn�r. • Tie �TM°et'°"' CONFIDENTIAL N 'If.IRM°BJYiYtrM Yowl --- _ - - - 17MU 1141KL OP110/1T IYFN.4111\ g„m, WMOMPI�N.MN T1410MATER1AL1eouDJCorrO mM.n,snuMee, euxv M• 1p�`''p"°•°w'� THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE .w':w""`wa� nL G°4en+uw ATTORNEY W0RKPRODUC'f PRIVILEGES. P6402-01019 JO..IpAMDIN YILMIII.I- 1'IfEfM a�cs°aT rA.wetlai T re1 a,ffl .06 DO NOT CISGUC7NO F9r'GGN rM i s e»�� "u"q°•b"''"�A'^� HEiRBbF, ®O NOT FILL W17'F1 PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. Mr. Ralson A. Diaz City, of Palm Desert 79-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, aalifornia 92260 Re: City of Palm Desert adv. Soloman Dear Ray: Enclosed please find a proposed draft response to the letter that you received yesterday from . Frederick Kranz. Please review the letter carefully to ensure that 2 have correctly represented the facts. Please also let me know if you wish to make any changes before the letter is mailed to Mr. Kranz. ;au3rrence ry t y yours„ /. wiener cc: Mr. Carlos Ortega William L. Btrauez, Esq. Arnold simon, Esq. LSW:Iow rnLm�e d #;960LM639 6 49 'NMiVM 'S0VH618 iVLZ: ll ; 46-iE-9 H9 W09ib'M 'S0HVHaIa,A9 iUS I i Mr. Frederick H. Kranz Hamilton and Samuels 100 eayview Circle Suite 6000 Newport Beach, California 92660 IIf Dear Mr. Kranz: we have received a copy of your letter of August 25, 1994. For the reasons outlined below, we believe that the City has attempted to process your client's tentative mapJapplieation in most timely and cost effective manner possible. The City remains committed to that goal and would be happy tolneet with you and discuss any proposals that you may have for processing your client's application more quickly while still complying with all requirements of law. My letter of April 14 stated that since your project would potentially contribute to significant Cumulative environmental impacts caused by the combination of your project and other projects proposed, in the surrounding area, lan environmental impact report would be required for your client s project. However, as was also indicated in that letter, in order to expedite the processing of your client's application, and in order to reduce the cost to your client, the City proposed to include the analysis of your client's project in an EIR that was currently being prepared and that was required to analyze the same cumulative impacts. (bf course, if the City determines that an EIR is required for a project, no initial study need be prepared. See Section 15060' of the State CEQA Guideftnes. ) We asauznsd that your client would pr_afer riot to have a separate environmental review conducted, since such `a revisor would be more costly and more time consuming. Hewsver, . my April 14 letter indicated that if, your client had any questions, he . should contact me. E #l86OLl7E619'' 6 49 INOSiVM `SO8VHOIN 1 WVZZ; W 76-15-8 H9 INOSiVM T080018:A9 109 Mr. Ramon A. Diaz August. 31, 1994 Page 2 Approximately two months later, in June, ; :heard from your client by telephone. He questioned the City's proposed course of action. Again I forwarded to him my April .letter explaining why an LIR was required. We met later in 'June and I again explained the City's position and informed you ;that your client still had the option of a separate environmental review. I also informed you that the City had.assumed that your client did not wish to pursue such a course because we had not heard from him in response to my April 14 letter. Furthermore, such a separate review would result in greater cost and delay to your client. You expressed concerns that under the procedure proposed the city would not consider the merits of your client's project separately. However, the city has always intended to consider the projects separately and on their own merits. Please be assured that the combination of environmental analyses of two projects in the same document to avoid needless duplication does not change that fact. In response to your letter of July 12 my letter dated July 28 &gAin offered to conduct a separate environmental review if your client so requested. In addition, since theIEIR analyzing the cumulative impacts of your client's project and nearby development had been completed, I also offered the option of preparing a mitigated negative declaration based on the analysis contained in that EIR. Such an offer is not required. This offer was made to provide your client with another opportunity to expedite processing of his application, because a mitigated negative declaration could have then been noticed and scheduled for the September 6 Planning Commission meeting provided that I heard from your client by August 10. 1 Not having heard from you or your client by August 9, I telephoned you to ask whether you wished to proceed on September 6 with a mitigated negative declaration. You indicated that you would speak to your client and return my call the tollowi • However, I did not hear from you until yesterday when I received your letter dated August 25. We do not believe that your letter of August 25 fairly characterizes the City's position. Your letter states that you had insufficient time and information to decide whether to have .your client's map considered at the September 6 meeting of the Planning Commission. You indicate that you needed additional time because your client wanted to compare the mitigation measures that would have been proposed in the negative declaration to the mitigation measures that are proposed in the EIR that addresses your client's project. However, 'my letter of July 28 clearly states that' the mitigation measures thatwould be set forth in the negative declaration were the sama �maasures proposed in the EIR that addresses your project. zri other words, there would be no difference in the proposed measures plarad for I 4 ft18&0L14£619t6 NHS `NOSlb'M 'SOatlH�IH Wtldb, ll: 96-1E-A HS 'N0S1tlM 'S0�JtlH0ta;AS 1N3S 1 Mr. Ramon A. Dias August 31, 1994 Fag* 3 the negative declaration and those included in the EIR. Furthermore, CEQA requires that all environmental impacts created by your client's project be mitigated. Therefore, the form or the environmental review would not affect the content of the mitigation measures. I am also puzzled by your statement concerning the unavailability of the E'IR for review, as the draft ETR has been (and remains) available for review since the beginning of August. In addition, my July 28 letter indicated that the EIR Was complete and you are aware that I am the Director of the Planning Department. Had you called me, l would have been happy to provide you with a copy. As I have outlined above, the City believes that it has processed your client's application in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible for Your client while still complying with State law. herefore, I will assume that your letters alleging otherwisaMave resulted from a true misunderstanding of the City's actions and a lack o# I communication between us, and are not intended for some other purpos.--�-r I With this in mind, and in order to end this exchange of letters and again devote our energies to processing your client's subdivision map application, I wotkid be happy to meet with you at your earliest convenience. Please be aware that, since the EIR that includes your Ed project will not be es rated to the City Council for pation until Cotobe gy, the Planning Commission on your client's a Ication will not be able to be d until., the Planning commission's meeting of October owevei ,, to the spirit of again demonstrating the City's th, I am scheduling the Planning Commission hearing onent's application to begin on September 20, unless you orent indicate a desite to delay the start of the hearinghat date. Please also .be aware that, unless I an presented with further information between ,now and then, I intend to recommend approval of your client's .tontative map application. I hope that this letter will clear up any misunderstandings regarding the city's actions and motivations concerning your client's project. As always, I am happy to meet with you if you have any further concerns, questions,i or 9 #,9601156fit916 �HA 'N0fi17f4 'SQBtlH�I� 1 WtlEd; ll . 46-1£-8 H9 'NOSlb'M 'SOaHH�Ia;A9 LN3S SENT SY:RICHARD5, WAT50N, 8H 6-31-94 ;11 :24AM RICHARDSAATSONAH� 916193WO984 6 • zBT¢ -V uomvd 'sina� �Zns� �cse� 'uOTAvnTTddv dvu UOTGTATPgns s�auazto ano,C ao buxsseooad eqA buFua®ouoo WuoTgsmbbns q ebva b68t 'TC 49nbny zvTC 'H uomvu •am i I i i My of ftm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 i TELEPHONE (619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 i August 31, 1994 I h Mr. Frederick H. Kranz Hamilton & Samuels 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 6000 Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Tentative Tract 27964 Dear Mr. Kranz : We have received a copy of your letter of August 25, 3994 . For the reasons outlined below, we believe that the city has attempted to process your client' s tentative map application in the most timely and cost effective manner possible. The city remains committed to that goal and would be happy to meet with you and discuss any proposals that you may have for processing your client' s application more quickly while still complying with all requirements by law. My letter of April 14 stated that since your project could potentially contribute to significant cumulative environmental impacts caused by the combination of your project and other projects proposed in the surrounding area, an environmental impact report would be required for your client 's project. However, as was also indicated in that letter, in order to expedite the processing of your client' s application, and in order to reduce the cost to your client, the city proposed to include the analysis of your client' s project in an EIR that was currently being prepared and that was required to analyze the same cumulative impacts . (Of course, if the city determines, that an EIR is required for a project, no initial study need be prepared. See Section 15060 of the State CEQA Guidelines. ) We assumed that your client would prefer not to have a separate environmental review conducted, since such a review) would be more costly and more time consuming. However, in my Aprlil 14 letter I stated that if you had any questions related to this matter, you could contact me at any time. I I R�E MR. FREDERICK H. KRANZ TT 27964 AUGUST 31, 1994 Approximately two months later, in June, I heard from your client by telephone. He questioned the city's proposed course of action. Again I forwarded to him my April letter explaining why an EIR was required. We met later in June and I again explained the city' s position and informed you that your client still had the option bf a separate environmental review. I also informed you that the city had assumed that your client did not wish to pursue such a course because we had not heard from him in response to my April 14 letter. I Furthermore, such a separate review would result in greater cost and delay to your client. You expressed concerns that under the procedure proposed the city would not consider the merits of your client' s project separately. However, the city has always intended to consider ] the projects separately and on their own merits . Please be assured that the combination of environmental analyses of two projects in the same document to avoid needless duplication does not change that fact. In response to your letter of July 12, my letter dated. July 28 again offered to conduct a separate environmental review if your client so requested. In addition, since the EIR analyzing the cumulative impacts of your client' s project and nearby development had been completed, I also offered the option of preparing a mitigated negative declaration based on the analysis contained in that EIR. Such an offer is not required. This offer was made to provide your client with another opportunity to expedite processing of his application, because a mitigated negative declaration could have then been noticed and scheduled for the September 6 planning commission meeting provided that I heard from your client by August 10 . Not having heard from you or your client by August 9, I telephoned you to ask whether you wished to proceed on September 6 with a mitigated negative declaration. You indicated that you would speak to your client and return my call the following day. However, I did not hear from you until yesterday, when I received your letter dated August 25 . We do not believe that your letter of August 25 fairly characterizes the city' s position. Your letter states that you had insufficient time and information to decide whether to have your client' s map considered at the September 6 meeting of the planning commission. You indicate that you needed additional time because your client wanted to compare the mitigation measures that would have been proposed in the negative declaration to the mitigation measures that are proposed in the EIR that addresses your client' s project. However, my letter of July 28 clearly states that the mitigation measures that would be set forth in the negative declaration were the same measures proposed in the EIR that addresses your project. In other words, there would be no difference in the proposed measures planned for the negative declaration and those included in the EIR. Furthermore, CEQA requires that all environmental impacts created by your client' s project be 2 MR. FREDERICK H. KRANZ TT 27964 AUGUST 31, 1994 mitigated. Therefore, the form of the environmental review would not affect the content of the mitigation measures . I am also puzzled by your statement concerning the unavailability of the EIR for review, as the draft EIR has been available for review since the beginning of August. In addition, my July 28 letter indicated that the EIR was complete and you are aware that I am the Assistant City Manager and Director of the Community Development Department. Had you called me, I would have been happy to provide you with a copy. I believe that we have processed your client's application in qompliance with state legal requirements . i s raa tloxi has been scheduled for pu�i�a kaea en-the-2A.th� tember at�� g a ning Coin nos ��. e done i n r � laws o a ' f.,r�_ rPl at i na to review-owe •o rCt pr0A Unless I am presented with further information between now and then, I intend to recommend approval of your client' s tentative map application. I hope that this letter will clear up any misunderstandings regarding the city' s actions and motivations concerning your client' s project. As always, I am happy to meet with you if you have any further concerns, questions, or suggestions concerning the processing of your client ' s subdivision map applications. Very ruly yours A. DIAZ AS STANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 3 1� � �' ri,�1� � I ++� ��g N, _ ill � � � °,� I • 1 � Y � I'� I ' I`�I E I�i� � f 4 ' `� irM i , _ ,� 1 E f r �! ' I I� II _ +i1 l ill ill { it l i�I - III . � III � .. r l�� � _ , -. � � o -� ' I � � � � j ,., �� � k �� ii ii � � /� !!i CRY of PWM Desert A 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 Past-it'Fax Note 7671 Date 8.3 #of o `J To Fro August 31, 1994 e P �' Co. �J Phone# aa / -,/ Phone Fax#�/J-- �Xb DO f� Fax# Mr. Frederick H. Kranz Hamilton & Samuels 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 6000 Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Tentative Tract 27964 Dear Mr. Kranz : We have received a copy of your letter of August 25, 1994 . For the reasons outlined below, we believe that the city has attempted to process your client' s tentative map application in a most timely and cost effective manner consistent with state legal requirements . The city remains committed to that goal and would be happy to meet with you and discuss any proposals that you may have for processing your client ' s application more quickly while still complying with all requirements by law. My letter of April 14 stated that since your project could potentially contribute to significant cumulative environmental impacts caused by the combination of your project and other projects proposed in the surrounding area, an environmental impact report would be required for your client' s project. However, as was also indicated in that letter, in order to expedite the processing of your client' s application, and in order to reduce the cost to your client, the city proposed to include the analysis of your client' s project in an EIR that was currently being prepared and that was required to analyze the same cumulative impacts . (Of course, if the city determines that an EIR is required for a project, no initial study need be prepared. See Section 15060 of the State CEQA Guidelines . ) We assumed that your client would prefer not to have a separate environmental review conducted, since such a review would be more costly and more time consuming. However, in my April 14 letter I stated that if you had any questions related to this matter, you could contact me at any time. aecynee PeOe - H A 1V1'I I T O N bi` A.M'U'E ,L..SPia, C4 100 BAYVIEW CIRCLE , .SUITE 6000 A NEWPORT BEACH ; CALIFORNIA 9266'0 ' 6 U025-9< D S 29 Au.i q Ii a CA 6795754 a•u Ramon A. Diaz Assistant City Manager/ %.Director .of..Community Developm it 9 City of Palm -Desert ''. 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Californiz 92260-2578 a • ;t�b6 t'7,z. i " .` I1,It,til�llthit`Ilt�'ii�t;,�ItLl�ltlt�;lllt`i,ttrl111„tlt�i�l MR. FREDERICK H. KRANZ TT 27964 AUGUST 31, 1994 Approximately two months later, in June, I heard from your client by telephone. He questioned the city' s proposed course of action. Again I forwarded to him my April letter explaining why an EIR was required. We met later in June and I again explained the city' s position and informed you that your client still had the option of a separate environmental review. I also informed you that the city had assumed that your client did not wish to pursue such a course because we had not heard from him in response to my April 14 letter. Furthermore, such a separate review would result in greater cost and delay to your client. You expressed concerns that under the procedure proposed the city would not consider the merits of your client' s project separately. However, the city has always intended to consider the projects separately and on their own merits . Please be assured that the combination of environmental analyses of two projects in the same document to avoid needless duplication does not change that fact. In response to your letter of July 12, my letter dated July 28 again offered to conduct a separate environmental review if your client so requested. In addition, since the EIR analyzing the cumulative impacts of your client ' s project and nearby development had been completed, I also offered the option of preparing a mitigated negative declaration based on the analysis contained in that EIR. Such an offer is not required. This offer was made to provide your client with another opportunity to expedite processing of his application, because a mitigated negative declaration could have then been noticed and scheduled for the September 6 planning commission meeting provided that I heard from your client by August 10 . Not having heard from you or your client by August 9, I telephoned you to ask whether you wished to proceed on September 6 with a mitigated negative declaration. You indicated that you would speak to your client and return my call the following day. However, I did not hear from you until yesterday, when I received your letter dated August 25 . We do not. believe that your letter of August 25 fairly characterizes the city' s position. Your letter states that you had insufficient time and information to decide whether to have your client' s map considered at the September 6 meeting of the planning commission. You indicate that you needed additional time because your client wanted to compare the mitigation measures that would have been proposed in the negative declaration to the mitigation measures that are proposed in the EIR that addresses your client' s project. However, my letter of July 28 clearly states that the mitigation measures that would be set forth in the negative declaration were the same measures proposed in the EIR that addresses your project. In other words, there would be no difference in the proposed measures planned for the negative declaration and those included in the EIR. Furthermore, CEQA requires that all environmental impacts created by your client' s project be 2 a� MR. FREDERICK H. KRANZ TT 27964 AUGUST 31, 1994 mitigated. Therefore, the form of the environmental review would not affect the content of the mitigation measures . I am also puzzled by your statement concerning the unavailability of the EIR for review, as the draft EIR has been available for review since the beginning of August. In addition, my July 28 letter indicated that the EIR was complete and you are aware that I am the Assistant City Manager and Director of the Community Development Department. Had you called me, I would have been happy to provide you with a copy. I believe that we have processed your client' s application in compliance with state legal requirements . Please be aware that, since the EIR that includes your client' s project will not be presented to the city council for certification until October 13, 1994 , the planning commission hearing on your client' s application will not be able to be concluded until one of the planning commission' s meeting in October at the earliest. However, in the spirit of again demonstrating the city' s good faith, I am scheduling the planning commission hearing on your client' s application to begin on September 20, unless you or your client indicate a desire to delay the start of the hearing beyond that date. I hope that this letter will clear up any misunderstandings regarding the city' s actions and motivations concerning your client' s project. As always, I am happy to meet with you if you have any further concerns, questions, or suggestions concerning the processing of your client' s subdivision map applications. Very truly yours, I RAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 3 •/o v UqQ Win_-u�-'—�C_'_- ���.�-.�1;'�=�`c. boa �� _ 1 ' it ICI 0 ►�i 77 it III lil it ill 111 - ?li RICHARDS, WATSON A GERSHON Attomeys at Law — A Professlonal Corporation 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 38TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1469 Switchboard (213) 626-8484 REEEI'veD Talocopfer (213) 626-0078 TELECOPY COVER SHEET AUG 3 1994 FOMMURC ryp0 EIq MENT REPRRiMFMF DESERT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND OONHUENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ECLOW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INrENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY COPYING OP THIS COMMUNICATION OR DISSEMINATION OR DIET HIBUTION OF IT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED 4ECIPIENT IF,STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY us BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE OFUGINAL MESSAGE TO US ATTHE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE UNITED STALE$ POSTAL SERVICE. To ,(�!//10et lGL ?. From; -LA LLV-e.oQ-0- LAJteM Telecopler: l � 3 t " 769 Total Pages (including this sheet): Our File No.: Your File No,; Subject: Date: •' 3 Document(s) Telecopled: Remarks: Richards, Watson & Gershon uses Xerox Model 7020/7021 telecoplers. This equipment is compatible with most Group 2 and 3 telecopy machines. If you have difficulty receiving any pages, please telephone our services center at (213) 626-8484. BILLING NO.: TIME SENT. OPEnATOR: 881018 A410.FRM l lt;86DLlfi£61916 "HOINOSiVMT0VHOIH ; WHb7;9 : VS-0£-9 H9 'NOSitlM 'SO}lbHOIki;AA 1N;S RICHARL,�S, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ;n er.ae aarwoawrnw+ ot�i R MatOdi MOl7M M11LaMnlM ACNMD RAFMRM v.a.wr wrur.uw r.pAprb.o pMpw�R.YyL■®IYIOl1 I.Cm116 O�GXa � - �,�1►1Wn W11Yi1.11..41R1 W OI■�1NK�� - i �'� TMnmroew!w r�ee� oar"... August 29 1994 a»■vunawas■■+near wusr■w�svm rmK.aamw■. � waAKaeus.awrwwtluram,.9eea ' s,ruwn�cd.Nv Vuw.■a w.wu..wa mn.o►wu+ W.+■YL�,M417L O'1■VRIiI OlR ..eee.ru.Duar.® emw.w .mow _ raosnxu a,n.�era M�1gA4A W 'MM WLUAMK MVAM near r.a re,v. rewiro M.KAVMAWN nwrservw.wwe.uKanw �.erw wwao!P�. noe�a��r.ewr.e a,tud.eu C0 FID N ��� 1'f OM WI'Y110/.@iJ Ow.rI�4.9MW .ea.u■.arnoww num.avemav� wiuyu�a IR1D■i aaiowr.wrawww awM■L a0lli. PwMO b4M1O1.LM. WRl,Le MJM2C11 P6402-01019 Odkft hyuLAJY..yWAAI*K M iN111MO L YPOOwNW O�wR � MAMQ� nwwww r.awec - Mr. Ramon Diaz city or Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: City of Palm Desert adv. 8olome0 Dear Ray. As ve recently discussed, it is my understanding that the Solomon subdivision will be heard by the planning Commission on September 20. It is also my understanding that a mitigated negative declaration will be prepared for that project so that it may be considered and approWed on the 20th without regard to whether the Planning commission wishes to recommend approval of the Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Agency project. Since you heard from neither Mr. Solomon nor his attorney, Mr. Kranz, prior I'to the August 10 deadline for placing the Salomon matter on the Planning Commission's agenda for the first meeting in September, we recommend that you send a letter to Mr. Kranz indicating that since you did not hear from him, you placed consideration of hissubdivision on the next available Planning Commission agenda.i I have attached a draft letter to Mr. Kranz for your consideration. Z 4!960L11863A {WVZIA 96-06-9 H9 %10SiHM 'SMVH01b:A9 iN3S RICHARD$,WATSON&GERSHON August 29, 1994 Page 2 if you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact either me or Arnold Simon. Please also provide me with a copy of any correspondence with Mr. Kranz. ver trul ours U durencP wiener LSW:clm 17301115 cc: Arnold Simon, Esq. E #:969L17E81918 �HA 'NOSIHM 'S�atlHDla WbE4;9 k 16-9E-9 HA 1N29 .Y Mr. Frederick H. Kranz Hamilton and Samuels 100 Bayview circle suite 6000 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Kranz. After our telephone conversation of it was my understanding that you would speak to your client, Mr. Solomon, and contact me on the following day if Mr. Solomon desired to have his proposed subdivision considered at the first September Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting on September 6 �i l`yy. Since I did not hear from you, I did not schedule M�Solomonls subdivision for consideration at that meeting. . However, in order to expedite consideration of this matter, = have scheduled consideration of Mr. Solomones proposed subdivision for the September loth Planning Commission meeting. rr ace �dP Ave A lease let me know if you have any questions or. Z�I objections%to-t po course of action. Unless I hear from you by crj-i , I 11 ase t this course of action is acceptable to you and your client and I will proceed accordingly. � �A4; �gvery trulyyours, O Ramon Diaz ir�pes 7 C96OL17E61946 �H8 'NOSIHM 'SOVHOIN MIA 76-DE-9 HA 'NOSINM 'SC8VH0I8;AA 1NH •y • 1 HAMILTON & SAMUELS 1 0 0 B A Y V I E W CIRCLE , SUITE 6 0 0 0 FREDERICK H.KRANZ N E W P O R T BEACH , CALIFORNIA 9 2 6 6 0 TELEPHONE:(714)721-7200 PARTNER FACSIMILE:(714)721-7400 RECEIVED AUG 3 0 1994 August 25, 1994 OUR FILE NUMBER DOMMMOY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEBI CITY OF PALM DESERT 688-001 Ramon A. Diaz Assistant City Manager/ Director of Community Development E} � City of Palm Desert (p7/( 73-510 Fred Waring Drive o/) Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Diaz: This letter is in written response to your letter of July 28, 1994, received July 29, 1994 . In that letter, you presented Peter Solomon, dba Regency Homes ("Solomon") with three unacceptable alternatives concerning his property and requested that he choose an alternative no later than August 10, . 1994. You also telephoned me on August 9, 1994 to ask which alternative Solomon had determined to select. The July 28, 1994 letter and its alternatives are but one more example of the unfair manner in which Solomon has been treated by the City of Palm Desert and the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. He was given neither the time nor sufficient facts upon which to base a decision. As to timing, requiring a decision of this magnitude in 7 working days, even if the backup information were available, is an impossible deadline. Second, Solomon was not provided with sufficient facts upon which to make any determination. For instance, I note for the record that the offer of a mitigated negative declaration is no offer at all. I telephoned the City of Palm Desert to determine whether the draft EIR would be available for review. I was informed that the draft EIR would not be available until September of 1994 . Hence, the magnitude of the shared mitigation measures, as well as the theories and assumptions upon which the prorata allocation is based, were and remain unavailable to Solomon. It would be a very poor business person, indeed, who would make an election of this magnitude .without knowing the cost of the election. All of theabove is somewhat irrelevant in that Solomon was entitled to a negative declaration when the initial application was made to the City of Palm Desert many months ago. Instead, 1 i f' Ramon A. Diaz Assistant City Manager August 25, 1994 Page 2 Solomon has received nothing but a calculated runaround by the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert. It is clear, even to the most casual observer, that the Redevelopment Agency and the City are operating in tandem to drive down the value of the property to Solomon by refusing the entitlements to which he has a legal right. If the City of Palm Desert had followed the same process as it had with the adjoining properties of the church and the Ralph's shopping center, Solomon would have been grading as early as April of 1994 and the project would be well on its way towards completion as of this date. Instead, the City, acting in concert with the Redevelopment Agency, has deliberately delayed the project not for legitimate reasons but for its own "business" ends. The intentional delay of the City and the Redevelopment Agency has deprived Solomon of his due process under the law. Further, the acts of the City and the Redevelopment Agency have caused real and significant damages to Solomon and such damages will be sought when the property is condemned by the Redevelopment Agency, as we both know it will be. Solomon has authorized me to take one last step at resolving this case without resort to the courts. I have been authorized to contact your City Attorney and to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter and the disposition of the Solomon property. You are invited to this meeting. I will be contacting Dave Erwin to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in detail. Very truly yours, HAAMMIILTON & SAMUELS rFre rick H. Kra FHK/bc 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 27964 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by REGENCY HOMES for approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200-021 AND 620-200-029 P.R. 5 � ITE I 1 I 1 1 I P.C.—(2) S I � � 1 � q JN q n p GO HB BRAVE t - AQI a 5 Ilo �'rtlM +i�.`I _ _ II \`r.\ _ � /i /^\" fl l- 000000, " al y�y I l,`, II p -II II Ii i� )�=_-'J / �l 4C -\`• r".' J V .niJQl I _ zI l ^\ \` LI- ISILVERi! j J1 SANDSj�_�nu�Jl z;ll'1RACOUST j' l • CLU 11 �` B j '\\P.R.-4y;�_. .eJl F'.R.001 —d3 ali .I a I 9ti�;I It OESEF(T SPRINGS ttr ;iI and SPA , t. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994 , at, 7 :00 'p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, ' 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or environmental impact information is available for review in the department of community development/ planning at the above address between the hours of 8 : 00 a.m. and 5 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ , Secretary August 31, 1994 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 27964 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by REGENCY HOMES for approval of a tentative tract map to allow construction of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200-021 AND 620-200-029 f P.R. 5 ITE ' I � It 1 P. C.-O) S I 4 41 is --- G*U8 BRIVE -- t - _ Hcz 09 !1 I b i ;1 a .'•� ? 1 1 I I I / \\\ �/ A_\ �� - �i P%N iz V/O' 000 UI 9 n 1 p_e .11 .1 1 , I1` 11�,�� I 11CUtLLJ, .1\ �\• 1j YY"< \.`C.�1,`.� \�_-��___7� _• 3'iSILVER i SANDS�1_J��JI I° •\` \ °�I \` =11 ; JRACOUS�—..—. CLUB �, r• -- / I I 'I WARRIOTT�0.SI 6ESERT SPRINGS I a SP nd A SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 20, 1994, "Ot/ 7 : 00 "p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or environmental impact information is available for review in the department of community development/ planning at the above address between the hours of 8 : 00 a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary August 31, 1994 Palm Desert Planning Commission i CRY (0 } s0m D9081 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 July 28, 1994 Mr. Frederick H. Kranz Hamilton & Samuels 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 6000 Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Tentative Tract 27964 (TT 27946 ) Dear Mr. Kranz : Please excuse the delay in responding to your correspondence dated 12 July 1994 . Because many important issues were raised the communication was referred to legal counsel to assure that your client' s rights were being protected by the City of Palm Desert and the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. As we have continually indicated a separate environmental impact report could be or could have been undertaken on TT 27964 . The offer was made in April and continues if that is your client' s desire. The draft environmental impact report has been completed. Because of its completion, there are three alternatives that can be undertaken at this juncture pertaining to your client' s project. 1 . The certification of a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact with those mitigation measures setforth in the DEIR and processing TT 27964 . Of course, your client would only be responsible for his fair share of those mitigation measures imposed on the project. 2 . A separate environmental processing, the option originally offered in April . This alternative is probably the most time consuming. 3 . Planning Commission conducting a public hearing on TT 27964 at its 20 September 94 meeting. At this commission meeting the DEIR for Section 4 will also have a public hearing. I am sure you are aware of the legal requirements involved with this alternative. RPaper Paper FREDERICK H. KRANZ TENTATIVE TRACT 27964 JULY 28, 1994 I believe that it is possible, with your immediate concurrence (prior to August 10) that if alterative 1 is selected the public hearing can occur on 6 September 94 before the planning commission. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. S Very truly yours, RAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 2 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 June 17, 1994 Mr. Peter Solomon c/o Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, California 92211 Re: CEQA Process and Tentative Tract Application Dear Mr. Solomon: In answering the concerns you raised on Tuesday, June 14 , 1994 in our telephone conversation, I re-examined our communication of April 14, 1994 . , In terms of the CEQA process I believe that letter, hereto attached, explains the entire process and reasons for it. Because you did not indicate a desire to proceed separately we assumed that you concurred with the program setforth in that communication. Should you have any questions related to this matter, please feel free to contact me at any time. Very truly yours, RAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm RPapePaper r0 a : 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 April 14 , 1994 Mr. Peter Solomon c/o Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, California 92211 Re: Application for Tentative Tract Map 21964 Dear Mr. Solomon: Your application for approval of a tentative tract map located on the north side of Country Club Drive between Cook Street and Portola Drive will be processed in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate laws governing development approvals. As you were aware prior to acquiring this site the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency has under consideration for an area that includes the roec thelan for nng area.ng An En ironmentale Impact nt hReport fore this long redeveloprangement pproject is currently being prepared. In order to assure that your proposal processed is state as guidelines and as possible while consistent with applicable regulations, it will be processed in this manner: 1. Your . proposed maps will be distributed for comment to the appropriate city and public agencies. 2 . As part of the CEQA process, since our project considered have an cumulative impact on the area, your map alternate proposal in the current EIR process. enableThis will your map to be evaluated in accordance CEQA requirementswhile avoiding dupl cation and added costs wtohyou- 3 , When the environmental impact report has been completed and certified your map will be scheduled for public hearing before the planning commission. RagcieE Pape, MR. PETER SOLOMON 4 TT 27964 APRIL 14, 1994 I trust this process will meet with your approval. An alternative would be for a separate environmental review process to be undertaken for your map. Such a process is not recommended because of the additional delays and costs that could be incurred by you. Should you have any questions related to this matter, please feel free to contact me at any time. Very truly yours, ♦' )tAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm cc: City Manager Assistant City Managers 2 HAA41LTON & SAMUELS 1 0 0 B A Y V I E W CIRCLE , SUITE 6 0 0 0 FREDERICK H.KRANZ N E W P O R T BEACH , CALIFORNIA 9 2 6 6 0 TELEPHONE:(714)7214200 PARTNER FACSIMILE:(714)721-7400 RECEIVED JUL 14 1994 Jul 12 1994 OUR FILE NUMBER Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPRRTMEtlT CITY OF PALM DESERT 688-001 Ramon A. Diaz Assistant City Manager/ Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Diaz: This letter constitutes written notice to you and the City of Palm Desert of the objections to the City's actions filed by Mr. Peter Solomon and Regency Homes (collectively "Solomon") concerning the environmental review process relating to. Tentative Tract Map 27964. In summary, we believe that the position articulated by the City is severely flawed and amounts to a denial of due process under both the California and United States Constitutions. In addition, we believe that our client is the victim of significant pre-condemnation damages which accrue and expand with each passing day. The basic facts are that the City of Palm Desert received an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map 27964 on March 23, 1994. On April 14, 1994, you authored a letter to Solomon. You informed Solomon that the property sought to be mapped was within an area for which an Environmental Impact Report was being prepared for a much larger proposed project of the Redevelopment-Agency-af the--City� of Palm Desert. You further informed Solomon,.in-the ApnI 114 letter, that "[a]s part of 1 the CEQA process, since your project-will-hav`e a cumulative impact on the area, your map will be considered as an alternative proposal in the current EIR process." You concluded that"[a]n alternative would be for a separate environmental review process to be undertaken for your map." Candidly, the statements in your April 14, 1994 letter mean nothing at all in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act.("CEQA"). If the City of Palm Desert wishes to consider Solomon's project as an alternative proposal to its.proposed project, it is certainly entitled to do so. That is not any of Solomon's concern. However, consideration of the Solomon Project as an alternative to the City's own project is not an independent environmental assessment on Solomon's proposal as is Ramon A. Diaz Assistant City Manager July 12, 1994 Page 2 required under CEQA. Procedural due process requires that Solomon's application for the approval of a tentative tract map be considered on its own, not as an appendage to some other project's environmental review. In our judgment, the City of Palm Desert has violated the procedural due process requirements by not conducting any environmental assessment for the tentative tract map filed by Solomon. Further, we find that your reference to "cumulative impacts" is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. We acknowledge that cumulative impacts must be considered at both the Initial Study (Guidelines, Section 15063) and EIR (Guidelines, Section 15130) stages of a project. We also acknowledge the case law that suggests that a lead agency is required to consider cumulative impacts. E g, Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 222 Cal.Rptr. 247. However, the fact that a cumulative impact analysis may be required, does not permit the city to bypass the Initial Study phase and lump the applicant into a stranger's EIR. Given the fact that your April 14, 1994 letter amounted to a legal non-sequitur, Solomon awaited the results of the City's Preliminary Review (Guidelines, Section 15060) and the City's Initial Study .(Guidelines, Section 15063). When neither was forthcoming, Solomon again demanded that the City comply with CEQA and grant the negative declaration on June 14, 1994. Again, the City ignored its duties under CEQA and simply referred Solomon to the April 14 letter. You stated, in the June 17, 1994 letter, that "[ijn terms of the CEQA process I believe that letter [the April 14, 1994 letter], hereto attached, explains the entire process and reasons for it." You then go on to take the utterly untenable position that Solomon apparently waived his due process rights, civil rights and rights under CEQA by failing to ask for a separate EIR. It was not until our face-to-face meeting with you on June 29, 1994 that you finally informed Solomon that an EIR would be required. Your statement could, legally, have been made only if the separate environmental review process had begun and an Initial Study given rise to that conclusion had already been prepared. Please forward the Initial Study immediately. We also advise you that.we are very troubled by the apparent selective and arbitrary enforcement of the environmental laws. We are informed that the Church project and the Ralph's project, both nearly adjacent to the subject project, as well as other projects, have been treated differently than the Solomon project. We believe that the other projects were adopted after the City conducted its Preliminary Review of the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency's Project referenced in your April 14, 1994 letter. Yet, confronted with the same impacts (and arguably far worse) and cumulative impacts, it is our information that negative declarations were issued by the City. We believe that these approvals and the different treatment accorded Solomon raise both due process Ramon A. Diaz Assistant City Manager July 12, 1994 Page 3 issues and civil rights issues. We ask that you carefully consider the City's position in light of both due process and civil rights. Finally, and for the record, we believe that there is active and obvious cooperation between the City of Palm Desert and the Palm Desert Redevelopment District. We believe the two entities have informed Solomon that they intend to condemn his property and are using the environmental issue as a ruse to delay their taking and depress the fair market value of the property. We advise you that pre- condemnation damages have accrued and continue to accrue daily. We will raise these issues with the appropriate court when condemnation occurs. So there is no misunderstanding, I am sending a copy of this letter to the head of the redevelopment agency, Mr. Carlos Ortega. We stand ready to discuss this matter if the City has any wish to do so. Your silence in this matter is as disturbing as it is puzzling. We request an immediate meeting with your City Attorney, Mr. Ortega, and yourself in order to resolve this matter expeditiously. Very truly yours, HAMILTON & SAMUELS rF ederic H. anz FHK/bc cc: Peter Solomon Carlos Ortega ^4'r 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 June 30, 1994 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO. : TT 27964, PP 94-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : STAN KASSOVIC for REGENCY HOMES, 71-246 Sahara Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised preliminary architectural plans for condominiums LOCATION: North side of Country Club Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street ZONE: PR-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the architectural commission, by minute motion, approved the revised preliminary architectural plans as submitted. Date of Action: June 28, 1994 Vote: Carried 3-0 (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. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be resubmitted to commission for approval. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------- STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the architectural commission to the department of building and safety. CONTINUED 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 eight days prior to the next meeting. Y^y y MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1994 w*r***,r***•r,tir*****,t*w*,r******rrr**r*,r***«*«,rr«*,►**r**i.w**rww,r**• I . CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12 :20 p.m. Commissioners Present: Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Richard Holden ( jury duty) X 18 1 Frank Urrutia X 17 2 Chris Van Vliet X 18 1 Wayne Connor I X 19 0 Richard O'Donnell (out of country) X 15 4 Ronald Gregory X 16 3 Staff Present: Steve Smith Jeff Winklepleck Daisy Garcia Donna Bitter II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the minutes of the June 14 , 1994 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. III . It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the following cases by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. A. Final Drawings : 1 . CASE NO. : APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : B-Y-J PARTNERS for BURGER KING, 40-041 Sagewood Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of monument and building signage LOCATION: 73-547 Highway 111 (Jensen' s Shopping Center) ZONE: C-1 S.P. Case was continued at the applicant' s request. Mr. Smith informed the commission that this item would be going before the planning commission on July 5th. e MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1994 7 . CASE NO. : 4323 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : JEFF RYNYAN for DESIGN CENTER FURNITURE MART, 41-905 Boardwalk, Suites R & S, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning and wall signage LOCATION: 41-905 Boardwalk, Suites R & S ZONE: S. I . Jeff Winklepleck presented the drawings for the proposed awning noting that the store faces west off Cook Street and the awning was needed for shade. There would be no signage on the awning. Mr. Winklepleck noted that the applicant had discussed placing additional signage on the wall . The applicant noted that this additional signage was needed to direct people to Boardwalk from Cook Street. The applicant understood that he could not duplicate the business name on the wall and therefore was asking to place the name of the street (Boardwalk) and the street address on the wall in gold letters to match the letters on the building. Commission approved the awning in Persian Green No. 4643 by Sumbrella. Commission directed staff to work with the applicant on placing the street name and address on the wall to match the gold letters on the building. B. Preliminary Plans : 1 . CASE NO. : TT`27964, PP 94T1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : STAN—KASSOVIG for REGENCY ROMESI, 71-246 Sahara Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270j REGENCY HOMES, 77-670 Springfield Lane, Suite 4A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised preliminary architectural plans for condominiums LOCATION: North side of Country Club Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1994 ZONE: PR-5 The applicant, Mr. Kassovic, presented a revised colored rendering. Mr. Winklepleck noted that the plans were originally submitted in April and commission was concerned with the elevations being very simple and plain. He added that the project was condensed to 46 units with a mix of one and two story units . Mr. Kassovic outlined the changes noting the modification in the eaves and roof lines . Commissioner Van Vliet questioned the height of the units. Mr. Kassovic noted that the highest unit was approximately 23 ' . Commission approved the revised preliminary architectural plans as submitted. IV. CASES : A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO. : 4324 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : ULTRANEON SIGN COMPANY for BANANAZ, 5474 Complex Street, Suite 501, San Diego, CA 92123 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 72-291 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. (4 ) Jeff Winklepleck presented the drawings for the proposed signage noting that the applicant is requesting approval to utilize the existing sign base from the Redondo Don' s monument sign with additional signage placed in the same location of the existing wall sign. Chairman Gregory noted the six colors and asked the applicant if he was aware of the city's sign ordinance allowing a maximum of three colors. The applicant then presented an alternate proposal for the monument sign with only 4 colors . Chairman Gregory felt the sign was tastefully done. Commissioner Urrutia preferred the original proposal and thought that the sign with the 6 colors was very subtle. He suggested eliminating the orange border around the yellow and using the purple in its place. 6 y 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 May 13, 1994 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO. : APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : PETER SOLOMON for REGENCY ESTATES, 77-670 Springfield Lane, Suite 4A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of landscape plan for private park LOCATION: North side of Country Club Drive, west of Tamarisk Row Drive ZONE: R-1 12, 000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the architectural commission, by minute motion, continued the case at the applicant' s request. Date of Action: May 10, 1994 Vote: Carried 4-0 (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. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be resubmitted to commission for approval . ) ----------------------------------------------------------------- STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the architectural commission to the department of building and safety. CONTINUED 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 eight days prior to the next meeting. VIP sp,d 0 Paper MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 1994 **r*,r,t,t,t,t,t+r,t,t*r**,r**«****«*,t,rt**,t**,rww****,t*,tsf*wf*,t**rtrtr,rw,rr,r*w• I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12 :35 p.m. Commissioners Present: Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Richard Holden X 16 0 Frank Urrutia X 14 2 Chris Van Vliet X 15 1 Wayne Connor X 16 0 Richard O'Donnell X 13 3 Ronald Gregory X 14 2 Staff Present: Phil Drell Steve Smith Jeff Winklepleck Steve Buchanan Daisy Garcia Donna Bitter . II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the minutes of the April 26, 1994 meeting as amended. Motion carried 4-0. III. It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the following cases by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO. : 4295 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : BEST SIGNS, INC. for BENNY'S BAGELS & DELI, 2600 So. Cherokee Way, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 72-785 Highway 111, Suite B ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith presented drawings of the proposed signage. Commission approved the signage as submitted. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 1994 2 . CASE NO. : 4302 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : BEST SIGNS for NOMADS OF THE DESERT, 38-480 Rancho Los Coyotes, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: 73-190 E1 Paseo, Suite 1 ZONE: C-1 Jeff Winklepleck presented plans and pictures of the proposed signage indicating that it would be replacing the existing Hyacinthe sign as well as additional wall signage below the address. Commission approved the signage as submitted. 3 . CASE NO. : APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : (PETERER_SOLOMON for REGENCY) (ESTATES,-177-670 Springfield Lane, Suite 4A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of landscape plan for private park LOCATION: North side of Country Club Drive, west of Tamarisk Row Drive ZONE R-1 12,000 Commission continued the case at the applicant' s request. B. Miscellaneous Cases: 1 . CASE NO. : APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HOLMGREN INCORPORATED for SANTA FE BUILDING PARTNERS, 74-854 Velie Way #6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport structure 2 STAN KASSOVIC, AIA DatequNe ao/CiA Architects & Planners Job Jr 71246 Sahara Rd. Attn Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Re X2417 ( 619) 568-2665 FAX (619) 324-4578 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TOCI-N f0F VMSgP&'( 'pL/�.IJIl714Cj G45E } TrT 2 ,?4_4 _ ny g,#.— j We are sending you Vattached _under separate cover via the following items: _Shop Drawings Prints _Plans —Samples —Specifications —Copy of Letter _Change Order _—Other No. of Copies Date 19— Description l- ipptjW5 : -77-G-7,o 5f►'14A34FtC- .O 1�6.1J8- �1'CE 44 � O. c,a ti2rL�.� �.rr-rb ,6•�t'�ob These are transmitted as checked below: Vor Approval —Approved as Submitted —Resubmit —Copies for Apprvl _For Your iJse —Approved as Noted —Submit _Copies for Distribution _As Requested _Returned for Corrections —Return—Corrected Prints —For Review &. Comment _Other FOR BIDS DUE 19—_ —PRINTS RETURNED TO US REMARKS COPY TO �• S , - - ---- SIGNEDG� I o �p�gp�a gp pt 1009011 ' I T3-510 CPPD WA4 NO 9RIVE, PA M I 3EFlr, CALIFORNIA 92260.2578 - -- - — Y€LCPFcONr: (Otg) 30-0311 f=AX(613)Od1-7099 Peril 15, 1,494 7� Ai51- v ARCWI'PECTUPAL REVIEW coMMISSION ACTION / �h!-�s CASE r7G, ; TT 27954, Pr 94--1 -- RiPI.J+_)AN" (hND hLD12E5S : REGENCY 40MCS, 77-570 Springfield Lane, Suite 4i1, ?c: rp Desert, CA 92260 VATURE OF, rRf?3P,CT/AP11ROu7+,L SOUGHT! Preliminary approval of az•vtiltF'ct��r�J. p.ia.ns Lor ccridiilmi'niii:ns LOCATION, North side of Country Club Dr.iva between Fort la Avenue aiid cools"St.reet ZONE: PR-5 Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the architectural commission continued the request directing the applicant 'to re-work the elevations to create more interest as they felt the -plan was very sterile , Commission suggested adding some undulation to break up the straight roof line. Date of Action: IlApril .12 , 1994 Vote ! Carried. `. C (An 9gpeal. of. ttlP ahove action may be made In writing to the City C).erkc az tho City of Palm Deseirt w,,thin iifteen ( 15) days of the Sete z h4 derinior.. P.r,y araendmeuts tf: tt:is approved plan would need to be, zasuomi::t.ad to commi.asiuz for approval . ) - STAFF CommITS-. ^�-It is-your 1-60po .sibjlit.y to submitthe plans approved by my a.rclut.ectural commission to ih.e, department of building and safety. ICJ COHST I!lF:?, CASES, 11, order: to be placed on the next meetings c+gsn ia , new or revised plans r must be submitted rlo later than 9100 a .m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. axe LI' { �.5f�',cl. `' I c" I I Fl --ro-rl;sl Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 April 15, 1994 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO. : TT 27964, PP 94-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : REGENCY HOMES, 77-670 Springfield Lane, Suite 4A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architectural plans for condominiums LOCATION: North side of Country Club Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street ZONE: PR-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant, the architectural commission continued the request directing the applicant to re-work the elevations to create more interest as they felt the plan was very sterile. Commission suggested adding some undulation to break up the straight roof line. Date of Action: April 12, 1994 Vote: Carried 5-0 (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. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be resubmitted to commission for approval . ) --------------------------Y------P---------Y--------- STAFF COMMENTS : It is our responsibility to submit the plans approved by the architectural commission to the department of building and safety. CONTINUED 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 eight days prior to the next meeting. Recycletl PeOer MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1994 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO. : T-27964;PP-94-3� APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : (REGENCY_HOMES,� 77-670 Springfield Lane, Suite 4A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architectural plans for condominiums LOCATION: North side of Country Club Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street ZONE: PR-5 Phil Drell presented elevations for the proposed project noting that it was in Section 4 on the north side of Country Club Drive. He informed commission that this area has a grand plan with golf courses, hotel, conference center, sports park, etc. Commissioner Holden felt that the site plan needed more undulation, as it seemed very straight and sterile. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the roof line should be broken up some how and noted that elevations were not shown for Model B. Action: It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to continue the request directing the applicant to re-work the elevations to create more interest as they felt the plan was very sterile. Motion carried 5-0. C. Miscellaneous Cases: 1 . CASE NO. : APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : CURTIS R. SHUPE, ARCHITECT, for BUD JOHNSON DESIGNS, 35-325 Date Palm Drive, Suite No. 213, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request to extend glass 15" toward the street for display window LOCATION: 73-255 El Paseo, Suite 70 5 cow (0 R Basalt 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 April 14, 1994 Mr. Peter Solomon c/o Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, California 92211 Re: Application for Tentative Tract Map 27964 Dear Mr. Solomon: Your application for approval of a tentative tract map located on the north side of Country Club Drive between Cook Street and Portola Drive will be processed in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate laws governing development approvals . As you were aware prior to acquiring this site the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency has under consideration for an area that includes a long range project consistent with the adopted redevelopment plan for the area. An Environmental Impact Report for this long range project is currently being prepared. In order to assure that your proposal is processed as rapidly as possible while consistent with applicable state guidelines and regulations, it will be processed in this manner: , 1. Your proposed maps will be distributed for comment to the appropriate city and public agencies . 2 . As part of the CEQA process, since your project will have a cumulative impact on the area, your map will be considered as an alternate proposal in the current EIR process . This will enable your map to be evaluated in accordance with CEQA requirements while avoiding duplication and added costs to you. 3 . When the environmental impact report has been completed and certified your map will be scheduled for public hearing before the planning commission. Pa " r' 'K MR. PETER SOLOMON TT 27964 APRIL 14, 1994 I trust this process will meet with your approval . An alternative would be for a separate environmental review process to be undertaken for your map. Such a process is not recommended because of the additional delays and costs that could be incurred by you. Should you have any questions related to this matter, please feel free to contact me at any time. Very truly yours, it 'JtAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm cc: City Manager Assistant City Managers 2 � � c� [E 0..APR - 41994 i (NET oq FdBm o 0 0 n 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO( S ) : 1`r2gg4P, )Ffg4-� T PROJECT:'F Gp^JCM1k114* z, APPLICANT: -� F,A. A4, Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: 1 ,, The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval . The city is interested in the probable impacts on the environment (including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and recommended conditions of approval based on your expertise and area of concern. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by tl�vis office prior to 4:30 p.m. RI �L to the attention of •�� µ.�InJI[►�u�in order to be consid red. Sincerely, RAMON A. DIAZG%�%%�%�J DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY 4DEVOPMENT/1PLANNING Attachment )/ll PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENT U��'9')`�' A-t FP COMW0 MOM o0 0 � 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346.0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO( S ) : ��2. 1 IIQ�"I �� , i PROJECT:� a GO�iLb�1��A1IL11VK� APPLICANT: � � ��(,►HS Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: m#,a% The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the environment ('including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and recommended conditions of approval based on your expertise and area of concern. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by t is office prior to 4:30 p.m. p- iL to the attention of order to be consid red. Sincerely, RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY 4DEVOPMENT//PLANNING /tm Attachment PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS AV o� pao a Bc�n 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346.0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO( S ) : 11-2Lq ,f)? i4--'J PROJECT:'F;e=4 cwC'Af�IkloW16 APPLICANT: FA4.AA6 Enclosed please find materials describing' a project for which the following is being requested: .A ML"A �►t(G��, �Q ems. a�cQ a �wvlio� " a 6BwAtWZU641 sb 4, eip- Qc" vN to%- act" mf<t6 The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the environment ( including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and recommended conditions of approval based on your expertise and area of concern. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by t is office prior to 4:30 p.m. RI ,¢1L to the attention of �FF WIn11CLX.ery in order to be consid red. Sincerely, RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEV LOPMENT/PLANNING /tm Attachment PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619) 346-0611 INITIAL STUDY 04V1pal4il4lAL ❑[CQ,IST I. Background y/ 1. Date 2. Case No. 3. Applicant .p o�d��a a.J, 7—� 70 �l�r.a �o�cj .ZAA) &A-1 C/14 l 9az/ l II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? K, c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground (allure, or shnLlar ha=trds? 9 -% Yes MaybeNo 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial 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? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? x b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or low of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to terperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public / water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Yes Maybe No b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? x 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, / rare or endangered species of animals? x c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? x 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? k 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or / upset conditions? �( Yes Maybe No b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? x C. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? �{ d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, / bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Bnergy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? • Yes Maybe No b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the Y following utilities: '1 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate ,) Yes Maybe No Important examples of the major periods of f California history or prehistory? �( b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tern, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 7� c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, -but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III, Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. /7Y < Date Signature For IFc�,�.�i1 SENT BY;Rfthards, Watson LA114 4-12-04 ,12:19PM ; FAX; (213) 626-0078 City of Palm Desert;# 1/ 4 HWHAHUS, WATSON & GEPSON User 007�67 j Attorneys at law -. A RefessPonal Cor lron 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 38TM FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA .90071-1469 F 7 C E I V E Switchboard (213) 626-8484 CFox 1213) 626-0078 f R 12 1994 FAX COVER SHEET COMM6W CITY ROFEPALMEDESERTNT ARiMFMF ro: ✓ Name fax N Company/Department Phone 0 2 3 4 g 6 7 FROM: Date: Al /a q y Ow me Mo.., p( 1/6,2 •Dl D)G rord pspes fincfudhv this page): Oorumentls) ATT MMIs FAX OPa wron AMs OTIIaR 11E�Iri THIS FAX CONTAIN$PRML10E0 AND CONROENflAL 1W MAT=INtDK=ONLY f W THE UW OP THE wrEHOW R6CI RW NAMED ABOVE. 0 YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECNIENT,YOU ARE"WAp NOTP=THAT ANY COPywo OF TM FAX ON DOO EMINAnaN OP rr OR FM CONTENT$TO ANYONE OTta71 THAN THE BrtE1t0E0 MCWMr al$TRR:TLY PROHWM. !F YOU HAVE aECEIVED THN FAX Bi 2 1OR.PLEASE"AMATELY Hat"UB Br TIM "ON9 TO AARANBE ffS nETURN TO US AT OUn EXPENSE. N you have dfricuhy recelift any pages, PMR$@ telephone as of(213)253-0420. Ttnla saneEIL��Tr==S- LS. B. 7. Tb"e r SENT BY Richards, Watson L4#4 : 4-12-94 :12:19PM : FAX: (213) 626-0078� City of Palm Desert;# 2/ 4. =IL n1 - 4-12-94 11:59AK : Clty of Palm Dv `t- RICHARDS, WATSON 92:4 2/ 4 April 12, 1994 Ilr. Peter" Solomon Re. Application for Tentative Tract Map Dear Mr. Solomon: Your application for approval of a tentative tract map located on the north aide of Country Club Drive between Cook Street and Portola Drive will be proceseed in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate laws governing development approvals. Am you were aware prior to acquiring this site the Palau Desert ,pRedevelopment Agency aVk'- 1-va—tn#vxVfft' - d4 0-n an.ec'- Y�ei7 ftrl'&a long range project coneibtent with the adopted redevelopMont plan for the area. SENT SY:Richards. Watson LA#4 ; 4-12-94 ;12:20H ; FAX: 12M 626-0078 City of Palm Desert;* 3/ 4 y ur5aam us ty or rain UoeArt-+ RICHMDS, WAT501 12 4 3/ 4 the an Environmental Impact Report for this'projeC In order to assure that your proposal tap "_"" asp �rapidl as possible while consistent with applicable State quidslineesjit will be processed in this banner: 1. Your proposed maps will be distributed for comment to the appropriate city and public agencies . 2. As part of the CEQA process, since your project will have a cumulative impact on the area, your map will be considered as an alternate proposal in the current EIR process. This will enable your map to be evaluated in accordance with CE4A requirements while avoiding duplication and added costs to you. SENT BY:Richards, Watson LA#4 ; 4-12-84 ;12:20PM FAX: 1213) 626-0078-� City of Palm Desert:# 4/ 4 Y a.ayam Lily of relm Desert, RICHARDS, WATSM 42;# 41 4 3 . When the environmental impact report has bemn completed and certified your map will be scheduled for public hearing before the planning commission. I trust this process will meet with your approval. An alternative would be for a separate environmental review process to be undertaken for your map. Such a process is not recommended because of the additional delays and costs that could be incurred by you. Very truly yours, RAMON A. DIAS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm C.e . L o�, - 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE PROJECT:�1 � APPLICANT: Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: -���-�a-�►u�td¢. ��- �Q 1 .egf���vr�lto� �n a.�Cv 4, 49+0aW .*L"-o 1A The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the environment ( including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and recommended conditions of approval based on your expertise and area of concern. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by t is office prior to 4:30 p.m. R1 Awl, to the attention of � WIp.JkLk ,EC4—in order to be consid red. Sincerely, RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEV LOPMENT/PLANNING /tm Attachment PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS ARrgHITECTUR* REV EW Dept. of Planning and Community Development My oV rVu o 0 0 n 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 Ica ENC-Y Iko M Applicant Iplease print) q,OgQ " 79(070 4-Ui167F(PLD LAAF, °I\) Mailing Address CalI'�' w Telephone f( !`LNI qz2 && City State Zip-Code REQUEST! (Describe specific nature of approval requested). A& Co1JDo t-At o t U" /�, yl yicR 5(nl��� hrt � ht�NLE rAttt!d A-rlV&CHFP -rwn -- rluL-rt�L� �awttUf pw�t,(�c�Ci PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: -M6 VA-g- 14A6f-of -W 5AITYFPsf 9 ,Ur "�W 4C4AW44-r ce� of JjJS 1;;0tC tWW2T q.QA2qFA of 60c-•+ s,aw egP3Ar_PtQ0 rA v�aa ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. f l" 1iJ &2,0 —lid 021 •EXISTING ZONING Property Owner Authorization The undersigned states that they are the owner Is) of the property described herein and hereby give outhor- izatlon for the filing of this application. Signature Date Agreement absolving the City of Palm Des of all liabilities relative to any deed restrictions. 1 00 BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, Absolve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions that may be applicable to the property described herein. Signature Date Applicants Signature / Signature FOR STAFF USE ONLY) Environmental Status. Accepted byi ❑ Ministerial Act E.A. No. ❑ Categorical Exemption (�/l CC 2 f:11,�e ❑ Negative Declaration `LJli BIE UVOO a Other Ref�rsr^e Crse No. CITY OF PALM DESgrr APPLICATION FUM Architectural Review Of: Case No. (Type of Project) (Applicant) Agreement of compliance to be signed by those applying for review. I hereby acknowledge that I have read and agree, to comply with all the following requirements, and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Ccmmnity Development. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case, and as revised according to the Architectural Review Commission process. Any minor change requires approval by the Director of Community Development. Any substantial change requires approval by the Architectural Commission. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City and any other applicable goverment entity shall be complied with as part of the development process. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project, commencing within one year from approval date and being prmnptly colleted. Landscaping (with irrigation system) shall be installed prior to final inspection and receiving certificate of occupancy. Curb, gutter, curb cuts and tie-in paving shall be provided along the full frontage of the lot by means of installation prior to final inspection or other provisions as approved by the city engineer. Construction shall conform to city standards and all requirements of the city engineer. All new and existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to and provide service to the property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed as required by municipal code. ignature) /(Date) COOK Q STREET LOT 2 F ,ry wm-mi irx aroim-mi rry ••c,m m, ye 'APPROXIMATE,rw<re srweer gREA=9SACRES Iq LOT/� , f % s a 1 VICINITY MAP M1 APK E24100d39 f e i I - ceu,mii E MRTOLA a AVENUE COUNTRY CLUB DRNE STREET SECTION - - IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,RNERSIDE COUNTY, mrs na • CALIFORNIA TENTATIVE MAP TRACT NO. 27964 (FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES) • F,><...�ar, '"'"" A.P.N.620-200-021&-029 A PORTION OF THE SE.114,OF THE x SIN.114 OF SEC.4,T.5 S.,R.6 E.,S.B.M. TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET SECTION FORM HID. 73-510 Fred Waring Dr., Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 PRECISE PLAN APPLOCATOCH FORM:. . Dept.of. Planning and Community Development R e ae r\ C-u H omen Applicant Vpleoso Print r ` ����o SDrind.'T i'LA La,�� Al 9- 3y S - 902'0 Mmhng Adg ss Telephone PaA (V\ D e-!5 e-C i l A 9 22 6 0 City State Zip-Code REQUEST! (Describe specific nature of approval requested). _ L46 Cor\Aofmi (- iLiAI (VXS LJi-H, R e- c r e- aJ `n In o, SIV1Q� � F0.W� Ilu O.T'I(J� L�G� � � YwJO �A✓hYI V. 011.� e,I � i ✓�AS A✓�/.,� VVi, k I41 c.? e_ to fy- l PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: , Eo, No- I -F o-� 4L sC-1)I ,4L '114 o-P 41R.,� sE , 1/1 (' I ID 4" I0 5� 1l� ELT YE � owes Sly A f�a✓,Q� l� � Ll ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. .A f /V 6 Z D Z O O - 021 i I /V 6 2 0- ZOO— 027 EXISTING ZONING Property Owner Authorization The undersigned states that they ors the owner Is) of the property described herein and hereby give author- I2011 for the filing of this application. - Si nature Date Agreement absolving the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities relative to any deed restrictions. 1 DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, Absolve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions that may be applicable to the property described herein. Signature Date Applicants Signature Signature Date (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) Environmental Status. Accepted by: ❑ Ministerial Act E.A. No. ❑ Negative Categorical Exemption r�l.�SIZ H(a. 04� 1 ❑ Negative Declaration l�i4i��JLS UV y 1�/ ❑ Other Reference Case No. [Mvi NEMT S1WK12/1T. 847-42 CL,,fMCATION OF PROPERTY OWNe-RS LIST (To be filled out by applicant) CITY OF PALM DESERT Department of Environmental Services 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Gentlemen 1, �/ `" 2 �c��'�-J do hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the attached list sets forth the names and addresses of the following persons as they appear on the last equalized assessment roll of the Riverside County Assessor. Sincerely, Printed Name Address one Number Dated V 2-—/f y in the City of �ar /Es California. Signature 171 0 CASE N0: r 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, applicant or project sponsor: Regency Homes, 77-670 Springfield Lane Suite $4A Palm Desert, CA_ -92211 2. Name, address and telephone number of perscii to be contacted con- cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, cr other repre- .;sntative) :_ Stan Kassov;__AIA - 71246 Sahara Rd, Rancho Mi.ra.Kt CA QULI-Q 58kJ-26G5 3. Corti-non naiae of project fif any) : p•egenc:y Condorniniiurs 4. Project location. (street address or general location) : _.r:C].Lin+r_.._�r„12•�,,eh_DrT_��1#�}E f323'� 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets & bounds) : 21 & 29 - P.M. 165/93 Parcel Map 25799 Assessor ' s Map BK 620 Pg. 20 Riverside County CA TR. A 018-082 6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the farm is filed; describe the total undertaking, not just the current application approval being sought): Total Project , no phases 46condo- miniums + 2 Tennis courts + 2 Swimming & Mot Pools Y" Reiatiorship to a larger project or series of projects (describe how this oroject relates to o`.her activities , phases , and develop- ments planned, or now underway) : none 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 type of approval required) : Normal City of Palm Desett staff and public body procedure. E;(ISTING CONDITIONS : 9. Project site area: 9. 67 acres / 424 , 656 sq ft (Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage) 10. Present zoning: pr-5 (Proposed zoning) : -0- 11 . General Plan land use designation: residential 12. Existing use of the project site: vacant 13. Existing use on adjacent properties : (Example - North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ). vacant 14, Site :opography (describe) : _ flat 15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or adjacent to the property? NO_ yX YES 15. Grading (fastimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) : 17. List the number, size and type of tees being removed: None 18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scenic aspects of the project site: None l.• J.� 19. Residec',_e1 Prc5' ct (if not residential du NOT answer) A. Number and' tyrc of dwE.�lling :nits (Specify no. of bedrooms) : 46 condominiums , two and three bedrooms B. Schedule of unit sizes : 1400, 1600, 1900 , & 2250 sq . ft . C. Number of stories $— PS t .Height 24 feet. max. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) 2250 (hgt. ) 16 E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : ± F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities : Two tennis Courts Two Swimming Pools & two Hot Pools G. Is there any night lighting of the project: Not at thic date- H. Range of sales -prices or rents : $ ann, nnn to $ 27n onn I . Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . 24 % Landscaping, Open, Recreatior. Area . . . . . J5 % ✓ Are the fellowin; 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 , XX or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the project vicinity. XX 23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind or flooding. XX 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. XX 25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport noise (has the required acoustical report been XX submitted?) 26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances , XX flammahles or explosives. 27, invoives the use of substantial amounts of XX fuel or, energy. .28. Changes the demard for municipal Services XX (police, fire, sswa^e, etc. ) 29. Changes the demand for utility services , beyond those presently available or planned ie the XX near future. 30. Significantly affects any unique or natural XX features, including mature trees. 31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing XX residential areas or public land or public roads. 32. Results in the dislocation of people. XX YES No 33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or other features of the project. XX [ ] Additional explanation of "yes" answers attached. CERTIFICATIO;I: 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,knowledge and belief. SC omun/ Name ,Print or Type --- For gnatiir�� Date INITIAL STUDY FEE : $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and sub— mit with this form. ) FROM Stan Kass�wic AIR - PHONE NO. : 619 56^0 2667 Mai-. 24 1994 12:22PM P1 AR I ITECTURAL REVIEW Dept. of Planning and Community Development ti 73.51C FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 Applicant .(please print) ejraLo Mailing Address fT elephone city State Zip-Code REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of OPPMV41 requested), �(v Co►3po t4i 0 t U 0 h t,a l'( t t otJ &FVA 410(iLp Tr4 w -rwo W vWFA1gJ11s PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 7N a 0A%T- OW or, Im 5o1094+,T 4t%h {sm viE .,ouA 40_ 4,� of 114S �tGU T ��� � �•.�- �-�u1��Q 5 �-�►C�+,��� G �cgT,� �(1�0 past�'rA��aa ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. - (o2U EXISTING ZONING ~i Property Owner Authorization The undendgned states that they are the owner(s) of the property described herein and hereby give author- Itatian toil the filing a s application. 2� i ndtute Dot S� Agreement absolving the City of Palm nrt of all liabllltln relatlw to any deed restrictions. 1 DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, Absolve the City of palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions that may be applicable to the property described herein. Signature Date Applicant's Signature Signature Oote R STAFF USE'ONLY) Envitonmental Stah4• ACeepted by, 0 Ministerial Act E.4.No. O categoricoi Exemption ��o�°(1n 2R®—^ [] Negative Declaration CASE UV - _ - Omer I e.t...... r_ M. - 1 73-510 FRED WARING DR., PALM DESERT, CA 92260 SUBDIVISION MAP ,(��IJ,Q( " Q9©1� (r��Q�: ���P$�411®Q91t � �Q11�MdQtpQpQQp�Q9$ffiI� �Pf/d� ° �Q�P�Q9dQ9� �1CMGCDICQ'� ° Regency Homes Appicant l pease Onntl 77-670 Springfield Lane, Suite #4A (619) 345-9080 Mailing Address elepndna Palm Desert, California 92211 qh, State ZIp-Ccae REQUEST! (Oasrrbe Spadfld nature of QPWWal raauutad). 1 Lot Subdivision for Condominium purposes PROPERTY OESCAIPTION: 10 Acres North side of Country Club Drive, between Cook Street and Portola Avenue. ASSE OWS PARCEL NO. 620-200-021 & 029 EXISTING ZONING PR - 5 Prapany Owner Aumart:attan T}ee una of egned slates Mat tray an Me aoner W d tM pru"M described nerem and Mreby give Quince, liatle ifM RN 1 appieatlpn. Agreement ebsatvina roe h 0t at all Ilaallltlg raeattw ro eery deed rMtrtatlanf. I o0 9y MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, �wt>�q��lb Me �ry idyl" ing any d� �TM'�Ons ,3�i Signature Oats Applicants Slgnmun . Signature Date (FOR STAFF M ONLY) Enmrrenmetnai Slam AOO�� by, /.� r'/�j Categarkat Esempttan E.A.Me. ❑ - CASE fta `1 / 1 CoNegaeve Deetaranan T ❑ DRIV Referenda Case MO. i FROM Stan Kassovic AIR PHONE NO. : 619 .565 2667 Mar. 24 1994 12:22PM Pc Mw. CITY OF PAIM DESERT AP1'1 U TICK FUR4 Architectural Review Of: Case No. °T_ Z76g4- Co 0.1.0 o An I N i u M, .S. (Type of Project) -- - (Applicant) Agreement of compliance to be signed by those applying for review. I hereby acknivIedge that I have read and agree, to comply with all the following requirements, and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Camunity Development. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case, and as revised according to the Architectural Review Carmission process. Any minor change requin,s approval by the Director of Community Development. Any substantial change requires approval by the Architectural Ccmnission. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, Ci.ty and any other applicable government entity shall be complied with as part of the development process. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project, commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. Landscaping ;with irrigation system) shall be installed prior to final inspection and receiving certificate of occupancy. Curb, gutter, curb cuts and tie-in paving shall be provided along the full frontage of the lot by moans of installation prior to final inspection or other provisions as approved by the city engineer. Construction shall Conform to city standards and all requirements of the city engirear. All new and existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna televsion, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to and provide service to the property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed as required by municipal code. (Signature) (Date) FROM Stan Kassovic RIP PHONE NO. t 619 568 2667 Mar. 24 1994 12:23PM P3 C ooTly OF pQL N DESER4 FORM No. 73-510 Fved Wartn4 Dr., Patm Desert, Ca. 92260 PRECISE ELAN �PPLG0AT9(0k FORM:—, Dept.of- Planning and. Community Development C1 C U H o t=v e 4 Applicant Wploose prim ��GAadreei a S rit nj f�ealr�l. Lav,�- �, 1 9 3q S 2ob Mailing Telephone PaI { � �I 9 -ZLL0 - city love ZIP-Cods REOUESTi (Describe specific noturs of approval requested). �\` 1 � F. rv_\ lA jk1:+- 0,\� � , 0rlaS , r1A LA PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: J Li a l t1 ct�- 1 '/ of - '/ a k A L W e S ,Z� . c-4 r o vHIe�1a�1 i p 5�� R e 4- G ASSESSORS PARCEL N0, AP V 6 Z a ` 2 0© ` Q 2_ 1 -GAP/\II { 2 V— 2_00— D�+. EXISTING ZONING R- Property owner Authotixotlon The undersigned states that they are the owner(s) of the property described herein and hereby give author- trarlon tar the filing of this application. ' �i tuahg ruanq re —� are Agreement absolving the City of Palm Dosert of all liabilities relative to any deed restrictions. 1 DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, Absolve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding eny deed metrietlons that may be applicable to the property described herein. �?-2 V 9y Siq nature Date Applicant's Signature Jr �Y 7�f ---^-- Signature _ Dote ;FOR STAFF USE ONLY) Environmental Slotua� Accepted bye © Ministerial Act E.A. No. ❑ Categorical Exemption �Un 1�LS Na. C3 Negative Declaration StAN KA99OVIC, AIA bate AtOlt@btg & Plannerg .lob 11246 5ghghg Nd. Attn_'PI II ��P42F—t-L nanchd M11890i CA 477y0 (619) 6684666 VAX (619) 566-2661 LLT-MA UL TnANSMITTAL to '�4 141l We are sending you attached —under separate cover via the. following Items: —Shop Drawings prints _plans _5amples ," _5peclticstions —Copy of Letter —Change order —other No. of Copies— Date �� 19 ` bescriptlon t2 R 4 n 8�a >c WA 13 OF 1 Du-)Ct5 N --� � Cn,yan [ uM s Thque grd trSngmltted as ohecked bolow: _For Approval —Approved as Submitted —Flesubmit —Copies for Apprvl ?_clor Your Use —Approved as Noted =Submit Copies for bistributlon ELM gequested —Peturhed for corrections 12"bWu rL_Corrpcted prints —For geview & Comment _other Loll 0105 UUL 1 Y_, —PRINTS HETURNLU To US aE1IAakS Copy To {,- �o aq palm 060(arR 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619) 346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 June 17 , 1994 Mr. Peter Solomon c/o Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, California 92211 Re: CEQA Process and Tentative Tract Application Dear Mr. Solomon: In answering the concerns you raised on Tuesday, June 14, 1994 in our telephone conversation, I re-examined our communication of April 14, 1994 . In terms of the CEQA process I believe that letter, hereto attached, explains the entire process and reasons for it. Because you did not indicate a desire to proceed separately we assumed that you concurred with the program setforth in that communication. Should you have any questions related to this matter, please feel free to contact me at any time. Very truly yours, RAMON A. DIA ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm Recycled Pape raj ®q R ®c �sc 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 April 14, 1994 Mr. Peter Solomon c/o Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, California 92211 Re: Application for Tentative Tract Map 27964 Dear Mr. Solomon: Your application for approval of a tentative tract map located on the north side of Country Club Drive between Cook e ofntheortola appropDrive will be processed in accordance with the provisions laws governing development approvals. As you were aware prior to acquiring this site the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency has under consideration for an area that includes the lan for long range project area. An Environmentalnt for this long redevelopment the project is currently being prepared. In order to assure that your proposal is processed as rapidly as possible while consistent with applicable state guidelines and regulations, it will be processed in this manner: 1. Your proposed maps will be distributed for comment to the appropriate city and public agencies. 2 . As part of the CEQA process, since y ur project be considered have an cumulative impact on the area, your map alternate proposal in the current EIR process. This will enable your map to be evaluated and accordancedded with to yCEQA requirements while avoiding duplication 3 . When the environmental impact report has been completed and certified your map will be scheduled for public hearing before the planning commission. `tY RegciM PeMt OR. PETER SOLOMON TT 27964 APRIL 14, 1994 I trust this process will meet with your approval. An alternative iew process would be for ma a separate a environmental is lnoty recommended to be becauseundertaken the for your P• additional delays and costs that could be incurred by you. Should you have any questions related to this matter, please feel free to contact me at any time. Very truly yours, YzAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm cc: City Manager Assistant City Managers 2 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 June 28, 1994 Mr. Peter Solomon c/o Regency Homes 77-670 Springfield Lane Palm Desert, California 92211 Re: Letter dated June 21, 1994 Dear Mr. Solomon: It is not a question of denial or approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for your project based on the reasons setforth in my previous communications . If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, RAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm f: DE TI VELOPERS OF DISTINCON R E C E I V E D JUN 2 4 1994 June 21 , 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Mr. Ramon A. Diaz , Assistant City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Diaz , I have just now received your letter of June 17 , 1994 and am a bit confused as to its contents and the meaning thereof . In our phone conversation of a week ago I asked you directly whether or not our Negative Declaration had been approved.. You told me that , pursuant to your original letter to me dated April 14 , our Negative Declaration had been denied and that we would in fact be required to do an E. I .R. I told you that our engineers had called on several occasions about the status of our Negative Declaration request and were told to only speak to you. However, no answer concerning the E. I .R. requirement was ever forthcoming to them. I asked you to please put in writing the fact that the City had denied our Negative Declaration and to please forward a copy of this denial to me. Instead of a straightforward yes or no, I received a letter which is as close to "doublespeak" as I have ever received. If in fact, the City of Palm Desert is denying our Negative Declaration, then please, in direct and straightforward language let me know. If it is approving our Negative Declaration, then also please let us know. We are anxiously awaiting a reply as our project is on hold pending resolution of this issue . If you have any questions or comments , please feel free to call . Sincerely, I MPete D. Solomon / PDS : l p . `j-�_' �'1�}`t�"'LL6Vl.�i.._ .[. j�.itrt�..✓K��/`1wJ..L'N �` ��C �LGC�.s�Y'vf•.. ,�R.,F-T��Y,..��-... V REGENCY HOMES 0 CORPORATE OFFICES❑77670 Springfield Lane, SUite 4 A❑Palm DeSert.CA 92260 O 619-345-9080 FAX 619-345-2 187 DEVELOPERS OF DISTINCTION RECEIVED June 21 , 1994 JUN 2 4 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPRNTMEMT CITY Of PALM DESERT Mr. Ramon A. Diaz , Assistant City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Diaz , I have just now received your letter of June 17 , 1994 and am a bit confused as to its contents and the meaning thereof . In our phone conversation of a week ago I asked you directly whether or not our Negative Declaration had been approved. You told me that , pursuant to your original letter to me dated April 14 , our Negative Declaration had been denied and that we would in fact ' be required to do an E. I .R. I told you that our engineers had called on several occasions about the status of our Negative Declaration request and were told to only speak to you. However , no answer concerning the E. I .R. requirement was ever forthcoming to them. I asked you to please put in writing the fact that the City had denied our Negative Declaration and to please forward a copy of this denial to me . Instead of a straightforward yes or no , I received a letter which is as close to "doublespeak" as I have ever received. If in fact , the City of Palm Desert is denying our Negative Declaration, then please, in direct and straightforward language let me know. If it is approving our Negative Declaration, then also please let us know. We are anxiously awaiting a reply as our project is on hold pending resolution of this issue . If you have any questions or comments , please feel free to call . Sincerely, Pete D. Solomon PDS : 1p 4. 7 ktiv� i t n REGENCY HONES❑CORPORATE OFFICES 11 77670 Springfield Lane,Suite 4 A O Palm Desert,CA 92260 O 6 i D 345-9080 FAX 619-345-2187 - .x tr F MITRA 11- - I ,r.rin,•ww � ` h •�''( - Ii._"�".# + '�.- s .J• ,`�' .1,. �' -1.�. -��:D'•• ~ !l�t9 i 1 .afro A '( , ',y-c►y}^�(_ " � w' ; i's. 3't " _ •T..;f �. a:::' -�'-, . •;. !L• .f 'r.l 'G' -1.7 ,r' i.MCe, ' .�\,. ii. 7 awwi,M 3 ..rr.w•. I i:-..".....;. i- �( _�.�,Y °•{T'1� ti..� ••t�' F �'' �•i. - `. -. ,rr« �ATVCH > t - ., ifr..,., &>; d� •.� .� F•(�Ll ` '.ice\ t�I S �: 1 r-� t7• 1 ,�nYh#, ` �('J , I '• •tls.,nrrY ■ i/ ■A� GE I ` ,.jn C. f• r 1 ' 'tt 1' 2. til .'S�• 't1/ - ,, , •oa�_�VI-'��-- - -�a ���`�� ��fi�r...�t,► ��_ V�� b 1 ..t •!:I' a••d`l �, �� ';:b- .I ' t-, �Tf"...�T.-.�Ij.;,...1 , '" i1.i.y, "•L!l tllluun''... .... ___- --__-.. +.._ r _.:1 y..y, s _'.•i..�Y i;tIT 1. { - �',.,,,,• „ .. PALM 1 1 AY l:f+l + I f 1 1 Af/OrCit ; a,f._ai,.a'cava•. I Y •- _!. r^ 1 \• t .1 ..r A„�-I! '!mn- - F It', 1 U � )t iwdrsr ,:+ i t,� ;���a 1 � � •2w. :'i.roi,rr�tlyr� •$ � �.ti,. I � ' - _ 11- 0606 - - _ _ �Q \/ �. ■�� ^its •`' : �.":W w.w'"i. - �'F �,{ J � ' i r .ir■C:.. 00 Y '•ae -•V�r fl„ nob•- .-�_ it-1 .�J .1 `� Y• /� t '', 1 - -••� , - -- 'n 1A:`.;,�'' } `Aq 4�'�-• `�1 - .o c c. , 5 00AG. ; e�.�� n. Ac. YAlt y r' ¢ rw(r Z is r r J 1 I 7 ` �,,,i" rJ , �•af,4'..•'fr I cwaf � . � Yy t�- fvx StQR'��}�:.,�...• ...�2 ,_ $ � `rt' � i 1 .aawa,o rK , --T- , � � -� ; ;-�.;-�.� a � l _ I a �.tM ♦,� ' - � � ` �3 - • • : _ fir" IND EV �4 4 I �`�•fz - iti• + l a n! a ) 1• �Rt 5 c Y _ ..r l' II' - �1 i we � 1 -�'-' r� r-« 1 i , f,•o„u 1,'yyr"""t , �,_". awn,,: �' it � ,�': �: ...._-- .._.. -, _ - _ i, '� �•1Sr r � 1 i. � y � ..r r.Y.,. s L.y. � 'i` 1'' t I, f � »J - (/jj.:. .d , � ' Jt� 1['b �•4 a w.. '.i,.,..,,�5� ♦,+�� .r�!4�'1`a__. •::.:�Ol_..- _ � �.n•.nf^fp•.r.ri-�,rlr }1 - y�y�`ut•_yt:, '-r I`�,:F ;' �L'��l�D. i. t - .7 •;, 1,p[f-r t� , sc 4 - w,•t sar» i:9T x''� . i m t (yi►�P' 1:...., '- W i far , TITLE PAGE 4�- .•. 4!'... , " -- � ..,° �q�; �� .o,e�•7) rw.n,. '�"' .•.' i(3:t -., 1 .''it !'•I I j.... ` ," g Z- E C I I 1r p2. 1 :wWu."..' •n Y t-r,? i� yl.• ..' �•CT Jul 4 , b ff 2 TE PLAN 1 \.. P:ce�rf•- `:1'� f:wwvMl,,ft ,„a�•!';,. +If 4f. <t• �G "'row:( .•i•... .o- a r •_d< -'�,K i _t - - - _�R I.15 t I �'�.!`' �� , -� � uAsr�s0'�.+;•� .ottrrwtr.3. fir. , , .- tom..., Y+• _•_ .I -� •�.-_ _ _ �`� ?.�y� ca�r:r aw. ,r[, ♦ � duo ' "��" � � r .1 -1 '°'" °"�"'`�d ; ��'.. • 3 FLOOR PLANTS .•' ° t y' _ r.�jr�_ grin1;7 out o„cr..vfl 1t{-+ .io o Jam , S+�lr t�r�+S 1y� � ( N �,� 4� \ -a � ; ; 1 j r ,y�u� ��iA�"liu , ...� �, r� •� : • � 1 ,. 4 ROOF PLAN i! r7-�-- r -qLa I 1 f✓ �.,� i !•,f ar/tu o Off arst#r ' i i I r-+ �, I ��. I 1 � r. .)Q / d t _. t 5 ELEVATIONS ,t i,.-G, r a ■ 'Mtr sff alai o.la r_ , n'1 x J ��!c i .r.t r.'mix I �!�•1 i -\ ; - -I E I ` • --1 s 4 -- �;,�• ;� -• I I , ,fuc 1 I •r gls� 1 ur 1St �yLiN It FLLSI ' ca5•�i ` o s I �i1,,,�, �.f•tsy��- �'�al,�` � \ i '� ,.� ' • �' r � fi I _1 a' a. _1 �144Til A�1 ■ i Fpf.D 'WARIMG_ i OR }r 45_ 1 IZ i I�TAa«i•�� j--y(,`b•VdiRil-•p,i-.. j}@_ / sen Mrna� NS 1�.�CAT �pfy . N s? - .j; I $ ` 1 I. <I -(-t sl I vv, i �, F.ii�• '�� a 1 i. 1 # A , _ • I $tes•' a 9 E FVi SEE IAAI -- AMENDMENTS TO PR ZONE - 1 1- ,•�"VELOP1 T STANDARDS f 25.24.250): AC A� Single family attached, two family dwellings, and multiple p family dwellings shall be as approved on the development plan; t V: single story single family detached shall comply to either the R-1 8, 000 standards or R-1 10, 000 standards, whichever f applies, ,c 1 Two. story single family detached shall be as follows: � F w 1. Minimum �front yard, 20 feet • 2. Minimum rear yard, 25 feet n 3. Minimum side yards, 15 feet 4. Maximum building site coverage, 25% kl `� 1 2. MINIMUM SEPARATION eETWEE-N SIDES OF BUILDINGS ( 25.24. 260 ) : , ,•� Single story single family detached buildings shall be a �:' • minimum of 10 feet; I ,. Two sto-y single family detached buildings shall be a minimum Cam• a� Of thirty fae-c be•�:�resn two scary elements. , S J L C ,;�j Q F ;wS (� •ys 1 3. Bt�IL02:NG NE].GH1' t5.?i 2.$1` � 3../s11■t:./rr. , i ..�'._ - �,.....:.• _. . .. . . M � it ssvr b o�-+:az y a�'so U l i) �It�j�f lfj>.Ir �•.ntr.IY,.{ •..7•� , 1 t« 1 r T2ae mdxirat;tr, height- in a PR district shall be twenty-four feet or twc story, rah!c,.l�.e•�er is ?ess . y • T:� STORY ir' SINGLE FrL•MI LY DETACHED SETBACKS F'RON PROJECT PERIMETER j � , � � + ; � r t 2�5.2Q.37.1 ADDED) • 'HE $ASS' kkti I OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OP THE SOUTNEAS�'T QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUAP.TER OF 112MON 4, 'TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, C „c.r j JM.4 i t wrr t ter.. s rb r____ _�...,_-._i, K r.•.. •� j�; I in . BAN BLRNA1tD7CN0 BASE AND MERIGII►N1 :� .� ,..... ,•,' / { j r `The �ani:nun� setback from the project perimeter for single - i A. • family detached buildings shall be one hundred feet or one lot 1 . ...,. depth, whichever is more. EXCETTING T1iEt2EF1i0M THE l40UfiItERLY 44 I;EEx, CONVEYED 2'O THE COUNTY •4P PiVE�iMX, BY DROV RECOADto UA`-' 20, 1.958 19 OOOX 2273 PAGZ 478 OrtICIAL 9MCORD8 OP RIVARSIDE COUttTY, CAbXr'4pxi:A) B. The planning commission 'may waive interior setback requirement when adjacent developments are planned simultaneously. �sw t� ' _ f EXCEPTING p2r'y.1 Pv;1t;z xNa To TNT' bWITML) fThTE.4 Or Mftl?XCA ALT., OI ,, t � kb � y � iiOf � ' J3, �. t ••••�•. �; � jogs Arta c•THER hlimr,.Ab DEPOBI T� AMET % „,.. N. ' �..r i PIP, I �:�R WITH z�x� �xc�'r 9 O PRQSi LCT r-% o:� + '° ..` �_ � _-{ aJ � .,� I .�:,.- 't?R, MITE, f�1D REMOVE 'rRE 6'�►1 t hecoRm9o; TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE U a 3 , I - ! ` a j a c7' OF JUIIE 11 1,930 , ,,h RrC9Et.JRa YN '9P.' PA'TEIr i RECORDED MAY 6 3,959 ' I j _ - ` •_f- - -- --- �11g nisi: pAirI�T i4o, !e 9 i i o UPFiC iii itconC3 OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, F,.,T,•O;i�11A, s �b _x t +..s, t rtZ�! ■wr sr s.+..< �..�. w.�o.. sir. .rr.� � a3s.�_ t?r.. �, c�rrnx uvART�F2 0�' �•_ - ,.�_.�ti # T#tF 8CIt1`Cfi1 F. 1' i;ClA.c`•12WC. OF ;SSc'2':l:t%N 4, � tYWRVIP !) SOUTH RANGE 6 ERST, X. EA.�J sEttNAfil.`�t'�C� �iA9E AND I3�R'.s�IAJ':1 2XCE1, 7 11G T)i%Rt�'R09 TO THE E+: tPIW913 Sl riffSO, ALTO COAT,,, f p �tm ' Olt,,//, GAS►� t'!1`.U ii}} /1/tiet - fJa •r,� •+s.• � �i,r. ��t � r"„ ( 1 1 `" "` i.r►r�n Ir O PATEti1` -D, TOORTHER WITH THE - - i �tTG�il' TO PROSPECT FOR, M3NE Aldr itEt�14YE THE SAME ACCORDING TO THE -_ •�'=pR0VXG1ON.S OF SAID J1eT OF OUNM 1, 1038, AS RLSEFI►ED IN THE PATENT LCORM 71PRIL 14, 1976 A8 1NHTRUl� ZWT NG. 72486 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS c rrrr ccus -- - DO OF RIVER91DE COLIMY, CALIN MITA, '2 , ��41 r , l� t. - Not .�b25 r rs.�I-�rt 'o 'a�_-� R-^ To Scale of d - _ ._.-. �t Or parowu . y.rrcSs4*'•a u f fuss far surged Ion or d.v*V r ,r rasa tr»rt from 1 wi- i - - .......f,..r.f.. r•,wrfsae••.-• - - '•+�aA°>w••+v:M•,w'•vAew*ua•w+,,:'JxV-.-..,,agg1..., ......:.. 4#'n.....e:.ey.yly.w•+•✓....-,,+u ,-. _..-x'YM1Sa' v.-,w :t-:�,�-,. Pv e....i,. -.., _n,Y. .,.._ -, .w. .-. .. .... - .:, e...^ 0i:T4'vsM. N:`riYY•1Y.,Yf-+V,.:: 1. '.,." - yWIkM,A� p4 +A+®-:"+�.^..q^T.^, .'T..,we•,..,.-.,:.w.m.a.... ,..r ,,.,.wr v» .�:.. ,. ,.., t'.uii,.aFi."wes,w.ww.-•or-we.r..,� .. _. .LIRbnWrw0.►:,.m,...r.w .,,r.:,...w,.. .'«.....-r, .....,q.,-+ipe-w,.-...,.».,_ y� I __ .. „ .-.F•----p"rr.........e „. ...a• .. :.".-x,. �".^ram:. .:a....v,.. ,,..- .- ,.. ._,.',�.t -.:.�.. >. 4.,..,. _:...,. _:.. .... ..•,.Y3 ppa:- .,..,ram a' t •.-°,w•„ -ram"-."•,-- ,'<., :.,. ,. ,., .:,>.,. ,. ... I frym�t�akca�e° .z ,",�°•,.�.•., 1 ',: ... as-.x.:.. _s....'-.. ... .. � aiw,• g..,, +c`�.....,i^a�,: „s� .,,,_. ',� '.: ec�all Description & NotesDevelopment 'r' � • . Scope of .._-w�.._..... w..a., .�. Developer t ,.. , • P.M. 165/93 Parcel Map 25799 9.67 acres on Count Club drive Country Regency Homes #fin KassovicAlA, Architect - 568-2565, Assessors Map BK. 620 pg 20 x Condominiums - Clusters Riverside County, California Tennis Courts 77670 Springfield Lane, Coachella Valley Engineers - Lindsey Lamberson 360-4200 T.R. A 018-082 _ Swimming Pools Suite 4A Palm Desert, CA. 92260 �4 Two Car.Garages , 21 & 29 _ - Guest Parking & �freet Parking PeterSolomon 345-9080 t. CI-I g7 't994 - r. , ,.. ... -.. ." _-v^!Am4ifA'.U9^4NAKARW:IR^'•' y i��',:YIH+'"+",Iy4iWd'a.rp•w .ru,:"::' .^, <::: ... !y`t '...'. 3,..,.�ga .$- .`� _r - • •a ... ,s.. 'a4'.. ', r VACANT 4-q . 4 ; Jor 19 GARDEN UNITS � - 17 VIEW UNITS � « ------ 00 A BI r • .. . Ida : -- _ ! _ , .r., . , -� _ • . • _ _ CRASH GATE .._ _ _ � z.o. ____ 0 3r�.o o � �.4°•°= —".�z - r,. Q D F -- A C C D A B B D _ > - 0 C C � t� D C C B B A _ B LP B 8Lj t3 POOL AREA i } ENTRY N > o, z CABANA �{25,n ± -- -' — -- --a -- ,� �� _._ _�. .�. _ FIRE LANE _ J _ �' GATE - « r cc �-T NNJ� , 1 D , VACANT , A B C C D B O �-- D C C C� F1 -- — D B B DLF B C4 C) B B A - 0 CRASH GATE: , . ._ ......—_...___- Y� A B VACANT PRELIMINARY _SITE DISPOSITION PLAN SCALE 1" =:60' , 213D . 2BATI-i '�4u FT2 y EIRM 2E'.ATH 9G0�T2 16 w .t 315DRNI 3BA i�-I 2250FT2 12 28DF�( .2BATH 13or T2 13 STCJRY 46 �} w 4 SECTION A-At 4' SECTION B-B' - C. p4� fet 1 1 1 O ;I LT I Al, 1 1 , ro 1 e � I • i JTT1 or 40 41 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING PLAN a s. ,.....cam ..,..,.,,.....,...,:.....d.,.,.�.,.,...«..,,«,,..,...�. .::, ... .. :.-,:. ..:;..• ..,,v::...:..a. ..... ::,, �. r.> ., ...ar :�;e,�[. .... _, 2•. _. 1 _ _ -d��"—'�'�'+.._.:w-` eeu.,.. _ _.._ _. ._,_._ _.-......____------.—,---_—.-.�-._._ ,...:.,.:,,�,,. -'-Y.-,.,�..,.-ter•.• ....�..,��.,.�._ .�....+ws�^-°,.�.r=-,.e....waen<. -' --- _ .. ... u -. -• _..-. .:+.e •. ,• :r:i•0. 4•i. 'C!iA'v.•�:A'v'kegc1.�9MW�i.-,Kns.MA:., a"a:. -- .Developer Cortsuifants _ Coachella Valle Engineers - Lindsey Lamberson 360-4200 Y 9 y, Regency Homes - Stan Ka sovic Aih, Ardv9ect - 5f8-2�aB5 ; 77670 Springfield Lane, Suite 4A Palm Desert, CA. 92260 it EN 1 Peter Solomon 345-9080 1�RRCH 17. 1g94 1 i 44'_ o 4��-- 0�► 1 j I Ej - — j e !�I j r a � y e I I • 1 ! � • V o --- --- -_- __.-- = ----. -.- —-- -r F' Ad I Diu L I Ur �I I •/a�'� � �� 1P, 00 T 0 ' y, . . 8- VN\-OA .� -- 0 bath I 2 646 2 ha+h3 Q , IV p7Q2 tK 2 bay LA 2 • i E 0 a 2M e2 El' 61 2 j1`�Aft trt 3, i �.� 1-7 _ �._ - El -' t a — !1 j 1-7 4t, L00 j� nr n u ,,. . LOWER FLOOR lPPER FLOOR A r .t T do+� sr FEES' �O ET U50 SQ FEET =E'` �. 3 O ET STIORE .�. B, 7 1 JU S FE (2 Y'j " W ryI A M I y R 4 FLOOR PLANS 1/e„ SCALE ' y. + :u t . . ...' --- -'�erra.+�+ss�erwy+a� a+we�.rw.y�'a'�.e sp.m n'"�r"'.'i3�6iur'�e•.,i"Y9�e'7n � � --- -_ _ _. .. :_. ... ....- :ate>s,:'..:-..:.•.•, >:s.:.:,..,a, e:.w_.,.� - - - --.___ _— v even e OC`I6Uitc�• tlts t Regency Homes Coachella Valley Engineers - Lindsey Lamberson 360-4200 77670 Springfield Lane, Stan Kassovic ALA, Architect - 568-2665 Suite 4A Palm Desert, CA. 92260 j i la Peter Solomon 345-9060 MARCH 'i 7, 1 994 �a , } f , f t • A i C C D IL LIL LL If I Q 0 TRY 00EDLn ED ' _ UEN C4 ENTRY .. CLUSTER A-C-C-D ., _ y E1� = Y FLOOR FLAN 1 /8"SC. i GARAGE � � GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE x Tu L`�-- - - - r- - J I , : Jl CONC. TILE ROOr" INf.� I � RIDGE I I r nA • . 1 E F T f L•AT ,` •.�( 1 I _. OPEN FLAT 13 { i 4 A ( i ( ' I RIDGE `t1 t f . r �► ( + - — - i � 1 ji , FLAT � I' t— " • , 1 # -----— _ --� -I- • I . - - _. .... —.. ._ —1 I , _ 7.1TT`i�T( (I - - � ► 1 ( +� �-JJ . p i ,�. �� it ; ( — OPEN ROOF P LLilt— AN 1 /8 S C. 1 Ti 41 , FL4 OPEN + �--1 z --j 1 = OPEN FLAY. 1-4 + MAN, ARD { { (� , MANSARD ► _ e .rf eveloper Consultants Coachella VaNey Engineers - Lindsey Lamberson 360-4200 Regency Homes r Stars Kassovle Alk' Arch sect 5fi8-2Gfi5 77670 Springfield Lane, Suite 4A Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Peter Solomon 345-9080 `ARCH 17, 1994 _. -. ,,. . ;:....:, ., .. ...:... .,,.z.r x+.,.-•.::..g .-:ma %r'?: x+sc +r'&i'-:',W`-+erM: .tl+N••t'V..s... ffi 3*k%:n4iWti'[RAkrm:/&..,., 't J: ._ .pzx'+5t""t•.ro}at III ,.-..v.... Y.. -... .,.. .- . 1 { `I I i I tt o FINISH MATERIALS 1. ROOFING @ SLOPE: CONCRETE T1L1 ---- �. M 2. ROOFING @ FLAT: BUILT UP d GRAVEL 3 WALLS- PLASTER, INTEGRAL TWO COLOR 4, GLASS: PER TITS - � � E ?4 I 5. METAL FRAMES- COLORED ALUMINUM - - — 6.'ENTRY DOORS: S.C. WOOD } l , S. PERIMETER ANU �A IAL ROLL UP , 7. GARAGE DOORS: M GARDEN VtiIALL$: MASONRY —.- - __—_ ___ a. ...-._r..—."_.-........s.-�.......,.rw....r....v...w:r.rrn—...new.w»...�..ww.....w_•.rv...as...rr.srw.:._e+�w. w.vnrrw.��.ww.w.a.wsw...w�+n..++i_'�+u..w... - ,w.-...�.v.«.r..��+w.�rr.a.. 9 PATIOS AND WALKWAYS: COLORED CONCRETE RONT-ENTRY ELEVATION .w. .. _. r , J F. DiniQ Ell , �� i , • , SIDE-7 ELEVATION �. SIDE-ELEVATION 77 a I i " REAR-ELEVATION _ .1-C­,- LUSTER A-C-C-D 1 /8 ' sc. 6 i r Y IJ e { , 1 { pit Y :i a r —x .".,:.sw..n•w..+w.+^a+r.•..:., - -. ..she-s,.nele.+..-...... '��prs„u*f''.,.^F"'"•rmw+v..rt+��+'* ..'.+R..w. Mi+9"*i. R..'! ..": .. .: :. .. .^.,. .:. r v. —. -. � _ A*Sb'�5 .-... .� .a. .4..M. .v'i .ass.. .., .. vy.....:�.: ...t _ xx;; s � -• YJ'.3^"R l W3 Ni5/+SSThIR';AG. x."#++&'., `.lys".r;+v`-pft.,.-.rvF..'Aa�1 r ..- mSe -^.� ♦ '. ..... e s. i4z'a'l,�F'�'Ae:'�`t-.. °w,� 5 �;ar r � ' �.,fi.>s ,.�.....�.�.,.«�-<..ewM•.:�l...wr.,»u-,. _ -av�.�,'ra�sr;--.w-" I n 1 � VACANT 12&( - 4 die 19 GARDEN UNITS 27 VIEW UNITS ZD. I � 3D-O CRA H GATE MAN. ,� TRIP . l 0 D 1 A, C C D p A B B C • D C C B B A B _. D B B D 1 POOL AREA I � _ V_1­7_111 i7d T y _ENTRY YP CABANA — +FIRE LANE' _ _ � { o � GATE 1 i ,+ �i � - — i D VACANT A B B C C C, C D , B LJ7 Ca _ ---- D B B D B 8 A B _. I c 1i Q 1 2nyQ - 1 20.o r t CRASHGATE N r, - _ - � �N -7r A VACANT PRELIMINARY SITE DISPOSITION PLAN SAL P 5o' g f ,w 26DRn 2aAT�� 1ac)r3FT2 5 5 ?BCDWA 2B.ATH 190OFT2 16 C 38DRK1 3BA i H 225OFT2 12 280RM 2BATH 1600FT2 _ 13 - S TCrR Y 4$ r� SECTION A-A' SECTION B-B' 41 4 - - - - - - 0 10 JTR t i PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING PLAN �p •NUM^^. .. ,: ... .. f-, nf',Sfi::'Js.. .�. ..r-r s. +,V. .... 4�.. -.�,^... .'�" ..t. a,:,.. 1F °' ,. :a ... .:........ s. ._'. .�-,.... ,_- ,._,.,.-.x..-_,..... ._-_ <_..a_.._._. .. �.�,�., -.. ---_•-.'[----''nrwev'Tememc..�r.-+v.+ra'-+a-artc+eas.-" --,.::,�,c+-rn-•__�+..s+- �.x,- .:.,.turz a 7r.n ."r war,xc - weer en-rrrcr-._:'-.-r. � '�--'-^�^------ —•-- - �.--,..---._+----- -_-,_� _— ---- -' --_.- -�._--...---.-_..-_ --_.._ -:_�._ ---.-..�-.._- � ,�:.. . tY...:v:. ._n. -:. r .-ti♦ �e ne::. _ �n.xx,Ta 'sx. y.n D Consultants Coachella Valle Engineers - Lindsey.Lamberson 360-4200 Regency Homes y 9 Y, Stan Ka ssovic AIA, Archifect - �B-2665 77670 Springfield Lane � N Suite 4A Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Peter Solomon 345-9080 i IIr�ARCH 17, 1994 � 1 P-1 B$ ,*.ro=,_..�..w,r -w._.,.t=++tee„= .aa•^. .,..,..,ro..,..., ..., ,<,. .:,,.r u.+,- .. a t .t,-,w:*'+�yj • n'Ac-.sw�r.+w,wae-r,:>a. .. .:.�xatwRra:.:•�reww•*..erkwawmtrygr - �ui-:, - ?. ....'IFiSYFe�"rrU: S,.�L.1 ..- mtS+• .�..:.... ....,.,„a. K "K'k.. :,F, k;„:.,z � .::. - _ - - h 1 :.._ .. ..,. 1 COOK � 1 . - '� m o STREET 0 10' 20' JO' 40' 50' 50, 100' 150' r I i A.P.N. l020-200 - O-fZ tp i i I m i i A.PN. 620-200-03/ 1 A.P. N 620-200- 053 A.P.N. 620- 200-052 ~ +, M � i FRANK 3/NA7R.0 OR/✓E --- -- - -- _ _ - - 01°11'55"E. 81.6' / - ,,11 � coiivrRr cc✓e oRire '' W x _ I Q ►- 38 24' I i � 44' � O W ' LOT � � 1 i \ ,4..f' rREARi../G! pRi✓E ry� �125 LOT 1 - - - - --- . T , r APPROXIMATE AREA = 9.8 ACRES 'k �r bar �_ ��'� C . -- -- --- — — — � - LOT A VICINITY MAP A.PN 620-200-0/,¢ C ' zt �a, uj N Lti`'�� �� �\ cl / CO 16) A.P.N. 620-200-02 W o a A.P.N. 620-200-029 V r a ti •� ►:i J 4 N. 01°11'55"E. 1281.4' I A.PN. 620-200-028 A.P.N. 620--000-O/3 I A.P. N. 6ZO-000-000 i +, I AP/V. 620 -200-050 RAY 4I ls� y A.P.N. 620-200-OZ7 m N? ' m A(EANDERIN6 51DEWAI-K 24p2% 1r i M/N. �/ 2/O EX/ST STREET 2 /C - - UTILITIES: ELECTRIC: d- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON POR TOLA A VENUE -• — r PHONE. zar GTE - -- - - ----- - -_ r„ AA ATER AND SEWER: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DIST. NATURAL GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE STREET SECTION CABLE TELEVISION: NTS COLONY CABLEVISION IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ZONING: PR-5 (EXISTING & PROPOSED) CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DIST: DESERT SANDS SCHOOL DIST. TOPO INFO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD T N T AT IV,'= Ma , A P CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT MAP PREPARED JULY 18, 1975 17 ARCHITECT: STAN KASSOVIC 7R,, AC- T ■ � ~ RA ROAD RANG5� ,d (FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES � RANCHOO MIRAGE, CA 92270 (619) 568-2665 l6, 16. ENGINEER/ MAP PREPARER: COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEERS A.P.N. �n��n o�0 21 ©�Q iV V ..11 (R"VALUE OF 40) 77-899 WOLF ROAD A Z r. A i 2% �D SUITE 106 BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92203 A PORTION OF THE SE. 1 /47 OF THE (619) 360-4200 . _.... . -: - -..� OWNER! SW. 1 /4 OF SEC. 4, T.5 S., R.6 E., S.B.M. SUBDIVIDER: PETER SOLOMON TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET SECTION REGENCY HOMES 77-670 SPRINGFIELD LANE A/o7E: PR/VATS STREETS SUITE 4A N-TS, PALM DESERT, CA 92211 (619) 345-9080 0 ceachela tia:�'?ev E^ iree� 77-899 W OL=RCAJ. SL= I C6 3't47,-4_CC B A DUN- . C-\ 9==C3 i�Y i c i 9l -dC-4_-C4 MAR 2 3 1994 i e 1 I 1 WOOD WINDOWS -- CLAY ROOF TILE � 1r STUCCO Lux Al n y �I 3 � S t :.,e ' „ ��.�` A y„,7 : ...,,. ,. ,,z.' / �t 1�`'s , r"':` .._•a`r� _ a,�t: - V � kw' _ , •- / � F •i • _ j A 1 r.. s r , �f v r u I I try ti Y r y .. i -. - .. .:.�. ..+.:•r«c_•r.' Y. :.,:. , ....-. }r.... ».: `�r _`'ram- - .. Y :.. V PAVILION �1� �, � 1: ELE AT10 i x r , t , - r. r ? r » r - - CLAY ROOF TILE . STUCCO STUCCO CLAY ROOF TILL Ji 1 s \>, •n :,: ,.• +, - r,.,_. '�^, ,.,.. ,.... a .,si 't.n, d: F, : 7s Hill too 00, . . I r S i • . �) . r.... a �..t ......+xw ;. _ • • _ ". F�`. "' .. _ ,.. � .e. ;,�, �• _...., / {J s c` OOD WINDOWS STUCCO PATIO WALL WOOD WINDOWS STUCCO PATIO WALL CHARAC E EVa� �� st �Ls�r vt AE a 1 STUCCO WROUGHT IRON RAILINGS CLAY ROOF TILE t � Ll e d , �I $, • � r «. \ -.. r •„`. ,. �,;... ,. .., , • '144.1 . " f - 1 - .yq�,nmswwrxraa�-"ltn s:-+a+M1^' '".•+,snserr»•rn,;.r.'ruv++--w � _.., 'ey. s.. an: 2� R {j .. „y a�.\.; ,_ a u-s, r.'.4. '. ,.► , '.L. ..._� � wl.�,ll n H :� :#L. t '&'» sJ^.. .- _4 �--�1• ,.. ,F•3`, r3+1.:.. _ , ,r I s _ -mow- a" I s II '' •i: � � a. �� a � r 170 t R , y t gg .n — .. _ „ • _._ �,^".." � • �._.. _ _, M _ � R — —� ____ � - — �"�, - tee.,.-�:...- � r m ,r r , • N1�,, _ STUCCO PATIO WALL TILE F I I , i x HMI, A 1 ELEV�T101' TW4 STD ' AP�1RTMENT BLDG t. �I tt I I Si ':`+a.� ., : ,: .:.' ,. .,..es .... _ u'.,z•< ..-a ,a�..- _,.,,.. `,�tr�:„g;�k.mess-a ..a„n^�,.a�x.:a¢..c,.os. . >r:eed;-z'.>a c a. , i M .u x� ,n r, m - x. 1,4 mom It x. � � ww"�*r r , , ..... ..f , „>a.. -..:. ��,. "`••� ,.. , a. t , . f�- ram. ,.. t,a .:...:. , .- ...-..,. , .. r• F... �r:. .-. a c .': a .,.-: _ +. ,: ,..,., » ..,. .... _:.. .'rn.+.::: a, $:.. i rxt „}f, a rY*i.' ,,. .,, , y r .:,.P r,x. .,-.x.h a.. r. „ .dk n:iN,T` •rm." xeUd- ... .. ..,. r u,Kata- '4:.:rk. , •,',-' ✓ ..' •„ x ,wr :, -:, s,. ',.. .,. .t• t �•e��� .•..,and<^'. „ _�.. . ",k*"u.,e. ... y+R r .,rt. +�: ' I j r WOOD WINDOWS --- CLAY ROOF TILE �-- STUCCO y I l r * s • i } : 5 tt ' , M.� Y , y,.�+�v ,.�y+�y�.. a - r , -.. .+.L,/...■ a' -. Yfv' .S i `.+,�:r .. ` m ..,. .•'�..i a .. '..• _.��_. - .. ,. ..c a. t_. __ _ —. m .. _ .,a � _`Y.._...:em..r.,w.•+.+f,+.:i[ -.' ,. ..,., sTrl .. :. .. :'..... „ 317 . ! S �s. 4 1fii�f t, rt $ u, _ . tt F rs ,-: ., V 4 '.A, •;: .»,� }1 "' } .r . y ,e sf ( �=,,.�' ,. v�.•: ', ! r �� :�� � I�� �'.'3ar f � fi 't„ �:�� F,' ��� III � S# 11( , a � . i � <., v. P .. Lek {(9y *S ]■ {j/ „ r .a • _. ,, a • -•.•ate, _ '_ _, ,� f/ .x - r .J i a' 'y r ...,.•' .... ..... AI'.w..:5._,=..,w'-: is ,.,._ sr � \+,,: ','• ;. �"" 0A .Y •` C H A Pv AELEVATION,EPAVILION t , , < I �.. .�. ,.:' � -'r._,,, :,, t. :. "::y . A sox I1 - .- t.x'• ` �! - 1 t .r .. #. .., N • : . .. ,.. ._. r.a , r -:*... of 00 ' --CLAY ROOF TILE ..STUCCO STUCCO CLAY ROOF TILE • a A I000 60 op Al h} ma I* I lull 1 µµ l,h , , , , , 11 1j f y�. a. • i -,� L .. ..,x•,� t !� .: x ;.:. ,T�_.:., •A e ♦� 1 rx, t , s, • ¢ ! Fri$ ° ,A f for OOD WINDOWS STUCCO PATIO $WALL WOOD WINDOWS STUCCO PATIO WALL CARHAC -R ELEVATION ' SINGLE STOM11Y VIL LA �t STUCCO WROUGHT IRON RAILINGS ----CLAY ROOF TILE .000 VA 7311 , i ' . w k 2. '�.^ ...ta...4 ,. ..,....:4; ,• ; .Y A:- `•m WM4'•YK:.., o w..-;,.•a...y#�__..�.-.. mM R alY1r.W:u.Ye.. -__... _.�.v�- _.� _'t. _� _ _ I _ , n•P • � 5 999 S . r I .4 - - ,� r .Rq...,.„.,.-sy6 �4 • 1 �i ,�"^`Rl � ;-� -� ! � �F r T f „ 277 x. -- . _ a ;. • 40 • • ............ — _ • • , c STUCCO PATIO WALL -- TILE M v " CHARACTER ELEVATION TWO STONY APARTMENT' BLD t, • - • p , r; t: d" r.Y} �a t , �.5. .. .. r .., ., .. . ." a __..:. „• i ^,,.. � ` :'.t' `�' ,',�` fir,' '�: e , . » , u a •.+Vt: ...::. � ,.:.. - ., :, , .. „ ,. , .. a :,: , _4 x w'ti4 r' „ %e ..--.,a,. : :,.:.. :::.': ,..: �t n .: ,_. a.: 1, -.„. r,. F .,. v............ .. .....::. r :::� :.,.-, w.•ss•eR,- "°aa'._ Am .: .. ,.., -. :; :',. .. ,.- :.. a _ ,..: : f .,:. ,.-. •` � �••, 'r,4 ems. x Ll e. j4k 41 LU' ..@; ..:,yt•.. , v,na-.m zR",^",. -.:,-..' .., .., t.:.y -_. :. .. .:.'; 2 yy , 1 v. �_---'•-- _.... x_ ---_. :�_...._.__.rr--- —aa,r,r---ter.__—v. ... ,..,: , v_ x,. , :. -, :+. e a 1' „•.. , , a:' ... _ 'x;t. i ,...,`::. .., .. e Isx, ,.K�.. ,• ,i1'k:f, , - - ,: r � ', :.'.. ,:: ., V .. , .. a !' • � ... .,, x,. , ::':'. 1 `{.,., , ,.,. ,,, t ., f, ., x : .,,.,: r.: ,. x r, '.nnn",.. '.1' sY.'Mr., A , ur ,..t •..,.,e •F :..fir^. .,. , ..:. ,:. .. ,, ,..,. P � � r � ` ,� • fir,. � ,, ,� � �.,.•. 1ST �� w ` � -- • - _ ., ' •, � `.. III _ . ► ..• 1 1 ^m 7 •lb t � r son a Al � � i•ir■• ® 1 ; w �i •• J � I = � s '8,>� �► � �� — is � � : -c - � .. I II I I..1111 J. • ■ � ,,,�� : _ r _ -'� � �� it � I /. �� •/ - 14 '1 '; - ....., ..► ,.� .�• _l r.. . _ - .. _ =Via'.. ,f•'- � � ---� �, � �,�' � ,,.. �" �,- `t `.,,_, . • •�.. �' ice' 1 , � -k ' ` .�1r \ -+, ���♦'"��..:`�.- '�" - �'1� , � ' t� / �` 13 ---iw N ��_ NOW IIIII1I111 c v I ►:. f - • 1 Irk I ► • u IrF � I I i ILI i I II CM � ^ ,_� � ■•'•ilI1U111-..-'.•.li`��I ��i•rC 1 • `• \"\- w �� ���-•, •�_� � a t>t�� ..•... i i i p _ 1 v r [ _ • y iiii iii n •,� '.CS' � v ' --�_ s J `."/1 . .• � � � � �,� ► � •� � \ 1✓ �•:ri:::� , :��=ice� � a -- � =; �� v I , A•.ry ., ... :::C.'L:■ C :::ilia. a I r \ uu ......■... _ Ob a ..._...... - 1 o • • + - .'•+ y � •sa - 1 . �1�� � � �/ ...�'� ` •u-u::::N ..511=�_ ' 1' i- 1]►a•��irr s.. MIM .a r."��� ♦ �- d_ ! �� �� s- . �e� HRLS�y DESieH eRa• WOMM j! 1 �� 7 i� • _ l�a.tea vi 1 _./iii• _ _ _ —'�i'fc�c � .JILL1 : 7 1 a J c II z i.i