HomeMy WebLinkAboutDP 05-78 - 200 UNIT CONDOS FILE2 1978 B.. L. & Jean A. Balch George C. Stone Rayond E. & Juanita Norman
73841 Pinyon 43831 Joshua Rd. 72820 San Juan Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260
White Sun, Inc. Jack D. Wilkinson Rod P. Dean
P. 0. Box 1000 Ian H. Rednall R & D Dev. Prop.
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 4145 Paseo de Plata 14528 Archwood
Cypress, CA 90630 Van Nuys, CA 91405
1600 Lincoln Co. Lacy Marlette Emaline C. Cook
Don Gittelson James R. Gill Michael & Vivian Kay
9171 Wilshire Blvd. Ste 310 266 Rancho Camino 38480 Poppet Canyon Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Fallbrook, CA 92028 Palm Desert, CA 92260
Robert L. Hurstrom Esther C. & Stanley Shayler Margaret & A. F. Nally
Michael J. Gibbons 73-702 Shadow Lane, #6 1239 S. Glendale Ave.
640 Churchill Palm Desert, CA 92260 Glendale,. CA 91205
San Dimas, CA 91773
,Kim A. Young. Mary & Henry Sottile Joycelyn Kirkpatrick
Sharon L. YoundTJ 4304 Babcock Ave. Apt. 101 72790 Arboleda Ave.
43-630 Joshua `� Studio City, CA 91604 Palm Desert, CA 92260
Palm Desert,,,_CA:92260
Donald„Brener—&,Melvin Milda P. Bennett Thekla E. Jurgen;Meinhold
Rowan andstuart Bisk 73860 Flagstone Lane 46155 Portola
7995-5 St rdust Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260
CI-ndi-aa�WeU-s, .CA 92260
Steven & Sharon Brown Bernard Schatz et al Charles G. Hutter
36770 Palmdale Rd. 3826 Huron Ave. P. 0. Box 67455
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Culver City, CA 90230 Los Angeles, CA 90067
R A.W , Enter-pr-i es Terry & Eric Wahlberg Barbara & Robert Nichols
7 j �' d A 72764 San Juan Dr. 636 S. Reese Place
Los Angeffs, 0036 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Burbank, CA 91506
Teofista T. & James Berkoben Palm Desert Congregation
Christine A. Smith 72780 San Juan Dr. Jehovah Witnesses
Kade C. SMith Palm Desert, CA 92260 P. 0. Box 161
43769 Joshua Rd La Quinta, CA 92253
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Barbara & Michael May John Gorman
Karen Bendtsen 72808 San Juan Dr. Evelyn Valentine
43780 Joshua Rd. Palm .Desert, CA 92260 Evenly Willey % C. G Hutter
Palm Desert, CA 92260 10640 Riverside Dr.
No. Hollywood, CA 91602
DP 05-78 1 of
Rod Dean
Ace Approved Appliance
& Maintenance
14440 Hamlin St.
Van Nuys, CA 91401"
Thomas & Susan Bernstein
43-600 Hoshua Rd.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Ronald & Sherri Clark
43-660 Hoshua Rd.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Gladys Mattson
43-720 Hoshua Rd.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Terra Industries, Inc.
P. 0. Box 82417
San Diego, CA 92138
DP 05-78 2 of 2
Page -1
NAME AND ADDRESSES OF PROPERTY OWNERS
FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
BONITA PALMS
CASE NO. JOB NO.
PARCEL NO. NAME ADDRESS
/ 73841 Pinyon
621-290-004 B. L. and Jean A. Balch Palm Desert, CA 92260
P. O. Box 1000
621-290-004 White Sun, Inc. Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
✓ 1600 Lincoln Co. , Pt. 9171 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 310
621-290-008 c/o Don Gittelson Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Robert L. Hurstrom 640 Churchill
/ 621-311-001 Michael J. Gibbons San Dimas, CA 91773
Jack D. Wilkinson 4145 Paseo.de Plata
621-311-002 Ian H. Rednall Cypress, CA 90630
Jack D. Wilkinson 4145 Pasco de Plata
621-311-003 Ian H. Rednall Cypress, CA 90630
621-311-004 Sally L. Wade
/ Kim A. Young Joshua Road
,/ 621-311-005 Sharon L. Yound Palm Desert, CA 92660
Donald wan
Brenda J. Rowan
Melvin L. Rowan 75255 Stardust Lane
621-311-006 Stuart Bisk Indian Wells, CA 92260
/ Steven Brown 36770 Palmdale Road
✓ 621-311-007 Sharon Brown Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
702 South Highland Avenue
621-311-008 R.A.W.A. Enterprises Los Angeles, CA 90036
Page 2
NAME AND ADDRESSES OF PROPERTY OWNERS
FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
CASE N0. JOB N0. BONITA PALMS
PARCEL NO. NAME ADDRESS
Christine A. Smith 43769 Joshua Road
V 621-311-009 Kade C. Smith Palm Desert, CA 92260
43780 Joshua Road
621-311-010 Karen Bendtsen Palm Desert, CA 92260
43831 Joshua Road
�21-311-011 George C. Stone Palm Desert, CA 92260
Jack D. Wilkinson 4145 Pasco de Plata
621-311-012 Ian H. Rednall Cypress, CA 90630
Jack D. Wilkinson 4145 Paseo de Plata
621-311-013 Ian H. 'Rednall Cypress, CA 90630
Lacy Marlette 266 Rancho Camino
/621-311-014 James R. Gill Fallbrook, CA 92028
Esther C. Shayler 73-702 Shadow Lane, #6
621-311-015 Stanley V. Shayler Palm Desert, CA 92260
Esther C. Shayler 73-702 Shadow Lane, #6
�621-311-016 Stanley V. Shayler Palm Desert, CA 92260
3731 Wilshire Blvd.
629-030-004 H. F. Ahmanson & Co. Los Angeles, CA 90010
Mary Sottile 4304 Babcock Avenue, Apt. 101
/ 621-331-001 Henry R. Sottile Studio City, CA 91604
/ 73860 Flagstone Lane
J 621-332-001 Milda P. Bennett Palm Desert, CA 92260
Page 3
NAME AND ADDRESSES OF PROPERTY OWNERS
FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
BONITA PALMS
CASE NO. JOB NO.
PARCEL NO. NAME ADDRESS
73860 Flagstone Lane
621-332-002 Milda P. Bennett Palm Desert, CA 92260
73860 Flagstone Lane
/621-332-003 Milda P. Bennett Palm Desert, CA 92260
3826 Huron Avenue
621-332-004 Bernard Schatz, et al Culver City, CA 90230
/ 72764 San Juan Drive
/ 621-332-006 Terry & Eric Wahlberg Palm Desert, CA 92260
Teofista T. Berkoben 72780 San Juan Drive
621-332-007 James M. Berkoben Palm Desert, CA 92260
Barbara J. May 72808 San Juan Drive
621-332-008 Michael W. May Palm Desert, CA 92260
/ Raymond E. Norman 72820 San Juan Drive
621-332-009 Juanita F. Norman Palm Desert, CA 92260
3erome-_E. o�
✓ 621-335-001 Flo Tice A. Holm
R & D Development Properties 14528 Archwood
621-335-002 Rod P. Dean Van Nuys, CA 91405
Z- 2� G . Co.,-fi,
Michael D. Kay 38480 Poppet Canyon Dr.
/621-335-003 Vivian M. Kay Palm Desert, CA 92260
/ Margaret L. Nally 1239 S. Glendale Avenue
J 621-335-010 A. F. Nally Glendale, CA 91205
Page 4
NAME AND ADDRESSES OF PROPERTY OWNERS
FOR PUBLIC NEARING ON
BONITA PALMS
CASE NO. JOB NO.
PARCEL NO. NAME ADDRESS
72790 Arboleda Avenue
✓ 621-335-011 Joyce Kirkpatrick Palm Desert, CA 92260
/ Thekla E. Meinhold 46155 Portola �.
✓ 621-335-012 Jurgen M. Aleinhold Palm Desert, CA 92260
P. 0. Box 67455
✓621-342-001 Charles G. Hutter Los Angeles, CA 90067
Barbara M. Nichols 636 S. Reese Place
/ 621-342=002 Robert Nichols Burbank, CA 91506
Michael D. Kay 38480 Poppett Canyon Drive
621-342-005 Vivian M. Kay Palm Desert, CA 92260
Palm Desert Congregation P. O. Box 161
621-342-010 Jehovah Witnesses La Quinta, CA 92253
Palm Desert Congregation P. O: Box 161
✓621-342-011 Jehovah Witnesses La Quinta, CA 92253
I
-:'re•.n . ;90tC :1}••il tt1-541•f IC-.^ 12SO 3050 i� I;OL 11;• •A ..i. ./�':.',.
pD Y :p11 r66 �l !b ?1 f72tG I"F
1 `_sOs��( .A•.c �a![E 01�.0z7 621•J+1-011.1 1250 b75C . 179: S25C MIT 142 F1 1.
• ti'C s j;aA q/7 1.2rt IA:L"'.Ir
C0Y/vA CA
n!•.. ..� �,. tsf�t:•P-c^CCc.fo rac0 .nao F1 r7 IR
;C:E IT Ct�.E3s:E ISOc22 IC176 2ALr Pf;SEel 1226!
31 nl 0214K
IDE COTE RI r"+'
J1 t4 r_3 cxacl7 u
N:l^ RILXAR`
n!' 43227 A:ACIi "i 272c0 Old 001 621-341.012-4 1250 555C } RA
rAte K[fFgl 9120 lC 6 40 XC: I7i4 St50 rii ecAtl#A��N))a:•1 1
'6E :COi; at COV,111rt 156391 0176 C•= oA�F."USIT LA
LOl %0 nB C2lrCN USE CODE YY :6N1
vsr.'Z�R�5CE 6S 7
LOT 72 Pit C22 T17 0A
iOrw .555 35cr Old:0E1 621.342.001.7 875
,cL5, A 875
YF NETANDE 6 0
LOT 54 13 021ICN
L� I I
343 07-0I.77 ASSEWENi-TOLL F02 Til' YEA,' 77-79 (o0PrC270) aA - SID'a 07-01-77
W is ASSESSEE, ADDRESS, DESCRIPTION TV IRA AS/N1 NO LAND SIR IN PERS PROP EYE-111m A_1 iO ASSESSEE. ACDR!
49CC N[xyOl�5 CAOB/R.Y� i10500 011:101 621-342-002-d d75
n.: $9ap6 9wp[CECC PC C 40 00 A7S C�1WES`LIC[CACARCC�NEO E.
US
E CODIEi4 TV A CONVEYANCE 17511GORTO0L 4YEIC
LOT 53 09 02110N --- - 1 - ' - --- - _- - PJLn CcSEI 922"
-' - ME CODE Al CONV1
DAWF N JOHNpJE. LOT 73 n5 022/017 PAI
Jt CG s' VALENTINE Ep1y71`.1%C. T�500 OIt:001 6z1.342-OCS-1 'D7S� $76
Mil ]06�0 OIYC4�SIOEOypRn� C/0 : G XIfi LER 66 99S 570KCR NO L-
\\ NOR}N XOLLYNCO] [A 91602 S'r SN IRLET n.
USE CODE YY CONVEYANCE 3701 00R10LA AVE
__-_a--F VAI# DESERT 922"
•`.L07.47.13 0Ii/IN - ..--
2875 mr, CODE at CONK
KTA ERN
LOT 74 n1 0221vil PAL
Un 2434E V£ 3500 Ole-001 621-342.046-2 675 nlI 2431E 9ALLLLEEY GLEN LANE 7[ 8-00 87S N:N%Drr APO r.
p1ANGE CAL 92667
ISE CODE Tr [0'WEYAMCE 15V49 Rim MrT1 C 8R01C^..RIJ1.PDI
LOT 4t 13 Ratio 6 Pit .+C NO% A
.150 tRE CODE AN�, C[gNV[
PA`n D0 SixEiT COW JENOVAX NIINESSES 110940 Ole- z4 621-342.O1t-5 4d00 21,350 T 0 LOT 75 n1 022/017 PAL
M/t P 0 10% 6I It 0-�0 2Gd5 CXY T15
LA 0OIN7A CA l2253
72800 ER 14
PALM DESERT 12260 VELLI ,,ppqqtt X.
IRE 000E CI CMI2YANCF 4VELLI
3656 GLADpYSL n,
file I lO ACRES MIL IN L075 49. 50 t 52 n5 oPALM 0�000➢➢O 9226C0.
Of 110N ME VE
FA el XpA�`dff2AllON*NDT44 ViTNESCES N40 Olee 0117 621.312-011-b 7N0 LOT 76 r9 022I017 PAL
7RE - i 9225`. iC G•OG CXY 16CC 4 F� LpA
7pslA OVINi� U NOiC [tp pRO� y
4.
0 n P J40p-06 OC6E T. Nf�
492! CIf2M•iETANCa �R J nA-
�I ca:
.31 ACRES Pit IN LOT 51 A 02110N IISC CODE YY # CCCAVC'
�[�ryryC1[ 1 LOT 77 A 022/e17 IAu
yllplt�],Nt�IR»Lr fJ()-ALNrOON¢R ($t2{e 35ca sil:cc`1 621-NS•0C1-0 Its a�
41fS #rICOR YT R CGN�-,ACi4ME4102•I11I61 WIT i
LOT 30 9!!42116"
•a
AnE•lbu% 'i
I
p tl•11.77 AMMTERI-Y FC1 Iiq TEAR 77-7! (PfPrrti/) tls 5079 41•11-77
KI 10 14$tlw. 011111131. mKill 71Cx r/ 114 ISM we LAN! Sig 7/V VER 11
S PR!P tYE7P1IC" N*T IC 09"Hu. R #11
52N it14.
tp1f�O95-NI fil•AS•N2-1 1250 $7N 70N p97R A.
TC WI Ala J17i,
gull
IRji} �4 {1gry
#1 11212b ItAR
fLAI 3311.NO 4AIM W "PIAIi1.Y19 91t11
41" TA`.in: fT _ ....�._� __ ._ --3w U1-Nl at-54Wtd— 4r --- - - -- --- �1..-
I
•.,N,�I, '� •.'lif:~• •yn^ °1 S':'a 6,F 1;•-t1P9 Ia' ,
-n.• .a'5 .A 11262 .•
•I . n IN,luN ,.
' IC •o 'Il NNi
q SI SSI .'-0 i-77 ASSESSMENI-RCLL FC9 14E YEAR 77.71 (PR1.r1:47 P,'E
519;2
.( ♦' P• ASSESSEE. ADDRESS, CESCRIPIICN FV IRA ASMN1 NO LAV SIR •I, PERS PZP EKF•P+1.y! y.T
7y0 PAR—ME T. CN I;xi 5000 01ee-O41 Rtl q7r-409-U 1250
Y/1 J BOY 1663 TC 4-00 I250
PAL-5PR-5 CA 92262
ME CODE 11 CCN'rEYANCE
LOT 9 YB 0211066
PARTRIVIc 1. ONI6T i50 PIT P 0 BOY 1663 1-5000 018-001 621-731-010-0 1250 125P
PALM SpamCA -00
92262
USE CODE YY COVIEVANCE
LOT 1 MR 02110"
PARTRIO;E 1. DRt6HT 5000 011-001 621-334-011-1 I250
MIT P 0 SOX 160 TC 0-00 12l0
310 PALM 5PRO5 CA 92262
ME [ODE YY COWEYANCE
1AT 7 MR 021/066
DEAN ROD P. 3000E 01 -001 62 L3J5-OP I-S 1250 6250 \ 7500
MIT 1C/o44 ACE 6PPROVE0 APPLIANCE A CAINTES'ANC TC E-00 I\/
M/T 11.10 H(YA,IN Fi
VAN NUY5 CA 91401
A37A FAIRHAOEM DR
01U PALM OESER7 92260
ME CODE RI -COWEYAKE 122221 09174
LOT 72 My 17I1066
DEAN RID P. 350C 011-OCI 62I-335-002-6 375 +
MIT R 0 D DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES TC 0.00 B,y
MIT 14528 ARC HNDCD
VAN NUYS. CA 91405 ,F
ME CODE YY COWEYAN'CE 156457 12174 1.
114 LOT 71 YB 021/066
C09V EM.YALIRE C. 3500 011-COI 621-335-003-7 675
M1 31410 PC PET CANYON DR 1: 0-00 b75
PALM DESERT. CA 92260
SOLD FOR TAKES 1975-00000419.-6000
❑VE CODE YY CON:EYANCc 091761 45/77
LOT 70 MR 0211066
.y EN-I.ne
en EN-Ibex
to) PAY 51953 07.01-77 ASSESSY.ENT-ROLL FOR THE YEAR 77.71 (PRP.F270) PAY Stan
PERS PRCP EYEY111C45 NET ID ASSESSEE, ADDRESS, DESCRIPTION FV IRA ASYNT NO LAN: SIR "V PERS PROP Elryr ICN9 wr, IC
8I4 COOn EMMALINE C. 3506 CIO-00I 621-735-001-4 875 M1 U430 POPPET CANYON DR IL 0-04 1PS
PALM DESERT. CA 92260
SOLD FOR TAKES 1975-00000.195.0000
USE CODE YY LONV'EYANCE 091761 05177
LOT 69 MR 021/066
MI AL 1WRT L. 3500 Ot - 0I 621-335.005.9 87S $75
MA AL MANY [[ Tc E-E0
sic n/T 62.1 ARCHIRALD
ALTA LOMA. 11 10701
USE
[ODE rr COWEYAKE p6731 1. f6
1-07 61 MR 42310"
ALLEY LOUISE K. 34.00 018-001 621-335-006-0 :25D 7350 HCY 1750 6150
tAOR EIVIMALLII ANEpCC. TC 0-00
6PApLLM pMEy1E11 92260
NET I S6M 'MOCODE Tii� CLVIEYKNCE3307-ISSM5B for&
TOT 67 I.42110"
6Ttw im C. 33760 011.071 621-335.007.1 1250 7225 MOY 1770 6725 T T9 UA1J r M• TC 1-41law ry
T 9 m
6701 6f COIOEIAKE 482476/T175
Lai Y A 12 V 666
6A AY Y. ?elf61=.41 621.334.400.2 UP 7266 K% 1'S1 $744
, �
' - C•-S'•T A9E5YCN1-1['1 (]Q !M$ ,:AR :p;t hC•rr 1
• r.., :AJ 5ra. r
�• ASarSat r, A7,,:-a5, Cpt2;A71Cv F. Too AS-41 a; U5: E"r :Q• Pr: . ;-v ♦.-
:C•Y fILLIA- f, CCC - SI RI.Sq-/10-.
N:fi NAP. "Coe CI g #g E•CC 22c:-
+.n `�J+.7,1A`Jil SESQ[C1SY 00
.CC Gt:CgiESf7L .CMT(ArEE Ea161E4 QP77
XbE Afi4 tO1,l ICE6tYi�i 1CYAlCC /,S9 E[rP555
I.RS" 21k ANEA R.
PA9 TE LA^ IJM. Ilt-C[I 421•31t-M-1 7SC
MIL N RAMC'P CAMINO 0 '
LCESOLOCOX i� CCCN'IEIAMCEJ2I0•CC65Q♦2 tSR.
757bC[ l07 11 NI IS1024 OEBE41 MIME
Clil A�ESIC.RLE IC
OIO.CCI 621-311-CC2 2 750 .Sr
SSMi'rT ?"LpLPSOTOki40[AMINO 8
1128
UM1E ft000E ii[� 1[�EiCtQrQ•EJ2[1 IC
1N1S 63%2 06177
Ul 10 Mt 131/024 DESERT rAPAO18 -
CALL AMES A. Stoo 01 -001 671C11.003-5 l'a:
NARLr17[LACY 7C C•10 tSt
M1+ 2"C♦NCNO CAMINO
f'N-L�olx CA f2021
I CSY SOLO rj4 ❑AE2J 1f76-(-CC:52t2-0 01
USf. CC.E TV CM EYfN'-E 2C65♦2 4177
LOT 7?Ia 0311024 CESM QAWISE
NC iSgC cC 01ee,•0 6 621•: -rta♦
.75SE TFNT' ASJ. C2725 of, 43.6 �OW,AC0CE A ..C,
i
♦1rC cSWlA RJ 9226C
ICE UjE NI CCNVEYAACF. 2CC1C5 I2,r6
Let 'I rs tl1/024 EESEPT CAQA,^,15:
nA-!Su•
rrrt•Hra
SCI n;r S11tC 07-01-17
ASaESs•71'•NLl ICP trt< Y�P 77.'1 (2Wrr2:[7 WIE SUSS
PERS INC; "p W:,CNS NE• LC ASSESSES, AOCP-SS, CE5C%At1CN f1' l2A AS.N, N• LA\; ]*1 L: Gf05 tQEP gLrq•;Cp Rr• TC
tlfM TO=SNAI N L. i'scc 01 621.O11-ICs•5 1625 6175
TC�S' KIM A. $-C - ' 1'Y, bfY rl 46.6J0 MGA oC •�
rAlr CES I, CA 92664
i 4N L{�nQiA92240
J5•.[C , RI EtWEYAKE 124100 Cl/:6
I♦525 LO1 77 r@ tU102. OESE21 PAP,]isC - - -
CLAIM RONAL0 P. 77at5 !I:•AA<62i-571-OC6-6 iTr25 Errs
ELAD RE SME"tNENI
MIT ♦5-6N ASM;A 27
NKI�M DESSERT. CA 9220 "
- 05E EOOC RI CCWIITI%7,E 155497 14,76 _
L•.ti4 LOT 76 11 638102. C^r1t rAQ,:ISF
SaNAtCN ) !CQ Olt-IJf Lrl-Jl l•107: I:RO flit
Now
N/tlilQl 17L I%Lr"ALE R'1 1C 1•IC 1625 6C:5
�50SA NifxsE, EA 92271
ova rSAY S 12260
1�L tl [ptmANCE 11u3, t5er7
Larr 71 A 171102.'rr![Rt mic-15E
77/N M%TA Irft1 Il1.A%pl•511.001.1 1625 /t'S :70/
T, U l22N /
Now, cw.,"AKt 6N91/ [Ilt7
ACT 7f IS [MOMENT PARADISE
IN
I.SW! ►�L I,(�A``(`{fS�(/'��y$�E. _ EIM 411111 sal-ml-m-I (itf mm NCL IM r100
W�WR .17 --0mAmm HA711 47/71 C /_--
NY
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF PALM DESERT )
I , Robert S. Walter hereby certify
that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons to
whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assess-
ment role of the County within the area described on the attached application
and for 'a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the exterior boundaries
of the property described on the attached application.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
(signed)
(date) April 25, 1978
Exhibit DP-3
P5 1 B-5
621- 32 x C A. 11�„�, 2 4 '
,e, S S E SEC. /8 T. 5 S. R.6E.
/ z
FAR,( VIE W DR.
+ s A 1 a
W �
.s � •.9sic• 4 sy O �L/
Ali • � � ��
INC
SEE
MAP 33
40
0<'%ot_U No�Nc�1'Muy J,�o aza
— `
- ---. _ /9,94 tc s —
n
W
J W)oy +o•ty
SEE MA P 34
A I
I'll JIG
JA fS
/1
44 th t. 1
1
ASSE SSOPS ,stAp &f 60/ PG 3P
P,VETS DE CC✓N rr, CALlf
62/— 33 T. C.A. ,BO,, ,827, a37
- '- POR S 2 SE 4 SL�•C. /8 T. 5S. R. 6E
600 29
P D.0 z99. 7 PDl
,°O VIEW DR. }9E/w9-ll-T7-IYR. 0
0
-.So 1 .SS III 0$ 111 9 114{l
OO b l 30 30 30 - - -� l2 EX� 30 -!o
33/ S a B9 °ti. 78
0 90 �tiG /` TT n n75
OI A, ,1z• 417 E 7
In
f BB 7y Q
PP K a e ® O 8 sr. I rr /a o
d �.q9.170 tT) h I I PY7/li A O a a z o
I Iti o
,, B7O / 3 O75
BO h° �sP' 73 ti Par. / :•} PoL 2 v \ ,�.
86 332 to l y° ��/5 ® /o
O i` 'PY 7/)1 \p0 �° ° j
32 p es J
B/ 50 , °
" O �� 159.no
,.: �, 334 17°.ee �
GATE OLO NO. NEW NO. I 1
,s 9O 36
Q" G� �S4 '
iS3 T9-Av, T.J-u,,! � 17]u. fo g9 B2 / e: v"-1 o�� --• `°. ° ,y t I
6 76 l,J.,OOi T3 O �.G9 7oe M/NOSA ,,,.r, O a ® /6 ° O 9
0.lf
/0/77 3.61 B - R 110 (`lp' 1 64 A •�
3 m 84 o O . N l e O 66 n 65 I
° 'o71 JUP Y O1¢ 335670 069 _ /7 B IAJ
1y S O
L`V I II g SA
°e 69
SAN ,00 O
3 7
(,4
62
53
70 q8 o 12
QQ a
e �
OLLL p 60 I4 G /8 g I I 7 I
O. '� 71 if, j1; G sf y`S 14 � - 30 36
72 3A
° 134.N I10.)G 9f.Gi �-� DLL° II:.°♦ - w
" 33
"'� e
o °
Q `S AVE,5B - - -{- m
lee —_ NP!'rz'E
1�6.St yy y5 a ° Tf rtl
lo% l0 57 .d --
i I
O
56
55 A"'
i
oS.1L ARBO�EDA
pk h.;•:r t,., n
�.y(0 °` _ � ' . AN 7174 Porce/ Map No. 4965
B. 2//66 Po/m
— — — — � De// Es/ales
(l ASSESSORS MAP BK. 62/ P6.33
DATA S.B.E. /5/-37-4/ R/VERSIOE COUNTY, CAL/F,
OG T 1967
25-8-5
62I - 34 T C. 1BOT 18/7, I924
POR. S 2 SE SEC. /8 T. 5S. R. 6E.
33
+ F
/ 2�A !p0 id, 9,P, I00.9s ro°•SL
30 _° I
19
r4l 6
/00
R.ySe 44 : 43 ° 42 . 4/ 190
I
45 a0 n O Q I
C n o: fg'4��4- 46 34/ !°° K °
�` .ARBO�EDA \� ,J z °�..+ e O 2oO 5 I
h t1E �'° n l9z•` Z
u6J 1 k la,l� O /a• - 6 ^ I SB 19 & .3<q \ 24039
37
54 36
3OMAZ oa I
° Iw°16 fz>.B°
1412 Ho lo0 1°L.11 pR. ^ �` /4hi) 34 - - -
O 53 � .,,6 4B E ^to - ^ NB9•/2 E n(D
� i 220 V 3 � I
0
0ArE OLD NO NEW MO. ' \ 9o.°T Ilo Ilo.°I 11O'�� O
f �' NS.S9 —
V rase 1 f°F° I
me-wq / O w
s 30 3/ 32 „ 33N52 1wb 49Q Z O ? o O O2g23OL 1
IR
j
OZ1 _ q c Q Z
// ^ Q o O O O O /0 25 8 a Q w a
29 u 28 27 26 ° S O " /o /
5/ u 50 p'I ^ 24 L
"So I3, 3° .b 31 f
1]4.1\ - 1]S 90 110 110 22 dB°9 It6°f
W
6REEM EAF By",=E OR. m
M.B. 2//66 Po/m Dell Esloles
ASSESSOR'S MAP BK. 621 GG.34
RIVERS/DE COUNTY, CALIF.
OCT. 1967
25-8-15
T. C. A. 1801, 180 6
NW 114 of NE. 114 of SEC. 19, T.5S., R.6E.
BK.
NI
Tzi
62/ '
Iaw
Jfo 86B.M `'C��
353Q9-!/61MO�EW
A
i
n
P
n
� 4
�2
w lesvAcf m
A
\ f
\ 4�
(g
a
DATE OLD NEw ft. / I
Da/o.• R/S 4//49; 6.L.O.
ASSESSOR'S MAP BK. 629 Pl4. 03
R/V£RS/D£ COUNTY, CAL/f.
-- — /U/_Y 1967
25- B ••
621 - 29 T RA. 1801 N//2 SW. 114 SEC. 18 T 55 R.6W.
SHEET / of 3 /7// SC
/B42
27 2 29 SEE SNEET 2 0/2
290
FOR DETAILS
11 vM•00'G/-i
p.4f .. !f) i6' JS JJ aso. 'p. Ja' , "G' •).' ,o..iY' so•
R 726 / i i _ LOT 61
4 0
5 c
075Ac Gr d
Ae
1
Q '' y. ♦ JD3
o
00' / 0.4B+AC. 291/47 A4 &AcGr Lo7 a"
Gca47AC N/0.&ACN LOY•B- G.R2 AC.82
M 2..3/ACNI2/ 4 5/AaGco,s.,.'05vB/A LOT6a ore �..•_•-- 7�
):
/9//+ Ac M
kq
y /7 /6 4
O 72 AQ 221 1 AG. ^NI p
PAR 3 <
Oirf' OLD 10 "cwu0 ° Q'ct l� ')•' ,:
3/76 25 29J-ba/ l a+J 1
8 ^ 290/ o!W 8.94+4c.
e /4 1
750+ Ac 227rAc I
° I
/OBi Ac
le n I
PAR 4
Y 4a
.4i' Of••'
u.fr• l,v.ems" $ 'y IJPJ6J IP/63 � /]p u
J, nip,OA7E O 66076 6/65 �:�
LO No NEW Na
V67 9 /o-//
9/66 /O /P-/J 7
/P/70 // /4- rJ
/P/73 /5 /6-17 - L
3/74 6 /6 OA TA: R/ 5//57
115 6- 60 I
76 /6 P019 MB. 90152-53 TroCJ No 7263 ( CM. 19/125-/41)(CM.19/110-124)(CM.19//42-162)
IZ16/7, 20-1zP Pi
P! rR7Z63
ASSESSOR'S MAP BK 62/ PG. 29
7e zs T91./_2!
Z, p9l. . . RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIF
25- 8—/9
y .
'�2�� R. A /, 1833/829, POR. S 2 SW 4 SEC. /8 T. 5 S. R. 6 E.
/ /00'
r
ji 40
o
0
I is 8/ • 80 79 78 77 76 75T74 73 72 7/ 70 69 68 67 0 66 ^
1 I ( 0 ® \J to 11 12 la 14 i5 16
-
MTE OLO NOS NL1r NO. Q o ° j
JOSHUA + oc,° E _ ROAD.
n ce up,oa as mr J o
rRA/ao/
". �n•a.a >n.a �ort ,a.,a ,e.,a Joa>• Izs � , I: eo. e
1 Yf O 9 h $t5 O21 22• �`+ iS i5 ti ®O +1®5 ti I So (�J°o rR1AII'/-8/4
7O ® 8 — 6/ -.
—
65
4-9
21 a
ia,75 ! 44,4 141, Ica lot100
/a- 4J T f 76.4 Ac
61 pZ 23 Q 37OI 5/ so
20 hk
m F�7
q 100
64
TRA /60/
H
RA /8Z9' O l7RA1831 I TRA/833
5 O 10 /0 /9 (9 2ti Z4 33 38 I I 47 -- Q 1
54 _ 3/2 _ l C) I I� I S9 I
1S— Q -� - - - - ® 63 a tiI
C 4 ® 11 ^ /8 IB ,.•�25 Y `,I -� 32 39 I Z I a4sec'46 I$ 53 ��= n �\ 58 .754 Ae Nt
W too too I — — — Iy_ I Its — _ It w 1
`1 2f�Tl \ i .i9 w 40
V ® 1 0 1 4 — 62 °v p
_ I ♦ I �I r , I` 042fAt.. P
3 O 1� . /2 a /7 17 j 26 �.66�r.'3/ 40 / tl ` 45 n 4 .� I > 57
r
54 j I—
27 r ~ �� 30 - / �� :1 56
/6 0 Q ° 41 �0 �'0 44 - • I ,�.
55
N
\0
4o I ao a / O Oy ® 14 " IS I5 �'> 28 Ifi 29 42 I 43 A t
" I 0 to .So Iil IZp.•.4 S0 R!-N 1i•.y. ��5.% 0.
M. B. 38124 Desert Paradise
O
ASSESSOR'S MAP. BK. 621, PG. 31
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIF.
SEPr. 1967
P -
`Q 'L'W: KMKnd 711NAvL ANN,\
Klul
CA
7p�p``(1(t.7-MI Y 131, � ��p}y�yjpy� N '1/tlmUr('7ry�3y (1 .LS
0E�S(1ARj�t 1 1� S[C-TIISAAEE�dA �p{'A[' YY�D 14ny� 6?t-7`NHn1-1 R/N� /Jll)
W414 31N SEE MAP PUD 17611 A7149FHY10-8 7rrn rrr�
P\�ENS�ACp Ii ES 1A YSS A&E FOR TOTAL Sy
3.50
uH17E Sr►Ii1 SSE[ I{SI��;E,YMPS1 }p Hit, Will A71-2'NhfrT3-9 7rfFi irrri
PY`'eKoLC dR SE'TI FESE€ 1L1 TSS R6E FOR TOIAL YY 1.CXl
DESCRIPTION SEE ASSESSORS MPS
(off.► _ aq ��111s
r IM-78 A"[SSNENT WU C6iR1TY OF 'RIVERSIDE
Q41HERS NAME RECORDERS NO ZONEE �p�gTREAAG PARCEL NO. LAND IMPR"TS EXFMPTIrONS NET
rp�MEplFgkqYQC�1 S1I�S11S(A)-SML�Gi���ES_ -�_F-pp_p-[_-_D_89 5 1701iE-b21-2*-Tj4-6� 157�'dir�itfER/ASt175 SALE 1 rn
�'Y 7.S(1 ACRES NTL IN-POR� OT�EC 18 TS�R6E + TbT/6 7.50
uH q - Ali-2�FTJfi5=1�'_ 2875l .
BOX t000. RMIEMO MIRAGE- CA 92270 12/00 7 YY1 11 _--
10,11 ACRES n L N 3`€E-78-T5S ibE-FdTTb \
'1cESSR�6COO SEA - --6z1Z'#�yPfT�F-13Lr3rt -- - 1S4rn
C/0 PON GITT0.SbN. 9171 uILSNIRE BLV STE 310, c 4/00/77 YY --
`BEV�RLY�i1CCS;C7�S�21i- n
8.94RACRE-i�]N �/�4 OF SEC_ 18 T55 R6E FOR TOTAL ---- - - -- '
1cw-m"ISHOPRIC
H OF �SRUS HR - r - _47W_ c7in
LDS C FIIIRC WL DEFT 5 RT TEMPLE T. * 8/QQ/68 YY 2.67 ---- -- --
-2L.67LACRES M/L IN POR PAR 4 AS 051/057 POR SE 1/4 SEC 18 T55CONT
- ---------- - -- --
75600 BERYL LN INO AN uELLS CA 9z201 * 10/00,176 YY 7 -- --- - - - -
-2-27-ACRES M/ IN POR PA2'. R-�S1/05� POR SE 1/4 SEC 18 5
DSS
3353 GAMINS RO OS ST. PALM_SPRLFIGS CA 92252 12/(XJ/7 YY __- ------ - - -
CRES M/L IN POR PAR 3 RS-0517dS7 FqR SE 'FJ>. SEC T 5
ifu]FI
CONTE SIRPUHE P, WS ---- ------
B ND W A 1 e 1 / 7 YY 7 _
ACRES M/L IN POR PAR S / POR SE /4 SEC 1 T S
ME —
+CORD OF PRES ELAS CH OF JESUS CHRIST CD PR S 1 R11 6 1- 9fM19-4 1h 0 1/`7f1
i _50- NORTH T M 5T_ ^ 4/00/7L YY _LO8 _-_ _--.-- -
SALT LAKE CITY UT 8415 '
.._].+0 -AMS.19LL_IM.
'PUGMA INVESTMENT CO PT _-PR75 18042 621-290{i2D-6 9175- - --- - a175 '
MIRAGE. CA 92_770 +.]151011h---�.4p - -- --
6. ACRES M/LDI POR SS E 1/4 OF SEC 18 TT S R6E FOR TOTAL
_�SCRIDTION SEE A<SPccnGS MAPS - 103153 PR75 18042 621-29i1IOVI-5 ---- -4375 4�75
COIMRY CLUB REALTY CORP CR
-c23iJS1.5100 EyR�A9NGi�-biBAGE.SA.92270- 3 LOW?5 �Y -
L.15 ACRES M/L I POR SE 1/L OF SEC 18 T5S R6E FOR TOTAL
DES VW SEE ASSESSORS MAPS ---
COUlTRY CLLB REALTY CORP CR 103153 PR75 18042 521-27r•022-6 8975
AIanr.F- CA 97770
�B
ACRES MIL 1N POR SE 1/4 OF SEC 18 T5S ME FOR TOTAL
DESCRIPTION.SEE-AA SEMRS r PS__--- --- ---17011-- 621-29n-Rri1-3.. .
CVCWD, XX IfON-TAX.
.C'1C1aD. P 2 BOX If158,LOACHE"CA-92236_.- --. -t-
NJIE ASSESSABLE
7 FFE AiX9J5TA J ---- - _-- _ --_ -_ -59572 ---C1SP 19IY9 621-3111-ffi5-4
iBA ROAORIMERX.1MDIA.Y RFLLS LA 92260-- SLC67L7�/. _Y _ L-ZG-_ - - -.
1,7 i ACRES IN,,
N R SW 1/4 OF SAC 18 T5S R6E FOR TOTAL
DE5
Ck1PT19N SEE ASSESSORS MAPS -- -- - - - -
T �
1
• ,S
i�y�yAy[E E[C lIt&t Uu� •c V vL • .� '
ASSESSt( 11 N+E� FROM (, COIIFIi kV CLUB FFALII CUkf
� T 1. NO PAS PALMAS RAN[lgSM1RAGEION,i INL
mo_-._5f1214__._..-_
am- AliblonLIL-A
CtWAYANt Oi/}i 78 CA CA DOC STAMP .W
Mugu cWWWW1Ae tltll 1. COINIRY cL _ -
�pp'pT6TpAt1fAN�fiECAT 'N I1T-`-----__.--- -
�NlLL_IQy�TA O7J1d/ [w6 DA RANC110 M A JA'I. CA 92279
4 7-7 A DEEDPROC ACCUMULATED JOURNAL -— -- '
pDATE 06-24-77 TARN CODE DEEDPROC
7�SSESSkTLSaA�"/7FCRLA '1'16STHER FI CR DOC STAMPW — - A
2. COUNTRY CLUB REALTY CORP
1 A A ---
NAIL TO DATE VIA/77 CMG
DATE 08-24-77 TRAN CODE DEEDPROC
CCNVFrANCE NUMBER 142091 07/77 78 U-00 Sg CR DOC STAMP .W
- --A'SSFS�EFOiA D F7 ��L'bCFiTkr CLIIBkEACT�CbiFP -- i
TO 1. RANCHO LAS PALMAS ASSOCIATION INC
T RANCHO MIRAGE, A 92279 -�
MIL IV Alt WIZO
CONVEYANCE NUMBER 142087 07/77 78 0-00 CR CR DOC STAMP .W
AS5ESSEIL CHANGED F Y YT le —
AN M L&TAWASWATION INC
—
PPAIL TO
AIL TO DATE DOR 0 2000 008 HOPE DR RANCHO MIRAGE. CA 92279
'ASSESSMENT N0. 621250072-7
ROE
{ CONVEYANCE NUMBER 4 / R CR
{ ASSESSEE CIANGED FROM 1. COUNTRY CLUB REALTY CORD
LAS PALIMS ASSOCIATION INC
MA1l TO ADDR OB HOPE DR N M ��C�-9
MAIL TO DATE 07/26/77 CHG
,ASSESSMENT NO. 621250081-5
DATE OB-24-77 TRAM CODE DEEDPROCEYA C C TAME
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM . COUNTRY CLUB RE LTY C RP
TO 1. RANCHO LAS PALMAS QPE OR RANCHO MIRArE. A ASSOCIATION INC 92 79 _
j MA1LL TO DATE / / CMG
ASSF RA DATE 4- TN CODE DEEDPROC
CpNEYANCE NUMBER 166528 08/77 78 0-W SE CR DOC STAY.' 90.75
ASSESSEE [WINGED FROM ND IVOTN
TO K A M DEV L FMEN CO IN
MAIL TO NAME C/O NATHAN COHEN cTa iM BURBANK CA 91505
1 �TIIDAT
4 RIVERSIP6-77CMG..,., ► '0
DATE 09-23- ff 'TRAN CODE DEEDPROC
CONVEYANCE NU EH 173478 09/77 78 0-00 NO JT DOC STAMP 166.10
TO BALCH D L
2. BALCH JEAN PALM HSERI. CA APak 922i
60" - -
qJN'
MAIL TO DATE CHG
3SI0 11 111130 1 -/ ' W L 1101
(Neeg
030 SL Li S29 L_- U-t LU-t Li-L29 LUOaL La 6?LUf ] NO15
1110tlaVdC-n 1a3530 7 / �' l�l
-- — _ t N3MM N3S10N3B
SL9i _ USL I__ OH fJUa4 S29,� f_Ul0-LL4-lZ4 100a1 la 647511
35I0tlatld 1113530 h2 ills &1 L LOl
_ 0 4J IV L
UJSi USLL CO SW524L ALL£-124 UCINI to W966 V 3NI1SIaH3 H12WS ') 30VN HIIW5
p 22§ 1H3S30 Wltld 0a "sor 0 7
U1[OL£ SL04 S29L 6-9011-11f-124 9£OC�I la OL6 a MS SAOtllO NOSJ1tlW
0989d L
p 6 1a3530 w-Nj ON vnHVW lV. f LL h
US6SU�L N SL09 S29L - llf-l29 4£DaL La lha if N3A315 NNOaB NOatlHS NI10aB
p 1a3530 "d Oa "SOf 7
L7iSSfi i 4L 9-4110-11£-1 L La 6h a Lf lNN3HS Natll) d 0ltlN0a Natll]
U L_L L
p a'�1y 1a3353S30�WlVd OapMIISOf 7
OOSc1. n f ' WIN 9!� �•!1 A�71 NW MS
USL•i____J ISLI OH SLU9 SZ9l S-SOLrIt£-129 9£OBL La DOL72l L "
- p 1a3530 Wltld Oa vmsor 7
h- - - a L / a 1- (�W f15SVWOHI NI315M138
Q09S l
LL/ / n a tl A B ltli Wqa itm
x��s-400 Ll£-L29 100B1 a
a 1a l`
i W4n r
_USL— 0 - -
'f AA LL/ /9 n 6 tl] Bl i M(]
r USL OSL \ L-lOO-LLf-L29 LOOPL la f
ltlll i3aSl 9L7 i h/LM /W tl
418
0002Z 7-Ul0-fOf-l29 L£ML dS h009L_
IL
L LL a
. _ OOSaF 1-60"OE-129 Li d5 7009L da0]
1�Iax✓t3las o-soo f - -
-
13N SNOILJ43X3 Sl"VdW1 owl 'ON 13)atld 0 3NOZ ON Sa30a0]3a 3MM Sa3NIK1
Sbl_ tld 3015a3Ma !O A1MIW ll0a LN3WS53SStl B!-lL6l
_LY �daMT
._ _.. .�
- -1fIDI-Y07M1 ]OYSSi-Yl l��p !
rfTYFi7 -£9'7" _�77' 97/�If1t+� 11uw
�l�/2[ 1JJ22L _ L-SOU-M-129 tiLC S7)d_ _S69 st jalC{
lVlnl HAI 398 SSI l 13S !0 l h awi
i
3 TWid NOS1llV'
11
3
� S
/
NOW
,.r 7trn
N�,10yy�TB i OFSEBI FMWI lit 91n Rt 1pw6 rytt-;tt-fY us-k 16iS /,fi7> 35(fJJ
4 8311iIA��11 22l�0777 Rl.
it N-- —' RT-`- ibfibi 621-3it-ff4-6 ihi5 3hf5 w, 17v1 ',xn
Ri '- ib TT 7TT -4 hz5" S9(rj w) 175A "675
Till
;625 4Yr'
L l l I-R�5762i
�7F M L Y R V R PAGE 186
OWNERS NAME RECORDERS NO ZONE TRA PARCEL NO. LAND IMP:;j-SAMF( OTHERRVMITS EXEMPTIONS <�NET
� AWE
MI
>AA DoETT A CA 92028 > 6/00/77 YY
l ---
T DESERT
P�AhA��—
GILL JAMS S Y e %06/77 YY c 7,0 _S50
l _ ..
2L J F HKFgY CA9 / /77 YY — - -'
YLERY YY
SHA AN P DE E T CA 9
l
SHIA
Yl Y _ _ e
7 - SNA LAN Nb PALM DESERT CA 92260 YY ---�_
J _
C/O LEONARD WEH6ARD. 37505PALM VIEW RD, RANCHO= 4/ /76 YY -- - —'
MIRAGE,
CA 92270/ T PA D _ _ — - --81r1
1SBARD JU1 WEI RD RIC RD, JT n / /7 YY ---
C/ A D 7 PA D NC - -
MI GE, C
7Jtr1
WEISBARD RIC R IS R JUNE JT R -
/ D 4jjoA D 7 PA D /
MIRAGE, CA
WEISBARD JlliE WEISB RD RICNARD,
7
MIRAGE, CA 922fU
WEISBARD RICHARD WE1 8 R0 JUNE JT 459411 R _ 9 1-_ -C105-8 81 � 81f�
C/ A 17S S PAIA VlFW RD- RANC`e --— -.
MIRAGE, CA R
EDWAY SUZ 2 R1 E M, WS 1 1 621-372 _. -9 1625 5723 H0�
775� 56rY7
---
LOTRANCHO MIR65E. CA 22ZZO
6 M UMIU64 DESERT PARAD SE _
ADKINS PHILIP A AD IN5 ELIZABETH H 114747 R1 79001 621-312-OC17-f.1 1625 SC175
44 ARKVIEW DR, PALM DESERT 92260 k _
DAY10N MA9EL E 14427 R1 18001 621-312-CY18-1 1625- 5075 110_ - 175CI 4950
7
LOT 8 MB 38/0 4 DESERT PA DISE
MILLER PAT M MILLER SARAH F R1 19f-101 621-}t2-(.X19-2 1625 52rx1 N! 175r� Sr175
7
LOT 9 FB / 4 DESERT PARADISE
IS RD JLNE HUSBAND RICHARD JT 45941 R2 18CQ9 621-A2-01 p-2 -_-_- 81n -_ - - 31r�
MTROATG1 9 .. ISF
.e...�, ... ,,. ononr.
41
7A/l it LAIL
Aiit SSM�EAMII 1 1003-4
Crvrvtr l T pl p� ���7► 0-M NO NO DOC STAMP UG
ASSESSE MIED S LMA IT
MAIL 10 AAIE `A I1tl ArIIA J
MAIL T8 1Nl p�3I3* wli dT� ctu[l [� CA 62 6
'ASSl35MENl �- CM P EqA�VM . DSO.. 0 ...,Q C_f7MlF'_— _ _ .Df1
.An �T7 1° f9ti Alf! 9
STOi M�1E•L LAUREL DEVELOPMENI CO
1EEFS'>1T11O: UAW _ DEEDPROC ACCUMULATED JOURNAL —-- -
DATE WIO-76 IRAN CODE DEEDRVD7
L ILLP FIR T 1/7 7 -7 N C$M TAME .UO -—
2. NEULON C P
FFIt-TtrW Kim C I NE"
MITCHELL JAN ---
MIL 10 ADDR P 0 BOA 745 PALM DESERT, CA 92260
/AIL TO DATE 01-31-76 CNG --1
ASSESSMENT NO. 621301012-0
OAT Y1 -77
ASSESSES CHANGED FROM 1, HEUER TERRY D
Abl
T R R CHARD N
TO H
2. JUCKES ALLAN H
A AME L
H N W
MIL TO ADDR 4343 SPENCER TORRANCE. CA 90503
MIL TO DATE 09-16-77 CHG -
ASSESSMENT NO. 621303001-6
7
CONVEY NICE NUMBER 6 6 / NO JT UC STAMP
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1. SPECTOR BEN
DA
TO . SHENK JAY
2. SHENK JEAN u
1 HE EL TOR TORO. CA 92630
- -MILL TO DATE CMG
A
DATE - 4- TRAM CODE DEEDRVD4
CgNEYAN[f NUMBER 214174 10777 78 U-TA NO NO DUC STAMP .00
III DEVEL NT CORP
TO PROPERTIES INC
MIL TO NAME MICHAEL H LESTER T AN ELE CAWL
17 .
MIL TO DATE / / CHG
I DATE 02-21- 8 TRAN CODE DEEDRVD4
CDIVEYANCE NUMBER 025468 02/78 78 0-00 JT UUC STAMP 5.50 --
TO HURSTkOM RUB ENT L
2. GIBBONS MICHAEL J
MIL TO ADDR 64 CHURCXILL SAM DIM CA
MIL TU OATS 02-09-78 CHG
--'-•ASSESSMENT NO, 62131 -
UATE 11-22-77 IRAN CODE DEEDRVD4
Q�17Z 7 f U C TAMP .00
SSESSES�- A UHANGED FROM CLA.. JOXN W - -- --- - - - -
TO 1, WILKINSON JACK U
EUNRL AN H
MAIL TO DR 414 PASOMIL TO DATE 09-30-77ECHGE FLATA CY R S, A
A li` E 02`Z IR1 U-UU 025� p2%PeYD47B Mt J1 DOL $IMJ' 5.50
ASSISU G 1 Qpyay[ C '
Iy� �E�► t&AN 2. MICIMEL J
w�R FINIf biOZi4fiaL 3. U ant]
MAIL TO MIE Oi-Oh'a CNG
Assss*"it id,b�131 �y pEeO 1 lift SIIi11LWN q.09,Nw-
10 1. WILK NSON JACK D
MAIL % Aw 41iS
MIL 10 MlE IN-1 77 CHG
li __ _ _.._ -_TD76�ASSESSOR'S-ROOT _—__ FAGE fb
4 4-L77-78 PRPAJN DEEDPROC ACCUMULATED JOURNAL
ARM1NE►1i 10:-L 't IYOU,,- - . .
DATE11-22-77 TRAN CODE DEEDRVD4
CL'NV�t NUMBER FROM 1. f77 7JUM fl DOC STAMP .UO _ _--_---- ---
A �iFO LAKK
TO 1, WILKINSON JACK D
. �PA5EO,6. REDNE-RLAT L CFP AN H - -- -
LA wo
MAIL TO DATE 09-30-77 CHG
DATE OR-23-77 TRAN CODE DEEDPROC
Y 147 171 7 JT W D C STAMP 12.65
N H
2. BERNSTEIN SUSAN M
PAIL TO DATE 10 1. WADE SALLY L
f DEC
A T - 97illfflm CODE
OC
CCNVEYAE NUMBER 157406 08/77R NC 78 0-00 JT Fl DOC STAMP 15.95
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1 CLARK RONALD P
LRK SHR
TO 1. ROWAN DONALD G
p ENDA
3. ROWAN MELVIN L
4. OISK STUART ET AL
3I T ADDR 7 S TARDUST IN INDIAN WELLS CA 92260
IL TO DATE /1 / i CHG
-} ASSESSMENT M0. 1 -
";-pAT�1- - TRAN CODE DEEDRVU
CONVEYANCE NUMBER 195477 10177 78 0-00 SW PT DOC STAMP 18.15 j
ASSESSEF CHANGED F 1 T LADYS
TO R W ENT k R
MAIL TO ADDR 702 SOUTH HIGHLAND AVE LOS ANGELES. CA 90036
MAIL TO DATE 10-04-77 CHG
i
.T. ASSESSMENT NO. 621311012-1
.00
CONVEYANCE2NUMBER TRAN CODE DEE9V0478 U M
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1. CLARK JOHN u
10 u LL IN
D
REDNA IAN H
MAIL TO ADDR 4145 PASEO DE PLATA CYPRESS, CA 90630
MAIL TO DATE 02-30-77 CHC
�- ASSESSMENT NO. 621311013-2
DATE 11-22-77 TRAN CODE 4 -
COASSESSCE CHANGE 93533 / HN F1 UOC ,.T
ASSESSEE CHANGED FNOM 1. CLARK JpHK D
REDNALL IAN H
MAIL TO ADDR 4145 PASEO DE PLATA CYPkESS, CA 90630
M ATI TO DATE 04-30-77 CHG -
[�yME AALL R/ESS pINN I NJ SSA:w, gL k
'111 b�I�VF�lyy'1l(PIP7T ZOAF CIILE ik"Wum ;wa(�}�p (91�1 2/��I/t9 I-I�, tn t1 �,.�1-an t-awl-s it vi Fl .�✓rr�
�ISi011i.2 +JER?lYlllT GY 3.14
i[f4SSQ >sf69 18653 6Z1-S1S fli5-7 46( l wrr
uu t LY
i9p4p�irie_4/ !
ibR �2
to 7 •� ;W PDA Su _
its 7yrI
S — Ri i5n14 6f1-}13-n46-B 25r�1
A�RE�S �7L,.ixii➢(. �y7� f L-k-._. ._YY. -.74L _...
�EStR� }Vi1NDISF PO4 LQ M1 OD. 61 i 65.MD-038/024_ -
COURTY OF
Yu�PAGE G`yp
pt1ERS tWNE RECORDERS NO IONE TRA PARCEL NO. LAND ImFRVMT5 EXEMPTIONS SALE
�i�(+. _sti. S�E�. DATE
OSE ACREAGE gIHEBLBSMIS.- -- -- - SALE�I
DE' BEMtiDE7Tl FM ERPR =LIC�--' 521�13�-TiLr--a---81XJ
BUriDERS AM PALM SPRfNGiyEM L MGa_ 490 E + CY 75 --- --
1*5ERT PARADISE
� il v - ---—--- -- --81n '
r Z.O�ST� PAL,CL�762i ^ /77 Y
IR NM - ly
�51V�y Y�ISTERI[N_ Q 0 BOX 883_ LA OUINTA. CA ^ 8/00175 YY 2.23kjjn
A M/ N E 1/4 F C 1 T5S R6E FOR TOTAL ---
_ 7�'i9rl
Si WST RTIES INC 1816 BELMONT�RD MJ ^ 12/00/76 YY 4.26 --
4& AC M/L IN 1/4 F SEC 18 T $ 86E FOR TOTAL - '---
DESCRI
P D S Co
T A 4C 1 94 IT D l.M TT [A Yv 4
1 4 AC M/l e SESPSORE S 1MAPS/4 OF SEC 1 T R6E F T TA --
DE CRIPT ON SEE AS
ARNOLD IIET
1 A PA BT=CF '9 = 1/00177 YY 1 24 --
1. 4 ASS R SE /4 OF SEC 1 T55 R6E FOR TOTAL
DESCRIPTION SEE Acc ccORS MAPS -
ARD BOUCNET 1 6 1-320-f10 -_ t - 1+W7
?•8551 [ACTUS IN PALM DESERT CA 92 7 124
-
r1.24 ACRES N/L 1N POR SAC 1 T55 ME FOR TOTAL
DESCRIPIION SEE ASSESSORS APS
91EVEL9 9 SON 18C101 621-32C>-Ofb-4 4110 411r1
467' ACRES N POR SEC 18 T 5 RM FOR TOTAL DESCRIPTION SEE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BAPTIST CONVENTION S 18001 621-32CM07-5 itfl Y) 2A4fn CH 3874f1 MCC'
1 FANGEi ES, CA 20OIZ ° C1 ; 00 PP 284n
AVENUE 44, ALM DESERT 9 260 M
A
OTAL
DESCRIPTION SEE ASSESSORS MAPS -
�CLINIC SERVICE CORP, CR ^ 118(186 S 1 8005 621-3204Y19-7 239i0 —_ ------- - 2391 I.
v 1
swv, PALM 5PRINGSX CAR E 22ACRES Mtl1/4 OF SEC 10. 755 ME FOR TnTAI ---- - - - - --
C DESCRIPTION SEE ASSESSORS MAPS
CLINIC SERVICE CORP, CR 118086 S 18fN6 621-320-f11U-7 2865 2w+5
.0 N r fX1
l /74
SPRINGS CA
1.91 _ 62
( .1 I ...... SE J n OF cFr 18 T5S ME LR TOTAI
DESCRIPTION 5EE ASSESSORSMAPS
'a$dirll FA�ngTA�LI'FUN�1 AArom 151 E0%LL(N11
7 AA��ER,Ig[�Al�;gM�Ily1R0 9t26(1.M1If. N ll S.:J 14,
t'ISu
� - i bFt=3f4T�i=7 �3o�f 2Ynn'
1 MR.1695-MA NRISE^_9/.007A.-I.Y—YI5 --'--_._. .. L'2(1JJ.
� .
( ._1095.14SWR15E_NAY._pALn 9
I t 1�1TiFi SEE WL_SEC_IR I S-35E1.OR1➢Ini
197?-f8 ASSESSMENTCOUNTY OF RIVE91DEPAGE 190
04NERS NAME 4 RECORD MP
ERS NO ZONE TRA PARCEL NO. LAND IRV.MTS ExelPTIOPIS NET
tM11(•)-SITUS(9)-SAME(=) DATE USE ACREAGE�21=1Z�r85 OTNER/ASyTS SALF AKT t�Sixx 1836T 'r5
.0nfD__R.QBQX NON-TAX -
33MLLE Sbffl Y \ 1i5
1 1 T A 91604 a YY -'
l
SC�ATI BE 9743e Rile A7S',
—} -
Y CALIF e 11/ / 7 YY
L L
A CFER CITY CALIF 902 e 11/00167 YY -
_ _ 1307$
-�- 6 A C VER CITY CALIF YY --'
srwcYrB97432 �-815a7s-
Ak CITY CALIF 90230 e 11/ / 7 YY
LOT 88 MB
�RON qfUT Rile
A1JL�E� �C�U�LVER CITY CALIF 90230 11/00/67 YY
L T n VG[li
VIAHL ERG TERRY, u HOER ER IC T FU 413R112 180}7r�Ff_-SS2�C3�1 F. 41 HJ
72764 AN A = 7/ tfn)n-
L T MB /
S M ERY. IST , JT 1Z0173 R112 18021 6 1-_ .. - M 1 5
♦� cAN �iAN Dk_ PALM DESERT 92NQ - - = R/00/76 YY tJJrQ
LOT d{ M
MAY MI HA L W MAY BARBARA J R11 1 1 621-}i Y - Y 125n 44 N) 1 9/5
=___6/O0/72 Rl - - -
LOT Mi MB `l.
NORMAN JAU/ITA NORMAN RAOFI YMD E JT - 171626 R 18027 1- 4 12-5��4 — Jj
LOT 131 PE 1/
STEELE JOYCE C, 53402 R112 1131VI 621- 32-01.-4 1251) 4650 59rY1
It 7 CA 92270 a 5/00/35 Rl
SAN JUAN OR PALM DESERT 9 260 M
NICW)LSON TERRY N, 5E 12 13 R112 1 .27 62t-3}2-011-5 1250 7122. _ 1i5/i !422
7 1A PALMS SER 2 - RRx1/76 YY
LOT 9 PB 0 /066
MELCHERT CLEONA J LA+ 1 2582 R112 1"-1 6217332-012-5 1 tfi�ig25------ - - 6t175 '
17 A 1V e6 CARSON. CA-90746 a 12/fD/74 Rt _— _—.... . i3cXl,
PARKVI DR PA DESER 92250 R
i R112 1".1 621-333-OCII-9 12�i 44TI1 56cfi
jA J IT
pESERT 4771/. QII.� AIN, IFVIF
i$IS� W [$ PA M =_. ___R1
r.n it W VAIt VY-YI-r� flu
CONVEYANCE NUMBER N 1v35t3 LlYI ro U U J II II
ASSESSEE GMNGtD._Eh4lL-..1j. - N LLB IAAK H
10 1. WILKINSON JACK D
MAIL R wbDTc -RAiA tiFG1fE73. [ll— —"OQS3�— ---- ------ -- -- '
MAIL TO DATE 09- 7 CMG
l97B-u6ASSEMVS-ROCCOPDAlt COUNTY OF F�6'ER�S
ASSES 7 _ PRPAJ020 DEEDPROC ACCUMULATED JOURNAL _ ------'
DATE 10-04,77 TRAN CODE DEEDPROC
CONVEYANCE NIREER 177792 /77 78 NO JT DOC STAMP 16.50 -1
Fpo 1. to
TO 1. AN40LD RICKARD A
2. ARNOLD BOUCHET _ --1
MMAIL 10 ADDR AIL TO DATE 38551 7�� A;1� i
CHG
DATE 1-17-7 N
VMvty Mt ER L�UJ J, NO DOC STAMP
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1. ARNOLD RICHARD A -{illl
2 ARNOLD BOU'MET --
To .
Ml1 T A D P B % 1 2. CASA LAGUNA CORP
BEACH CA 92660 -
L.
CHG
A
DATE -
C<ASSESSCE CHANGE 259318 12/77 78 0-00 NO CR DOC STAMP .W
A OW CMET
TO CA A LAGUN
MAIL TO ADDR P 0 BOX 1905 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
MAIL TO DATE 12/30/77 CHG
ASSESSMENT NO. 621320D05-3
DATE 01
CONVEYANCE WER TR45MI / NO CR DOC _ ---—
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1. ARNOLD BOUCHET
10 CASA LACUNA C _
MAIL TO ADDR P 0 BOX N W H, CA 92660
MAIL TO DATE 12/30/77 CHG
ASSESSMENT ENT NO. 621332001-6
DATE 01-17-78 TRAN CODE DEEDRVD67 WD C TAMP I
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM SCHATZ RN R
TO 1. FBENNETT A HILDT P MAIL T8LN CA 92200
MAIL TO DATE - CHG
7
y11� DA ET - - TRAN CODE DEEDRVD
-y-• CONVEYANCE NUMBE
Acc SS R 258993 NO WD DOC STAMP .00
I EE CHANGED FROM 1. SCHATZ- A -
TO 12/77 78 0.00 BENNETT HILDA
MAIL TO ADDR 73860 FLAGSTONE LN PALM DESERT, CA 92260
MAIL TO DATE 12-30-ZZ CMG -- ----- -
,ASSESSMENT NO. 621332003-8
CONVEYANCE NUMBER W
-� ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM I. SCHATZ BERNARD
M FLAGSTONE LN PALM DESERT
AIL TO ADDR 7 T. CA [ 1� --
14AIL TO DATE 12-30-77 CMG
"FuE51-C E 4'
(�ryEISMS&SIMPsi.
5tt 11 I::
'C11Mlf SIN f�EE t�bqF�.. u - 11g�1g6 S IVqfT1py 621-32fJ-FY'!9-7 2}010
.t t` SF� �RtFE3 t�OV6 16" H.166WSE� .9100/i4 .YY 15.94 LSLOJJ .
Dt3 1 � SLLOE SEL_A Su RAE.LOR.IOIAL.
FiA1 S 7Wh
hlNlt tfRUltt 11�ny " § 1�n�7 Sf1 �fr Ain-i 2N,f
.1f9SA SWUSE WY.PAI71_ �..911'K1/Tt. .YY -_'.
1
bl"4h��ts'E�Y LSEC id-151 AU..FOR..TOIAL.__
'
ASSESSMENT ROLL COUNTY OF RIVERSIFF PACA 190
%,1WHERS NAVE RECORDERS NO ZONE TRA PARCEL NO. LAND 1MPRV NTS EXEWTIfWS NET
SALE AV
�SS%1l11L.1•)_S1T7lS.ULSNIE.(1
•CNi."/ESSUSshkE A 92 1A • WJn-TAK - '
4. ��y€ APT IotTr_ to 916oc.•_ YY1 �Y�-1 —
i8t�-(FI(ptAyE�SV�I.ER C•I r cA If 9C1 a 11/0067 Yr
LIII�ISSFU CY17(1b6jD, _ 9 _ _
il Y A F30 - ll/CO167 YY ---
--g7$ "
A ; C VE C1Tr CA If 90230 a 11/ /67 YY -- - '
e - ' 875-
_1 A CITY CALIF 907VI . II/ / 7 T ----
g7G
LOT E:. 902b 11/0/67 YYWL� - ---
uAM. TERRY, WAmLBEfFG ERIC T W 100413 ili 1 113.1 621- - i25A tl Wj
72p4 SAN JU DR. PALM DESERT 9226() - 7/UD/76 R1
�RKOBEN J M RY. EN ISTA T, JT 120173 R112 180 C.(55-
727Af.7 :AV �.+ D� PALM DESERT 92260 = 8/U(1/76 YY �Vfii .
MAY MICKAEL N, W1Y BA ARA J R1 i9A1S 621-}} .. - 1 tt MO 1%�—
h/00/72 R1 _
LOT MB /
N"MNW JALNITA F N RAYMOHU E JT 1 16 6 R71 1 7 621-5_ -(lfj9-6 1 - 59�— - t7t1-
7
LOT 1 MB 1/(156
STEELE JOYCE C, Su 53 R112 1 ..1 621-}} -mn-c 1 _ � t650 c7n
7 Sa 9 27n5L00/15 R1
`�T �Sp�J�/D PALM DESERT 9 2M p
NICMLSCN TERRY N, SE 12 51} R712 1g`127 621-1}Z-011-$ 12$0 7122 MJ 175A M22
• 7 $ F�_UEiEBTS�TI - A/00/7h rr - --�...__ .. .. _ .LSrK1'J.
LOT 79 PC UZI/066
LCFrtRT CLEONA J VA 152 R112 t9001 621-it -(1.2-6125D t825 v- - c r•,l
n A OLl�1 Y3�22,SARSMCA 9!L45 ^ 12/[O/7c at -- _..__ ...._.. L
Z PARKVIEl/U PAUt UESER 922M p _ _
JR A J -NAZI TA R112 13fK,11 621-t}}-fJlt-9 - 125(l i4fYi
•.0 SERJ�E T
' ESE
'FtMR;A7 AT ETM F�FtWkN" IORNE H75P tqI%it 62t-}}4-Inl-A 1('J� v.
t01t �f JRi[,t Wk. LO "EL(S (AEU 90 I-
'NA014INA Y NOW - � A25i' iAN11 b21.354-NRI-4 091 1i7�
111�rQ M lVllien IT- -
mitiRl t twit;ml.. k20 1Af311 32i-33<-nlro-T� tSX� l�X�
P it� 'A SMS CA 92,'V _ .^—� .—_YT -
Ui t nen
NkfkE�l�Dii'. Yc`lMitiwu`M.l 00 1W)i b2i-SS4di16-fi 12X7 1i
F, �,t ]X`t1 1>�1 y�cl.A SfRw 322 CA 02 • IT _ _
v - - _ f3N=)F b l'�3`M1 T 1- Tv 6F—AiVERSioE PATE 192
CANN�ERSS NAME ` 5 RECORDERS NO ZONNEE p�TTRRAA PARCEL NO. LAND IMPR'MffTS EXEMPTIONS NET
NRTRIM,E Y MilWi't lillS.([L-SkiEC� DAI. _ SP-18fj(17�G1 i-334z011=T--12NOIH£RCASFIZi_ r— SALE a2Y� .
4Tit,7W1._SeRGSSA_42779 RICO
LCr2 • rr — .
—
;_p1R
hhlluU.SOUi1£R_N. CNFEg11SON CO. P 0 BO% 8C111. ROSE1_IEAD.9 NON-TAX
�CF 9�77I1,Z OPPED M L121/066
' 7
j,
.0 %,G 105$- COA HELLA.CA 922M NON-TAX -
1.
5���IA EDISCN CO. P O BOX Rm. NON-TAX --
DEAN ROD p i Jf 5 q 125l) i 75rfi"
AA1(M�/JA�P�RWED APR.fANCE B M4�NTFHANCE CO < 9/O/74 R1 - _,2cfYY1_.
1.i75G EAIRNNA NOD PROM Ce
72 1�027
a0o • 12• /74 t nRW m.e
VAN NUYS, CA
..
vl�o
_
95
owl INE C
r 261 SfjJ(I/77 YY —
LO- hB 1/ ^-
MA ~t.D RJBERT L MACOONALD 1MRY E, JT R 1 1 521-Xi5 ,_ -9 y7- ux,n
h245 ARS�Hl@�LD_ ALfA Ma.
MA CA 90701 * 11/m/76 YY ----. -- -
i LOT�h W 021/
:ALLF1V LOUISE K COCK EMIMLINE C JT 15 B R112 -f105-_ 1250 �3 Hl�)1751r N?S0-
7 PSEiiu"2L2^ a 1O/m/76 R1 _ - -
1�5�
1 TWRT JAMES C STU4RI fMKJORIE Mh JT = 7/18N21/75 Kilt
1 1 621-t}5-Qfq-1 1250 722 J 175fi ]79L>a .
:.72371�jj�5 �,,1
LOT 65 NB jYOM46 .. ••ee —..— —
`f1AMt JOIN N, BANNE"N BEULAN 44.75 R112 1 W11 621-335-CY.T9-2 1250 )2M N!:— 175fi /.7M
7 �SERT 927M c l/m/77 Rl_
-flNTlt MARJORIE Y. 59215 R112 19f�(11 521-XX5-fYf1-i 125(1-� N,25 HO 1751 cc2c '
.4Y1M3.ASAL1�1UBf_PAI.Zly£SEEL.3225fl
LOT 64 re / VA
e A,
10 1, WW I�IpA IN�INSiN jA�ilr. i
IA
MAIL n m- "I t�TD 6F Fl-ATF-� - CV➢AESS. U. n %630 ..
PAIL TO DATE F30-
la� � P S
fi' -- -.. - _------- 1976-UL-ASTESSOR"T ROLL-DF'6ATE- n
I
4�46
DEEDPROC ACCUMULATED JOURNAL ----�
DATE 10-OA-77 TRAM CODE DEEDPROC
�Mai MIME 09➢75? 5_78 0-00 NO JT DOC STAMP 16.50 TO 1, ARNOLD RICKARD A
MIL TO DATE 09-13-77 CMG
T 1- 7-7 D
ASSESSEE CIWICED FROM 1. ARNOLD RICXARD A
j. A D B CH T
! 2. CASA LAGUNA CORP
MIL TO ADD q P4907 1905 NEWFORT BEACH, CA 92660 '
,AFL TS6�fF f273(11217 N
Ate°% R�Ol!lFR"AN CODE-DEEDR
CONVEYANCE NUMBER 259318 12/77 78 0-00 NO CR DOC STAMP .00
ASSESSEE CHANGED f T
1 A B CX T
ORP
MIL TO ADDR P 0 BOX 1905 C S LAGUNA CNEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
MAIL TO DATE 12 30/77 COG
'ASSESSMENT NO. 62132OM-3
CAEYANCE NAR TRNM / NO CR DOC STAMP
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1. ARNOLD BOUCHET
r TO 1. CASA LAGUNA CORP
Mil TO ADDR P 0 BOk W X. CA 92
MIL TO DATE 12/30/77 CHG
ASSESSMENT MO.
DATE 01-17-78 TRAM CODE DEEDRVD6
ONV YANG NL�BER 258993 12/77 78 0-00 WD DOC STAMP V
! ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM SCHATZ —SE RRD
TO 1. BENNETT PALM DESERT- CA P MAIL JQ-8 F 42
MIL TO DATE - CHG
_7
DATE - - TRAN CODE DEEDRVD
CONVEYANCE NUMBER 258993 12177 78 0-00 NO WD DOE STAMP .00
AASESREF CHANGED FROM 1 SCMAT2 BERNARD
TO BENNETT MILD
MIL TO ADDR 73860 FLAGSTONE LN PALM DESERT, CA 92260
MIL TO DATE 12-30-77 CHG ----1
,ASSESSMENT N0. 621332003-8
CUNETANCE WER
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1. SCHATZ BERNAARD
MIl TO ADDR FLAGSTONE LN PALM DESEkT, CA C
MAIL TO DATE 12-30-77 [HG
CONVEY NICE Ml►!EA i)0��5 I.
!Si[SSEL LtIRtlGiED f 11 NMNAE U LDAnO
F NA" 10 AM ���Eppp ��AGSTONt L� N PALM DESERT, CA 42d60
M1L IQ hilt —. _ -------- - - - -
ASSESCS/yM/EENNT 1
ASSESSEE C1W18ED fRtobs bi
�� SCHAII BERNARD
-Z6CBTAFif—_ _.-
�f1Ti�br PALM AP. CA -- - —
MIL TO DATEIMP
- ------ -- FIfGE 10
7-7 A DEEDPROC ACCUMULATED JOURNAL — -- -!
� I
HATE 01-17-76 TRAM CODE DEEDRVD6
COM/ETANCE fARq�p ��8993 12/77 78 0-00 NO ND DOC STAMP .W —
i--IRSFSYEE CWOIG O F CIARNMR5
MIL 0 ADDR 7 TOLAGSTONE 1. B Lh ENNEiT PALM DESERT CA MILDA P 42260
IL �
AlIESSNEMT ND. E21132005-0
—ATE 61=17=76—TR703-CODE-bFFDRV6�—
CONVEYANCE NUMBER 258993 12/77 78 0-00 NO ND DOC STAMP .W
ASSESSEE CHANGED fRd1 1. BSFCFMfF�FTTL�_ B A D
MIL TO ADDR 73M FLAGSTONE LN PALM DESERT, CA 92260
MIIL 70 DATE 12-30-77 CHG
ASSESSMENT NO 621332012-6
DATE77 D C
C Y ER UN CP DOC
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1. MELCHERT CLEONA J
TO 1... FA�'MON' EORGE J
MIL TO DATE 08/09/77 DEL MCM 8
ASSESSMENT N0. -
-+-•! DATE 09-22-77 TtUN CODE DEEDPROC 78
M T T 61
,60
ASSE55LE CHANGED FROM . DE ROD
TO 1. HOLT JEROME E
FLORENCE A
MIL 70 DATE / /rl DEL
DATE 1- TRAN CODE DEEDPROC
CONVEYANCE NUMBER 091761 05/77 78 0-00 NO JT DOC STAMP .W
ALINE C
TO K Y M L
2. KAY VIVIAN M
ANY O PALM DESERT, CA 92260
MIL TU DATE - CMG
pVTE 99tNCE NUM TRAN CODE 05/77DEEDPROC
r CONVEYANCE NI.fIBEk 091761 OS/77 78 0-00 NO JT DOC STAMP .W
AACEASEE CHANGED FROM 9 1. KAY M H L. A NE C
TO
2. KAY VIVIAN M
M1L TO ADDR 3848U POPPET CANYON Dk PALM DESERT CA 92260
MIL TO DATE - CHG
DATE 02-08-78 TRAN CODE DEEDRVD3
[[[[ vEr�tE�ER0171L5 01/7878JT 7[ 000171L5 01/78 78JT TC UGC STAMP 5 SU
j ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1. KAY MIC�EL V
2. KAY VIVIAN M
LAMMING
LANNING SUZANNE _ A
}, KAY N GARY A fl 7 ---
MIL TO DATE 2- - CHG DR
*.c -_._-TOE ASSEM5 T ROLL-1176ATE ZwNTY-OT RTVERSTOE-�
4-07-78 DEEDPkOC ACCUMULATED JOURNAL
ASSFSSMENT
DATE 07-21•.7 TRAN CODE DEEDPROC
1 - IANCE
�i�MBER 117538 06/77 78 0-00 IT JT DOC STAMP 5.50
FAFnFDZRbA NICDOAAC�-- RLULRT-Z—_-
2. MALDONALD MARY E
TO 1 A_ M1CNAE
VIAF
NAIL TU ADDR p"480 POF'PE2TTT_CANYON DR PALM DESERT, CA 92260
CONVEYANCE NUMBER 006500 01/78 78 0-00 IT JT DOC STAMP 69.85
AS$ES_�EE CHANGED FROM 1 KR MICHAEI n
VIVIAN
TO 1. ERICKSON ROSS
_PAR It)_ADDR 2. ERICKSGN RANCHO MMIRAGE, CA Ya(U
MAIL TU DATE 01-12-78 CHG
ASSESSMENT -
DATE 02-22-78 TRAN CODE DEEDRVD3
_ CONVEYANCE NUMBER 026831 02/78 78 U-W NO JT DOC STAMP _ .W NG% EXEF�P ULEi _ 78__
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM -SINT C M kJUR E
TO 1. S1NTIC MARJORIE K
_ J. SINTiC JOSEPH G
ASSESSMENT NO. 621335013-6
AA 08-23-77 TRAN CODE
CONVEYANCE NUMBER 1 4 LB/7. 78 0-00JT CP DOC STAMP 10.45
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM 1. JUST JERRY C
_ 2,�T LEILANI _
TO . LYPPS NOk R
2. LYPPS SUZANNE
ASSESSMENT
DATE 07-01-77 TRAN CODE UEEUPROC
_ fo,uFrgNCE NUMBER U91761 05/77 ?8 -W NO JT DOC STAMP _GU
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM K EMMALiNE C
TO 1. KAY MICHAEL D
KAY VIVIAN n ____ _
flAA TG AD OR L C
POPPE7 CANYON DR PALM DESERT, A /2[ O
MAIL TO DATE 05-20-77 CMG
ASSESSMENT 42 11-7 - -� -
DATE 01-25-78 TRAN CODE DEEDRVD3
fONVEYANCE NLAn9ER OWl4 1/7 TC DOC ,TAMP_
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM HUTTEft CHAkCE - G
TU 1. WE8 ER kONALD J
_1 1UI FRANK-__R
MA1L TO ADDR 372 NEST 49TH AVE VANCWVER 8C, CAN VFN _Ttl�WO1W
MAIL TO DATE 01-17-78 CMG
ASSESSMENT NO. 621342065-1
DATE 01-25-78 TRAN CODE DEEDRVD3
CONVEYANCE NL ER_DQK4Y 01/7' -7D—_ U-UU NO TC-_ DQC-lTA F_ _9.',_
ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM I. C ` 1N 'UHN J
2. Vf_0T1NE EVELYN C
�i W gONALD___ J_ , _
--- --—IC. 2. STFEEIF FRANK k --- - --- -
MAIL TO AUDR 372() WEST 491H AVE VANCOUVER 6C, CAN Vfr, 3T8 UWW
MAIL TO DAIS L1-IZ-1fl.CnG
,?DFREY EIMER R JR CYJDF RE RUIN D JI +�-•�, 4j5r� �72
).7rLL�5 1J�E� (N [(�I,(�D i.4u(� y/UUr[1 kl
tN iffili INT 1N COMMON th 1 6 5 rU n7B/1142
1M99k5fNP�,Ikvy% I WkINIrT bii K Ay'} — ���� a s-i b—nia 8rp?5=e=iar' i75 355YJ
�7�u�7�t1�; lftSr6:�QQ�� lN. F�€i kT O�TbLI'�.LmL .----�------
��AISER�A titer lt4i.114 Ott1]I110I5_l._11M0IA[0 - INi s --jam h-�8 1 -9 2475� 7156 7r7,
� B� g� • O[lObl�I _R1.
'�'2Lry7RjI)[ dA�5jjKCZ� 1IR.1tt COttlitl LQ1S_L�'.
739 _ 6 —
rt�r•MAY1101.-k% • e 1G {p 5 -2 '!r 1 _TAX .
"t,la'Rtk�S d1l TriZ�TTlB"Ic7S16i���LSS8Z7"iis%S5 CM
n1%) L 3 CM IV35 L_i.5
-S
.p '---19 18 ASSESSMENT ROLL COUNTY OPAGE 191
F RIVERSIDE
RECORDERS NO ZONE TRA PARCEL NO. LAND IMPRV Nl Ex:S'TION$ NET
YNERS NAME THFRIACMTC -.�_--$ALE• Aj7c '
AS
,ADDRESS_IIAILL-j SUT%CR)-SAMEW D _ _
irt
C 1C158_ CM/L M N L
CNEIIA_ CASE
or 1 re uronwe I — — 151n
j '
�1 1 MAIKE7 ST 'INDISON Il h20a0 • 1 / /76 [1 7.74 - '� '
'pg.. ATTt 1EC-iD
�j5 PT A MAP
VCYD P_Q % 1L15g� COACHEIIA- CA 92 TA%
2-{o r�R Zt4S _ .iusl-ai--r61/1--tzsril
N.% MA Wvlu�ls' A qJ;N / /66 Cl-FC 1.
• -- -----
1 A 1 T F T TA
C0.
IN-Z8 ACRES EI In 16S O A F 9 1f1 yy
6
N
D IPT E A MAP
WD, xx . o»>.h 1� - NON TA% .
CVC71D� COACHELLA. C -
E
�n1� � 27NAt"
�N7 c Y R Of'F BIOG SA AY �jj NT 84111• 1/_T177 C7 48 --�" "•
H GIIWY , PALM DESERT/ 26rJ # Ff 19
T S R E .S ---
Y If/ 11 L 1N, Y IN A ARA 7
1 / NE 174 OF NI /4 SEA
M RD cAN IMRIM]. Cq 91
• 1 ACRES M/L IN PAR R 04 049
� T��
`�VC1R�p%��1X if158 [OACMB A CA 977Z¢
SSE—S5A t 69 - ;s - A45fri
H7f AAHANANh0 gICVV,, CoV -•
• ACRES-N/L iN PoR N i/GEI
F SET55 R6E FOR TOTAL
FSCBIU111s mEE-As5E5SOBs 1 R9 629{r-_ t!nt-5
NON SSESSABLE r-----.- - 70-'
BREEDING NARRY�Jp�'INDEED LNG HELEN H 120956 R7 lgr1f12 629-fy.t-f1�1 t 7f,1 -y—'^_ `
V BALSTA LNI 234 e
POOR LO-ST�i3�F� 28/ 5 PALM VISTA lN1 45r '
BREEUING RRY J, BREEDING HELEN H 12 56 R? tAyln2 629-fK1{Y12-4 45n ^-
iS_`95-CNIPFROCA RD_ rA1I1EPBAL_Li7YSA9 .
FqR lOT 42 re 028/ S PALM Vl$TA U.IT 1 - .
Bk' • NARR$YpJ_ BREEDING HELEN H 12n' .6 Rl 1-�nr+�.2�429-fi41{rR-5-35fi - 9c+�
I
pT54G re`nzs/r' �MHFV•aISAA UNIT�9�4 • 121�L1J_YY _ _ .
v F —; �;
x, �>s (U.S.PUSfAGE�
Trt7rr.TlT amQ6 d AUO-i'76 ', v%
46.276 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 82260 SENDER
S('O d'�r Ifdd346N1 �1c fJRIV TO I`
TELEPHONE(TIQ 346-0611 «
401' DELI '/_-:2AdL° Ay ADDRLPSEL) �•;
J.,; L3= iD F04 dAl > P I
lei �� G
ZVictor Stoisits � ( w
900 Sea Ln . Apt . 112 z L
Corona Del Mar, CA 9262515 4 c ;.
AS RESSED N A '3
UNi�; LE ? 0 FORWARD le'< J
FEE ' :"',J TO 5Et�DER
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
August 1 , 1978
Dear Property Owner :
At the request of several property owners who reside
on Hedgehog Street , the Palm Desert City Council will
be reviewing the proposed six (6) foot perimeter wall
at the Kings Point Project , a portion of which will
abut the rear yards of those lots on the south side
of Hedgehog Street . The subject will be considered
at the Council ' s August loth meeting at 7 : 00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers at the Palm Desert City
Hall . Your comments and suggestions would be welcomed
at that time.
ncerely,
Paul A. Villiams, A . I .P .
Director of Environmental Services
PAPS/ks
l
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226O
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT
Date : June 22, 1978
REPORT ON: 198 single-family, semi-detached condominium units
CASE NO. : 117MF ZONE : PR-7, S.P.
LOCATION: NW corner of Fairhaven and 44th Avenue
APPLICANT: TERRA INDUSTRIES
NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary site, floor and elevations
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by
the staff and by the applicant , the DRB DENIED
this project , subject to the attached conditions .
Date of Action : June 20, 1978
Motion Made By : Jackson
Seconded By: Johnson
Vote : - . Ja kson Johnson• NOES: Leung, Urrutia,
2 3 (AYES• c g,
Cipriani )
Reasons for Negative Vote (s) :
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk
of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (Z5) days of the date of the
decision. )
STAFF COMMENTS : The motion made by Jackson and seconded by Johnson
failed to pass for lack of a majority vote; therefore, the
boards previous decision of denial , .was upheld.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE : June 20, 1978
CASE NO. : 117MF
APPLICANT : TERRA INDUSTRIES
LOCATION: NW Corner of Fairhaven and 44th Avenue
ZONING: PR-7, S.P.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
The principal deficiencies still present in the revised plan submitted
are: 1 ) insufficient common open space and 2) the absence of a 20'
minimum setback between units as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
With regard to the open�:space issue, Staff believes the private yards
have been included in calculating the amount of common open space
wich is contrary to the method of calculation prescribed by the Ordi-
nace. In addition, the applicant has achieved the common open space
shown through the use of two story units in a scenic preservation
overlay zone Additionally, Staff suggests that the pitch of the roof
be lowered to accomodate the use of the new roofing material proposed.
INDUSTRIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 82417, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138 (714) 283-7141
May 25, 1978
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92660
Dear Commissioner: -
Terra Industries. (Terra) filed all data and documents for Planned
Residential Permit with the Department of Environmental Services of
the City on May 1, 1978. A hearing was..scheduled by your Design Review
Board (DRB) for May 16, 1978, but, unfortunately, we were not notified
of the hearing date and consequently were not at the hearing to present
our case or to discuss the merits of our plan. We did not make the filing
without first discussing the project and showing preliminary designs to
City planning staff. Certain written suggestions of the staff obtained
for these previous discussions have been incorporated into the design for
your consideration at the May 30th meeting.
t
On May 18th, Ralph Cipriani telephoned our office and advised that the
DRB had rejected our preliminary site, floor and elevation plans. Terra
then objected to not being notified of the meeting and requested that we
be scheduled on the next meeting of the DRB to explain the project. Terra
was scheduled at the DRB meeting of May 23rd and the project was discussed.
But Terra was informed that we could only. request. a clarification of con-
cerns expressed by the DRB. At this meeting not all of the members appeared
to be in agreement with the concerns and recommendations of the Board. Terra
asked the members of the DRB to explain the 10 items appearing in their
minutes of their May 16th meeting, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A,
but received no coherent replies.
We would like to address each of the 10 items below:
a. The Modular Appearance.
This would hardly seem to be a reason for rejection as Websters'
Dictionary defines modular as "constructed with standardized units
or dimensions for flexibility and variety in use." (emphasis added) .
Since flexibility and variety are desirable land planning goals this
would seem to be a reason for approval rather than denial.
b. The Arrangement will not Function well for Residents.
Exactly what was meant here was not explained so Terra had to assume
that reference was made to the arrangement of 4 homes around a motor
court. Precisely the opposite of the DRB's statement is true_ The
Planning Commission May 25, 1978
City of Palm Desert Page 2
cluster concept around a motor court is not a new idea. It has
been used very successfully in other developments throughout the
United States. The particular design of motor court utilized by us
has been successfully used by 525 residents in a development in
San Diego, California, built about 5 years ago and in a 226 home
development in Orange County near Leisure World built by our firm
last year. .In both of these cases an exhaustive review of development
plans by very sophisticated planning departments did not find any
functional weakness in the arrangement of the homes around a motor
court.
The purchasers of these homes have never complained nor have they
encountered any problems with the arrangement. A close and thorough
examination of the plot plan discloses that a central curved loop.
street with two means of access have been provided for the main
circulation with the clusters of eight homes around a motor court
radiating from this central street. This arrangement (1) avoids
garage doors facing the main street which facilitates traffic flow,
(2) maximizes green belt landscaped areas, (3) provides more convenient
guest parking, (4) provides a walkway system separated from vehicular
traffic, . (5) creates a park-like setting by reducing views on paved
areas, . (6) creates large open spaces for recreation, and (7) provides
a very private enclosed yard for each homeowner of a substantial size.
c. Land Planning and Use do not Coincide.
This comment was not clarified at all and we are at a loss to under-
stand its meaning as all City codes and ordinances are met by the
land plan and use of the property.
d. Center Parking Courts will not Function well.
This apparently is the same comment as "b" except that they are not
"parking" courts, they are motor courts, and we have demonstrated, both
in fact and in theory, that such a statement is not a statement of fact
or truth. Parking is absolutely prohibited by the CC&R's except in
designated spaces. The project will have the appropriate sign required
by the Vehicle Code of the State of California which permits a "tow-
away" by anyone should a violation occur.
e. Circulation of ParkingUnacceptable. -
As previously stated, existing projects do not prove this to be true.
The PR 7 zone required 400 covered spaces which has been provided at
the door of each unit and 100 guest spaces presumably located conveniently
to the home. The development plan has provided .200.guest spaces, none
of which are more than 150 feet from the entrance to each home. Many
are located adjacent to the home. Our experience has shown that a
minimum of one guest space per home should be provided for developments
of this type.
Planning Commission May 25, 1978
City of Palm Desert Page 3
f. Access to. Building too Remote.
Terra feels this to be an unjust criticism based on an analysis
of the guest parking, since this occurs adjacent or a maximum
distance of 150 feet to each home. Also, proper signing will be
done to identify the location of each entrance. This should be -
adequate for any guest to find the front door. Additional access
to the rear of the house is provided through the carport.
g. Architecture does not Complement Desert Setting.
` A review of other projects.prior to the submittal of our plans does
not prove this to be true. The buildings have been designed by
Daniel N. Salerno, a licensed architect and a member of A.I.A.
Mr.-- Salerno has won many awards for design excellence. He has paid
particular attention to the desert setting in this project by .using
stucco in varous .shades compatible with the use of stucco in. almost
every development in the City of Palm Desert. The use of pop-outs
around the windows and doors will create a very pleasing shadow effect
without cluttering the exterior. The ends of the gable roofed
buildings are broken up by the use of wood shingles under the eaves.
The roof line is thin and complimentary to the size of the building
and accented by exposed rafter tails. The proposed roofing material
will be compatible with the desert setting by the use of Monray
concrete tile in a color acceptable to the Planning Commission or
DRB.
h. Recommend that Shakes not be Used on Sides of Structures.
Shingles were proposed, not shakes. Shingles do not have the heavy
texture of shakes and should be compatible with the desert setting.
However, should the Commission desire an alternative, material such
as cedar siding, stained if desired, could be substituted.
i. Commercial Size (20' x 40') Pools and Equipment Should be Used inthe
Project. .
It is our intention to provide adequate swimming facilities and we
would stipulate to pools having a minimum of 800 square feet. We
would like not to make them rectangular, but rather have them
harmonize with the landscaping design.
j. Rework Landscape Plan.
Only the required schematic plan was submitted. It is our intention
to provide landscaping which will not only enhance the desirability of
the project but will be a credit to the desert community. No specific
objection to the plan submitted was offered. We intend to comply with
any review requirements of the City.
l�
Planning Commission May 25, 1978
City of Palm Desert Page 4
Enlightened by the above and the findings and justifications contained
in the City of Palm Desert Negative Declaration for Environmental Impact
(Case No. DP05-78 & 117MF) and the Special conditions for Case No. 117MF
proposed by the Planning Department staff (a copy of which is attached
as Exhibit B) the Commission cannot substantiate, support or justify
the denial of the project.
We shall look forward to addressing the Commission further at the public
hearing on May 30, 1978. The special conditions contained in Exhibit B
can be given consideration at that time.
Sincerely,
TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC. -
ROBERT E. KREIS
President -
REK:lgm
Enclosures: Exhibit A
Exhibit B
EXHIBIT A - r
Minutes
Palm Desert Design Review Board
May 16, 1978 Page Four
15. Case No. 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES - Preliminary site, floor and elevations
Tor a 200-unit condominium project to be located at the northwest corner of
Fairhaven and 44th Avenue. Applicant not present.
On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Leung, the Board rejected the preliminary
site, floor and elevations as submitted and requested that the applicant re-
work the site plan and resubmit it. The major concerns and recommendations
of the Board included:
a. The modular appearance.
b. The arrangement will not function well for residents.
c. Land planning and use do not coincide.
d. Center parking courts will not function well .
e. Circulation of parking unacceptable.
f. Access to building to remote.
g. Architecture does not complement desert setting.
h, Recommend that shakes not be used on sides of structures.
i . Commercial size (20'x4O' ) pools and equipment should be used in project.
j . Rework landscape plan.
Carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Leung, Minturn , Johnson) .
16. Discussion:
Board Member George Minturn announced that this meeting was to be his last
since he is moving to Santa Rosa. He said he enjoyed working with the Board
and had learned a good deal . Chairman of the Board Eric Johnson accepted his
resignation and thanked Mr. Minturn for his time and contributions to the
Design Review Board.
17. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Urrutia, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Carried 4-0 (Leung, Minturn, Urrutia , Johnson) .
RONALD R. KNIPPEL, Associate ✓ aAer
rk/ks
__i
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR
CASE NO. 117 MF
1. Final construction drawings including a final landscaping, grading,
lighting, amenitites, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation
plans and sign program shall be submitted to the Design Review Board.
No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the De-
partment of Environmental Services to this project until the afore-
mentioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed.
2. Proposed indentity structure shall be deleted.
3. The entrances to the project shall be relocated in order to line up
to the adjacent streets in order to reduce the impact of traffic on
adjacent properties.
4. An additional swimming pool shall be located in the southwestern
area of the project.
5. No plan Js shall be located on the perimeter of the project. Those
Plan Js shown on the perimeter shall be replaced with Plan Fs.
6. The proposed meandering sidewalks adjacent to the public right-of-ways
shall be relocated closer to the public right-of-ways.
7. Meandering masonry walls shall be constructed on all street frontages
in place of berming to reduce the noise impact.
8. Each unit shall have one garage and one carport due to the unique
configuration of the parking areas.
9. A six foot masonry wall shall be provided along the property line
between said project and the vacant site and adjacent church site
at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue.
AGREEMENT
I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval
to comply with all the conditions set forth , and understand
the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a build-
ing permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this
signed confirmation has been received by the Department of
Environmental Services.
(Date) (Applicant ' s Signature)
Mr. Kriese of Terra Industries, notified this office
on Friday, June 2, 1978, that they would like their
case continued to the Design Review Board meeting of
June 20, 1978.
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
DATE_ May 31 , 1978
APPLICANT TERRA INDUSTRIES
P. 0. Box 82417
San Diego, CA 92138
CASE NO. : DP 05-78 and 117MF
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request
and taken the following action at its meeting of
May 30, 1978 .
XX CONTINUED TO July 5, 1978
DENIED
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION.
PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental
Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COM:`tISSSION
cc: Applicant
C.V.C.W.D.
File
'1
"inutes
Palm Desert Eesign Review Board
i':ay 16, 1972
?age --our
15. Case ho. 117P1F - ERRA i�IDUSTR[ES - Preliminary site, floor and elevations
fora00 unit ndominiurs; project to be located at the northliest corner of
Fairhav n and 4th Avenue. Applicant not present.
On a motion by Urrutia , seconded by Leung, the Board rejected the preliminary
site, floor and elevations as submitted and requested that the applicant re-
work the site plan and resubmit it. The major concerns and recommendations
of the Board included: j
a. The modular appearance.
b. The arrangement will not function well for residents.
c. Land planning and use do not coincide.
d. Center parking courts will not function well .
e. Circulation of parking unacceptable.
f. Access to building to remote.
g. Architecture does not complement desert setting.
h. Recommend that shakes not be used on sides of structures.
i. Commercial size (20'x4O' ) pools and equipment should be used in project
j. Rework landscape plan.
Carried 4-0 (Urrutia , Leung, Minturn, Johnson) .
16. Discussion:
Board Member George Minturn announced that this meeting was to be his last `
since he is moving to Santa Rosa. He said he enjoyed working with the Board
and had learned a good deal . Chairman of the Board Eric Johnson accepted his
resignation and thanked Mr. Minturn for his time and contributions to the
Design Review Board.
17. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Urrutia, the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Carried 4-0 (Leung, Minturn, Urrutia , Johnson) .
ROPIALD R. KNIPPEL, Associate Piafi er
rk/ks
l�
April 26, 1978
BONITA PALMS
RECREATION CENTER
&
POOL CABANAS
INTERIOR;
Carpet 7, Red Earth #228 - Grand Collection
Mand Carpet Mills
Beams & Interior Wood Trim - Olympic Solid Color Mahogany
Kitchen Appliances - Hotpoint Almond
Kitchen & Bar Floor -
Kitchen & Bar Tops - Wilson Art 70024F__'- Natural Butcher Block
Velvet finish
All Doors & Jambs (except front door) - Enamel
VAT kitchen & Bar, Storage & Hall - Woodstock 54251 Dark Cherry by Armstrong
Ceramic Tile -
EXTERIOR; SCHEME 1
Front Door - Frazee Automn Red Stain (Solid)
Siding and Louvres and Louvre Doors - #717 color as Ol,ymp;i;c Semi-
transparent
II
c xff
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT
Date : May 18, 1978
REPORT ON: 200-unit condominiun project
CASE NO. : 117MF ZONE : PR-7, S .P.
LOCATION: NW corner of Fairhaven and 44th Avenue
APPLICANT: TERRA INDUSTRIES
NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT : Preliminary site, floor and elevations
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by
the staff and by the applicant , the DRB REJECTED
this project , subject to the attached conditions.
Date of Action: May 16, 1978
Motion Made By : URRUTIA
Seconded By : LEUNG
Vote : 14-0
Reasons for Negative Vote (s) :
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk
of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (W days of the date of the
decision. )
STAFF COMMENTS :
;-r
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE May 9, 1978
CASE NO. : 117 MF
APPLICANT: Terra Industries
LOCATION: NW corner of Fairhaven and 44th Avenue
ZONING: PR-7, S.P.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the preliminary site, floor and elevation plans subject
to the recommended Special Conditions-of Approval .
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR
CASE NO. 117 MF
1. Final construction drawings including a final landscaping, grading,
lighting, amenitites, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation
plans and sign program shall be submitted to the Design Review Board.
No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the De-
partment of Environmental Services to this project%until the afore-
mentioned approved plans and construction shall. have been completed.
2. Proposed indentity structure shall be deleted.
3. The entrances to the project,shalI be relocated in order to line up
to the adjacent streets in order to reduce the impact of traffic on
adjacent properties.
4. An additional swimming pool shall be located in the southwestern
area of the project.
5. No plan Js shall be located on the perimeter of the project. Those
Plan Js shown on the perimeter shall be replaced with Plan Fs.
6. The proposed-meandering sidewalks adjacent. to.the public righter-ways
shall be relocated closer-to_the public ht rig -of=ways.
7. Meandering masonry walls shall be constructed on all street frontages
in place of berming to reduce the noise impact.
8. Each unit shall have one garage and one carport due to the unique
configuration of the parking areas.
9. .A six foot masonry wall shall be provided along the property line
between said project and the vacant site and adjacent church site
at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue.
AGREEMENT
I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval ,
to comply with all the conditions set forth , and understand
the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a build-
ing permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this
signed confirmation has been received by the Department of
Environmental Services.
(Date) (Applicant ' s Signature)
/' r m F w F w A k
INDUSTRIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 82417, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138 (714) 283-7141
May 1, 1978
Design Review Board
Department of Environmental Services
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickley Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is our submittal to the Design Review Board for a 200 unit, single-
family, semi-detached condominium project known as Bonita Palms. The
following is included in our submittal:
Application Form (copy of application previously submitted)
Fee check in the amount of $20.00
Plans: (18 sets each)
Preliminary House Plans
Preliminary Site Plans (1 colored)
Peliminary Plot Plans ( 1 colored)
Preliminary Landscape Plans (1 colored)
Preliminary Grading Plans
Exhibit DRB=IX - Description of Materials to be used and Chart showing
color of materials (5 boards)
Exhibit DRB-IV-P - Photos of mailboxes, street lights, walkways and clock
tower. (Typical proposed common area facilities)
Exhibit DRB-IV-H - Available Utilities
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
IIIDiJS C.
BRUCE WIFE
BW:lgm
Enclosures
i\ S�
' ice
�j 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA. 92260
AeNITMQM=&U EOO 3 53P QO mag ***DESIGN REVIEW BOARD***
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC.
Appliecnt (please wim)
P. 0. Box 82417 (714) 283-7141
Mailing Address Telephone
San Diego, California 92138
City State Zip-Code
REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested)
Approval of Development. Plans to permit the development of approximately
200 single family, .semi-detached condominium units (Bonita Palms project)
Conditional Use Permit - -
.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
See attachpd legal deccrin ;on - P onerrty located near the northwest corner of
Fairhaven and 44th.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 621-320 Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 (Map attached)
EXISTING ZONING PR-7
Property ONner Authorization THE UNDE95IGNEO STATES THAT THEY ARE THE Ow NERIS)OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR-
IZATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION.
DESERT ENTERPRISES, INC. (Agent of Owners) _
BY:
SIGNATURE GATE
AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT CF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES-
TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC. TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
BY:
SIGNATURE DATE
Applicants Signature TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC.
BY:
SIGNATURE - DATE
(FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ACCEPTED BY
❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A.No.
❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CASE C� I��^.
❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1`
❑ OTHER REFERENCE CASE NO. '
INVOICE —
1 - (.ITY OF PALM DEScRT
P. O. BOX 1648 N2 60
PALM DESERT, CA. 92260
TO: DATE: 4-21-78
TERRA INDUSTRIES
P.O. Box 82417 Make Remittance Payable to: -
San Diego, Ca. 92138 CITY OF PALM DESERT
Mail To: Finance Department P. O. Box 1648
Palm Desert, CA. 42260
Error in addition-amount should have been $1 ,233.50-
$20.00 due. Receipt #1315, dated 4-3-78 was for the
amount of $1 ,213.50 T.
$20.00
due
CITY OF PALM f DESERT, CALIFORNIAAE
;`„
T�EASURER,15 ,. ;IRECEIP� 1 ���ry> ;` r .;tM
Received of:
Z' j�-f:s } l+• DO}8. �'
f oJ4: r t �s6t 11{I it Jt 's, ,. �7eNf o { �{
r 37r4 Y= K For av r,, Account No. Amount
r
3700 C<0 t J -
yF-�.1 'F,�y _.;(i •.
1f'^�• i .b ..t. . ' i _ __ ..
I ,v� � °,^i i'�.`�'f�qe. . � � '�S yOI, ,�'v[! -cry—�^y�.-• ��h..• "� '`.
1 fart, t - y r �^e �t - , -.. .,•1': '
4M �3eceived CITY TREASURER J`
,"`r- , t ,!-�kni,� af1'� f f t �b ✓✓17l?`!� t. '.1. 'I � '. Total
tz ,?
✓
t37-EY, .. - i , , s� - Y' i '' �'�� , t$>5 '..A'"" .... 5^ :'-_•. �.,...� �af v._.:�3i
` �_ �'n• C r $tr Yi
[ t <
r —1
1yyQ , efi , a }' fs htyy . t• it u
.r
Y ,n
T.
��� 'arc
it
th .
c
rid
i Tq; . . . s..,•. may;
•-
F
cc
/NG � iNT
1�
ie� 2-; may,,.
'9 IIu� �. � ' -',T
a=v/Zs/G9-�v V'/�-L/-Fs
r`
�b/dToci} I)EL rS � L
PALM DESERT UTILITIES
WATER: Coachella Valley Water District
Hyw. 111 & 52 Ave.
Coachella, CA 398-2657
ELECTRIC: Southern California Edison
36100 Cathedral Canyon
Cathedral City, CA 875-5100
GAS: Southern California Gas
211 N. Sunrise
Palm Springs, CA 347-6187
PHONE: General Telephone
83793 47th Avenue
Indio, CA 347-2711
T.V. : Coachella Valley Cable
74175 El Paseo
Palm Desert, CA 398-2657
SEWER: Coachella Valley Water District
Hwy. 111 & 52 Ave.
Coachella, CA 398-2657
Exhibit DRB-IV-H
April 26, 1978
BONITA PALMS
SCHEME I
EXTERIOR:
Area A: Eave and all exposed wood in
detail 16
D-1
Outlookers and Fascia Olympic Solid
2 x 4 plant-on .front door & windows Color Mahogany
Fence - cap & resawn trim
Gable ends - stucco stop
Garage door header (Trus-Joist) and jamb
Area B: Front Door Olympic Semi-
Pot Shelf transparent
Garage Door #717 for color
Fence - Resawn Exterior plywood (match color in
solid stain)
Area C: Stucco X-39 Mirador
La Habra
INTERIOR: Beams and Joist chords Frazee - Madera
Stain - Padre
Brown
DM-IX
April 26, 1978
BONITA PALMS
SCHEME 2
EXTERIOR:
Area A: Eave and all exposed wood in
detail 16
D-1
Outlookers & Fascia Olympic Solid
2 x 4 plant-on front door and windows Color Russet
Fence - cap and resawn trim
Gable ends - stucco stop
Garage door header (Trust-Joist) and jamb
Area .B: Front Door Olympic Semi-
Pot Shelf transparent
Garage Door #718 for color
Fence - Resawn Exterior plywood (match color in
solid stain)
Area C: Stucco X-73 Eggshell
La Habra
INTERIOR: Beams & Joist chords Frazee - Madera
Stain - Padre
Brown
April 26, 1978
BONITA PALMS
SCHEME 3
EXTERIOR:
Area A: Eave and all exposed wood in
detail 16
DD-1
Outlookers & Fascia Olympic Solid
2 x 4 plant-on front door and windows Color Cocoa
Fence - cap and resawn trim
Gable ends - stucco stop
Garage door header (Trus-Joist) and jamb
Area B: Front Door Olympic Semi-
Pot Shelf transparent
Garage Door #916 in color
Fence - Resawn Exterior plywood (match color in
solid stain)
Area C: Stucco X-17 Misty
La Habra
INTERIOR: Beams and Joist chords Frazee - Madera
Stain - Padre
Brown
e e
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA. 92260
***DESIGN REVIEW BOARD***
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC.
Applicant (please print)
P. 0. Box 82417 (714) 283-7141
Mailing Address Telephone
San Diego, California 92138
City State Zip-Code
REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested)
Approval of Development. Plans to permit the development of approximately
220 single family, semi-detached condominium units (Bonita Plams project)
Conditional Use Permit
.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
See attached legal descriptions - Property located near the northwest corner of
Fairhaven and 44th.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 62f-320. Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 (Map attached)
EXISTING ZONING PR-7
Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER(S)OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR-
IZATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION,
BESECYRPRI S,,-ZINC. (Age ;f Owners) ,.
SIGNATURE DATE
AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS)AGEEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES-
TE,RRA I TS, TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
BY:
SIGNATURE DATE
Applicants Signature TERRA INDUSTRI , INC
BY. -
SIGNATURE DATE
(FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ACCEPTED BY
❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No.
❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CASE No. -
❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION
0 OTHER REFERENCE CASE NO. '
f
Order No. 464285
EXHIBIT "I"
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
18, Township 5 South, Range_6 East,_San-Dernardino—Base_and_Meridian,_
according to an official plat of said land filed in the District.Sand'
Office.November .26, 1856, described as followsdr
Beginning at the South line of said Section, South 690 12' West, 660
feet from the Southwest corner of Palm Dell Estates, as shown by Map on
file in Book 21 page 66 of Maps, Riverside County Records, being the
Southwest corner of that certain parcel conveyed to Wiefels and Son by
Deed recorded February 5, 1962 as Instrument No. 10987 in Book 3071 page
390 of Official Records; thence continuing South 890 12 ' West, 525 feet
more or less and on said South line to the Southeast corner of that
certain parcel conveyed to the Coachella Valley County Water District by
Deed recorded January 22, 1960 as Instrument No. 6187 in Book 2621 page
94 of Official Records; thence North 1253.19 feet on the East line of
said parcel to the Southwest corner of that certain parcel conveyed to
the County of Riverside by Deed recorded December 16, 1963 as Instrument
No. 132567 in Book 3560 page 9 of Official Records; thence North 85° 13' i
34" East, 532.96. feet on the Southerly line of said Parcel to a point on
the Westerly line of that certain parcel described as Parcel 3 in Deed
to Penelope A. Rigby by Deed recorded November 28, 1961 as Instrument 1b.
101782 in Book 3027 page 335 of Official Records; thence South 000 06'
30" East 394.57 feet on the West line of said parcel to the Southwest
corner thereof] thence North 89° 15' East 330 feet on the South line of
said Parcel and its Easterly extension to the Northwest corner of Parcel
1, described in said Deed to Rigby; thence South 0°..061. 30" east 490
feet on the West line of said Parcel to the Northeast corner of that
certain parcel conveyed to Wiefels and Son by Deed hereinabove referred
to; thence south 890 12' West, 330 feet to the North line of said parcel
to the Northwest corner thereof; thence South 000 06' 30" East 396 feet
on the West line of said parcel to the point of beginning;
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion as granted to the County of Riverside
in Deed recorded December 21, 1964 as Instrument No. 151387.
Said land is also situated in the City of Palm Desert.
i
2 T. C. A. iaoi, ieos, 5 2 S .4 Sf
1912
PARK VIE D,4.
13S •)!i5 //[f /J116) /J�6J P 41-0
l 4
C e
E
\J
C i
• J z1S"
4TE I O'_O NO NEA NO. .1.44 41O
3c
i ^ C
ti
I
o
13,944c.r
J r
I '
t.. P 0
t35 :::.lea :[/[♦ � - D 'J'l'E 1
1 2=
4 4 M.
"ihla plat Is for your aid In locating your lend with reference
to ctreeb and ether parcel& It is not a au v y. While this
gJpl If believed to tx correct, the Company erwmea no tje-
Ulty IV any lox occuring by reason of reliance thereorO
6AFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
CC% 1967
............. v..n
l..1..,1..
Attached to and niaffe a iuul of Slmvart Titl Gu;:r;lnty Company Policy No. CNJPR 11332
Continuation of Schedule A
PARCEL 1 :
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of. Section 1.8, Township 'i South , Range 6 East,
San Bernardino Base and 1leri0i �,n , described as follows :
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest
quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section;
THENCE South 890 15 ' (vest, on the North line of the
Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Section, 420 .feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
THENCE North 0' 6 ' 301' West, 441 . 18 feet to the North
line of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter
of said Section;
THENCE- North 891 15 ' East, on the North line of the
Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Section, 240 feet to the TRUE POTNT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to the
County of Riverside , by Deed recorded January 20 , 1964
as. Instrument No. 7625 of Official Records of Riverside
County, California , described as follows :
BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of that parcel conveyed
to W. Clyde Ball , by Deed recorded January 9 , 1962 in
Book 3053 page 95 of Official Records of Riverside
County, California; said corner being on the North
line of said Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter,
distant North 890 15 ' East , 668 . 26 feet from the Northwest
corner thereof;
THENCE North B90 1.5 ' East , on said North fine, 240 feet
to the Northeast corner of said parcel;
THENCE South 0° 6 ' 30 " East , on the East line thereof,
29. 71 feet;
THENCE South 135° 13 ' 34" West, 240 . 79 feet to the West
line of said parcel;
THENCE North 0" 06 ' 30" West , on said West line , 46 . 61 feet
to the Point of Beginning.
-continued-
P:+9r 2A
Au,n:hed Io and m;ide. ;r t�;ir, of Sicivart Title Guarani , .L..,..dc...._,.....,I"_
} Company Policy No. CNJPR 11332
Continuation of Schedule A
PARCEL 2 :
An easement, 30 feet wide, lVili:7 Fa;t of a ,
the following described line : ° adlacent to
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the of the Southeast quarter o Southwest quarter
Range 6 East, f Section 18, Township 5 South ,
San Bernardino rase d Meridian ;an
THENCE South 0° 06 ' 30" East, 441 . feet;
an THENCE South S9° 15 , West, 660 feet to the TRUE PORT OF
BEGINNING;
of THENCE South 00 6 ' 30 " East, 884 - 82 the .Southwest quarter of feet to the. South line
Section. . -the Southeast quarter of said
Se
PARCEL 3 :
described line:easement, 30 feet wide lying westerly of the following
de
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest quarter
of the Southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and 6feridian;
THENCE South 89^ 15 ' West, 660 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE South 0° 06 ' 301, East, 1326 feet to the South line
Section.
Of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Pic
ge 2B
PAS'K V/EW'
,,.err ,r/.r ato
Sj A.
l0 k d O
;+ ! ,
l � i
Uo
� ' I
it • 1 � i
_ /1.94ac r i`
•1 > .f
,rj {IIII •
� r o O ,, � .S �E•
•J �
I f
511 6S _ 71e
_ 7 �0
44 Ih 41 E.
� OilG ) r
lit; COMPANY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
74-133 EL PASEO SUITE K PALM DESERT, CALIF. 92260 (714) 346-5666
Sanctity of Contract Escrow No. 201232 - A & R'
Legal Description'
That portion of the Sld'k of the SE4 of Section 18,
Township 5 South, Range 6 East, SBB&M, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Palm Dell Estates.
as shown on Map Book 21, page 66, Riverside County Records, said corner
being the true point of beginning; Thence South 0' 06' 30" East; a
distance of 441.18 feet' Thence South 89' 15' 00" West, a distance of
420.00 feet; Thence North 0' 06' 30" West, a distance of 441.18 feet; .
Thence North 89' 15' 00" East, -a distance of 420.00 feet to the true -
point of begining.
J
5E E. : lt� T. S S: R. 6E:
rr2 -
33
MAP
. •� - . � SSE
14
jef _7
yC'
ti
h
1.
- r
A ? 34
�> SEE
+ k
37c
i[
OBK
627
FicE'��C£ CGL
11 r.la.N IrP.•.u.rmr
� Ir. ....1 l.. •IJIr.L..r
Attached to and made a pal t of Stewart TiIIe Guaranty Company policy No, CN,IPR 11330 fI L1 II>.
Continuation of Schedule "A"
PARCEL 1:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian,
described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of said Section;
THENCE South 0° 6' 30" East, on the East line of the Southwest quarter of
the Southeast quarter of said Section; 441 .82 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE South 89' 15' West , 330 feet ;
THENCE Sough 0° 6' 30" East, 163.33 feet;
THENCE North 890 15' East, 330 feet to the East Line of the Southwest
quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section ;
THENCE North 0° 6' 30" West, on said last line 163.33 feet to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian,
described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest: quarter of the Southeast
quarter of said Section;
THENCE South 0° 6' 30" East , on the East line of the Southwest quarter of the
Southeast quarter of said Section; 605. 15 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE South 89' 15' West, 330 feet ;
THENCE South 00 6' 30'' East, 163.33 feet;
THENCE North 89' 15' East, 330 feet to the East line of the Southwest quarter
of the Southeast quarter of.'said Section;
THENCE North 00 6' 30" West, on said East line , 1.63.33 feet to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 10,
Township 5 South, Lange 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, described
as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northeast. corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of said Section;
THENCE South 0° 6' 30" East, on the East line of the Southwest quarter of the
Southeast quarter, of said Section, 768.48 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
.THENCE South 890 15' West, 330 feet;
THENCE South 0° 6' 30" East, 163,34 feet;
THENCE North 89' 15' East, 330 feet CO the East line of the Southwest quarter
of the Southeast quarter of said Section;
THENCE North 0° 6' 30" West on said Bost line, 163. 34 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING. C0NTIN11ED
Attached to and made a part of Stewart Title C 'arimy Company Policy No. CNJPR 11330
Continuation of Schedule "A"
PARCEL 4 :
An easement for road and public utility purposes over the following:
A 30 foot strip lying Westerly and joining the following described line:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East , San Bernardino Base and Meridian, described:
-COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of said ctioo;
THENCE South 0° 5' 30" East, on the East line of said Southwest quarter of
(9 ` ' the Southeast quarter, 931.82 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:
THENCE continuing South 0° 6' 30" East, 394.82 feet to the Southeast corner
of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section;
.An easement for road and public utility purposes over the following:
ALSO, an easement 25 feet wide, lying South of the following describedline;
BEGINNING at the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, above referred to;
THENCE South 89° 15' West, 660 feet ;
An easement for road and public utility purposes over the following:
` ALSO, an 'easement 25 feet wide, lying- North of the following described line:
COMMENCING at the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, above referred to:
THENCE South 89' 15' West, 330 feet to the TRUE POITIT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE continuing on South 89° 15, West, 330 feet.
Its ' 2h
S S E SEC
29
A_e
31 . -
1
-
k
I
qq
r z9
G '1
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
TREASURER'S ECEIPT
Received of:
Dote
��,� W
For '
Account No. Amount o�
:*.''eW
7�R—t 7, 2--r7_ mif
NO
Received : Y TREASURERb � �
u.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II . REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 373, which
rejected a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review
for a 200-unit condominium project which was to be located
on approximately 33 acres at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue.
III . CASE NO(S) . : DP 05-78 and 117MF, TERRA INDUSTRIES, Applicant
IV.. DATE: August 10, 1978
V. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation.
B. Draft Resolution No. 78-103.
C• Planning Commission Meeting minutes involving case(s) July 5 & May 30, 1978
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 373 .
E. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 5 and May 30, 1978
F. Portion of Design Review Board minutes of June 20, 1978, & May 16, 1978,
dealing with the subject request.
G. Related maps and/or exhibits.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold the findings of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal by
Resolution No. 78-103.
Justification: 1 . The Planning Commission had sufficient information
to evaluate the Development Plan and subsequently
make a reasonable judgment.
2. Additional Staff examination of the case has determined
that the Planning Commission's original findings remain
valid; namely,
a. The design of the proposed development is not in
keeping with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood and would be detrimental to the har-
monious, orderly and attractive development con-
templated by the Zoning Ordinance and the General
Plan. The overall site plan is poor.
b. The design of the proposed development would not
provide a desirable environment for its occupants.
The site plan proposed will not function well for
either residents of the project or guests and
visitors.
j
Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF
August 10, 1978 Page Two
A. Staff Recommendation: (Cont. )
c. The proposed development does not adhere to every
element of the Zoning Ordinance; namely the re-
quirement of a minimum 20 foot setback between
structures within the Planned Residential Zone
District. Adherance to this requirement will re-
quire substantial modification to the site plan.
RESOLUTION NO . 78-103
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FIND-
INGS AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF TERRA INDUSTRIES
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CASE NOS .
DP 05-78 and 117MF
WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert ,
California , did review the application of TERRA INDUSTRIES for approval
of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a 200-unit con-
dominium project on approximately 33 acres at the northwest corner of
Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue ; and,
WHEREAS , the ,Planning Commission did by Resolution No. 373 , deny
the applicant ' s request ; and, ,
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed an appeal in a timely manner; .
and,
WHEREAS , the City Council did at their regularly scheduled meet-
ing of August 10, 1978, consider the appeal ; and,
WHEREAS, after hearing all the testimony regarding this matter
did find the following facts to exist to justify upholding the find-
ings of the Planning Commission and denying the appeal :
1 . The Planning. Commission had sufficient information to
evaluate the Development Plan and subsequently make a
reasonable judgment .
2 . Additional Staff examination of the case has deter-
mined that the Planning Commission ' s original find-
ings remain valid, namely,
a. The design of the proposed development is not in
keeping with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood and would be detrimental to the har-
monious , orderly•and attractive development con-
templated by the Zoning Ordinance and the General
Plan.
b . The design of the proposed development would not
provide a desirable environment for its occupants .
The site plan proposed will not function well for
either residents of the project or guests and
visitors .
C. The proposed development does not adhere to every
element of the Zoning Ordinance ; namely , the re-
requirement of a minimum 20 foot setback between
structures within the Planned Residential Zone Dis-
trict . Adherance to this requirement will require
substantial modification to the site plan .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Palm Desert , California, as follows :
l 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and con-
stitute the findings of the Council in these cases ;
2 . The requested appeal is hereby denied.
_ a
RESOLUTION NO. 78-103 Page Two
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Palm Desert City Council , held on this day of August ,
1978, by the following vote, to wit :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN : )I
EDWARD D. MULLINS , Mayor
ATTEST :
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert , California
i
'in utes
palm Desert Planning Commission
Clay 30 , 1978 Page Four
VI . PUBLIC IIEARINGS (Cont . )
A. Case Nos . C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont . )
Commissioner Kryder asked if there was an outlet from the
Project onto ;Mesa View. Mr . Williams stated no .
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hear-
ing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission . 1
Commissioner Kryder stated that it is a well thought out
development and that the project is a good one for the area . He
then noted that the drainage and flood control is his main concern
and-'that he wants more time to study the draft EIR.
r ' 7 Commissioner Kelly stated that the increase in density, drain-
y abe'and fire protection are her concerns and she would like more
time.
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder regiested that Staff make
certain determinations with regard to the land down stream and the
traffic problem.
Commissioner Kelly asked for furt
her study to be done on the
traffic situation.
On a motion by Commissioner Kryder , seconded by Commissioner
Kelly, the cases were continued to July 5, 1978 for further study;
carried unanimously ( 3-0) .
Mr. Housley asked what was to be done now. Mr . Williams stated
that Staff is to address the City ' s responsibilities with regard
to drainage and also Staff will provide more information on traffic
and access .
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder noted that the Planning
Commission needs additional input from Staff, the applicant gave a
fine presentation .
B. Case Nos . DP 09-78 and 126AIF - CHACAHUALA, LTD . , Applicant
Mr . Williams noted that these cases had been reviewed with
the related Case No . C/Z 02-78 and that they should be continued to
the meeting of July 5, 1978. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder
seconded by Commissioner Kelly the cases were continued; carried
unanimously ( 3-0) .
it
F
e Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES , Applicant
uest for approval of a Development Plan and Pre-
inary Design Review for a 200-unit condominium
ject to be located on approximately 33 acres at
northwest corner o£ Fairhaven Drive and 44th
nue .
f Mr. Williams reviewed the cases and passed out pictures of L
t similar projects already developed in other areas . He then noted
j the concerns of the Design Review Board and letters fr
om the City
of
Ra
ncho Mirage and Mr. Balch. Mr. Williams noted the applicants
I letter presented earlier in the day addressing the concerns of the
f Design Review Board . One of the main concerns with the project is
4
that the parking areas are too tight .
Mr. Williams stated that Staff is recommending denial of the
project .
i
(I
II .
to
inutes
palm Desert Planning Commission
May 30, 1978 Pa-e Five
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
C. Case Nos . DP 05-78 and 117MF (Cont . )
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hearing
open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time .
ROBERT KRIESE , of Terra Industries , addressed the
Commission and stated that the Design Review Board
had not considered the application properly . He
reviewed the various points of the letter presented
today . Air. Kriese noted that the proposal is similar
to Portola Del Sol . He suggested that perhaps car-
ports instead of garages would be better . Mr . Kriese
further stated that there would be one guest parking
space per unit and that parking spaces would be signed
as guest parking only and violators would be towed
away.
DANIEL SALERNO , architect for the project , addressed
! the Commission and pointed out that the units would
be very private and that this concept has won awards
in other areas . He noted that there is a 50 ft .
width in the garage area and that there will be guest
parking throughout the project . There are limited
recreational facilities because they are trying to
keep the homes at an affordable price . Mr . Salerno
noted that cedar material would be used instead of
shake and that there would be a fully enclosed garden
for all units .
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if there was anyone
wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project .
Being none , he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the
pleasure of the Commission .
Commissioner Kryder stated that he felt the Commission was re-
viewing the case prematurely due to the comments of the Design Review
Board.
Commissioner Kelly stated that planned PR zoning uses the word
Id: " ✓� 'unique" and that this proposal does not follow that definition . With
j�J%"regard to Portola Del Sol it is not coming out as proposed. The pro-
ject should remain single story so the view is not destroyed.
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder indicated that the case should
be continued to give the applicant time to solve its problems with the
Design Review Board. Mr. Williams noted that the Design Review Board
would like alternatives . Some discussion followed regarding what would
happen if the Commission rejected or continued the cases . Mr . Williams
noted the Design Review Board is stating that the basic concept is
wrong. The applicant could appeal the Commission ' s decision to the
k City Council .
Mr. Kriese asked that the cases be continued to discuss
further the motor court concept with the Design Review
Board. He asked when the next Design Review Board meet-
ing would be .
Mr . Dick Arnold stated that all they wanted was a fair-
shake .
`,Ir. Williams noted that the next Design Review Board meeting
s would be June 6 , 1978 , and that this case would be first on the agenda .
On a motion by Commissioner Kelly , seconded by Commissioner
f Kryder , the cases were continued to July 5 , 1978 ; carried unanimously ( 3-0,
t
1
T11ERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 9:23 P.M. THE ?.IELTING WAS RECI)NNE1ED AT 9:33 P.M.
i I IN T 1%S
DESERT PLANNING CO`.GIISSI0.7 ':fEETI'iG
=;ESDA'x - JULY 3 . 1978
7 : 00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CIfA'.SBtES
CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting of the Palm Desert Manning Commission
was called to order by Chairman Berkey at 7 : 00 p .m. in the Council
Ch.unbers in the Palm Desert City Hall .
II . PLEDGE - Commissioner Kryder
III . ROLL CALL
Present : Commissioner FLESHMAN
Commissioner KELLY
Commissioner KRYDER
Commissioner SNYDER
Chairman BERKEY
Others
Present : Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services
Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner
Dave Erwin - City Attorney
Dave Ortegel - City Fire Marshal
Kathy Shorey - Planning Secretary
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
y
A. Minutes of regular meeting of June 14 , 1975 .
Mr. Williams noted the following corrections to the minutes .
lst page , under Election of Vice Chairman , vote
should be 4-0 not 4-1 .
Page seven , last paragraph , vote should be 4-0
not 4-1 .
On a motion by Commissioner Kelly , seconded by Commissioner
Kryder , the minutes were approved as corrected ; carried unanimously
( 5-0) .
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Berkey announced that prior to this meeting, the
Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying
the Staff recommendations . No decisions were reached. Chairman
Berkey then ekplained the Public Hearing procedures to those present .
f
A. Continued Case Nos , DP 05-75 and 117AIF , TERRA INDUSTRIES ,
Applicant
s
Request for approval of a Revised Development Plan
I and Preliminary- Design Review for a 19S-unit condo-
minium project to be located on approximately 33
acres at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and
44th Avenue .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
July 5 , 1978 Pane Two
vi , PUBLIC HE-_RP OS ( Cone . )
A . Case Nos . DP 05-78 and IL74F (Cont . )
Chairman Berkey noted that he and Commissioner fieshman
were not present at the meeting of May 50 , 1978 , but that they
had listened to the tape of the meeting concerning this case ann
that they were both familiar with the cases .
Mr . Williams reviewed the cases and noted that the applicant
had submitted revised drawings changing the foot print pattern w:
the units and the number:f parking spaces . He noted the concerns
of the Design Review Board and stated that the Staff recommended
denial of the Development Plan and rejection of Case ::o . 117.IF.
Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked
if the applicant wished to speak at this time .
ROBERT KRIESE , President of Terra Industries ,
addressed the concerns as mentioned by Mr .
Williams . He indicated that there was 510
open space and that the area adjacent to the
project near the flood channel could be used
for additional open space . Mr . Kriese then
presented a revised cluster plan which would
f make the garages more accessible and circula-
tion easier . He then noted that this project
is proposed as a way of trying to reach an
affordable housing range . Further , he noted
agreement with the suggested pool size and
the 20 ft . setback for the units could be
C met .
DANIEL SALERNO, Architect for the project , gave
a slide presentation showing the circulation con-
cept , patio concept , garage access concept , and
t pictures of a project in Laguna Hills . He also
presented samples of the materials and colors
to be used.
l
jCommissioner Kryder asked about the distance between the
garages , noting that the plan is deceiving.
Mr . Salerno indicated that it would be 20 ft .
between them all .
Commissioner Kryder asked about the guest parking and if
there was guest parking for all the units .
Mr . Salerno stated that there was not guest
parking at every cluster .
Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak
} in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project . Being none he
declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of
} the Commission , noting that the Staff and the Design Review Board
had recommended denial .
}
Commissioner Kelly indicated that she felt that the amenities
were not adequate , open space was inadequate , and the parking is in-
adequate , noting that parking is hard to enforce and people will park
wherever they want .
i Chairman Berkey asked to have the two-story issue clarified .
s asking Mr . Williams to note where the two-story units would be located .
Mr. Williams noted the various two-story units on the outside .
Mr . Kriese stated that the J and F plans are the
same plan , but the J plans are two story . so
wherever there is a J it will become an F .
t
1
�.IinuteS
Pal.- Deer-_ Planning �o:rmlSS ii;n.: . ..
Sul` 5 , 19IS
VI . PGBLiC IIEaP.INGS Cunt. . )
1 . Case Nos . DP 0.5-7 S and 117'.IF ( Cont .
)
Commissioner Fieshman stated that the amenities were inaci�.-q_iat�
. ( the relat.ionshin of the pools to the units is poor ; oar.':in� )a one
jfJ iJT the street is bad ; and t;e appllcanc has appoareQ to dC the
as required in the Zoning Ordinance , on everything .
Chairman Berkey noted his concern with the lack of guest parkin,
in the project .
Commissioner belly stated that the concerns voiced at the May
30 , 1975 , meeting were still apparent .
Commissioner Snyder stated that he thought the applicant would
have worked out his problems with the Design Review Board , but this
hasn ' t happened.
Chairman Berkey asked if there was a time limit on this project
and if perhaps the applicant would like a continuance . Mr . Williams
stated that there is no time limit on the Development - Plan but that
there is on the Design Review Board case .
f
Mr. Kriese stated that there were two new con-
terns brought out at this meeting that had not
k been mentioned previously. He stated that the
parking as proposed is the best they can do
and that they have tried to comply with the
Design Review Board ' s wishes . He indicated
that they would gain nothing by going back
to the Design Review Board .
On a motion by Commissioner Kelly , seconded by Commissioner
Krvder, the Commission denied the Development Plan and rejected the
Preliminary Design Review by Planning Commission Resolution No . 373 ;
carried unanimously ( 5-0) .
•s
B. Continued Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR ,
CHACAHUALA, LTD. , applicant
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from
R-1 20 , 000 to PR-4 on a 37. 8 acre parcel located
south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View et-
tended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and the re-
lated Draft EIR.
-Mr . Williams reviewed the case and noted the previous report
and the revised Staff Report . He then reviewed the drainage concerns
and indicated that the applicant proposes an open channel through the
project . He then noted the correspondence received stating concerns
with drainage adjacent to the project . Mr. Williams then reviewed
the Draft EIR noting that it is very complete and the Staff is recom-
mending that the EIR be certified as complete , despite the Commission ' s
action on the Change of Zone . Further , he noted that the PR zone best
mitigates the problems of this parcel .
Chairman Berkey asked the City attorney , Dave Erwin , about
the liability that the City could possibly face in the event of another
flood. Mr . Erwin stated that all the City can do is to make sure that
the City has sufficient flood control and that steps are taken to pro-
tect the adjacent property .
Chairman Berl_ey also noted that he and Commissioner Fleshman
had listened to the tape from the meeting of May 30 , 1975 , regarding
this case as they had Moth been absent .
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO . 373
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT , CALIFORNIA , ANNOUNCING
FINDINGS AND DENYING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN .AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 198 UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY , SEMI-
DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON APPROXI\LATELY
33 ACRES AT THE N0RTIWEST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN
DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE .
i CASE NOS . DP 05-78 and 117MF
I
CvT=S, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the application of TERRA INDUSTRIES
requesting approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Re-
view to allow the construction of a 198-unit , single-family , semi-
detached condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres
within the PR-7 , S .P . (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre , scenic
preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue , more particularly described as :
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320 -010
WHEREAS , said application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution
No . 78-32 , " in that the Director of Environmental Services has deter-
mined that this project will not have a significant adverse effect on
the environment on IMay 11 , 1978 , and the appeal period has expired;
and,
WHEREAS , at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments , if any , the Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of,
the subject Development Plan :
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
would be detrimental to the harmonious , orderly and attrac-
tive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan . The overall site plan is poor.
2 . The design of the proposed development would not provide
a desirable environment for its occupants . The site plan
proposed will not function well for either residents of
the project or guests and visitors . ,
3 . The proposed development does not adhere to every element
of the Zoning Ordinance ; namely the requirement of a minimum
20 foot setback between structures within the Planned Re-
sidential Zone District . Adherance to this requirement
will require substantial modification to the site plan .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert as follows :
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and consti-
tute the findings of the Commission in this case ;
2 . The Planning Commission does hereby reject Development
Plan DP 05-78 and Preliminary Design Review 117MF for reasons stated .
PLANNING COISIIISSION
RESOLUTION NO . 373 Page Two
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Palm Desert Planning Commission , held on this 5th day of July ,
19i8 , by the following vote , to wit :
AYES : BERKEY, FLESHMAN , KELLY, KRYDER, SNYDER
NOES : NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE y
GEORGE BERKEY , Chairman
ATTEST :
PAUL A . WILLIAMS , Secretary
/ks
t
CITY OF PALM DESERT "
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
Report On: 198-Unit Condominium Project
Applicant: TERRA INDUSTRIES
Case Nos. : DP 05-78 and 117MF
Date: July 5, 1978
I . REQUEST:
Request for approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design
Review for a 198-unit condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th
Avenue.
II . STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the Development Plan and reject the Preliminary Design Review
by Planning Commission Resolution No. 373.
Justification:
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and would be detrimental
to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated
by the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The overall site
plan, is poor.
2. The design of the proposed development would not provide a desirable
environment for its occupants. - The site plan proposed will not
function well for either residents of the project or guests and
visitors.
3. The proposed development does not adhere to every element of the
Zoning Ordinance; namely the requirement of a minimum 20 foot setback
between structures within the Planned Residential Zone District. Ad-
herance to this requirement will require substantial modification to
the site plan.
III . BACKGROUND:
A. Location: Northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue.
B. Size: Approximately 33 acres
C. Zoning: PR-7, S.P.
D. Adjacent Zoning: North - City of Rancho Mirage
South - PR-6, S.P.
East - R-1 12 ,000 and R-1 12,000, S.P.
West - R-1
E. Type of Units: 198 single-family, semi-detached condominium units
F. Density: Approximately 6.06 du/acre
i
Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF
July 5, 1978 Page Two
III . BACKGROUND: (Cont. )
G. Unit Size by Floor Plan: G Plan - 1080 sq. ft.
H Plan - 1193 sq. ft.
I Plan - 1295 sq. ft.
J Plan - 1379 Sq. ft.
H. Open Space Analysis : Projects of less than 7 dwelling units/acre are
required to have 50% common open space which is
defined as land used for recreational , including
buildings used for recreational purposes , parks
or environmental purposes. The proposed project
contains approximately 49% open space, some of
which in the Staff's opinion will not meet the
Ordinance's definition of open space.
I . Recreation Facilities Analysis: The project would contain 3 recreational
areas , one major and two minor. The
major would have a swimming pool , 2
tennis courts a Jacuzzi and a recreational
structure. The minor centers would only
have a swimming pool .
J. Number of 2-story Units : 74 units (Plan J 's) .
IV. DISCUSSION:
The project, as proposed, calls for 198 condominium units to be constructed
on approximately 30.37 acres in clusters developed around common driveway
areas. The density proposed is approximately 6.59 du/acre. The Parking
Provision of the Municipal Code requires 495 spaces , 396 of which must be
covered. The applicant is proposing 546 spaces, 396 of which are covered.
Two minor recreational areas containing swimming pools are being proposed
in addition to one major recreational area containing a recreation struc-
ture, swimming pool and two tennis courts. Staff believes additional re-
creational amenities ought to be provided for the number of units proposed.
When originally reviewed, the Design Review Board rejected the proposed
Development Plan for a number of reasons. The Board believed the overall
site plan to be extremely poor with regard to circulation, parking and
function for residents as well as guests. The center parking courts were
found unacceptable as presented since maneuvering would be difficult and
numerous small problems created. The Board also felt that access to some
of the units would be remote for residents themselves and visitor parking
is located too far from the units to be workable. The architectural treat-
ment was considered to be modular in form, not very compatible with the
desert. The Staff concurred with all of these findings and, therefore, re-
commended denial of the project so that it could be better thought out.
The applicant made some modifications to the site plan subsequent to the
Planning Commission' s review of the project and presented the revised plan
to the Design Review Board at their June 20, 1978, meeting. It was pointed
out to the Design Review Board by Staff that the project violates the mini-
mum 20' setback requirement between structures at numerous locations. This
situation appears indicative of the projects ' overall tightness and lack
of open space. The applicant has indicated that the 50% common open space
requirement has been met, but Staff believes this has only been done by
calculating the private yards as part of the open space. It should be noted,
that the 50% common open space requirement prescribed by the Ordinance is
only prescribed minimum and that most projects reviewed usually far exceed
the minimum amount of open space required. In providing exactly 50% com-
mon open space, if in fact this amount has been provided, Staff believes
the applicant is not attempting to achieve the goals for which the planned
residential district was intended to achieve, namely visually exciting site
plans containing broad expanses of common areas. The Design Review Board
failed to approve a motion which would have recommended approval of the
project to the Planning Commission. As a result, neither the Staff nor
the Design Review Board recommend approval of this project to the Commission.
Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF
July 5, 1978 Page Three
VI . DISCUSSION: (Cont. )
Staff believes substantial modifications to the proposed site plan will
have to be made to accomodate the 20' minimum setbacks between units con-
trary to the applicant' s claim that this requirement can be easily ad-
herred to.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
Report On: 200-Unit Condominium Project
Applicant: TERRA INDUSTRIES
Case Nos. : DP 05-78 and 117MF
Date: May 30, 1978
I . REQUEST:
Request for approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design
Review for a 200-unit condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th
Avenue.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the Development Plan andreject the Preliminary Design Review
by Planning Commission Resolution No.
Justification:
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and would be detrimental ,
to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated
by the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The overall site
plan is poor, particularly the center parking courts which will
result in poor traffic circulation and difficult maneuverability.
2. The design of the proposed development would not provide a desirable
environment for its occupants as well as for its neighbors. The
site plan proposed will not function well for either residents of
the project or guests and visitors.
3. The design of the proposed development is not aesthetically of
good composition, materials and textures. The modular appearance
of the proposed elevations and materials are not compatible with the
desert setting.
III . BACKGROUND:
A. Location: Northwest corner -of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue.
B. Size: ,Approximately 33 acres
C. Zoning: PR-7, S.P.
D. Adjacent Zoning: North - City of Rancho Mirage
South - PR-6, S.P.
East - R-1 12,000 and R-1 12 ,000, S.P.
West - R-1
E. Type of Units: 200 single-family, semi-detached condominium units
F. Density: Approximately 6.06 du/acre
Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF
May 30, 1978 Page Two
III . BACKGROUND: (Cont. )
G. Unit Size by Floor Plan : G Plan - 1080 sq. ft.
H Plan - 1193 sq. ft.
I Plan - 1295 sq. ft.
J Plan - 1379 Sq. ft.
H. Open Space Analysis: Projects of less than 7 dwelling units/acre are
required to have 50% common open space which is
defined as land used for recreational , including
buildings used for recreational purposes , parks
or environmental purposes. The proposed, project
contains approximately 49% open space, some of
which in the Staff' s opinion will not meet the
Ordinance's definition of open space.
I . Recreation Facilities Analysis : The project would contain 3 recreational
areas , one major and two minor. The
major would have a swimming pool , 2
tennis courts a jacuzzi and a recreational
structure. The minor centers would only
have a swimming pool . The Staff believes
another swimming pool ought to be added
in one section of the project.
J. Number of 2-story Units : 63 units (Plan J 's) .
IV. DISCUSSION:
The project, as proposed, calls for 200 condonimiun units to be constructed
on approximately 30.37 acres in 6 and 8 unit clusters developed around common
driveway areas. The density proposed is approximately 6.59 du/acre. The
Parking Provision of the Municipal Code requires 500 spaces , 400 of which
must be covered. The applicant is proposing 600 spaces, 400 of which are
covered. Two minor recreational areas containing swimming pools are being'
proposed in addition to one major recreational area containing a recreation
structure, swimming pool and two tennis courts.
The Design Review Board rejected the proposed Development Plan for a number
of reasons. The Board believed the overall site plan to be extremely poor
with regard to circulation , parking and function for residents as well as
guests. The center parking courts are not acceptable as presented since
maneuvering would be difficult and numerous small problems created. The
Board also felt that access to some of the units would be remote for
residents themselves and visitor parking is located too far from the units
to be workable. The architectural treatment was considered to be modular
in form, not very compatible with the desert. The Staff concurs with all
of these findings and is, therefore, recommending denial of the project so
that it can be better thought out.
".mutes
Palm Oeser- Design Peview Board
"ay 16, 197, 8 ?age Four
15. Case No. 11711F - TEPRA iNDUSTR1ES - Preliminary site, floor and elevations
for a 200-unit condominium project to be located at the northwest corner of
E Fairhaven and 44th Avenue. Applicant not present.
On a motion by Urrutia , seconded by Leung, the Board rejected the preliminary
ti site, floor and elevations as submitted and requested that the applicant re- j
K work the site plan and resubmit it. The major concerns and recommendations
p of the Board included: `
l
a. The modular appearance.
b. The arrangement will not function well for residents .
i
c. Land planning and use do not coincide.
I d. Center parking courts will not function well .
i
e. Circulation of parking unacceptable.
i
f. Access to building to remote.
g. Architecture does not complement desert setting.
i
i h. Recommend that shakes not be used on sides of structures.
4 i . Commercial size (20'x4O' ) pools and equipment should be used in project.
S
'F j. Rework landscape plan.
Carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Leung, Minturn , Johnson) .
16. Discussion:
Board Member George Minturn announced that this meeting was to be his last
since he is moving to Santa Rosa. He said he enjoyed working with the Board
and had learned a good deal . Chairman of the Board Eric Johnson accepted his
resignation and thanked Mr. Minturn for his time and contributions to the
Design Review Board.
17. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Urrutia , the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Carried 4-0 (Leung, Minturn, Urrutia, Johnson) .
RONALD R. KNIPPEL, Associate Plarher
rk/ks
MINUTES
PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
JUNE 20, 1978
1 . The meeting was called to order at 5 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Palm Desert City Hall , after an llz hour study session.
Members
present: Eric Johnson
Bernie Leung
Phyllis Jackson
Frank Urrutia
Ralph Cipriani for Paul Williams
Members
absent: Jim Hill
Staff
present: Ron Knippel
Clyde Beebe
2. Case No. 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES - Preliminary site , floor and elevations for
198 single-family semi-detached condominium units to be located at the north-
west corner of Fairhaven and 44th Avenue. Applicant present.
Following discussion of this case and a presentation by the applicant to
point out areas of the project which were changed to accommodate previous
ORB comments, Jackson moved to approve the preliminary site, floor and eleva-
tions subject to the following conditions :
a. A minimum 20' setback be required between units and/or units be attached
by use of a trellis or other decorative structure.
# b. All 2-story structures be removed from the scenic preservation overlay
e district or limited to the project's inner circle.
f
c. Eliminate the housing cluster in the northwest corner of the inner circle
to provide additional open space and relocate pool in this area.
f d. All pools shall be a minimum of 20'x4O' .
The motion was seconded by Johnson but failed to pass for lack of a majority
vote; (AYES: Jackson, Johnson; NOES: Leung, Urrutia, Cipriani ) .
3. Case No. 82MF - PORTOLA VILLAGE - Final landscaping for a 48-unit condominium
project to be located on the east side of Portola, south of Goleta. Applicant
present.
On a motion by Johnson, seconded by Jackson, the Board approved the final
landscaping plan subject to the applicant modifying the plans as follows :
a. All shrubs adjacent to units be upsized to a minimum of 5-gallon.
b. Evergreen trees shall be provided throughout the project between date
palms. Suggested tree types are: evergreen pear; Brazilian pepper; and
mexican ash.
c. Staff shall review and approve the above noted changes.
Carried 4-1 (AYES: Johnson , Jackson , Leung, Urrutia ; NOES: Cipriani ) .
4. Case No. 128MF - BRUCE BEDIG - Final landscaping for a mobile home subdivision
addition located at the Silver Spur Mobile Manor. Applicant present.
On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Leung, the Board approved the final land-
scaping subject to the applicant revising the landscaping plan as noted on
Exhibit A; carried 5-0 (Urrutia, Leung, Johnson, Jackson , Cipriani ) .
-.;
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
October 18, 1977
Mr. Richard Arnold
38551 Cactus Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Re: Preliminary Site Plan for Parcel A
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan
labeled "Case de Laguna at Palm Desert" , dated Sept. 15, 1977. After
reviewing this tentative plan, I believe the following design concerns
should be addressed in any future proposals:
1 . The schematic exterior building elevations which we saw were far
from acceptable. The design was box-like and sorrewhat unimaginative.
Clearly, more architectural treatment is needed. The design should
also reflect concern for our desert climate. I thought your sug-
gestion for using a distinctive theme material , such as the blue tile,
was an excellent idea.
2. Please note the attached copy of the PR zone, since a number of the
development standards have not been followed.
3. The intent of cluster housing is to provide the available common open
space in a more useable form. Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved
in this design. Most of the common open space around the units is
chopped up and wasted; far too many units simply face a perimeter wall .
More space is needed between the housing clusters. You might consider
perimeter parking with the units facing onto a central open space pool
area.
4. Wider project setbacks from the adjacent perimeter streets are needed.
Would suggest a design using a 32 foot distance from curb to wall ,
with an additional 20 feet to the face of the nearest unit.
5. Extra guest parking spaces should be near the tennis courts.
6. The rec ran tinaal far;l ;t; ?:o „rt{ :-nf i t. e nnmbn , . .
_ or �_ _,.. _r of ..n,rs
involve::. - _ - . _. - . �t near
the courts, small pools or jacuzzis should be offered, with possibly a
few ont4on,r ha rF;on�;p -n rills .
7. rroiecr oeslgn snoulg cake lnco cansiieraTion the requirement: ;cr arc
linu2 ;: 0 Oi exiS 7 . _ u c. ..c3 u-_i , i ZY i ,nes i'-.`.z.�Z , 2'a.
l
� -2-
8. A maximum of 4-6 units Per cluster.
9. The project needs a unique, identifiable focal element. The design
completely ignores the elevated banks of the adjacent storm•rater chan-
nel which could be used as part of a linear green belt running through-
out the project. Possibly a small park or garden area could add sore
character to the neighborhood.
Although quite brief, I hope this summarizes our interests and concerns
regarding the development of the site and answers your questions. If not,
please feel free to contact this office any time.
Very yours,
Paul A. Williams, Director
Dept. of Environmental Services
Enc.
pw/sf/ks
GOUNTy
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGL,..:Y
-
COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651
DIRECTM, OFFICERS
RAYMCNO R RUM.IAONDS, FRE.IDENT LOWELL O. WEEKS. GEN EP PL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS, VICE PRESIDENT May 10,f 1978 0LE J. NOROLAND, SECRETARY
C. 1. FRO57 WALTER R WRIGHT. AUDITOR
W LLIAM B. GARDNER REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEY'
STEVE D.RV%TON
File: 0163. 11
o421 . 1
0721 . 1
Department of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
Post Office Box 1977
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: DP-05-78, MF No. 117
SEt, Sec. 18, T5S, RISE
Gentlemen:
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels
and dikes. This area may be considered safe from stormwater flows
except in rare instances.
The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to
said area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations
of this District.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80
of the Coachella Valley County Water District for sanitation service.
There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request
the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building
permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the
relocation of these facilities.
Very trjuly yours, (/
IRE,
/
` Lowell Q. Wee
General Manager-ChiefiEngineer
KH:d1b
llriAY 2 1 L'i
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY GL PALM DESERT
TO: Mr. Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
FROM: Mike Murray, R.S. , Supervising Sanitarian
Riverside County' Health Department - Desert District
DATE: May 9, 1978
SUBJECT: DP 05-78 and 117MF
This Department has no comments at this time. However,
prior to. any approval, we must receive definitive information
regarding sewage disposal and domestic water supply.
MM:js
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY C° PALA9 DESERT
t.:..i'_P711 C!k L.11 1r.JiRMJi -a--3 c VI'.j P:r.i;_'J
3700 CENTRAL AVENUE • RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA
R.W.RIDDELL
Eastern Division
Distribution Planning Supervisor - Mailing Address P.O. BOX 2200, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92516
May 9, 1978
Location of Nearest Gas Main:
Gas @ 44th Avenue & Fairhaven Street
City of Palm Desert
45275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Attention: Paul A. Williams
Re: Case No. DP 05-78 and 117MF
This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to
serve the proposed project; but only as an information service. Its
intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has
facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas
service to the project could be provided from an existing main without
any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in
accordance with, the Company's policies and extension rules on file with
the California Public Utilities Cpmmiss on at the time contractual
arrangements are made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter,
is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies.
As a public utility, the Sout;,ern. California Gas Company is under the
jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. - We can
also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should
these agencies tai:e any action whicI affects gas supply or the condition
under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance
with revised conditions .
'We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to
provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy
conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further
information on any of our energy conservation programs , please contact
this office for assistance.
RWR:blc
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY Cc RALIM ?DESERT
June 21 , 1978
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Reference: Case No. DP 05-78
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be
based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main
from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is
more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow,
and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) , shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signs-d by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design
of the water system in Case Number DP 05-78 is in accordance with the require-
ments prescribed by the Fire Marshal . "
Very truly yours,
David L. Flake
Fp'reXhief
David J. Ortegel
Fire Marshal
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: Director of Environmental Services
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Development Plan 05-78, 117MF DATE: May loth, 1978
1. Right of way dedications on 44th Avenue shall be made to provide
126 foot of right of way.
2. Right of way dedications shall be made on Fairhaven Drive to
provide for a 66 foot right of way. Fairhaven Drive shall also
be extended northerly to Park View Drive. Park View Drive
shall be dedicated to provide an 88 foot right of way.
3. This tract shall pay the required drainage and park fees as
required by the City of Palm Desert ordinances.
4. All improvements shall be required on the exterior of the tract
including curbs , gutters , tie in paving and sidewalks..
5. Traffic safety lighting shall be installed at the entrance on
Fairhaven Drive and Park View Drive.
6. This tract shall also make a contribution to the signalization
fund in the amount of $10,000,00.
wl -
aix
kNV'RCNpdENTAL ES
SERV
f,rlry c pALk 9ESE ICIC
pr y
,
=a7-m Desert, la. ?'200
_ _ +'
t YLcY "I a_ G'� 2�ih07, C(131, •
I i.7 Ile ..: t '�7`J'..�
� 1G 7_�
.i 1. :p.�. ova.
w` a
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
\ ;.
.� 1 , P'• 68-II 21 HIf.W:Y.1Y 111 HANCYO F11iAG-, CALIFGdN L6 b2270 Y-
MEM0PANDUM z`
TO: City of Palm Desert
E VIROPj"E J;AL SERVICES
FROM: PLAfM1t,1G COh54ISSIOH crr' °` i'ALA' r)ESERT
SUaJLCI: CASE 1110BER: DP-05-78 & 1171vF
POPULAR DESCRIPTIOi:: Palm Desert Referral
HEARIiVG DATE: May 24, 1978
GEtITLEo1EH:
AT ITS 11EETING OF May 24, 1978 , 1978, THE RANCHO irIMAGE PLAfJI'MiNG
COt4i4ISSIO1` TOOK THE TOLL04JIi1G AMi ON OH THE ABOVE t1EIJTIOHED PROPOSAL:
x� APPROVED Q DISAPPROVED COHTIPIUED 0 OTHER
A WRITTEhd APPEAL TO THE I4AY BE FILED 1-JITH THE CITY CLERK
vJITHIN FIFTEEiV (15) DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE; BUT HO LATER THAN
1978.
COWIEHTS:
It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Rogers,
that a letter be forwarded to the City of Palm Desert recommending
approval of DP-05-78 and 117MF, subject to the conditions outlined in
Staff Report dated May 24, 1978, and as amended.
F3nan m s� g ssed sionexs Lazzar M irrav rzna�and MaiLx present
and voting.
THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING DATE FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS
BEFORE THE RA14CHO HIRAGE
FOR FURTHER INFORAiATIOH, PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTNEu OF PLAPUVIiIG AND
DEVELONIIEiff A- P,AI'XHO t4IRAGE CITY HALL (328-8871 ) .
SINCERELY,/
RTIA D E , r S V, IR- ' R
PLdNiVIHG Av J)EVELOPMJJ
i
C17 Y OF RANCHO ihIIRAGE
69-829 HIGHWAY III a RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270
07.E if•,
MEMORANDUM
TO: PIANNING Ca�24isSION DATE: MAY 24, 1978
FROM: PLANNING DEPARI21 r
SUBJECT: Referral from the City of Palm Desert
DP-05-78 and 117MF (continued from Planning Comnission meting
May 10, 1978)
Pursuant to the Joint/Cities and Counties Cooperation Agreement with the
Coachella valley cities and Riverside County, the City of Palm Desert has
forwarded a request for review and reccm;kendation of the above captioned
matter.
The subject property is south of Parkview, north of Avenue 44 and west of
Fairhaven Drive. The current Rancho Mirage City limits run half width of
Parkview Drive, everything north.
The developer's request is for a 200 unit single family semi detached
condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres. The City of
Palm Desert zoning is PR-7, SP.
This item was continued from the last meeting so the City's staff could obtain
rare information from the City of Palm Desert felt needed to make a good
reacmendation. We have received from the City of Palm Desert the draft specific
plan for the College of the Desert area which includes this property. Also,
we have received floor plans and elevations on the units that are proposed
in the development planned.
Staff recomends forwarding a letter of approval of case DP-05-78 and 1171,7
to the City of Palm Desert subject to the attached conditions.
1. In the event the development on the north side of Parkview in the City of
Rancho Mirage is developed and access to that project is from what would
be the extension of Fairhaven, Fairhaven to the north and south of Park-view
should be aligned so to be compatible.
2. That the development of this project on the south side of Parkview should
be coordinated with the development on the north side in the City of Rancho
Mirage. This coordination should be to alleviate any possible traffic
problems due to two entrances in such close proximity along Parkview Drive.
The means of doing this would be, 1) align the two entrances to the develop-
ments across from each other .allowing the design the possibility of future
signalization; or 2) to align the entrances to the developnents at least
250' apart so as to eliminate congestion and adequate room for possible
left turn pockets for traffic t inning into either project.
3. That the right-of-way and alignment of Parkview shall be compatible to the
City of Rancho Mirage alignment and shall be consistent with the Collect
of the Desert specific plan. Specific engineering attention shall be given
to the channel crossing at Parkview.
4. Parking along Parkview should not be permitted.
5. The two story units proposed in the project should be eliminated and
replaced with one story units.
Staff's recomrendation of approval and the subject conditions are based on
the findings that the project as proposed is consistent with the City's
General Plan and proposed development for the surrounding property within
the City of Rancho Mirage on the north side of Parkview.
PMP:grb
5-22-78
Regular Planning Coinnission Meting
May 24, 1978
Pratt presented City of Palm Desert Referral, DP-05-78 and 117MF, CITY OF P�
conEnued from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 1978. DESERT
The request is to construct a 200 unit, single family, semi detached pi-_ AL
condominium project south of Parkview, north Of Avenue 44 and west of DP-05-78 t
Fairhaven, on approximately 33 acres. The additional information 1171,--
r_
requested of Palm Desert was received and provided staff sufficient
material to make a recommendation. The develop,-mnt would be consistent
i with the City's General Plan therefore staff is recommending approval
-` subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report dated May 24, 1978.
Outlined in the conditions are the requirements to eliminate all two
story units, no parking along Parkview, and alignment of this develop-
with any future developerent across Parkview. It was also suggested
that this development be coordinated with any development on the
north side which would be the Rancho Mirage side. It was pointed out
that their density of 6.5 per acre is much less than our density of
10 per acre in that area. This is indicated on the College of the
Desert specific plan also.
Under discussion, concern was directed to the channel crossing at
Parkview and the suggestion made that specific engineering attention
be given this problem be made a part of the conditions and be added
to condition 3.
It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Rogers, MOTION
that a letter be forwarded to the City of Palm D'serf reconmending
approval of DP-05-78 and 117P4F, subject to the conditions outlined
in Staff Report dated May 24, 1978, and as amended.
(
C,I i 37 OF L1AN'Ci -!O ,,.!!Pz G,,
.<✓� GD12Z HIGHWAY III - it ANCHO MMAGE, CALIFORMA 02270
Iv7EN102A14DUtv7
TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT DATG May 11 , 1978
FRODA: PLANNING COMMISSION
5UDJ=CT: CASE NUMBER: DP-05-78 and 117MF
POPULAR DESCRIPTION: 2nn „nit condominium project
HEARING DATE: �1aX_LO. 197R
GENTLEMEN:
AT ITS MEETING OF SAY Q 1978, THE RANCHO MIRAGE PLANNING
COMMISSION TOOK THE FOLLOWING ACTION ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPOSAL:
Q APPROVED Q DISAPPROVED 0 CONTINUED EJ OTHER
A WRITTEN APPEAL TO THE MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK
WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF TOE ABOVE DATE; BUT NO LATER THAN
1978.
COMMENTS:
It wac moved by_Commissioner.MGfddden . seconded by Commissioner Lazzar, that
a letter be written to the Cif of Palm Desert requesting additional information
as set out in the staff report presented at the meeting, in order for the _
Commission to properly evaluate the project. It was further requested that
the scheduled hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission be continued
to allow time for the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission to comment.
Unanimously carried. All Commissioners present and voting.
THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING DATE FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS _
BEFORE THE RANCHO MIRAGE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT -A.T RANCHO MIRAGE CITY HALL (328-8871 ) .
y. I
SINCU�ELY
�
� Y
RONALD EGGFRTSE U1 DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT
ry /
e�'
CITY OF MNNCI-I0 WRAGE
69-825 HIGHWAY 111 • RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270
MEMORANDUP4
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 1978
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: REFERRAL from the City of Palm Desert, DP-05-78 and 117h1F
Pursuant to the joint City-County cooperation agreement with the Coachella
Valley cities and Riverside County, the City of Palm Desert has forwarded a
request for review and recommendation of the above captioned matter.
The subject property is south of Parkview Drive, north of Avenue 44, and west
of Fairhaven Drive. The request is for a 200 unit, single family, semi detached
condominium project to be located on approximately three acres. The City of Palm
Desert's current zoning is PP,-7, S.P.
The staff has reviewed the transmittal and recommends as follows:
That the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City of Palm
Desert of continuing the project until additional information can be obtained.
This information is determined by staff to be vital in formulating a recommen-
dation. The additional information as needed is as follows :
1 . How does Fairhaven Drive relate to existing Rancho Mirage streets on the
north side of and intersecting with Parkview. This should be illustrated
on the appropriate site plan.
2. Some coordination of developments on the north and south side of Parkview
should be considered so that the street and/or project entrances can be
analysed with respect to each other. This would help facilitate at a later
date the establishment of any curbs , curb cuts , driveway accesses , and
possible traffic control features in this area.
If either of the above are not known at this time, the existing lot owner-
ship patterns. and/or existing drive approaches on the north side of Parkview
should be illustrated and a determination made as to the "most likely location"
for a future northerly street or access way. The main access to the proposed
development could then be coordinated with this"most likely location" , if
such can be determined.
3. Right-of-way dimensions and alignment of Parkview should be shown so as to
determine its future relationship with the ultimate design by both the City
of Palm Desert and the City of Rancho Mirage.
4. Whether parking along Parkview will be allowed upon the street's ultimate
completion.
5. A copy of the environmental assessment as completed by the applicant and
any comments regarding amounts of traffic on Parkview, number of trips
generated by this development and how the density of this development will
effect existing traffic in this area.
l`
Planning Commission
re: Palm Desert Referral
6. Applicant' s map should indicate the City limits of the City of Rancho
Mirage.
7. A fully dimensioned plot plan which clearly indicates densities and spaces
between buildings, areas devoted to landscaping, parking dimensions , would
be helpful in analysing the project. In addition, elevations of the pro-
posed buildings which illustrate design, height, materials, etc. , are
necessary to our Planning Commission evaluation.
As you know, the City of Rancho Mirage is extremely interested in development
occurring, not only in the City but in the surrounding area, and we are committed
to seeing that whatever development occurs is of the highest quality.
The Commission comments are transmitted in this light and they are anxious to
have the additional information that will 'help them make an intelligent recom-
mendation on thq subject project which is important to both cities.
A
RE:PMP:grb
T `t%gfie As.c�g�•..
i
CITY OF PALM DESERT
:STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
Report"On: ,198-Unit Condominium Project
Applicant: TERRA INDUSTRIES
Case Nos. : DP 05-78 and 117MF
Date: .July_ 5,,T.1_978'_•
I . REQUEST:
Request for approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design
Review for a�i unit condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th
Avenue.
�I
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the Development Plan and reject the Preliminary Design Review
by Planning Commission Resolution No. 373..
Justification:
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and would be detrimental
to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated
by the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The overall site.
plan is poor.--_ - - - - - ,
2. The design of the proposed development would not provide a desirable
environment for its occupants.,--The szte�plan proposed will not
function Wel for either residents of the project or guests-and
-visfrtors:
3. -The`proposed;development•does not adhere -to-every-element of:the
Zoning Or-dinance;•nameLy -the requirement.of.a .mi_nimum_20� foot.setback
between str ciUOres ,within .the:Planned-Residential Zone_.Districtc -Ad-
herance to-this requirement will require substantial modification to
the`site plan. -"
III . BACKGROUND:
A. Location: Northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue.
B. Size: Approximately 33 acres
C. Zoning: PR-7, S.P.
D. Adjacent Zoning: North - City of Rancho Mirage
South - PR-6, S.P.
East - R-1 12,000 and R-1 12,000, S.P.
West - R-1
E. Type of Units: i198. single-family, semi-detached condominium units
F. Density: Approximately 6.06 du/acre
Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF
,July_5,,1978 Page Two
III. BACKGROUND: (Cont. )
G. Unit Size by Floor Plan: G Plan - 1080 sq. ft.
H Plan - 1193 sq. ft.
I Plan - 1295 sq. ft.
J Plan - 1379 Sq. ft.
H. Open Space Analysis: Projects of less than 7 dwelling units/acre are
required to have 50% common open space which is
defined as land used for recreational , including
buildings used for recreational purposes, parks
or environmental purposes. The proposed project
contains approximately 49% open space, some of
which in the Staff's opinion will not meet the
Ordinance's definition of open space.
I . Recreation Facilities Analysis: The project would contain 3 recreational
areas, one major and two minor. The
major would have a swimming pool , 2
tennis courts a Jacuzzi and a recreational
structure. The minor centers would only
have a swimming pool _
J. Number of 2-story Units: '7;4,units (Plan J's) .
IV. DISCUSSION:
The project,;,as �.proposed, calls for 198 condominium units to be constructed
on approximately 30.37 acres in clusters developed around common driveway
areas. The density proposed is approximately 6.59 du/acre. The Parking
Provision of the Municipal Code requires 495 spaces , 396 of which must be
covered. The applicant is proposing 546 spaces, 396 of which are covered.
Two minor recreational areas containing swimming pools are being proposed
in addition to one major recreational area containing a recreation struc-
ture, swimming pool and two tennis courts. Staff believes additional re-
creational amenities ought to be provided for the number of units proposed.
When originally reviewed, the Design Review Board rejected the proposed
Development Plan for a number of reasons. The.Board believed the overall
site plan to be extremely poor with regard to circulation, parking and
function for residents as well as .guests. The center parking courts were
found unacceptable as presented since maneuvering would be difficult'. and
numerous small problems created. The Board also felt that access to some
of the units would be remote for residents themselves and visitor parking
is located too far from the units to be workable. The architectural treat-
ment .was considered to be modular in form, not very compatible with the
desert. The Staff concurred with all of these findings and, therefore, re-
commended denial of the project so that it could be better thought out.
The applicant made some modifications to the site plan subsequent to the
Planning Commission' s review of the project and presented the re0sed r om
to the Design Review Board at their June 20, 1978, meeting. It was pointed
+.. +�
c��+ �., ���e Design Review Board by Staff that the project violates the mini-
mum 20' setback requirement between structures at numerous locations. This
situation appears indicative of the projects' overall tightness and lack
of open space. The applicant has indicated that the 50% common open space
requirement has been met, but Staff believes this has only been done by
calculating the private yards as part of the open space. It. should be noted,
that the 50% common open space requirement prescribed by the Ordinance is
only prescribed minimum-and-that most projects reviewed usually far exceed
the minimum amount of open space required'l In providing exactly 50% com-
mon open space, if in fact this amount has been provided, Staff believes
the applicant is not attempting to achieve the goals for which the planned
residential district was intended to achieve, namely visually exciting site
plans containing broad expanses of common areas. The Design Review Board
failed to approve a motion which would have recommended approval of the
project to the Planning Commission. As arre"uTt,rneither the Staff nor
the Design Review Board recommend approval of this project to the Commission.
Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF
July 5, 1978 Page Three
VI . DISCUSSION: (Cont. )
Staff believes substantial modifications to the proposed site plan will
have to be made to accomodate the 20' minimum setbacks between units con-
trary to the applicantas claim that this requirement can be easily ad-
herred to.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO . 373
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA , ANNOUNCING
FINDINGS AND DENYING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 198 UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY, SEMI-
DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY
33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN
DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE .
CASE NOS . DP 05-78 and 117MF
W1U7REAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the application of TERRA INDUSTRIES
requesting approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Re-
view to allow the construction of a 198-unit , single-family , semi-
detached condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres
within the PR-7, S .P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre , scenic
preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as :
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320 -010
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution
No. 78-32, " in that the Director of Environmental Services has deter-
mined that this project will. not have a significant adverse effect on
the environment on May 11 , 1978 , and the appeal period has expired;
and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering
Il all testimony and arguments , if any, the Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of
the subject Development Plan :
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
would be detrimental to the harmonious , orderly and attrac-
tive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan. The overall site plan is poor.
2. The design of the proposed development would not provide
a desirable environment for its occupants . The site plan
proposed will not function well for either residents of
the project or guests and visitors .
3 . The proposed development does not adhere to every element
of the Zoning Ordinance ; namely the requirement of a minimum
20 foot setback between structures within the Planned Re-
sidential Zone District . Adherance to this requirement
will require substantial modification to the site blan .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert as follows :
l
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and consti-
tute the findings of the Commission in this case;
2 . The Planning Commission does hereby reject Development
Plan DP 05-78 and Preliminary Design Review 117MF for reasons stated.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 373 Page Two
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Palm Desert Planning Commission , held on this 5th day of July,
1978 , by the following vote, to wit :
AYES : BERKEY, FLESHMAN, KELLY, KRYDER, SNYDER
NOES : NONE
j III
ABSENT: NONE j
ABSTAIN: NONE {1
GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman
ATTEST :
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
/ks
t
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO .
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING
FINDINGS AND DENYING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 200 UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY, SEMI-
DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY
33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN
DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE .
CASE NOS . DP 05-78 and 117MF
WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of .the City of Palm Desert ,
California, did receive a verified application from TERRA INDUSTRIES
requesting approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Re-
view to allow the construction of a 200-unit , single-family , semi-
detached condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres
within the PR-7 , S .P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre , scenic
preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue , more particularly described as :
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320-010
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution
No. 78-32, " in that the Director of Environmental Services has deter-
mined that this project will not have a significant adverse effect on
the environment on May 11 , 1978 , and the appeal period has expired;
and,
WHEREAS , at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments , if any, the Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of
the subject Development Plan :
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
would be detrimental to the harmonious , orderly and attrac-
tive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan. The overall site plan is poor, partic-
ularly the center parking courts which will result in poor
traffic circulation and difficult maneuverability.
2 . The design of the proposed development would not provide
a desirable environment for its occupants as well as for
its neighbor- The site plan proposed will not function
well for either residents of the project or guests and
visitors .
3 . The design of the proposed development is not aesthetically
of good composition , materials and textures . The modular
appearance of the proposed elevations and materials are not
compatible with the desert setting .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert as follows :
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and consti-
tute the findings of the Commission in this case;
2 . The Planning Commission does hereby reject Development
Plan DP 05-78 and Preliminary Design Review 117MF for reasons stated.
J
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. Page Two
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Palm Desert Planning Commission , held on this 30th day of May ,
1978 , by the following vote , to wit :
AYES :
NOES : � .
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman
ATTEST :
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
/ks
l_.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
JUNE 20, 1978
1 . The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Palm Desert City Hall , after an 1'z hour study session.
Members
present: Eric Johnson
Bernie Leung
Phyllis Jackson
Frank Urrutia
Ralph Cipriani for Paul Williams
Members
absent: Jim Hill
Staff
present: Ron Knippel
Clyde Beebe
2. Case No. 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for
198 single-family semi-detached condominium units to be located at the north-
west corner of Fairhaven and 44th Avenue. Applicant present.
Following discussion of this case and a presentation by the applicant to
point out areas of the project which were changed to accommodate previous
ORB comments, Jackson moved to approve the preliminary site, floor and eleva-
tions subject to the following conditions :
a. A minimum 20' setback be required between units and/or units be attached
by use of a trellis or other decorative structure.
b. All 2-story structures be removed from the scenic preservation overlay
district or limited to the project's inner circle.
c. Eliminate the housing cluster in the northwest corner of the inner circle
to provide additional open space and relocate pool in this area.
d. All pools shall be a minimum of 20'x4O' .
The motion was seconded by Johnson but failed to pass for lack of a majority
vote; (AYES: Jackson, Johnson; NOES: Leung, Urrutia, Cipriani ) .
3. Case No. 82MF - PORTOLA VILLAGE - Final landscaping for a 48-unit condominium
project to be located on the east side of Portola, south of Goleta. Applicant
present.
On a motion by Johnson, seconded by Jackson, the Board approved the final
landscaping plan subject to the applicant modifying the plans as follows:
a. All shrubs adjacent to units be upsized to a minimum of 5-gallon.
b. Evergreen trees shall be provided throughout the project between date
palms. Suggested tree types are: evergreen pear; Brazilian pepper; and
mexican ash.
c. Staff shall review and approve the above noted changes.
Carried 4-1 (AYES: Johnson, Jackson, Leung, Urrutia; NOES: Cipriani ) .
4. Case No. 128MF - BRUCE BEDIG - Final landscaping for a mobile home subdivision
addition located at the Silver Spur Mobile Manor. Applicant present.
On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Leung, the Board approved the final land-
scaping subject to the applicant revising the landscaping plan as noted on
Exhibit A; carried 5-0 (Urrutia, Leung, Johnson, Jackson, Cipriani ) .
Minutes
Palm Desert Design Review Board
May 16, 1978 Page Four
15. Case No. 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES Preliminary site, floor and elevations
for a 200-unit condominium project to be located at the northwest corner of
Fairhaven and 44th Avenue. Applicant not present.
On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Leung, the Board rejected the preliminary
site, floor and elevations as submitted and requested that the applicant re-
work the site plan and resubmit it. The major concerns and recommendations
of the Board included:
a. The modular appearance.
b. The arrangement will not function well for residents.
c. Land planning and use do not coincide.
d. Center parking courts will not function well .
e. Circulation of parking unacceptable.
f. Access to building to remote.
g. Architecture does not complement desert setting.
h. Recommend that shakes not be used on sides of structures.
i. Commercial size (20'x4O' ) pools and equipment should be used in project.
j. Rework landscape plan.
Carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Leung, Minturn, Johnson) .
16. Discussion:
Board Member George Minturn announced that this meeting was to be his last
since he is moving to Santa Rosa. He said he enjoyed working with the Board
and had learned a good deal . Chairman of the Board Eric Johnson accepted his
resignation and thanked Mr. Minturnifor his time and contributions to the
Design Review Board.
17. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Urrutia, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Carried 4-0 (Leung, Minturn, Urrutia, Johnson) .
i
RONALD R. KNIPPEL, Associate P a " er
rk/ks
i
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
Report On: 200-Unit Condominium Project
Applicant: TERRA INDUSTRIES
Case Nos. : DP 05-78 and 117MF
Date: May 30, 1978
I . REQUEST:
Request for approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design
Review for a 200-unit condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th
Avenue.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the Development Plan and reject the Preliminary Design Review
by Planning Commission Resolution No.
Justification:
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and would be detrimental
to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated
by the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The overall site
plan is poor, particularly the center parking courts which will
result in poor traffic circulation and difficult maneuverability.
2. The design of the proposed development would not provide a desirable
environment for its occupants as well as for its neighbors. The
site plan proposed will not function well for either residents of
the project or guests and visitors.
3. The design of the proposed development is not aesthetically of
good composition, materials and textures. The modular appearance
of the proposed elevations and materials are not compatible with the
desert setting.
III. BACKGROUND:
A. Location: Northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue.
B. Size: Approximately 33 acres
C. Zoning: PR-7, S.P.
D. Adjacent Zoning: North - City of Rancho Mirage
South - PR-6, S.P.
East - R-1 . 12,000 and R-1 12,000, S.P.
West - R-l'
E. Type of Units: 200 single-family, semi-detached condominium units
F. Density: Approximately 6.06 du/acre
t
Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF
May 30, 1978 Page Two
III. BACKGROUND: (Cont. )
G. Unit Size by Floor Plan: G Plan - 1080 sq. ft.
H ,Plan - 1193 sq. ft.
I Plan - 1295 sq. ft.
J Plan - 1379 Sq. ft.
H. Open Space Analysis: Projects of less than 7 dwelling units/acre are
required to have 50% common open space which is
defined as land used for recreational , including
buildings used for recreational purposes, parks
or environmental purposes. The proposed project
contains approximately 49% open space, some of
which in the Staff's opinion will not meet the
Ordinance's definition of open space.
I . Recreation Facilities Analysis: The project would contain 3 recreational
areas, one major and two minor. The
major would have a swimming pool , 2
tennis courts a jacuzzi and a recreational
structure. The minor centers would only
have a swimming pool . The Staff believes
another swimming pool ought to be added
in one section of the project.
J. Number of 2-story Units: 63 units (Plan J's) .
IV. DISCUSSION:
The project, as proposed, calls for 200 condonimiun units to be constructed
on approximately 30.37 acres in 6 and 8 unit clusters developed around common
driveway areas. The density proposed is approximately 6.59 du/acre. The
Parking Provision of the Municipal Code requires 500 spaces, 400 of which
must be covered. The applicant is proposing 600 spaces, 400 of which are
covered. Two minor recreational areas containing swimming pools are being
proposed in addition to one major recreational area containing a recreation
structure, swimming pool and two tennis courts.
The Design Review Board rejected the proposed Development Plan for a number
of reasons. The Board believed the overall site plan to be extremely poor
with regard to circulation, parking and function for residents as well as
guests. The center parking courts are not acceptable as presented since
maneuvering would be difficult and numerous small problems created. The
Board also felt that access to some of the units would be remote for
residents themselves and visitor parking is located too far from the units
to be workable. The architectural treatment was considered to be modular
in form, not very compatible with the desert. The Staff concurs with all
of these findings and is, therefore, recommending denial of the project so
that it can be better thought out.
CITY OF RANC140 MIRAGE
69-825 HIGHWAY Iff 0 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 9?210
YaCi.......-. i
4?,hNAr-+1
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT DATE: May 11 , 1978
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: CASE NUMBER: DP-05-78 and 117MF
POPULAR DESCRIPTION: inn unit—L n ominium project
HEARING DATE: May 10 1g72
GENTLEMEN:
AT ITS MEETING OF MAY 1Q 1978, THE RANCHO MIRAGE PLANNING
COMMISSION TOOK THE FOLLOWING ACTION ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPOSAL:
Q APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED CONTINUED ® OTHER
A WRITTEN APPEAL TO THE MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK
WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE; BUT NO LATER, THAN
1978.
COMMENTS:
It was moved by_(:ommiseioner MGFadden -SR-C� ommissioner Lazzar, that
a letter be written to the City.of Palm Desert requesting additional information
as set out in the staff report presented at the meeting, in order for the ^_
Commission to properly evaluate the project It was further requested that
the scheduled hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission be continued
to allow time for the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission to comment.
Unanimously carried. All Commissioners present and voting.
THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING DATE FOR THIS PROPOSAL. IS
BEFORE THE RANCHO MIRAGE FOR FURTHER r R ER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT RANCHO MIRAGE CITY HALL 328-88( 71 ) .
SINC Y
MAY 1 5 1973
NALD EG RTI
DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING AN DLOPMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
89-828 HIGHWAY 111 • RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270
�d�0u
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 1978
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: REFERRAL from the City of Palm Desert, DP-05-78 and 117MF
Pursuant to the joint City-County cooperation agreement with the Coachella
Valley cities and Riverside County, the City of Palm Desert has forwarded a
request for review and recommendation of the above captioned matter.
The subject property is south of Parkview Drive, north of Avenue 44, and west
of Fairhaven Drive. The request is for a 200 unit, single family, semi detached
condominium project to be located on approximately three acres. The City of Palm
Desert's current zoning is PR-7, S.P.
The staff has reviewed the transmittal and recommends as follows:
That the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City of Palm
Desert of continuing the project until additional information can be obtained.
This information is determined by staff to be vital in formulating a recommen-
dation. The additional information as needed is as follows:
1 . How does Fairhaven Drive relate .to existing Rancho Mirage streets on the
north side of and intersecting .with Parkview. This should be illustrated
on the appropriate site plan.
2. Some coordination. of developments on the north and south side of Parkview
should be considered so that the street and/or project entrances can be
analysed with respect to each other. This would help facilitate at a later
date the establishment of any curbs, curb cuts, driveway accesses, and
possible traffic control features in this area.
If either of the above are not known at this time, the existing lot owner-
ship patterns and/or existing drive approaches on the north side of Parkview
should be illustrated and a determination made as to the "most likely location"
for a future northerly street or access way. The main access to the proposed
development could then be coordinated with this "most likely location" , if
such can be determined.
3. Right-of.=way dimensions and alignment of Parkview should be shown so as to
determine its future relationship with the ultimate design Uy both the City
of Palm Desert and the City of Rancho Mirage.
4. Whether parking along Parkview will be allowed upon the street's ultimate
completion.
5. A copy of the environmental assessment as completed by the applicant and
any comments regarding amounts of traffic on Parkview, number of trips
generated by this development and how the density of this development will
effect existing traffic in this area.
Planning Commission
re: Palm Desert Referral
6. Applicant's map should indicate the City limits of the City of Rancho
Mirage.
7. A fully dimensioned plot plan which clearly indicates densities and spaces
between buildings, areas devoted to landscaping, parking dimensions, would
be helpful in analysing the project. In addition, elevations of the pro-
posed buildings which illustrate design, height, materials, etc. , are
necessary to our Planning Commission evaluation.
As you know, the City of Rancho Mirage is extremely interested in development
occurring, not only in the City but in the surrounding area, and we are committed
to seeing that whatever development occurs is of the highest quality.
The Commission comments are transmitted in this light and they are anxious to
have the additional information that will help them make an intelligent recom-
mendation on th subject project which is important to both cities.
RE:PMP:grb
�ne5o
CITY OF RANCI-10 MIRAGE
69-62E HIGHWAY III - RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA .2270
lRi MEMORANDUM
Cr
TO: ,.� Rv
City of Palm Desert DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION CITY of PALM DESERT
SUBJECT: CASE NUMBER: DP-05-78 & 117MF
POPULAR DESCRIPTION: Palm Desert Referral
HEARING DATE: May 24, 1978
GENTLEMEN:
AT ITS MEETING OF May 24, 1978 1978, THE RANCHO MIRAGE PLANNING
COMMISSION TOOK THE FOLLOWING ACTION ON THE ABOVE P1ENTIONED PROPOSAL:
�x APPROVED DISAPPROVED CONTINUED 0 OTHER
A WRITTEN APPEAL TO THE MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK
WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE; BUT NO LATER, THAN
1978.
COMMENTS:
It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Rogers,
that a letter be forwarded to the City of Palm Desert recommending
approval of DP-05-78 and 117MF, subject to the conditions outlined in
Staff Report dated May 24, 1978, and as amended.
Unaniffeusly parsed Cg mission— La7.7ar f Murray ,_Rpgars and Marx present
and voting.
THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING DATE FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS
BEFORE THE RANCHO MIRAGE
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
4DtE
NCHO MIRAGE CITY HALL (328-8871 ) .
RECTOR
LOPMENT
r
Regular Planning Comnission Meeting
May 24, 1978
Mr. Pratt presented City of Palm Desert Referral, DP-05-78 and 117MF, CITY OF PAI
continued from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May lo, 1978. DESERT
The request is to construct a 200 unit, 'single family, semi detached REFERRAL
condominium project south of Parkview, north of Avenue 44 and west of DP-05-78 &
Fairhaven, on approximately 33 acres. The additional information 117MF
requested of Palm Desert was received and provided staff sufficient
material to make a recommendation. The developaent would be consistent
with the City's General Plan therefore staff is recommending approval .
subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report dated May 24, 1978.
Outlined in the conditions are the requirements to eliminate all two
story units, no parking along Parkview, and alignment of this develop-
with any future development across Parkview. It was also suggested
that this development be coordinated with any developmnt on the
north side which would be the Rancho Mirage side. It was pointed out
that their density of 6.5 per acre is much less than our density of
10 per acre in that area. This is indicated on the College of the
Desert specific plan also.
Under discussion, concern was directed to the channel crossing at
Parkview and the suggestion made that specific engineering attention
be given this problem be made a part of the conditions and be added
to condition 3.
It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Rogers, MOTION
that a letter be £oswarded to the City of Palm Desert recommending
approval of DP-05-78 and 117MF, subject to the conditions outlined
in Staff Report dated May 24, 1978, and as amended.
1
it
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
69-625 HIGHWAY III • RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 62270
G
MEMORANDUM
TO: PIANNING COMMISSION DATE: NAY 24, 1978
FROM: PIANNING DEPARTMI M
SUBJECT: Referral from the City of Palm Desert
DP-05-78 and 117ME (continued from Planning Commission Meeting
May 10, 1978)
Pursuant to the Joint/Cities and Counties Cooperation Agreement with the
Coachella Valley cities and Riverside County, the City of Palm Desert has
forwarded a request for review and recommendation of the above captioned
matter.
The subject property is south of Parkview, north of Avenue 44 and west of
Fairhaven Drive. The current Rancho Mirage City limits run half width of
Parkview Drive, everything north.
The developer's request is for a 200 unit single family semi detached
condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres. The City of
Palm Desert zoning is PR-7, SP.
This item was continued from the last meeting so the City Is staff could obtain
more information from the City of Palm Desert felt needed to make a good
recommendation. TAb have received from the City of Palm. Desert the draft specific
plan for the College of the Desert area which includes this property. Also,
we have received floor plans and elevations on the units that are proposed
in the development planned.
Staff recommends forwarding a letter of approval of case DP-05-78 and 117W
to the City of Palm Desert subject to the attached conditions.
1. In the event the development on the north side of Parkview in the City of
Rancho Mirage is developed and access to that project is from what would
be the extension of Fairhaven, Fairhaven to the north and south of Parkview
should be aligned so to be compatible.
2. That the development of this project on the south side of Parkview should
be coordinated with the development on the north side in the City of Rancho
Mirage. This coordination should be to alleviate any possible traffic
problems due to two entrances in such close proximity along Parkview Drive.
The means of doing this would be, 1) align the twu entrances to the develop-
meets across from each other allowing the design the possibility of future
signalization; or 2) to align the entrances to the developments at least
250' apart so as to eliminate congestion and adequate roan for possible
left turn pockets for traffic tuning into either project.
3. That the right-of-way and alignment of Parkview shall be compatible to the
City of Rancho Mirage alignment and shall be consistent with the College
of the Desert specific plan. Specific engineering attention shall be given
to the channel crossing at Parkview.
4. Parking along Parkview should not be permitted.
5. The two story units proposed in the project should be eliminated and
replaced with one story units.
Staff's recommendation of approval and the subject conditions are based on
the findings that the project as proposed is consistent with the City's
+ General Plan .and proposed developmnt for the surrounding property within
the City of Rancho Mirage on the north side of Parkview.
PDT:grb
5-22-78
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: Director of Environmental Services
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Development Plan 05-78, 117MF DATE: May 10th, 1978
1. Right of way dedications on 44th Avenue shall be made to provide
126 foot of` right of way.
2. Right of way dedications shall be made on Fairhaven Drive to
provide fora 66 foot right of way. Fairhaven Drive shall also
be extended northerly to Park View Drive. Park View Drive
shall be dedicated to provide an 88 foot right of way..
3. This tract shall pay the required drainage and park fees as
required by the City of Palm Desert ordinances,
4.. All improvements shall be required on the exterior of the tract
including curbs, gutters, tie in paving and sidewalks.
5. Traffic safety lighting shall be installed at the entrance on
Fairhaven Drive and Park View Drive.
6. This tract shall also make a contribution to the signalization
fund in the amount of $10,000,00,
jag j .
MAY 1 1197
ENVIRONMENTAL. SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT;
June 21 , 1978
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Reference: Case No. DP 05-78
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be
based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main
from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is
more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow,
and the `tops and nozzle caps shall- be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) , shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design
of the water system in Case Number DP 05-78 is in accordance with the require-
ments prescribed by the Fire Marshal . "
Very truly yours,
Dav' L. Flake
David J. Ortegel
Fire Marshal
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAN COMPANY
VOD CENTRAL AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
R.W.RIDDELL
Eastern Division
Distribution Planning Supervisor Mailing Address P.O. BOX 220D, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92516
May 9, 1978
Location of Nearest Gas Main:
Gas @ 44th Avenue & Fairhaven Street
City of Palm Desert
45275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Attention: Paul A. Williams
Re: Case No. DP 05-78 and 117MF
This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to
serve the proposed project; but only as an information service. Its
intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has
facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas
service to the project could be provided from an existing main without
any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in
accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with
the CaliFernia Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual
arrangements are made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter,
is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies.
As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the
jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. - We can
also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should
these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition
under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance
with revised conditions.
We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to
provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy
conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further
information on any of our energy conservation programs , please contact
this office for assistance.
14oL9
RWR:blc
MAY 1 1°7c' �
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
i
a
TO: Mr. Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
FROM: Mike Murray, R.S. , Supervising Sanitarian
Riverside County Health Department - Desert District
DATE: May 9, 1978
t
SUBJECT: DP 05-78 and 117MF
E
This Department has no comments at this time. However,
t prior to. any approval, we must receive definitive information
regarding sewage disposal and domestic water supply.
i
t .
t
i
G
MM:js
i
i
I
C
MAY 1 5 1s; ' �.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
I
i
i
�OUNTy
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AG-..:Y
�/STRICS
COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714)398-2651
DIREQORS OFFICERS
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, PRESIDENT LOWELL O. WEEKS, GENERAL MANAGER-CHUFF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS, VICE PREsmENT May 19, 1978 OLE J. NOROLAND, SECRETARY
C. J. FROST WALTER R. WRIGHT, AUDITOR
W ILLIAM B. GARDNER REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
STEVE D.BUXTON
File: 0163. 11
0421 . 1
0721 . 1
Department of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
Post Office Box 1977
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: DP-05-78, MF No. 117
SEk Sec. 18, T5S, R6E
Gentlemen:
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels
and dikes. This area may be considered safe from stormwater flows
except in rare instances.
The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to
said area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations
of this District.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80
of the Coachella Valley County Water District for sanitation service.
There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request
the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building
permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the
relocation of these facilities.
Very tr ly yours,
Lowey 1 0. Wee, s
General Manager-ChieflEngineer
KH:dlb
W 9 C L b,w '
MAY 2 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-481 Pinyon Street
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
May 10, 1978
Pr. Paul Williams, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
SUBJECT: Public Hearing 5/30/78
CASE NOS. DP 05-78 and 117MF
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for the opportunity of expressing myself
to the Planning Commission on the above case.
I believe that approval of such a condominium
project would be beneficial to our city of Palm
Desert.
As a major property owner to adjacent property, I
sincerely urge your approval of this project.
Cordially,
DONALD L. BALCH
MAY 2 21973
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PAWL DESERT
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
October 18, 1977
Mr. Richard Arnold
38551 Cactus Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Re: Preliminary Site Plan for Parcel A
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan
labeled "Case de Laguna at Palm Desert" , dated Sept. 15, 1977. After
reviewing this tentative plan, I believe the following design concerns
should be addressed in any future proposals:
1. The schematic exterior building elevations which we saw were far
from acceptable. The design was box-like and somewhat unimaginative.
Clearly, more architectural treatment is needed. The design should
also reflect concern for our desert climate. I thought your sug-
gestion for using a distinctive theme material , such as the blue tile,
was an excellent idea.
2. Please note the attached copy of the PR zone, since a number of the
development standards have not been followed.
3. The intent of cluster housing is to provide the available common open
space in a more useable form. Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved
in this design. Most of the common open space around the units is
chopped up and wasted; far too many units simply face a perimeter wall .
More space is needed between the housing clusters. You might consider
perimeter parking with the units facing onto a central open space pool
area.
4. Wider project setbacks from the adjacent perimeter streets are needed.
Would suggest a design using a 32 foot distance from curb to wall ,
with an additional 20 feet to the face of the nearest unit.
5. Extra guest parking spaces should be near the tennis courts.
6. The recrea+-inr,al faoi? itips are n[uff;r.pn+. for the number of units
involve _._. __ . .:)t near
the courts, small pools or jacuzzis should be offered, with possibly a
few outdoor harbeaup grills .
7. rroject resign snouia take info consiaeration the requirement rut- cn.
UnOeYGrO ending of existing overhead U i.iil t,y lines on 44th Avenue , etc.
' -2-
8. A maximum of 4-6 units per cluster.
9. The project needs a unique, identifiable focal element. The design
completely ignores the elevated banks of the adjacent stormwater chan-
nel which could be used as part of a linear green belt running through-
out the project. Possibly a small park or garden area could add some
character to the neighborhood.
Although quite brief, I hope this summarizes our interests and concerns
regarding the development of the site and answers your questions. If not,
please feel free to contact this office any time.
Very truly yours., \
OL
Paul A. Williams, Director
Dept. of Environmental Services
Enc.
pw/sf/ks
�A
20
INDUSTRIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 82417, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138 (714) 283-7141
June 23, 1978
Clerk
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert -
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Sir:
We are hereby appealing the action of the Design Review Board on Case
No. 117MF taken on June 20th, 1978 to the Planning Commission.
Please schedule us for a hearing on the July 5th agenda of the Planning
Commission.
Sincerely,
TE_RRRRAA IINN-jD,UST RIES, INC.
ROBERT E. KREISI
President
REK:lgm
Co k VVL i�
J U N 2b 19i;
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Paul A. Williams April 10 1978
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Reference: Case No. DP,-05-78 & 117 M F
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be
based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main
from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is
more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel wayS.Hydrant spacing not to exceed 400 ft.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow,
and .the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
I
C. Curbs (if installed) , shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design
of the water system in Case Number DP-05-78 is in accordance with the require-
ments prescribed by the Fire Marshal - "
5. Additional access: to this development shall be provided off Ave. 44.
Very truly yours,
David L. Flake
Fire Chief
David J. Ortegel
- Fire Marshal MAy 1 G !r J ci
DJO:lo
ENVIRONMENTAL CITY OF PALM DESERT SERVICES
C
i
I
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
Report On : 198-Unit Condominium Project
Applicant: TERRA INDUSTRIES
Case Nos. : DP 05-78 and 117MF
Date: July 5, 1978
I . REQUEST:
Request for approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design
Review for a 198-unit condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th
Avenue.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the Development Plan and reject the Preliminary Design Review
by Planning Commission Resolution No.31-.
Justification:
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and would be detrimental
to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated
by the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The overall site
plan is poor. .
2. The design of the proposed development would not provide a desirable
environment for its occupants. - The site plan proposed will not
function well for either residents of the project or guests and
visitors.
3. The proposed development does not adhere to every element of the
Zoning Ordinance; namely the requirement of a minimum 20 foot setback
between structOres within the Planned Residential Zone District. Ad-
herance to this requirement will require substantial modification to
the site plan.
III. BACKGROUND:
A. Location: Northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue.
B. Size: Approximately 3,acres
C. Zoning: PR-7, S.P.
D. Adjacent Zoning: North - City of Rancho Mirage
South - PR-6, S.P.
East - R-1 12,000 and R-1 12,000, S.P.
West - R-1
E. Type of Units: 198 'single-family, semi-detached condominium units
F. Density: Approximately 66 06 du/acre
Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF
July 5, 1978 Page Two
III . BACKGROUND: (Cont. )
G. Unit Size by Floor Plan : G Plan - 1080 sq. ft.
H Plan - 1193 sq. ft.
I Plan - 1295 sq. ft.
J Plan - 1379 Sq. ft.
H. Open Space Analysis : Projects of less than 7 dwelling units/acre are
required to have 50% common open space which is
defined as land used for recreational , including
buildings used for recreati al purposes , parks
or environmental purpo$ses-.-! e proposed project
contains approximately��h9'lo en space, some of
which in the Staff's opinion will not meet the
Ordinance's definition of open space.
I . Recreation Facilities Analysis: The project would contai recreational
areas, one major and two minor. The
major would have a swimming pool , 2
tennis courts a jacuzzi and a recreational
structure. The minor centers would only
have a swimming pool .
J. Number of 2-story Units: 74 units (Plan J's)I,.
IV. DISCUSSION:
The project, as proposed, calls for 198 condominium units to be constructed
on approximately 30.37 acres in clusters developed around common driveway
areas. The density proposed is approximately 6.59 du/acre. The Parking
Provision of the Municipal Code requires 495 spaces, 396 of which must be
covered. The applicant is proposing 546 spaces, 396 of which are covered.
Two minor recreational areas containing swimming pools are being proposed
in addition to one major recreational area containing a recreation struc-
ture, swimming pool and two tennis courts. Staff believes additional re-
creational amenities ought to be provided for the number of units proposed.
When originally reviewed, the Design Review Board rejected the proposed
Development Plan for a number of reasons. The Board believed the overall
site plan to be extremely poor with regard to circulation, parking and
function for residents as well as guests. The center parking courts were
found unacceptable as presented since maneuvering would be difficult and
numerous small problems created. The Board also felt that access to some
of the units would be remote for residents themselves and visitor parking
is located too far from the units to be workable. The architectural treat-
ment was considered to be modular in form, not very compatible with the
desert. The Staff concurred with all of these findings and, therefore, re-
commended denial of the project so that it could be better thought out.
The applicant made some modifications to the site plan subsequent to the
Planning Commission's review of the project and presented the revised plan
to the Design Review Board at their June 20, 1978, meeting. It was pointed
out to the Design Review Board by Staff that the project violates the mini-
mum 20' setback-requi-rementbetween structures at_n.umer_ous locations..This
situation appears indicative of the projects' overall tightness and lack
of open space. The applicant has indicated that the 50% common open space
'Cr-equirement has been met, but Staff believes this has only been done byr
calculating the_private yards as_part of the open space —It-should-be7- oted,
that the 50% common open space requirement prescribed-by the Ordinance is
only prescribed minimum and that most projects reviewed usually far exceed
the minimum amount of open space required. In providing exactly 50% com-
mon open space, if in fact this amount has been provided, Staff believes
the applicant is not attempting to achieve the goals for which the planned
residential district was- intended to achieve, namely visually exciting site
plans containing broad expanses of common areas. The Design Review Board
failed to approve a motion which ,woul_d_have_r_ecommended_appr--o-v.al_o.f the
project to the Planning Commission. As a result, neither the Staff norms
the Design-Review Board recommend approval of this project to the Commission.
Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF
July 5, 1978 Page Three
VI . DISCUSSION: (Cont. ) .
Staff believes substantial modifications to the proposed site plan will
have to be made to accomodate the 20' minimum setbacks between units con-
trary to the applicant's claim that this requirement can be easily ad-
herred to.
PLANNING 'COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO .
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA , ANNOUNCING
FINDINGS AND DENYING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF, A 1.98 UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY , SEMI-
DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY
33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN
DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE ,
CASE NOS . DP 05-78 and 117MF
WHEREAS, the Planning Connission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the application of TERRA INDUSTRIES
requesting approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Re-
view to allow the construction of a 198-unit , single-family , semi-
detached condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres
within the PR-7, S .P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre , scenic
preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as :
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320 -010
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution
No. 78-32, " in that the Director of Environmental Services has deter-
mined that this project will not have a significant adverse effect on
the environment on May 11 , 1978 , and the appeal period has expired;
((( and,
WHEREAS , at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments , if any , the Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of
the subject Development Plan :
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
would be detrimental to the harmonious , orderly and attrac-
tive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan. The overall site plan is poor.
2 . The design of the proposed development would not provide
a desirable environment for its occupants . The site plan
proposed will not function well for either residents of
the project or guests and visitors .
3 . The proposed development does not adhere to every element
of the Zoning Ordinance ; namely the requirement of a minimum
20 foot setback between structures within the Planned Re-
sidential Zone District . Adherance to this requirement
will require substantial modification to the site plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert as follows :
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and consti-
tute the findings of the Commission in this case;
2 . The Planning Commission does hereby reject Development
Plan DP 05-78 and Preliminary Design Review 117MF for reasons stated.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO . Page Two
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Palm Desert Planning Commission , held on this 5th day of July ,
1978, by the following vote , to wit :
AYES :
NOES :
I
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman
ATTEST :
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
/ks
MINUTES
PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
JUNE 20, 1978
1 . The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Palm Desert City Hall , after an ll= hour study session.
Members
present: Eric Johnson
Bernie Leung
Phyllis Jackson
Frank Urrutia
Ralph Cipriani for Paul Williams
Members
absent: Jim Hill
Staff
present: Ron Knippel
Clyde Beebe
2. Case No. 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for
198 single-family semi-detached condominium units to be located at the north-
west corner of Fairhaven and 44th Avenue. Applicant present.
Following discussion of this case and a presentation by the applicant to
point out areas of the project which were changed to accommodate previous
DRB comments, Jackson moved to approve the preliminary site, floor and eleva-
tions subject to the following conditions :
a. A minimum 20' setback be required between units and/or units be attached
by use of a trellis or other decorative structure.
b. All 2-story structures be removed from the scenic preservation overlay
district or limited to the project' s inner circle.
c. Eliminate the housing cluster in the northwest corner of the inner circle
to provide additional open space and relocate pool in this area.
d. All pools shall be a minimum of 20' x4O' .
The motion was seconded by Johnson but failed to pass for lack of a majority
vote; (AYES: Jackson, Johnson ; NOES: Leung, Urrutia, Cipriani ) .
3. Case No. 82MF - PORTOLA VILLAGE - Final landscaping for a 48-unit condominium
project to be located on the east side of Portola, south of Goleta. Applicant
present.
On a motion by Johnson, seconded by Jackson, the Board approved the final
landscaping plan subject to the applicant modifying the plans as follows :
a. All shrubs adjacent to units be upsized to a minimum of 5-gallon.
b. Evergreen trees shall be provided throughout the project between date
palms. Suggested tree types are: evergreen pear; Brazilian pepper; and
mexican ash.
c. Staff shall review and approve the above noted changes.
Carried 4-1 (AYES: Johnson , Jackson , Leung, Urrutia ; NOES: Cipriani ) .
4. Case No. 128MF - BR C B U E E DI G - Final landscaping fora mobile home subdivision
P 9
addition located at the Silver Spur Mobile Manor. Applicant present.
On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Leung, the Board approved the final land-
scaping subject to the applicant revising the landscaping plan as noted on
Exhibit A; carried 5-0 (Urrutia, Leung, Johnson, Jackson, Cipriani ) .
7'i nutes
Palm Desert Design Review Board
May 16, 1978 Pane Four
15. Case No. 117rIF - TERRA INDUSTRIES - Preliminary site, floor and elevations
for a 200-unit condominium project to be located at the northwest corner of
Fairhaven and 44th Avenue. Applicant not present.
On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Leung , the Board rejected the preliminary
site, floor and elevations as submitted and requested that the applicant re-
work the site plan and resubmit it. The major concerns and recommendations
of the Board included:
a. The modular appearance.
b. The arrangement will not function well for residents .
c. Land planning and use do not coincide.
d. Center parking courts will not function well .
e. Circulation of parking unacceptable.
f. Access to building to remote.
g. Architecture does not complement desert setting.
h. Recommend that shakes not be used on sides of structures.
i . Commercial size (20'x4O' ) pools and equipment should be used in project.
j. Rework landscape plan.
Carried 4-0 (Urrutia , Leung, Minturn, Johnson).
16. Discussion:
Board Member George Minturn announced that this meeting was to be his last C
since he is moving to Santa Rosa. He said he enjoyed working with the Board
and had learned a good deal . Chairman of the Board Eric Johnson accepted his
resignation and thanked Mr. Minturn for his time and contributions to the
Design Review Board.
17. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Urrutia, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Carried 4-0 (Leung, Minturn, Urrutia , Johnson) .
RONALD R. KNIPPEL, Associate Plaaner
rk/ks
f
C,1 1 i' \lip F1AI. J11 IlJ l7(�V3;
60-825 HIGHNAY I11 to RANCHO MIRAGE. CAUFORNiA D2220
hlEA,10PANDUPvl
TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT DkTE: May 11 , 1978
FROPA: PLANNING COMMISSION
SU3JE-CT: CASE NUMBER: DP-05-78 and 117MF
POPULAR DESCRIPTIO-- inn unit condominil_im project
HEARING DATE: May 14 1978
GENTLEMEN:
AT ITS MEETING OF —Ma_j Q 1978, THE RANCHO MIRAGE PLANNING
CO;T'1ISSION TOOK THE FOLLOiJIidu" ACIIOW ON THE ABOVE h1ENTIONED PROPOSAL:
Q APPROVED Q DISAPPROVED E ] CONTINUED E0 OTHER
A WRITTEN APPEAL TO THE MAY BE FILED 'JITH THE CITY CLERK
'WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF ThE ABOVE DATE; BUT NO LATER THAN
1978.
COlMi TENTS:
It was moved by---Coptmissioner_MCFadden ond2d by Commissioner Lazzar�that_
a letter be written to the Citv.of Palm Desert requesting additional information
as set out in the staff report presented at the meeting, in order for the _
Commission to properly evaluate the pro.ect. It was further requested that
the scheduled hearing before the Palm Dessert Planning Commission be continued
to allow time for the Rancho Mir
a4e Planning Commission to comment.
Unanimously carried. All Commissioners present and voting.
THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING DATE FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS
BEFORE THE RANCHO MIRAGE FOR FURTHER INFORt-!ATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT-,ki RANCHO MIRAGE CITY HALL (328-8871 ) .
SINC Y _
4® L I L
_ _ In.I� 1.
NALD EG 1 DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING AN ELOP"TENT CITY OF PALM DESERT
CITY' OF RANCHO MIRAGE
g � 69-825 HIGHWAY 111 • RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 1978
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: REFERRAL from the City of Palm Desert, DP-05-78 and 117MF
Pursuant to the joint City-County cooperation agreement with the Coachella
Valley cities and Riverside County, Y the City of Palm Desert has forwarded a
request for review and recommendation of the above captioned matter.
The subject property is south of Parkview Drive, north of Avenue 44, and west
of Fairhaven Drive. The request is for a 200 unit, single family, semi detached
condominium project to be located on approximately three acres. The City of Palm
Desert's current zoning is PR-7, S.P.
The staff has reviewed the transmittal and recommends as follows:
That the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City of Palm
Desert of continuing the project until additional information can be obtained.
This information is determined by staff to be vital in formulating a recommen-
dation. The additional information as needed is as follows:
1 . How does Fairhaven Drive relate to existing Rancho Mirage streets on the
north side of and intersecting with Parkview. This should be illustrated
on the appropriate site plan.
2. Some coordination of developments on the north and south side of Parkview
should be considered so that the street and/or project entrances can be
analysed with respect to each other. This would help facilitate at a later
date the establishment of any curbs , curb cuts, driveway accesses , and
possible traffic control features in this area.
If either of the above are not known at this time, the existing lot owner-
ship patterns and/or existing drive approaches on the north side of Parkview
should be illustrated and a determination made as to the "most likely location"
for a future northerly street or access way. The main access to the proposed
development could then be coordinated with this "most likely location", if
such can be determined.
3. Right-of-way dimensions and alignment of Parkview should be shown so as to
determine its future relationship with the ultimate design by both the City
of Palm Desert and the City of Rancho Mirage.
4. Whether parking along Parkview will be allowed upon the street's ultimate
completion.
5. A copy of the environmental assessment as completed by the applicant and
any comments regarding amounts of traffic on Parkview, number of trips
generated by this development and how the density of this development will
effect existing traffic in this area.
Planning Commission
re: Palm Desert Referral
6. Applicant' s map should indicate the City limits of the City of Rancho
Mirage.
7. A fully dimensioned plot plan which clearly indicates densities and spaces
between buildings, areas devoted to landscaping, parking dimensions , would
be helpful in analysing the project. In addition, elevations of the pro-
posed buildings which illustrate design, height, materials, etc. , are
necessary to our Planning Commission evaluation.
As you know, the City of Rancho Mirage is extremely interested in development
occurring, not only in the City but in the surrounding area, and we are committed
to seeing that whatever development occurs is of the highest quality.
The Commission comments are transmitted in this light and they are anxious to
have the additional information that will help them make an intelligent recom-
mendation on thq subject project which is important to both cities .
RE:PMP:grb
-xCcr
"�eCYJG�JS�
r
T ', 7 '7 ,f�.-
69-OZ3 HIGHWAY III u RANCHO M
I,RAGc. CALIFORNIA 92270
MEPAOR AND UM TO:
City of Palm Desert DATE: �
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION c,ry O` PALM DESERT
SUBJECT: CASE NUMBER: DP-05-78 & 117M7
POPULAR DES CRIPTiuN: Palm Desert Referral
HEARING DATE: May 24, 1978
GENTLEMEN
May 24 1978 1978, THE RANCHO MIRAGE PLANNING
AT ITS MEETING OF y � { RANCHO
COMI`4ISSION TOOK THE FOLLOWif4G ACii0P1 ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPOSAL:
x� APPROVED DISAPPROVED CONTINUED F--1 OTHER
A WRITTEN APPEAL TO THE t"AY BE FILED 4JITH THE CITY CLERK
WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE; BUT NO LATER, THAN
, 1978.
COMMENTS:
It was mved by Cannissioner Murray, seconded by Cor issioner Rogers,
that a letter be forwarded to the City of Palm Desert recomending
approval of DP-05-78 and 117MF, subject to the conditions outlined in
Staff Report dated May 24, 1978, and as amended.
UnaniRE+4sly passed `' T zzar M,�_ Rogers and Marx present
and voting.
THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING DATE FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS
BEFORE THE RANCHO MIRAGE
FOR FURTHER INFORQATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT A- RANCHO MIRAGE CITY HALL (328-8871 ) .
SINCERELY,
ROP D E J, RECTOR
PL NNING- AP EVELOPMENT
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
May 24, 1978
Mr. PrattBE
ed City of Palm Desert Referral, DP-OS-78 and 117A1F, CITY OF PF
tinuede Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 10, 1978. DESERT
The reque construct a 200 unit, single family, semi detached REFERRAL
condominict south of Parkviewa, north of Avenue 44 and west ofDP-05-78 £
Fairhavenroxiirately 33 acres. The additional information117MF
requested Desert was received and provided staff sufficientmaterial re�manendation. The development would be consistent
with the nral Plan therefore staff is recommending approval
{
subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report dated May 24, 1978.
Outlined in the conditions are the requirements to eliminate all two
story units, no parking along Parkview, and alignment of this develop-
with any future development across Parkview. It was also suggested
that this development be coordinated with any development on the
north side which would be the Rancho Mirage side. It was pointed out
that their density of 6.5 per acre is much less than our density of
10 per acre in that area. This is indicated on the College of the
Desert specific plan also.
Under discussion, concern was directed to the channel crossing at
Parkview and the suggestion made that specific engineering attention
be given this problem be made a part of the conditions and be added
to condition 3.
It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Rogers, YOTIODI
that a letter be fonrarded to the City of Palm D ert s recommending
approval of DP-05-78 and 117MF, subject to the conditions outlined
in Staff Report dated May 24, 1978, and as amended.
0
CITY OF RANCHO A9IRAGE
69-825 HIGHWAY III • RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING CO,,] MISSION DATE: MAY 24, 1978
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTM3NT
SUBJECT: Referral from the City of Palm Desert
DP-05-78 and 117MF (continued from Planning Comnission Meeting
May 10, 1978)
Pursuant to the Joint/Cities and Counties Cooperation Agreement with the
Coachella valley cities and Riverside County, the City of Palm Desert has
fcnuarded a request for review and recommendation of the above captioned
matter.
The subject property is south of Parkview, north of Avenue 44 and west of
Fairhaven Drive. The current Rancho Mirage City limits run half width of
Parkview Drive, everything north.
The developer's request is for a 200 unit single family semi detached
oondonniam project to be located on approximately 33 acres. The City of
Palm Desert zoning is PR-7, SP.
This item was continued from the last meeting so the. City's staff could obtain
more information from the City of Palm Desert felt needed to make a good
recannendation. We have received fran the City of Palm Desert the draft specific
plan for the College of the Desert area which includes this property. Also,
we have received floor plans and elevations on the units that are proposed
in the development planned.
Staff reccmTends forwarding a letter of approval of case DP-05-78 and 117MF
to the City of Palm Desert subject to the attached conditions.
1. In the event the development on the north side of Parkview in the City of
Rancho Mirage is developed and access to that project is from what would
be the extension of Fairhaven, Fairhaven to the north and south of Parkview
should be aligned so to be compatible.
2. That the development of this project on the south side of Parkview should
be coordinated with the development on the north side in the City of Rancho
Mirage. This coordination should be to alleviate any possible traffic
problems due to two entrances in such close proximity along Parkview Drive.
The means of doing this would be, 1) align the two entrances to the develop-
ments across from each otter allowing the design the possibility of future
signalization; or 2) to align the entrances to the developments at least
250' apart so as to eliminate congestion and adequate roan for possible
left turn pockets for traffic turning into either project.
3. That the right-of-way and alignment of Parkview shall be compatible to the
City of Rancho Mirage alignment and shall be consistent with the Collec;e
of the Desert specific plan_ Specific engineering attention shall be given
to the channel crossing at Parkview.
9. Parking along Parkview should not be Md.
5. The two story units proposed_in_the-project_should-be-eli u.nated and
replaced with.one_story units.
Staff's recommendation of approval and the subject conditions are based on
the findings that the project as proposed is consistent with the City's
General Plan .and proposed development for the surrounding property within
the City of Rancho Mirage on the north side of Parkview.
PMP:grb
5-22-78
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: Director of Environmental Services
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Development Plan 05-78, 117MF DATE: May loth, 1978
1. Right of way dedications on 44th Avenue shall be made to provide
126 foot of right of way.
2. Right of way dedications shall be made on Fairhaven Drive to
provide for a 66 foot right of way. Fairhaven Drive shall also
be extended northerly to Park View Drive. Park View Drive
shall be dedicated to provide an 88 foot right of way.
3. This tract shall pay the required drainage and park fees as
required by the City of Palm Desert ordinances.
4. All improvements shall be required on the exterior of the tract
including curbs, gutters , tie in paving and sidewalks.
5. Traffic safety lighting shall be installed at the entrance on
Fairhaven Drive and Park View Drive.
6. This tract shall also make a contribution to the signalization
fund in the amount of $10,000,00.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
C'Tv 05 PALM DESERT
i ^Y
O�W
P.O. BOX 82417, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138 (714) 283-7141
June 23, 1978
Clerk
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Sir:
We are hereby appealing the action of the Design Review Board on Case
No. 117MF taken on June 20th, 1978 to the Planning Commission.
Please schedule us for a hearing on the July 5th agenda of the Planning
Commission.
Sincerely,
TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC.
ROBERT E. KREIS
President
REK:lgm
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Paul A. Williams April 10 1978
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Reference: Case No. DP-05-78 & 117 M F
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be
based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main
from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is
more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel wayS.Hydrant spacing not to exceed 400 ft.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow,
and .the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) , shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
i
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification : "I certify that the design
of the water system in Case Number DP.05-78 is in accordance with the require-
ments prescribed by the Fire Marshal . "
5. Additional access to this development shall be provided off Ave. 44.
Very truly yours,
David L. Flake
Fire Chief
f
David J. Ortegel - V s...
- Fire Marshal
DJO-lo
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY Of PALM DESERT
09 f ,.a. , = f
R.W.RIDDELL 3700 CENTRAL AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Eastern Division
Distribution Planning Supervisor Mailing Address P.O. BOX 2200, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92516
May 9, 1978
Location of Nearest Gas Main:
Gas @ 44th Avenue & Fairhaven Street
City of Palm Desert
45275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Attention: Paul A. Williams
Re: Case No. DP 05-78 and 117MF
This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to
serve the proposed project; but only as an information service. Its
intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has
facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas
service to the project could be provided from an existing main without
any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in
accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with
the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual
arrangements are made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter,
is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies.
As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the
jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. - We can
also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should
these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition
under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance
with revised conditions.
We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to
provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy
conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further
information on any of our energy conservation programs , please contact
this office for assistance.
k4, sArt 2 w. ai
RWR:blc
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
-
CITr OF PALM DESERT
1
TO: Mr. Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
FROM: Mike Murray, R.S. , Supervising Sanitarian
Riverside County- Health Department - Desert District
DATE: May 9, 1978
SUBJECT: DP 05-78 and 117MF
This Department has no comments at this time. However,
prior to. any approval, we must receive definitive information
regarding sewage disposal and domestic water supply.
MM:js
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
�OUNTy
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
�/ST RIGS
COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE Box 1058 COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651 -
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
RAYMONO R. ROMMONDS, PRESIDENT May 19, 1978 LOWELL O. WEEKS, GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS, VICE PRESIDENT OLE J. NORDI-AND, SECRETARY
C. J. FROST WALTER R WRIGHT, AUDITOR
WILLIAM 0. GARDNER
R EDWINE AND SYER RILL, ATTORNEY'
STEVE D.BUXTON
File: 0163. 11
0421 . 1
0721 . 1
Department of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
Post Office Box 1977
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: DP-05-78, MF No. 117
SE-4L Sec. 18, T5S, RISE
Gentlemen:
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels
and dikes. This area may be considered safe from stormwater flows
except in rare instances.
The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to
said area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations
of this District.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80
of the Coachella Valley County Water District for sanitation service.
There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request
the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building
permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the
relocation of these facilities.
Very truly yours,
- Lowe'll 0. Wee
General Manager-ChiefIIIEnglneer
KH:dlb
ly jiy
£NVIRON(NENrAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-m: Pinyon Street
Palm Desert, Ca. >9
. May \« AN
gw Paul Williams, Secretary
Pali Desert ?lanninz Conmission.
45w75 :a zee Lane
Palm Desert, ca. 5w6
w w«w : CASEPublicy\/ 79 and Q�2� !
=ems za w a: a
Thank you A r the opportunity of expressing nys2if
to thePlanning e ww» an Theabove case .
- believe that approval of all: a m w m:
project ow: e beneficial to .: city z « :
/G G\i
As a property owner toSmzt2ro arty , :
sincerelymajor your approval ,z this project .
cordinlly,
DONAID 2 yL t
.Y2 : 23
_,RON, a _«s
oaemLMDESERT
June 21 , 1978
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Reference: Case No. DP 05-78
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be
based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main
from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is
more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow,
and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) , shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three .(3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design
of the water system in Case Number DP 05-78 is in accordance with the require-
ments prescribed by the Fire Marshal . "
Very truly yours,
David L. Flake
Fpre)Chief ;1
David J. Ortegel
Fire Marshal
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO . 373
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA , ANNOUNCING
FINDINGS AND DENYING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1.9S UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY, SEMI-
DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY
33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN
DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE .
CASE NOS . DP 05-78 and 117MF
WUEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the application of TERRA INDUSTRIES
requesting approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Re-
view to allow the construction of a 198-unit , single-family , semi-
detached condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres
within the PR-7 , S .P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre , scenic
preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as :
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320--010
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Environmental. Quality Procedure Resolution
No. 78-32, " in that the Director of Environmental Services has deter-
mined that this project will not have a significant adverse effect on
the environment on May 11 , 1978 , and the .appeal period has expired;
( and,
WHEREAS , at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering
Il all testimony and arguments , if any , the Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of
the subject Development Plan :
1 . The design of the proposed development is not in keeping
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
would be detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attrac-
tive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance and
the General Plan . The overall site plan is poor.
2 . The design of the proposed development would not provide
a desirable environment for its occupants . The site plan
proposed will not function well for either residents of
the project or guests and visitors .
3 . The proposed development does not adhere to every element
of the Zoning Ordinance ; namely the requirement of a minimum
20 foot setback between structures within the Planned Re-
sidential Zone District . Adherance to this requirement
will require substantial modification to the site plan .
! NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
j the City of Palm Desert as follows :
l 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and consti-
tute the findings of the Commission in this case;
2 . The Planning Commission does hereby reject Development
Plan DP 05-78 and Preliminary Design Review 117MF for reasons stated .
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 373 Page Two
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Palm Desert Planning Commission , held on this 5th day of July ,
1978, by the following vote, to wit :
AYES : BERKEY, FLESHMAN, KELLY, KRYDER, SNYDER
NOES : NONE
i
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman
ATTEST :
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
/ks
�Y .
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
DATE July 6, 1978
APPLICANT Terra Industries Inc.
P. 0. Box 82417
San Diego, CA 92138
CASE No. :rDP 05-78 and 117MF
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request
and taken the following action at its meeting of
July 5, 1978
CONTINUED TO
DENIED
REJECTED
XX UTUXU BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 373
PLACED ON THE AGE14DA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION.
PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
-Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental
Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COAMISSSION
cc: Applicant
C.V.C.W.D.
File
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY - JULY 5 , 1978
7 : 00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I . CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission
was called to order by Chairman Berkey at 7 :00 p .m. in the Council
Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall .
II . PLEDGE - Commissioner Kryder
III . ROLL CALL
Present : Commissioner FLESHMAN
Commissioner KELLY
Commissioner KRYDER
Commissioner SNYDER
Chairman BERKEY
Others
Present : Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services
Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner
Dave Erwin - City Attorney
Dave Ortegel - City Fire Marshal
Kathy SHorey - Planning Secretary
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of regular meeting of June 14, 1978.
Mr. Williams noted the following corrections to the minutes .
lst page , under Election of Vice Chairman , vote
should be 4-0 not 4-1 .
Page seven , last paragraph , vote should be 4-0
not 4-1 .
On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the minutes were approved as corrected ; carried unanimously
(5-0) .
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Berkey announced that prior to this meeting, the
Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying
the Staff recommendations . No decisio s were reached. Chairman
Berkey then explained the Public Hear ng procedures to those present .
A. Continued Case Nos . DP 0 -78 and 117MF, TERRA INDUSTRIES ,
Applicant
Request for approval of a Revised Development Plan
and Preliminary Design Review for a 198-unit condo-
minium project to be located on approximately 33
acres at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and
44th Avenue .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
July 5, 1978 Page Two
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
A. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF (Cont . )
Chairman Berkey noted that he and Commissioner Fleshman
were not present at the meeting of May 30 , 1978 , but that they
had listened to the tape of the meeting concerning this case and
that they were both familiar with the cases ..
Mr. Williams reviewed the cases and noted that the applicant
had submitted revised drawings changing the foot print pattern of
the units and the number of parking spaces. He noted the concerns
of the Design Review Board and stated that the Staff recommended
denial of the Development Plan and rejection of Case No . 117MF.
Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked
if the applicant wished to speak at this time.
ROBERT KRIESE , President of Terra Industries ,
addressed the concerns as mentioned by Mr .
Williams. He indicated that there was 517o
open space and that the area adjacent to the
project near the flood channel could be used
for additional open space. Mr . Kriese then
presented a revised cluster plan which would
make the garages more accessible and circula-
tion easier. He then noted that this project
is proposed as a way of trying to reach an
affordable housing range. Further , he noted
agreement with the suggested pool size and
the 20 ft . setback for the units could be
met .
DANIEL SALERNO, Architect for the project , gave
a slide presentation showing the circulation con-
cept , patio concept , garage access concept , and
pictures of a project in Laguna Hills. He also
presented samples of the materials and colors
to be used.
Commissioner Kryder asked about the distance between the
garages, noting that the plan is deceiving.
Mr. Salerno indicated that it would be 20 ft .
between them all .
Commissioner Kryder asked about the guest parking and if
there was guest parking for all the units .
Mr. Salerno stated that there was not guest
parking at every cluster .
Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak
in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project . Being none he
declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of i
the Commission, noting that the Staff and the Design Review Board
had recommended denial .
Commissioner Kelly indicated that she felt that the amenities
were not adequate , open space was inadequate , and the parking is in-
adequate, noting that parking is hard to enforce and people will park
wherever they want .
Chairman Berkey asked to have the two-story issue clarified ,
asking Mr. Williams to note where the two-story units would be located.
Mr. Williams noted the various two-story units on the outside .
Mr . Kriese stated that the J and F plans are the
same plan , but the J plans are two story , so
wherever there is a J it will become an F .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
July 5, 1978 Page Three
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
A. Case Nos . DP 05-78 and 117MF ( Cont . )
Commissioner Fleshman stated that the amenities were inadequate;
the realtionship of the pools to the units is poor ; parking on one side
of the street is bad; and the applicant has appeared to do the minimum,
as required in the Zoning Ordinance , on everything .
Chairman Berkey noted his concern with the lack of guest parking
in the project .
Commissioner Kelly stated that the concerns voiced at the May
30, 1978 , meeting were still apparent .
Commissioner Snyder stated that he thought the applicant would
have worked out his problems with the Design Review Board , but this
hasn ' t happened.
Chairman Berkey asked if there was a time limit on this project
and if perhaps the applicant would like a continuance . Mr . Williams
stated that there is no time limit on the Development Plan but that
there is on the Design Review Board case .
Mr. Kriese stated that there were two new con-
cerns brought out at this meeting that had not
been mentioned previously. He stated that the
parking as proposed is the best they can do
and that they have tried to comply with the
Design Review Board ' s wishes. He indicated
that they would gain nothing by going back
to the Design Review Board .
On a motion b Commissioner Kell y y, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the Commission denied the Development Plan and rejected the
Preliminary Design Review by Planning Commission Resolution No . 373 ;
carried unanimously (5-0) .
B. Continued Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR,
CHACAHUALA, LTD. , Applicant
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from
R-1 20 , 000 to PR-4 on a 37. 8 acre parcel located
south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View ex-
tended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and the re-
lated Draft EIR.
Mr . Williams reviewed the case and noted the previous report
and the revised Staff Report . He then reviewed the drainage concerns
and indicated that the applicant proposes an open channel through the
project . He - then noted the correspondence received stating concerns
with drainage adjacent to the project . Mr. Williams then reviewed
the Draft EIR noting that it is very complete and the Staff is recom-
mending that the EIR be certified as complete , despite the Commission ' s
action on the Change of Zone. Further, he noted that the PR zone best
mitigates the problems of this parcel .
Chairman Berkey asked the City Attorney, Dave Erwin, about
the liability that the City could possibly face in the event of another
flood. Mr . Erwin stated that all the City can do it to make sure that
the City has sufficient flood control and that steps are taken to pro-
tect the adjacent property.
Chairman Berkey also noted that he and Commissioner Fleshman
had listened to the tape from the meeting of May 30, 1978 , regarding
this case as they had both been absent .
Mrw
ro ` a J912T7S�!7 ;fAlr,IU.S.PCSTAGEI<
@$Qe� ®Q° gSJ�T1•nr•n. ��,o� SENCER _r;'�i; iyi
46-273 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 REASM CRECKED
,UAcfcimeE— Rclr:seA.__
TELEPHONE(714) 348-0811 Af!frfexcr un.'trr=q-.
No SrOt sh;;!_.
= 11�
S t�7p1 DO:no`; rPx:.s. .'!{6 ai:n.iJDt
�. rQ
Ronald & Sherri Clark
;r- v 43 43-660 Hoshua Rd.
€1Z Co Palm Desert, CA 92260
1
FORWARDING
n
E: :,r,�
.��.�.
Y
a'
�ft-C�PZ7 c�2)0 11F�71= Q��
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-06II
July 24, 1978
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 373
WHICH REJECTED A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
WHICH WAS TO BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND
44TH AVENUE.
CASE NO. DP 05-78 and 117 MF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert City Council to consider an appeal by Terra Industries of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 373 whichrejected a Development Plan and Prelim-
inary Design Review for a 200-unit single-family, semi-detached condominium
project which was to be located on approximately 33 acres within the PR-7,
S.P. (Planned-:residential , maximum 7 d.u./acre, scenic preservation overlay)
zone at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue, more parti-
cularly described as :
APN 621-320-.001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-<005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-:320-010
W
� W
I c '
3 PARK a
VIEW DRIVE C
OF 057. 70,20, 7L
a Y14
P I i
_ 44TH AVENUE
Ell
LL
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, August loth, 1978, at 7:00 p.m.
in the. Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear
Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons
are invited to attend and be heard.
Sheila R. Gilligan , City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
Publish-, Palm Desert Post
July 27th, 1978
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
July 24, 1978
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 373
WHICH REJECTED A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT "
WHICH WAS TO BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND
44TH AVENUE.
CASE NO. DP 05-78 and 117 MF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert City Council to consider an appeal by Terra Industriesiof} Planning
Commission Resolution No. 373 whichrejected a Development Plan and Prelim-
inary Design Review for a 200-unit single-family, semi-detached condominium
project which was to be located on approximately 33 acres within the PR-7,
S.P. (Planned--residential , maximum 7 d.u./acre, scenic preservation overlay)
zone at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue, more parti-
cularly described as:.
APN 621-320401 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320405 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320-010
3 PARK C
VIEW DRIVE
Y �
®P ® 7tay M
0
Ii7 A
W
O f A irc I
O F !
Q H S < O2
,D a
0
_ -- 44TH AVENUE
SAID Public Hearing will be field on Thursday, August loth, 1978, at 7 :00 p.m.
in the. Counci:l. C6ambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear
Lane, Palm Dese.rt,. Cali:fornia, at which time and place all interested persons
are invited to attend and be heard.
Sheila R. Gilligan, City, Clerk
City of Palm Desert
Publish.; Palm Desert Post
July 27th, 1978
v�
o� iciB.DOSTT G
� JU;247d 21�% S js
p Y([PA
45-276 PRICKLY PEAR LANE(PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA 82260
TELEPHONE(714) 346-0611
NqQ�aG tE�. 4Ake
r�F :.`0
Til
w Lacy Marlet
z r� James R. Gill
UA
266 Rancho amino
'� Fallbrook, A 92028 �
Y
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
July 24, 1978
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 373
WHICH REJECTED A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
WHICH WAS TO BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND
44TH AVENUE.
CASE NO. DP 05-78 and 117 MF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert City Council to consider an appeal by Terra Industries of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 373 whichrejected a Development Plan and Prelim-
inary Design Review for a 200-unit single-family, semi-detached condominium
project which was to be located on approximately 33 acres within the PR-7,
S.P. (Planned-.residential , maximum 7 d.u./acre, scenic preservation overlay)
zone at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue, more parti-
cularly described as :
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320403 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320410
v,
Ci w
VIEW DRIVE
: a
^ < O \J L F
2
4 4 H A V E N U E
Ip
9 9
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, August loth, 1978, at 7 :00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear
Lane, Palm Desert, California , at which time and place all interested persons
are invited to attend and be heard.
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
Publish.; Palm Desert Post
July 27th, 1978
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
October 18, 1977
Mr. Richard Arnold
38551 Cactus Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Re: Preliminary Site Plan for Parcel A
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan
labeled "Case de Laguna at Palm Desert", dated Sept. 15, 1977. After
reviewing this tentative plan, I believe the following design concerns
should be addressed in any future proposals:
1. The schematic exterior building elevations which we saw were far
from acceptable. The design was box-like and somewhat unimaginative.
Clearly, more architectural treatment is needed. The design should
also reflect concern for our desert climate. I thought your sug-
gestion for using a distinctive theme material ; such as the blue tile,
was an excellent idea.
2. Please note the attached copy of the PR zone, since a number of the
development standards have not been followed.
3. The intent of cluster housing is to provide the available common open
space in a more useable form. Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved
in this design. Most of the common open space around the units is
chopped up and wasted; far too many units simply face a perimeter wall .
More space is needed between the housing clusters. You might consider
perimeter parking with the units facing onto a central open space pool
area.
4. Wider project setbacks from the adjacent perimeter streets are needed.
Would suggest a design using a 32 foot distance from curb to wall ,
with an additional 20 feet to the face of the nearest unit.
5. Extra guest parking spaces should be near the tennis courts.
6. The recreational facilities are insufficient for the number of units
involved. At least 4-6 courts should be considered. For units not near
the courts, small pools or jacuzzis should be offered, with possibly a
few outdoor harheoue Crilis .
7. rroject resign snoulo Cake into consiaeration the requiremenC ror �rc
ty on .4'h Avcnue, 2tC.
,f'
L'f �
/ -2-
8. A maximum of 4-6 units per cluster.
9. The project needs a unique, identifiable focal element. The design
completely ignores the elevated banks of the adjacent stormwater chan-
nel which could be used as part of a linear green belt running through-
out the project. Possibly a small park or garden area could add some
character to the neighborhood.
Although quite brief, I hope this summarizes our interests and concerns
regarding the development of the site and answers your questions. If not,
please feel free to contact this office any time.
ery truly yours`, \
Paul A. Williams, Director
Dept. of Environmental Services
Enc.
pw/sf/ks
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
October 18, 1977
Mr. Richard Arnold
38551 Cactus Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Re: Preliminary Site Plan for Parcel A
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan
labeled "Case de Laguna at Palm Desert" , dated Sept. 15, 1977. After
reviewing this tentative plan, I believe the following design concerns
should be addressed in any future proposals:
1. The schematic exterior building elevations which we saw were far
from acceptable. The design was box-like and somewhat unimaginative.
Clearly, more architectural treatment is needed. The design should
also reflect concern for our desert climate. I thought your sug-
gestion for using a distinctive theme material , such as the blue tile,
was an excellent idea.
2. Please note the attached copy of the PR zone, since a number of the
development standards have not been followed.
3. The intent of cluster housing is to provide the available common open
space in a more useable form. Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved
in this design. Most of the common .open space around the units is
chopped up and wasted; far too many units simply face a perimeter wall .
More space is needed between the housing clusters. You might consider
perimeter parking with the units facing onto a central open space pool
area.
4. Wider project setbacks from the adjacent perimeter streets are needed.
Would suggest a design using a 32 foot distance from curb to wall ,
with an additional 20 feet to the face of the nearest unit.
5. Extra guest parking spaces should be near the tennis courts.
6. The recreational facilities are insufficient for the number of units
involved. At least 4-6 courts should be considered. For units not near
the courts, small pools or jacuzzis should be offered, with possibly a
few outdoor barbgaue grills .
7. rroject design snouid cake into consiaeration the requirement rcr use
undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines on 44th Avenue, etc.f
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
October 18, 1977
Mr. Richard Arnold
38551 Cactus Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Re: Preliminary Site Plan for Parcel A
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan
labeled "Case de Laguna at Palm Desert" , dated Sept. 15, 1977. After
reviewing this tentative plan, I believe the following design concerns
should be addressed in any future proposals:
1. The schematic exterior building elevations which we saw were far
from acceptable. The design was box-like and somewhat unimaginative.
Clearly, more architectural treatment is needed. The design should
also reflect concern for our desert climate. I thought your sug-
gestion for using a distinctive theme material , such as the blue tile,
was an excellent idea.
2. Please note the attached copy of ,the PR zone, since a number of the
development standards have not been followed.
3. The intent of cluster housing is to provide the available common open
space in a more useable form. Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved
in this design. Most of the common open space around the units is
chopped up and wasted; far too many units simply face a perimeter wall .
More space is needed between the housing clusters. You might consider
perimeter parking with the units facing onto a central open space pool
area. .
4. Wider project setbacks from the adjacent perimeter streets are needed.
Would suggest a design using a 32 foot distance from curb to wall ,
with an additional 20 feet to the face of the nearest unit.
5. Extra guest parking spaces should be near the tennis courts.
6. The recreational facilities are insufficient for the number of units
involved. At least 4-6 courts should be considered. For units not near
the courts, small pools or jacuzzis should be offered, with possibly a
few outdoor harhem!e rills .
7. rrojecr resign should cake into consloerazion the requiremenC ror, air .
undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines on 44th Avenue, etc.
1�
'rf / -Z �..
8. A maximum of 4-6 units per cluster.
9. The project needs a unique, identifiable focal element. The design
completely ignores the elevated banks of the adjacent stormwater Chan-
nel which could be used as part of a linear green belt running through-
out the project. Possibly a small park or garden area could add some
character to the neighborhood.
Although quite brief, I hope this summarizes our interests and concerns
regarding the development of the site and answers your questions. If not,
please feel free to contact this office any time.
Very truly yours,
Paul A. Williams, Director
Dept. of Environmental Services
Enc.
pw/sf/ks
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
October 18, 1977
Mr. Richard Arnold
38551 Cactus Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Re: Preliminary Site Plan for Parcel A
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan
labeled "Case de Laguna at Palm Desert" , dated Sept. 15, 1977. After
reviewing this tentative plan, I believe the following design concerns
should be addressed in any future proposals:
1 . The schematic exterior building elevations which we saw were far
from acceptable. The design was box-like and somewhat unimaginative.
Clearly, more architectural treatment is needed. The design should
also reflect concern for our desert climate. I thought your sug-
gestion for using a distinctive theme material , such as the blue tile,
was an excellent idea.
2. Please note the attached copy of the PR zone, since a number of the
development standards have not been followed.
3. The intent of cluster housing is to provide the available common open
space in a more useable form. Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved
in this design. Most of the common open space around the units is
chopped up and wasted; far too many units simply face a perimeter wall .
More space is needed between the housing clusters. You might consider
perimeter parking with the units facing onto a central open space pool
area.
4. Wider project setbacks from the adjacent perimeter streets are needed.
Would suggest a design using a 32 foot distance from curb to wall ,
with an additional 20 feet to the face of the nearest unit.
5. Extra guest parking spaces should be near the tennis courts.
6. The recreational facilities are insufficient for the number of units
involved. At least 4-6 courts si)ou,u i;a c0iisidered. For units not near
the courts, small pools or jacuzzis should be offered, with possibly a
few out!.nor harh,eaup -❑rills .
7. rroject design snouid take into consideration the requiremenC r01- Cnc
undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines on 44th Avenue, etc.
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
October 18, 1977
Mr. Richard Arnold
38551 Cactus Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Re: Preliminary Site Plan for Parcel A
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan
labeled "Case de Laguna at Palm Desert", dated Sept. 15, 1977. After
reviewing this tentative plan, I believe the following design concerns
should be addressed in any future proposals:
1. The schematic exterior building elevations which we saw were far
from acceptable. The design was box-like and somewhat unimaginative.
Clearly, more architectural treatment is needed. The design should
also reflect concern for our desert climate. I thought your sug-
gestion for using a distinctive theme material , such as the blue tile,
was an excellent idea.
2. Please note the attached copy of the PR zone, since a number of the
development standards have not been followed.
3. The intent of cluster housing is to provide the available common open
space in a more useable form. Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved
in this design. Most of the common open space around the units is
chopped up and wasted; far too many units simply face a perimeter wall .
More space is needed between the housing clusters. You might consider
perimeter parking with the units facing onto a central open space pool
area.
4. Wider project setbacks from the adjacent perimeter streets are needed.
Would suggest a design using a 32 foot distance from curb to wall ,
with an additional 20 feet to the face of the nearest unit.
5. Extra guest parking spaces should be near the tennis courts.
F The recreAti.-l insu{firieit for the number of Units
involved. At least 4-6 courts should be considered. For units not near
the courts, small pools or jacuzzis should be offered, with possibly a
few outdnnr harbeoue arilis .
7. rroject aesign snouta cake into consiceration the requirement Tor aim
undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines on 44th Avenue, etc.
-2-
8. A maximum of 4-6 units per cluster.
9. The project needs a unique, identifiable focal element. The design
completely ignores the elevated banks of the adjacent stormwater chan-
nel which could be used as part of a linear green belt running through-
out the project. Possibly a small park or garden area could add some
character to the neighborhood.
Although quite brief, I hope this summarizes our interests and concerns
regarding the development of the site and answers your questions. If not,
please feel free to contact this office any time.
Very truly yours,
u
Paul A. Williams, Director
Dept. of Environmental Services
Enc.
pw/sf/ks
j!
` M
..T.4".
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
October 18, 1977
Mr. Richard Arnold
38551 Cactus Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Re: Preliminary Site Plan for Parcel A
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan
labeled "Case de Laguna at Palm Desert" , dated Sept.. 15, 1977. After
reviewing this tentative plan, I believe the following design concerns
should be addressed in any future proposals:
1 . The schematic exterior building elevations which we saw were far
from acceptable. The design was box-like and somawhat unimaginative.
Clearly, more architectural treatment is needed. The design should
also reflect concern for our desert climate. I thought your sug-
gestion for using a distinctive theme material ; such as the blue tile,
was an excellent idea.
2. Please note the attached copy of the PR zone, since a number of the
development standards have not been followed.
3. The intent of cluster housing is to provide the available common open
space in a more useable form. Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved
in this design. Most of the common open space around the units is
chopped up and wasted; far too many units simply face a perimeter wall .
More space is needed between the housing clusters. You might consider
perimeter parking with the units facing onto a central open space pool
area.
4. Wider project setbacks from the adjacent perimeter streets are needed.
Would suggest a design using a 32 foot distance from curb to wall ,
with an additional 20 feet to the face of the nearest unit.
5. Extra guest parking spaces should be near the tennis courts.
6. The recreational facilities are insufficient for the number of units
involved. At least 4-6 courts should be considered. For units not near
the courts, small pools or jacuzzis should be offered, with possibly a
few outdoor harbeaue arills .
7. Project design should take into consiaeration the requirement Tor crre
undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines on 44th Avenue, etc.
3
t:
-2-
8. A maximum of 4-6 units per cluster.
9. The project needs a unique, identifiable focal element. The design
completely ignores the elevated banks of the adjacent stormwater chan-
nel which could be used as part of a linear green belt running through-
out the project. Possibly a small park or garden area could add some
character to the neighborhood.
Although quite brief, I hope this summarizes our interests and concerns
regarding the development of the site and answers your questions. If not,
please feel free to contact this office any time.
er-y truly yours,
Paul A. Williams, Director
Dept. of Environmental Services
Enc.
pw/sf/ks
II� -
�f
✓'� EXHIBIT B
SPECIAL CO:;DI=IO"S :03
CASE `.0. 117 MF
1,. Final construction drawings including a final landscaping , grading ,
lighting, amenitites, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation
Plans and sign program shall be submitted to the Design Review Board.
No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the De-
partment of Environmental Services to this project until the afore-
mentioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed.
2. Proposed indentity structure shall be deleted.
3. The entrances to the project shall be relocated in order to line up
to the adjacent streets in order to reduce the impact of traffic on
adjacent properties.
4. An additional swimming pool shall be located in the southwestern
area of the project.
5. No plan Js shall be located on the perimeter of the project. Those
Plan Js shown on the perimeter shall be replaced with Plan Fs.
6. The proposed meandering sideeialks adjacent to the public right-of-ways
shall be relocated closer to the public right-of-ways.
7. Meandering masonry walls shall be constructed on all street frontages
in place of berming to reduce the noise impact.
8. Each unit shall have one garage and one carport due to the unique
configuration of the parking areas.
9. A six foot masonry wall shall be provided along the property line
between said project and the vacant site and adjacent church site
at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue.
AGREE'.W VT
I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval ,
to comply with all the conditions set forth , and understand
the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a build-
ing permit or allo:v occupancy on the use permitted until this
signed confirmation has been received by the Department of
Environmental Services .
(Dace) (Aeplicanc ' s Signature)
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 30, 1978 Page Four
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
A. Case Nos . C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont . )
Commissioner Kryder asked if there was an outlet from the
project onto Mesa View. Mr. Williams stated no .
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hear-
ing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission .
Commissioner Kryder stated that it is a well thought out
development and that the project is a good one for the area. He
then noted that the drainage and flood control is his main concern
arxVthat he wants more time to study the draft EIR.
?� gi 7�.Commissioner Kelly stated that the increase in density, drain-
as^ a e"and fire protection are her concerns and she would like more
;! _2,t'ime.
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder recpested that Staff make
certain determinations with regard to the land down stream and the
traffic problem.
Commissioner Kelly asked for further study to be done on the
traffic situation .
On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner
Kelly, the cases were continued to July 5, 1978 for further study;
carried unanimously ( 3-0) .
Mr. Housley asked what was to be done now. Mr . Williams stated
that Staff is to address the City ' s responsibilities with regard
to drainage and also Staff will provide more information on traffic
and access.
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder noted that the Planning
Commission needs additional input from Staff, the applicant gave a
fine presentation .
B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 126MF - CHACAHUALA, LTD . , Applicant
Mr . Williams noted that these cases had been reviewed with
the related Case No . C/Z 02-78 and that they should be continued to
the meeting of July 5, 1978. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder
seconded by Commissioner Kelly the cases were continued; carried
unanimously ( 3-0) .
C. Case s. DP 05-78 an 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES , Applicant
Reques val of a Development Plan and Pre-
liminary Design Review for a 200-unit condominium
project to be located on approximately 33 acres at
the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th
Avenue.
Mr. Williams reviewed the cases and passed out pictures of
similar projects already developed in other areas . He then noted
the concerns of the Design Review Board and letters from the City
of Rancho Mirage and Mr. Balch. Mr. Williams noted the applicants
letter presented earlier in the day addressing the concerns of the
Design Review Board. One of the main concerns with the project is
that the parking areas are too tight .
Mr. Williams stated that Staff is recommending denial of the
project .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 30, 1978 Page Five
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
C. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF (Cont . )
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hearing
I- open and asked if -the applicant wished to speak _at this time .
ROBERT KRIESE , of Terra Industries , addressed the
lCommission and stated that the Design Review Board
had not considered the application properly . He
reviewed the various points of the letter presented
today. Mr. Kriese noted that the proposal is similar
to Portola Del Sol . He suggested that perhaps car-
ports instead of garages would be better. Mr . Kriese
further stated that there would be one guest parking
space per unit and that parking spaces would be signed
as guest parking only and violators would be towed
away.
DANIEL SALERNO, architect for the project , addressed
the Commission and pointed out that the units would
be very private and that this concept has won awards
in other areas. He noted that there is a 50 ft .
width in the garage area and that there will be guest
parking throughout the project . There are limited
recreational facilities because they are trying to
keep the homes at an affordable price . Mr . Salerno
noted that cedar material would be used instead of
shake and that there would be a fully enclosed garden
for all units .
iTemporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if there was anyone
l wishing to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project .
Being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the
pleasure of the Commission .
Commissioner Kryder stated that he felt the Commission was re-
viewing the case prematurely due to the comments of the Design Review
Board.
E ,vim/ .
9rut - -.Commissioner Kelly stated that planned PR zoning uses the word
unrque" and that this proposal does not follow that definition . With
O�� egard to Portola Del Sol it is not coming out as proposed. The pro-
ject should remain single story so the view is not destroyed.
Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder indicated that the case should
be continued to give the applicant time to solve its problems with the
Design Review Board. Mr. Williams noted that the Design Review Board
would like alternatives . Some discussion followed regarding what would
happen if the Commission rejected or continued the cases. Mr. Williams
noted the Design Review Board is stating that the basic concept is
wrong. The applicant could appeal the Commission ' s decision to the
City Council .
Mr. Kriese asked that the cases be continued to discuss
J further the motor court concept with the Design Review
1 Board. He asked when the next Design Review Board meet-
ing would be .
Mr. Dick Arnold stated that all they wanted was a fair-
shake .
Mr. Williams noted that the next Design Review Board meeting
would be June 6, 1978 , and that this case would be first on the agenda.
On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the cases were continued to July 5 , 1978 ; carried unanimously ( 3-0)
THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 9:23 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:33 P.M.
„n.
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
DATE May 31 , 1978
APPLICANT TERRA INDUSTRIES
P. 0. Box 82417
San Diego, CA 92138
CASE NO. : DP 05-78 and 117MF
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request
and taken the following action at its meeting of
May 30, 1978
XX CONTINUED TO July 5, 1978
DENIED
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PLACED ON THE AGE14DA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION.
PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental
Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION
cc: Applicant
C.V.C.W.D.
File
CMWC7��-;[q 45-276 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260ppi-
TELEPHONE(714) 346-0811
r W
� W
p Ran
I i W "
_ Glady ttson 'o Zo
43- 0 Hoshua Rd.
P m Desert, _CA_97-�4 s.��
4
'„ . _ n V Lam' W
L
'
1412
i, a m ,
N!;'vI
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
May 8, 1978
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMI-
NARY DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO
BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE.
CASE NOS. DP 05-78 and 117MF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TERRA INDUSTRIES for
approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a 200-unit,
single-family, semi-detached condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres within the PR-7, S.P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre,
scenic preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue, more .particularly described as:
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320-010
1 1
W j
I- W
a
3 PARK
C
I
I — VIEW DRIVE
p D 0 78
IM
Pa ¢
� o
c f � I ¢
D: f
O z
Q ~ O O O
D o
- 44TH AVENUE
i
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 30, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,
Palm Desert, California, at which time and place, all interested persons are
invited to attend and be heard.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
May 11 , 1978
�I
v Gn U.Unus is UEP
(ARIA ` ®n° 1P>aaTnm IMm=snD1 a MAY-8'76
;� - 13i.
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,PALM DESERT,CAU FORNIA 62260 CA LyF p "" o
TELEPHONE(714) 346-0611 pq
�•11p 83ti:,3l�J� 1
00
ttA1 J C
� Z
i W a
LL
Steven & Sharon Brown o 0
3677'0 `Palmdale Rd.
Randho Mirage, 8 W
R ED pFFICf
---- - - Tn_ ' _ Q1 EKLIEFj� •}J q� - •�
UNDELIVERABLE
AS ADDRESSEDr
UNABLE TO FORWARp y0�
"'RAGE,�
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
May 8, 1978
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMI-
NARY DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO
BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE.
CASE NOS. DP 05-78 and 117MF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TERRA INDUSTRIES for
approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a 200-unit,
single-family, semi-detached condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres within the PR-7, S.P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre,
scenic preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as:
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320-010
W
H W
Q >
i 3 PARK a
VIEW DRIVE C
! Y
P DI� 0 78 z IM �
P o I
O w q
I O f a W
C � -
H
� 2
Q F Q Q p
a
i
t
44TH AVENUE
SONORA
i_ - - - -- -------� -�-- __ N
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 30, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,
Palm Desert, California, at which time and place, all interested persons are
invited to attend and be heard.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission.
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
May 11 , 1978
Minutes
Palm Desert Design Review Board
May 16, 1978 Page Four
15. Case No. 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES - Preliminary site, floor and elevations
for a 200-unit condominium project to be located at the northwest corner of
Fairhaven and 44th Avenue. Applicant not present.
On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Leung, the Board rejected the preliminary
site, floor and elevations as submitted and requested that the applicant re-
work the site plan and resubmit it. The major concerns and recommendations
of the Board included:
a. The modular appearance.
b. The arrangement will not function well for residents.
c. Land planning and use do not coincide.
d. Center parking courts will not function well .
i
e. Circulation of parking unacceptable.
f. Access to building to remote.
g. Architecture does not complement desert setting.
h. Recommend that shakes not be used on sides of structures.
i . Commercial size (20'x40' ) pools and equipment should be used in project.
j. Rework landscape plan.
Carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Leung, Minturn, Johnson) .
16. Discussion:'
Board Member George Minturn announced that this meeting was to be his last C
since he is moving to Santa Rosa. He said he enjoyed working with the Board
and had learned a good deal . Chairman of the Board Eric Johnson accepted his
resignation and thanked Mr. Minturn for his time and contributions to the
Design Review Board.
17. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Urrutia, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Carried 4-0 (Leung, Minturn, Urrutia, Johnson) .
RONALD R. KNIPPEL, Associate PR a " er
rk/ks
�I
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANErPA 92260 - ' �=Z' I
CA1.16 .
F.6.6'a133 --�.. .fit
TELEPHONE(714) E46-0611
< °!,;".z Ronal & Sherri Clark 00
43-660 Hoshua Rd.
Palm ert, CA 92260 m
�±.fcr o:ff LE I1
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
May 8, 1978
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMI-
NARY DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO
BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE.
CASE NOS. DP 05-78 and 117MF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TERRA INDUSTRIES for
approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a 200-unit,
single-family, semi-detached condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres within the PR-7, S.P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre,
scenic preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as:
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320-010
D:
W
W
i a >
I_ 3 PARK a
"- VIEW DRIVE
D O 78 d. 1M 1
P o I
O W
o f
I F
0 2
i D O
I
I
_ - - 4 4 T H A V E N U E
' I i
I %P
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 30, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,
Palm Desert, California, at which time and place, all interested persons are
invited to attend and be heard.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
May 11 , 1978
EG
AD
11 fAMAY :'7F
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANES PALM DESERT,CALIFDRNIA 92260 /9
+
yr+r.v
LAl.1 Q ai3s x
TELEPHONE(714) 346-0611
W
3fy4 i w
y 0
zo
Lacy Marlette
James R. Gill
s�.ti=Daman .
i+
�r
��lJ� �dS L�tyJ.iJ_SLilL ��QT1�l5D
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
May 8, 1978
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMI-
NARY DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO
BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE.
CASE NOS. DP 05-78 and 117MF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TERRA INDUSTRIES for
approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a 200-unit,
single-family, semi-detached condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres within the PR-7, S.P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre,
scenic preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as :
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320-010
\ - J F J
PARK
-- VIEW DRIVE
p p� p 7g, IM
0 4
p W
O z
I— cc
IL
P
' f
44 TN AVENUE
21
y �y
90NORA fLI1I 1I
SAID Public Hearing will *be held on Tuesday, May 30, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,
Palm Desert, California, at which time and place, all interested persons are
invited to attend and be heard.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
May 11 , 1978
JV J. 6M."•w"w�+a•.�s..�.a�v T¢Jaain- =M -/ 3 r,pY.,VNit4'�3.7e al
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,yPALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92280 "' - Cq L%�• UN^p v t T'e
I.G.5DJI3J a. a K
TELEPHONE(714) 346-6611/
.. Rod Dean
% Ace Approved Appliance N
& Maintenance C
O
y " ,F 'PpssF�� �14440 Hamlin St.
��qO .'..- .Van "1luys-,-GA-91-401
7 CJ
1
,i
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
May 8, 1978
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMI-
NARY DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO
BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE.
CASE NOS. DP 05-78 and 117MF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TERRA INDUSTRIES for
approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a 200-uni.t,
single-family, semi-detached condominium project to be located on approxi-
mately 33 acres within the PR-7, S.P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre,
scenic preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue, more .particularly described as:
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320-009
APN 621-320-010
3 PARK
— VIEW DRIVE
I Y
p DF 0 0 78 IM
i - O W
Q Q W
i IX H
O z
a r s ¢ O
¢ u
D o
44TH AVENUE
� s
I
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 30, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,
Palm Desert, California, at which time and place, all interested persons are
invited to attend and be heard.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
May 11 , 1978
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
May 8, 1978
LEGAL NOTI.CE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMI-
NARY DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO
BE LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE.
CASE NOS. DP 05-78 and 11.7MF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TERRA INDUSTRIES for
approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a 200-uni.t,
single-family, semi-detached condominium project to be located on approxi=
mately 33 acres within the PR-7, S.P. (Planned-residential , maximum 7 du/acre,
scenic preservation overlay) zone located at the northwest corner of Fair-
haven Drive and 44th Avenue, more particularly described as:
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-320-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621'-320-009
APN 621-320-010
W
W W
3 PARK
-- VIEW DRIVE
0 78
a
p W
O f
S 2 Q F
� 2
Q
9 S
0
-- ---� 44TH AVENUE
f
SAID Public Hearing will be held bn Tuesday, May 30, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Counci.l Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,
Palm Desert, California, at which time and place, all interested persons are
invited to attend and be heard.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
May 11 , 1978
EIR FORM #1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Case No. : DP 05-78 & 117MF
Applicant : TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC.
P. 0. Box 82417
San Diego, CA 92138
Description of Project:
Request for approval of a development plan and preliminary design
review to allow construction of .200 single=family, semi-d6tachdd
condominium units, known as "Bonita Palms", to be located near
the northwesterly corner of Fairhaven and 44th Avenue.
Finding:
Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environ-
ment and no further environmental documentation will be required.
Justification:
The project is compatible with existing zoning regulations, the
General Plan, and the C.O.D. Area Specific Plan for the City of
Palm Desert for which EIR's have been completed. The project has
been designed for efficient use of energy and water and all neces-
sary public improvements shall be provided.
Any interested citizen may appeal this determination to the Planning Commission
within eight (8) days of the date of the posting of public notice by filing an appeal
in accordance with Resolution No. 77-7 with the Department of Environmental
Services located at 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California. If no
appeal is filed within said time, this determination shall be final.
Date Filed with County Clerk
(within five days)
May 11 , 1978
Date Public Notice
Is Posted:
May 11 , 1978
cc: Applicant Date Appeal Period Expires:
County Clerk File May 21 , 1978
Bulletin Board
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-06I1
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Case No. : DP 05-78 and 11.7MF
Project: 200 Unit Condominium Proiect
Applicant: TERRA INDUSTRIES
Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the
following is being requested:
Approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review
for a 200-unit, single-family, semi-detached condominium
project to be located on approximately 33 acres within the
PR-7, S.P. zone located at the northwest corner of Fairhaven
Drive and 44th Avenue.
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 natural environment (e.g.
water and air pollution) and on public resources (e.g. demand for
schools, hospitals , parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc. )
Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received
by this office prior to 5:00 p.m. May 19 , 1978, in order to be
discussed by the Land Division Committee at their meeting of May 24th
The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental
Services, City Building Official , City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a
representative of CVCAD) will discuss the comments and recommended
conditions of approval and will forward them to the Planning Commission
through the staff report. Any information received by this office after
the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Com-
mittee nor will it be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consid-
eration.
Very truly yours,
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
PAW/ks
PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS
CIRCULATION LIST FOR ALL CASES
Circulation of Tentative Maps, Parcel Maps, CUP'S, GPA's, etc:
REVIEW COMMITTEE:
✓1. Palm Desert Director of Environmental Services - Paul Williams
✓2. Palm Desert Director of Building & Safety - Jim Hill
Palm Desert Director of Public Works - L. Clyde Beebe
Palm Desert Fire Marshall - Bud Engel
5. Robert P. Brock
Office of Road Commissioner and County Surveyor
Administration Office Building, Room 313
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201. (Phone: 347-8511, ext 267)
6. Lloyd Rogers
LZ Supervisor - Riverside County Health Department
County Administration Building, Room41t
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 9220). (Phone: 347-8511, ext 287)
7. Lowell 0. Weeks
General Manager - Chief Engineer
Coachella Valley County Water District (C.V.C.W.D. )
P. 0. Box 1058
Coachella, California 92236 (Phone: (714) 398-2651)
8. R. J. Lowry
Project Development Services
California Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 231
San Bernardino, California 92403 (Phone: (714) 383-4671 )
9. _
Director of Planning and Building
City of Indian Wells
45-300 Club Drive
Indian Wells, California 92260 (Phone: 345-2831)
10.
Director of Planning
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270 (Phone: 328-8871)
11./ Kermit Martin
✓/ Southern California Edison Company
P. 0. Box 203
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-8660)
12• Chuck Morris
General Telephone Company
62-147 Desertaire Road
Joshua Tree, California 92252 (Phone: 366-8389)
13. R. W. Riddell
Engineering Department:
/ Southern California Gas Company
P. 0. Box 2200
Riverside, California 92506 (Phone: 327-8531, ask for Riverside
extension 214)
Circulation List for All Cases
Page Two
14. Roger Harlow
Director - Pupil Personnel Service
Desert Sands Unified School District
83-049 Avenue 46
Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-4071)
15. Jim Langdon
Palm Desert Disposal Services, Inc.
36-711 Cathedral Canyon Drive
P. 0. Drawer LL
Cathedral City, California 92234 (Phone: 328-2585 or 328-4687)
16. Stanley Sayles
President, Palm Desert Community Services District
44-500 Portola Avenue
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6338)
17.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
73-271 Highway 111 , Suite 21
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
(Phone: )
18. Harold Horsley
Foreman/Mails
U. S. Post Office
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-3864)
19. Joe Benes
Vice President & General Manager
Coachella Valley Television
P. 0. Box 368
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-8157)
20. Don McNeely
President - Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce
P. 0. Box 908
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6111)
21. Scott McClellan,
Senior Planner
Riverside County Planning Commission
County Administration Building, Room 304
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-8511, ext. 277, 278, & 279)
22. James Whitehead
Superintendent - District 6
State Parks and Recreation
1350 Front Street, Room 6054
San Diego, California 92101 (Phone: (714) 236-7411)
23. Les Pricer
Redevelopment Agency
73-677 Highway 111
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (Phone: 346-6920
24. Robert I. Pitchford, Chairman
Architectural Committee of the
Palm Desert Property Owners Assoc.
73-833 E1 Paseo
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
oakmrmmFeAk
1 INDUSTRIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 82417, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138 (714) 283-7141
May 1, 1978
Development Plan
Department of Environmental Services
Planning Division
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is our submittal to the Development Plan for a 200 unit, single-family,
semi-detached condominium project known as Bonita Palms. The following is
included in our submittal:
Exhibit DP-la - Preliminary Title Report containing legal description
Exhibit DP-lb - Statement of Planning Objectives
Exhibit DP-lC - Preliminary Development Schedule
Exhibit DP-ld - See Site Plan and Landscape Plan for: total number and
type of dwelling units; parcel size; proposed lot coverage of
buildings and structures; approximate gross and net residential
densities; total amount of open space; total amount of non-
residential construction including justifications of ancillary
character of said construction; written indication of compliance
or non-compliance to established standards of this article;
economic feasibility studies and other studies as required
by the City.
Exhibit DP-2 - Site Plan and supporting maps
Exhibit DP-2a - Site Conditions
Exhibit DP-2g - Existing and proposed Utility Systems (see grading plan)
Exhibit DP-2h - General Landscape Plan (see landscape plans submitted with the
Design Review Board)
Exhibit DP-2j - Photographs of adjacent areas
Exhibit DP-2k - Proposed treatment of the perimeter of the project (see landscape
plans submitted with the Design Review Board)
Exhibit DP-3 - List of all owners of property located within 300 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the subject property.
Exhibit DP-4 - Environmental Assessment Form.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
TERRA USTRIESR IN .
BRU WOLFE
BW;lgm
enclosures
oh T
o
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA. 92260
CSzSur G5 ���[SL7tS �I`J� �0� **DEVELOPMENT PLAN**
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RESIDENTIAL
PLANNING DIVISION
TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC.
Applicant (please print)
P. O. Box 82417 (714) 283-7141
Mailing Address - Telephone
San Diego, California . 92138
City State Zip-Code
REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested)
Approval of detailed design & construction plans for approximately 220 single
family, semi detached condominium units (Bonita Palms project)
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
See attached legal descriptions - Property located near the northwest corner of
Fairhaven and 44th - -
ASSESSOR IS PARCEL NO. 621-320 Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 (Map attached)
EXISTING ZONING PR-7
Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER(S)OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR-
IZATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION.
DESER NT,E,RPR/DES INC._.(Agen o Owners
BYE—J�= -
GNATGNAITURV DATE
AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGR EMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES-
TERRA I E I TRICTTIIO'NS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
BY:
SIGNATU WE DATE
Applicants Signature TERRA II/jRUUSSTTRIII$SS,//INC.
SIGNATURE DATE
(FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ACCEPTED BY
ElMINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. 296`0
❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CASE
CE No. %b P OS--7Z
❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION
0 OTHER REFERENCE CASE NO.
q
Exhibit DP-4
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA, 92260
25 ZS ZS��sr���O� �OQ y "DEVELOPMENT PLAN**
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RESIDENTIAL
PLANNING DIVISION
TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC.
Applicant (✓'- 1- r.iM)
P. O. Box 82417 - (714) 283-7141
Moiling Address Tele hcne
San Diego, California 92138
City State Zip-Code
REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested)
Approval of detailed design & construCtion plans for approximately 200 single -
family, semi detached condominium units (Bonita Palms project)
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
See attached legal descriptions- Property located near the northwest corner of
Fairhaven and 44th -
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 621-320 Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 (Map attached)
EXISTING ZONING PR-7
Property ONDer Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNERS)OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOP.-
IZATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION.
DESERT ENTERPRISES, INC. (Agent of Owners
BY:
SIGNATURE DATE
AGREEMENT ABSOLW40 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY CEED RES
TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC, TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
BY:
SIGNATURE DATE t
Applicant's Sgnature TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC. -
BY:
SIGNATURE DATE
(FOa STAFF USE C4LY) ENVIgONMENTALSTATU3 ACCEPTED BY
❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E-A.No-
❑ CATc CRiCAL EXEMPTION CASE No. _
❑ NEG>TIV_ DECLARATION
❑ DiHce REFERENCE CASE NO.
i
MM
Order No. 464285
EXHIBIT "I"
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
18, Township 5 South, Range 6-Bast, �an-Bernardino-Basend-:eridian,_
according to an official plat of said land filed in the District.Iand=`
Office vember 260:1856, described as.followsc:f
Beginning at the South line of said Section, South 89' 12' West, 660
feet from the Southwest corner.of Palm Dell Estates, as shown by trap on
file in Book 21 page 66 of Maps, Riverside County Records, being the
Southwest corner, of that certain parcel conveyed to Wiefels and Son by
Deed recorded February 5, 1962 as Instrument No. 10987 in Book 3071 page
390 of Official Records; thence continuing South 89° 12' West, 525 feet
more or less and on said South line to the Southeast corner of that
certain parcel conveyed to the Coachella Valley County Water District by
Deed recorded January 22, 1960 as Instrument No. 6187 in Book 2621 page
94 of Official Records; thence North 1253.19 feet on the East line of
said parcel to the Southwest corner of that certain parcel conveyed to
the County of Riverside by Deed recorded December 16, 1963 as Instrument
No. 132567 in Book 3560 page 9 of Official. Records; thence North 85° 13'
34" East, 532.96. feet on the Southerly line of said Parcel to a point on
the Westerly line of that certain parcel described as Parcel 3 in Deed
to Penelope A. Rigby by Deed recorded November 28, 1961 as Instrument No.
101782 in Book 3027 page 335 of Official Records; thence South 00° 06'
30" East 394.57 feet on the West line of said parcel to the Southwest
corner thereof; thence North 89' 15' East 330 feet on the South line of
said Parcel and its Easterly extension to the Northwest corner of Parcel
1, described in said Deed to Rigby; thence South 00.-06'. 30" east 490
feet on the West line of said Parcel to the Northeast corner of that
certain parcel conveyed to Wiefels and Son by Deed hereinabove referred
to; thence south 89` 12' West, 330 feet to the North line of said parcel
to the Northwest corner thereof; thence South 00° 06' 30" East- 396 feet
on the West line of said parcel to the point of beginning;
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion as granted to the County of Riverside
in Deed recorded December 21, 1964 as Instrument No. 151387.
Said land is also situated in the City of Palm .Desert.
DP-lA
C. A. ieoi, ieos, 2 4
F
PARK V/Eli _ D.4.
l35. %vl.-J /iaF ill JU CjaT - � 42Q
r - 200'. AV.,..,ei�a".x'�3
F
w
W = E;•w
Z 0
13
I �
h
I - �
- 6at
. P
J -' s.sT/yba'Ly -
J _ -
Q �
t � H
H y
tt
3'e _
t
e — _
44 M. AIE.
'This plat h for your aid In locating your land with teferenco IIII
to mesh and oth.r parcels. It is not a survey. Wharf, this
E121 jg believed to be correct, the Company aswmea no Iie-
gNy kt any Ion o rirsg by reason of reliance thanorLo
GACCO 7TTLE INWJAANCE COMPANY -
T—'—' w(r—iiiq.�7 IMII
A
tl 4.r.•W IIA!
AItached to and made a I'm I of rImvart Title Goaranty Company Policy No. CNJPR 11332
Continuation of Schcdole ,q
PARCEL 1:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
auarter of -Section 18, Township _; South, Range 6 East,
San - Bernardino Base and Meridian, described as follows :
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest
ouarter of . the Southeast :quarter of said Section;
THENCE South 890 15 ' West, on the North line of the
Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Section, 420 -feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
THENCE North 00 6 ' 30" West, 441 .18 feet to the North
line of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast auarter
of said Section;
THENCE- North 89' 15 ' East, on the North line of the
Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Section, 240 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to the
County of Riverside , by Deed recorded January 20 , 1964
as. Instrument No. 7625 of Official Records of Riverside
County, California , described as follows :
BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of that parcel conveyed
to W. Clyde Ball , by Deed recorded January 9 , 1962 . in
Book. 3053 page 95 of Official Records of Riverside
County, California; said corner being on the North
line of said Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter,
distant North 89° 15 ' East, 668 . 26 feet from the Northwest
corner thereof;
THENCE North 890 15 ' East, on said North line, 240 feet
to the Northeast corner of said parcel;
THENCE South 0' 6 ' 30" East , on the East line thereof,
29. 71 feet;
THENCE South 850 13 ' 34" West, 240. 79 feet to the West
line of said parcel;
THENCE North 00 06 ' 30" West, on said West line , 46 . 61 feet
to the Point of Beginning .
-continued-
Pay 2A - ..
4`Yc
F,It.OW1110 and made a part of $,ewers Title Guar;jw ... r.... .""
r'rnN Ibi 1_._
Y CnmpanY Policy N0, CNJPR 11332
Cuiginuati0n of Schedule A
PARCEL .2:
An easement, 30 feet wide, pa t og and adjacent to
the following described line
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest ouarter
of the Southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 5 South ,
Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
THENCE South 0° 06 ' 30" East, 441 . 82 feet;
THENCE South .89° 15 ' West, 6GC feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE South 00 .6 ' 30" Fast, 884 . 22 feet to the South of tie Southwest ouarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Section_ . line
PARCEL 3 -
An
described line:easement, 30 feet wide, 1}'inc i•�esterly of the following
de
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest ouarter
Of the Southeast quarter of Section lA , Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian ;
THENCE South 89" 15 ' hest, 660 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; �
THENCE South 00 06 ' 30" Fast, 1326 feet to the South line
Of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of
Section.
said
Page 2B
P,4 4K VIEW Or.
/0 e t i
i
r
420
I �
~ CI
1 C5 i
.1 ,. 8r,/ o'w i
41,
U � �E
314)
J �
•S 3! CC t � 11e -I li
v'L
44 /h Al E.
I an 2
STEVVA T TITLE
COMPANY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
74-133 EL PASEO - SUITE K - PALM DESERT. CALIF. 92260 - (714) 346.5666
Sanctity of Contract Escrow No. 201232 - A & F
Legal Description
That portion of the SWj of the SE4 of Section 189
Township 5 South, Range 6 East, SBB&M, described as follows; -
Coamlencing at the Northwest corner of Palm Dell Estates;'
as shawn an Map' Boolc 21, page 66, Riverside County Records, said corner
being the true point of beginning; Thence South 0' 06' 30" East, a
distance of. 4141.18 .feet' Thence South 89' 15' 00" West, a distance of
420.00 feet;' Thence North 0' 06' 30" West, a distance of 441.18 feet;
Thence North 89' 15' 00" East, a distance of 420,00 feet to the true
point of. begining.
5E C. . /b T. 5 S. R.6E:
-• � "_, •gyp
{ 3V_//\
s_ MAP
1 ,
SEE
liA
34
h
C�
k
3]-
C
8K
_ 627 •
,}, Attached to and made a p& if Stewart Title Gu:nan(y Company P,,,,cy No, CN.IPR 11330` • '�„I
Continuation of Schedule "A"
PARCEL l:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and }Meridian,
described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of f
quarter of said Section; ire Southwest quarter of the Southeast
THENCE South 0' 6' 30" East, on the East line of the Southwest quarter of
the Southeast quarter of said Section; 441.82 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE South 89' 15, West, 330 feet;
THENCE South 0' 6' 30" East, 1.63. 33 feet;
THENCE North 89' 15' East, 330 feet to the East line of the Southwest
quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section;
THENCE North 0' 6' 30" West, on said East line 163.33 feet to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL' 2:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian,
described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of said Section;
THENCE South 0' 6' 30" East, on the East line of the Southwest quarter of the
Southeast quarter of said Section; 605.15 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE South 89' 15' West, 330 feet;
THENCE South 0' 6' 30" East, 163.33 feet;
THENCE North 89' 15' East, 330 feet to the East line of the Southwest quarter
of the Southeast quarter of 'said Section;
THENCE North 0' 6' 30" West, on said East line , 163.33 feet to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 18,
Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, described
as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of said Section;
THENCE South 0' 6' 30" East, on the East line of the Southwest quarter of the
Southeast quarter,, of said Section, 768.48 feet to the TRUE PO TNT OF BEGINNING;
.'THENCE South 89' 15' West, 330 feet;
THENCE South 0' 6' 30" East, 163.34 feet;
THENCE North 89' 15' East, 330 feet to the Fast line of the Southwest quarter
of 1-he Southeast quarter .of said Section;
THENCE North 0' 6' 30" Wiest on said lust line, 163. 34 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING. CU»'i•TNUEO
Attached to and made a part of Stewart Title GuaNmty Company Policy No.
CNJPR 11330
Continuation of Schedule "A"
PARCEL 4 :
An easement for road and public utility purposes over the following:
A 30 foot strip lying Westerly and joining the following described line:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East , San Bernardino Base and Meridian, described:
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of said G Section;THENCE South 0° 30" East, on the East line of said Southwest quarter of
ar ,
Gp ` ' the Southeast quter, 931.82 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:
THENCE continuing South Q° 6' 30" East; 394.82 feet to the Southeast corner
of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said. Section;
An easement for road and public utility purposes over the following:
ALSO, an easement 25 feet wide, Tying South of the following described line;
BEGINNING at the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, above referred to;
THENCE South 89° 15' West, 660 feet;
An easement for road and public utility purposes over the following:
ALSO, an easement 25 feet wide, lying North of the following described line:
COMMENCING at the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, above referred to:
THENCE South 89° 15' West, 330 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE continuing on South 89° 15' West, 330 feet.
Pago 2b
SEC
29
.31
r
-I
44
B�+,627
BONITA PALMS
STATa= OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES
Terra Industries, Inc. , believes that Bonita Palms will greatly
enhance the aesthetic, economic and social environments in the City of
Palm Desert and, accordingly, will have significant positive environmental
impact. It is Terra's goal to provide a top quality project with homes which
incorporate many modern energy conserving techniques and a pleasant, appealing
surrounding, all well within the reach of the homebuying public.
Development of the project under the existing zoning will permit
qualities of lifestyle, housing and recreational facilities not attainable in
standard subdivisions. The condominium concept will provide, via regular
monthly assessments to each homeowner, funds for ongoing maintenance of the
con mn area and exterior of the homes. This will assure both the homeowners
and the City of Palm Desert a continuing contribution to the housing quality
of the city.
Exhibit DP-1B
4/25/78 BW
BONITA PALMS
TENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
8/1/78 - 9/l/78 - Grading & Underground Utilities
9/l/78 - Home Construction - Phase I
2/l/78 - Install Streets & Landscaping - Phase I
3/l/79 - Deliver Homes - Phase I
4/l/79 - Home Construction - Phase II
10/l/79 - Install Streets & Landscaping - Phase II
11/1/79 - Deliver Homes - Phase II
1/l/80 - Home Construction - Phase III (final phase)
5/l/80 - Install Streets & Landscaping - Phase III
6/l/80 - Deliver Homes - Phase III
Exhibit DP-lC
4/26/78 BW
4 S_C.
S ❑ U T H E R N C A L I F ❑ R N I A S ❑ 1 L A N D T E S T I N G . 1 N C .
GZGO RIVERDALE ST. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 • TELE 2BD-4321 • P.O. BOX 20627 SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120
1 3 - O 3 B H I G H W A Y 1 1 1 P A L M D E S E R T, C A L I F. 9 2 2 6 O • T E L E 3 4 5 - 1 D I B
6 7 B E N T E R P R I S E S T. E S C O N O I D O, C A L I F. 9 2 D 2 S • T E L E 7 4 6 - 4 S 4 n
April 27, 1978
Terra Industries
Post Office Box 82417 SCST 18713
San Diego, California 92138 Report No. 1
Attention: Mr. Bob Walter
SUBJECT: Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Condom-
inium Development, Fairhaven Drive and. Avenue 44, Palm Desert,
California.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we are herewith transmitting a preliminary
report of our geotechnical study for the proposed Bonita Palms residential
development to be located at Fairhaven Drive and Avenue 44, in the city of
Palm Desert, California.
Eight (8) subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on
the attached Plate No. 1 on April 20, 1978. These explorations consisted
of trenches dug by means of a backhoe. The field work was conducted under
the observation of our engineering geology personnel . Disturbed samples of
typical and representatvie soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory
for testing. As of this date, our laboratory testing is in progress.
In general , the Palm Desert area is underlain by several hundred feet of
Pleistocene lake deposits , recent alluvium, and blown sand deposits. The
soils comprising these deposits are basically sands, silts, and clays.
DP-2A
S ❑ U T H E R N C A L I F ❑ R N I A S ❑ 1 L A N D T E S T I N G , I N C .
SCST 18713 April 27, 1978 Page Two
Crystelline bedrock underlies the above mentioned deposits. More specifically,
the underlying soils at the subject site consist of gray, silty sands and ,
sandy silts which tend to be dry and loose.
Based on our finds to date, it appears that the subject site will be suitable
for the proposed development. The native soils will , however, require diver-
sification prior to construction due to the sporadic density. Upon completion
of our laboratory testing a full geotechnical report will be prepared stating
our recommendations for construction of the proposed development.
If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate
to contact this office.
This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.
ENK:ep E: .Kett um, R.C.E.
cc: (6) Submitted
(2) SCST, Palm Desert
S ❑ U T H E R N 0 A L I F ❑ R N I A S ❑ 1 L A N ❑ T E S T I N G . I N C .
f.
�TO,eiy Gf✓ANNEL
`TZ
7S
\J
v -r,
� w
r 6
ITS
Fd/.2ydv�.v � G7ei1/E
' TEST T,CENc.�/ GofdT/ctn/ a
. SSG-l3GE • /+''�ZQo�
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING LAex INC. Condominium Development
aaea RwERDALErTROUT Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue
Baru oIeoo, CALIFORNIA 82180 palm Desert, California
PLOT PLAN DATE4-27-78
JOB NO.
18713 PLATE NO. 1
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
April 6, 1978
Terra Industries, Inc.
P. 0. Box 82417
San Diego, CA 92138
Re: DP 05-78 & 117MF
Dear Mr. Walter:
Since this office did not receive all of the required applica-
tion material regarding the Bonita Palms project from you by
our April deadline, April 3, 1978, we are holding your material .
Assuming you have submitted the required prints of your Develop-
ment Plan by May 1 , 1978 your case would be heard by the Planning
Commission at their meeting of May 30, 1978. Assuming the Develop-
ment Plan is approved at that meeting, you would be able to file
your Tentative Tract on the first business Monday of June for a
June Public Hearing.
If you have any further questions, please contact this office.
truly yours,
Paul A. Williams, A. I.P.
Director of Environmental Services
rjc/pw/ks
cc: Richard Arnold
CITY of PALM DESERT
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STAFF ONLY
Case No. :
Related Case(s) :
Received By:
TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE MAP & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(Type of Permit)
APPLICANT TERRA INDUSTRIES. INC.
(Please Print or Type)
ADDRESS P. 0. Box 82417
(Please Print or Type) Street
San Diego California 92138 (714 ) 283-7141
City State Zip Code Telephone
I. Background Information:
1. Nature of project or activity: Approximately 220 single family, semi-detached
condominium units to be constructed in phases (Bonita Palms project)
No. of Units (if residential) : 220 dwelling units.
Gross Floor Area (if commercial or industrial) : N/A square feet.
2. General Location and Size: Near Northwesterly corner of Fairhaven and 44th
City of Palm Desert 32.960 gross acres
3. Is the project a phase or a portion of a larger project? YES X NO
If so, identify the larger project: N/A
4. Has an Initial Study or Environmental. Impact Report previously been prepared
that includes all or part of the project? YES NO
If so, give date submitted and title of project:
II. Environmental Impacts:
Please answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space.
The applicant should be able to substantiate his response to every question. Ex-
planations of all "yes/maybe" answers are required in the final section of this re-
port.
1. Land (topography, soils, geology) YES or MAYBE NO
(a) Does the project site involve a unique
landform or biological area, such as
beaches, sand dunes, marshes, etc.? X
(b) Will there be construction on slopes
of 25% or greater? X
(c) Will the project result in the removal
of natural resources for commercial
purposes, such as rock, sand, gravel,
oil, plants, or minerals? X
Department of Environmental Services Form 9
J
.r
City of Palm Desert
Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Page Two
IT. Environmental Impacts: (continued) YES or MAYBE NO
(d) Will the project involve grading in excess
of 300 cubic yards? X
(e) Is the project site located on or adjacent to a
known earthquake fault or an area of soil in-
stability (subsidence, landslide, or severe
blowsand)? X
2. Water
- (a) Is the project located within a flood plain,
a natural drainage channel, or streambed? X
(b) Will the project significantly increase the
rate and amount of surface water runoff? X
(c) Will the project result in the contamina-
tion or deterioration in quality of ground
water? X
3. Flora and Fauna
(a) Are there any rare or endangered species of
plant life in or near the project area? X
(b) Will any nature trees be removed? X
(c) Is the project site adjacent to, or does it
include a habitat, food source, water source,
nesting place or breeding place for a rare
or endangered wildlife species? X
(d) Is the project located inside or within
200 feet of a wildlife refuge or reserve? X
4. Pollution (Air, Water, Noise, Land)
(a) Will the project create dust, fumes, smoke,
or odors? X
(b) Will the project result in the generation
of noise levels in excess of those currently
existing in the area or in the exposure of
people to noise levels above 65dBA? X
(c) Will the project involve potentially hazardous
materials, including pesticides, herbicides,
other toxic substances, or radio-active material? X
(d) Will the proposed project produce light or glare? X
(e) Does the project require variance from estab-
lished environmental standards (e.g. air quality,
noise, water quality)? X
5. Circulation
(a) Is the project expected to cause an increase in
motor vehicle traffic patterns or volumes? X
(b) Will the project involve the use of off-the-
road vehicles? X
(c) Will the project overload existing parking
facilities? X
City of Palm Desert
Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Page Three
II. Environmental Impacts: (continued) YES or MAYBE NO
6. Public Services and Utility Facilities
(a) Will septic tanks be utilized for sewage
disposal? X
(b) Will the project overload any of the fol-
lowing:
(1) Fire Protection? X
(2) Police Protection? X
(3) Schools? X
(4) Parks or Other Recreational Facilities? X
(5) Electric Power or Natural Gas X
(6) Communication Systems? X
(7) Water Supply? X
(8) Sewer System? X
(9) Stormwater Drainage System? X
(10) Solid Waste and Disposal? X
(c) Will the project require the extension of
existing public utility lines? X
(d) Will the project employ equipment which could
interfere with existing communication and/or
defense systems? X
(e) Is the project located within the flight path
or noise impact area of an airport? X
(f) Does the project incorporate measures for the
efficient use or conservation of energy and
water? X
7. Land Use
(a) Is the proposed project expected to result in
other changes in the land use, either on or off
the project site? X
(b) Could the project serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas, or increase de-
velopment intensity of already developed areas? X
(c) Is the project inconsistent with any adopted
General Plan, Specific Plan, or present zoning? X
(d) Does the project involve lands currently pro-
tected under the Williamson Act or an Open Space
Easement? X
(e) Is the site for the proposed project within the
Scenic Preservation Overlay District or will the
project obstruct any scenic view from existing
residential areas, public lands, or public roads? X
(f) Will the proposed project displace a large number
or people from an established area or create a de-
mand for additional housing? X
City of Palm Desert
Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Page Four
II. Environmental Impacts: (continued) YES or MAYBE NO
8. 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, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or pre-history? X '
(b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term en-
vironmental goals? X
(c) Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? X
(d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either direcly or indirectly? X
III. Discussion of Impacts:
Please briefly explain your answer to question 6(f) and, if you have answered
yes to any of the questions in Section II, why you believe that that aspect
of the project will have no significant adverse environmental effect.
6(f) - The proposed project (homes) will incorporate many modern energy conserving
items such as full insulation in ceilings (R-19) and exterior walls (R-11) ; double
pane aluminum sliding windows; reduced flow (low flush volume) toilets; Pilotless
water heaters and forced air heating; non exterior vented kitchen range hoods;
electric eyes on front exterior unit lights; low pressure sodium street lighting
with electric eyes; automatic sprinkler system for common area landscaping.
1(d) - Nominal site grading will be performed to accomodate the project - currently
it is estimated that approx. 175 cubic yards per unit will be moved (38,500 c.y. ±) .
Grading will be kept to a minimum to reduce land form alteration.
SEE OVER
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CO;u LETE.
TERRA INDUS RIES NC.
(Date) (Projec Sponsor)
6(c) - Utilites in street adjacent to the property will be extended to serve
the development.
GENERAL - The above questions were answered in the context that the proposed
project will have only those environmental impacts which are typically associated
with the development of new housing projects. Terra Industries, Inc. , believes that
the project will greatly enhance the asthetic, economic and social environments
in the City of Palm Desert and, accordingly, will have a significant positive
environmental impact. It is Terra Industries' goal to provide a top quality
project with homes well within the reach of the home buying public. Development
of the project under the Planned Residential Zone will permit qualities of life
style and housing not typically attainable in standard subdivisions. The condo-
minium concept will provide, via regular monthly assessments to each homeowner,
funds for the ongoing maintenance of the common area and exterior of the homes.
This will assure both the homeowners and the City of Palm Desert of a continuing
contribution to the housing quality of the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING
FINDINGS AND APPROVI%NG A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A 200-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY
33 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRHAVEN
DRIVE AND 44TH AVENUE ,
CASE NOS . DP 05-78 and 117MF
i ..
_WHEREAS. the Planning.Commission-of .the'_City of Palm Desert, California, did
hold-a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the application.-of TERRA INDUSTRIES
requesting approval of a Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review
for 200+,c6ndominium units, a recreation -building and common open space
on approximately 33 acres within the PR-7, S .P. (Planned Residential ,
maximum 7 du/acre , Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone , generally located
at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue , and more
particularly described as :
APN 621-320-001 APN 621-320-002
APN 621-326-003 APN 621-320-004
APN 621-320-005 APN 621-320=009
APN 6211320-010
i
WHEREAS , said application has complied with the requirements
of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution
No. 78-32, " in that the Director of Environmental Services has deter-
mined that this project will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment and the appeal period has expired; and,
WHEREAS , at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, the Planning Commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of
the subject Development Plan :
1 . Proposed development will conform to the intent and
purpose of the PR Zone District .
2 . Proposed development will. conform to the adopted
''General Plan.
3. The site is physically suited for the type of Development
proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert , as follows :
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and consti-
tute the findings of the Commission in this case;
2 . The Planning Commission does hereby approve Development
Plan DP 05-78 and Preliminary Design Review of 117MF for reasons stated,
subject to the attached conditions:
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission , held on this 5th day,-of July, 1978, by the
following vote , to wit :
' AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman
ATTEST :
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary
/ks
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. Page Two
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS . DP 05-78 & 117MF
Standard Conditions :
1 . The development of this project shall conform substantially to
all plans submitted in behalf of this case and as revised accord-
ing to the Design Review Board process and/or Planning Commission
action. Any minor changes require approval by-the Director of
Environmental Services . Any substantial change requires approval
by the Planning Commission .
2. All requirements of any law, ordinance , or regulation of the State,
City, and any other applicable government entity shall be complied
with as part of the development process.
3. This approval is applicable , subject to the development of this
project, commencing within one year from approval date and being
promptly completed.
4. Any roof mounted exhaust , or air conditioning .equipment shall be
fully concealed from view from any public rights-of-way and ad-
joining properties by architecturally integrated means :
5. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City
Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits . All conditions
shall be made a part of construction and .no certificate of occupancy
shall be issued until completed.
' 6. All utility service and distribution lines on or abutting the sub-
ject property, shall be placed underground prior to occupancy
clearance .
7. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required':by the
Director of Public Works .
8. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving
shall be provided in conformance with- City Standards and/or as
required by the Director of Public Works ..
9. The Fire Protection Requirements as specified in the Fire Marshal ' s
memo dated April 10, 1978,, attached hereto, shall apply .
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use
contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first obtain
permits and/or clearance from the following agencies :
Riverside County Department of Health
Palm Desert Design Review Board Process
City Fire Marshal
Coachella Valley County Water District
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall
be presented to the Dept . of Building and Safety at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. Page Three
DesignIReyiew--Conditions :
1 . Final construction drawings including a final landscaping, grading,
lighting, amenities, trash storage, walkway layout , irrigation
plans and sign program shall be submitted to the Design Review
Board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given
by the Department of Environmental Services to this project
until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall
have been completed.
Special Conditions :
1. Proposed identify structure shall be deleted.
2 . The entrances to the project, shall be relocated in order to line
up to the adjacent streets in order to reduce the impact of traf-
fic on adjacent properties .
3 . An additional swimming pool shall be located in the southwestern '
area of the project .
4. No plan ' J' s shall be located on the perimeter of the project .
Those plan ' J' s shown on the perimeter shall be replaced with
Plan 'F' s.
5 . The proposed meandering sidewalks adjacent to the public right-of-
ways shall be relocated closer to the public right-of-ways.
6. Meandering masonry walls shall be constructed on all street front-
ages in place of berming to reduce the noise impact .
7. Each unit shall have one garage and one carport due to the unique
configuration of the parking areas .
8. A six foot masonry wall shall be provided along the property line
between said project and the vacant site and adjacent church site
at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th Avenue .
9. A minimum 20 ' setback shall be provided between all units as re-
quired by the Zoning Ordinance .
10. The cluster of units south of the most southerly minor recreation
area shall be deleted.
AGREEMENT
I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval , to comply
with all the conditions set forth, and understand 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 Environmental Services .
(Date) (Applicant ' s Signature)
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 1315
TREASURER'S ECEIPT
Received of: /l/1/1/� ✓.���%
FDate
w
For — Account No. Amount �
o�{e
0
w
Received : Y TREASURER
by ,rGli/��
Total > /3
' Un
TERRA INDUSTRIES, INC DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT
THEATTACHED CHECK 15 IN PAYMENT OF TEIS DESCR18ED BELOW
a SAN DIEGO, CA 92138 IF NOT DDanEDT PEASE NOTIFY D5 EROMPTE..NO RECEIPT DESIRE
DATE INVOICE D'E S C R I P T I O N AMOUNT DISCOUNT OR NET AMOUNT
NUMBER //---- DEDUCTIONS
LA
40
42
• 11IM
11► low
qualm,
� �ypllfl 1
TOO
AO MMI
too
�
arm
romp
1 ., _� __ III �. _ = � , -' �►' ' � I
4� mp,0, _
N -
Vj
10
w r�
/i
• Apr
710
1 .Iffflffll ro C ��r
AfF
B ' 1
• , � � ' IU �� p a I�iAl11- •i � 40 N
lip•M
RR--
IN
AwdftL
"'�' ► tlfliI1111iM11111111N1t ' oil
INS
fit
40
.41
do
-
•
•
• • • • •
dik
db IL
ANIM
4
t
��',,iIlI1�N11.ii111Hlulul a _.� � �li�
0 - - •� IIIIIIIItlr�1111i111111)_ `' _
t u
pa I m . _
• �r►1UlUl1�� - _
r f
I _ • ,�- ,fir,
At-
Ado
S1 -ter
el
'' t \ / + _ '•I. s �//_ sty �/I' �`�♦ /1� .J '� •`\
_ ' � .� _ �� .� ifs ..��►�1 �
I
„
w
R
�
,� ���InttliY � i1111NNY[. � �•�
{ItNtl.•
,Am
%— i► jo
y
Mitt
dd
100
f 91111l1�'!�
NN11N� ' 1
f
.h
lfiflll " �� '"�'• 'ice
.;
�� �•� Illi�llll'� �
XX
0
-
�
► r
'1
WigAb
41
. � 10, • .�1..
AP 01
• ,
� 416
_ IIIII
k 11 r%1•� /,t�� = � `rN , /tll� 1�flIIIINI� •� t � ';;,,i fir.
Illlllli 1 OW ► �
40
sit
Nmi
bw
t ,
r.
- Ph 3
-
a
4.
it
Val
01
V, sop-
lama
55 Ito
Now _.A1161
to
11000
�' - � � - A Ke � �tuldrllr z�•
( �` r►urrrr�
'l1lllttl � •� - - � � f
f
1I�IIE111111►■111Ni11 �
It
.��I�zzAW
or
AL
IZ-
010,
iV
AL
CA
AdEkkkak
�::.�.aml Mimi=I =Ii�''� �mb.rA