HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPR/PP 08-259 B.Kuykendall/Barracuda, LLC APN 628-130-015 CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of a Planning Commission referral to approve a
preliminary building site for a 5-acre parcel of land in the Hillside
Planned Residential Zone pursuant to the requirements of Section
25.15.130 (Optional Preliminary Approval) of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code. Said request does not qualify as a project under
CEQA guidelines; no environmental studies are required at this time.
Property is located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel on Upper
Way West (APN: 628-130-015, Barracuda, LLC, Bruce Kuykendall,
Applicant).
SUBMITTED BY: Renee Schrader, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Bruce Kuykendall
Barracuda, LLC
P.O. Box 4737
Palm Desert, CA 92261
CASE NO: HPR/PP 08-259
DATE: August 28, 2008
CONTENTS: Plans and Exhibits
Minutes from July 1, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes from August 5, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
Public Notice
I. RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council by Minute Motion recommend that the applicant
proceed with development of Proposed Pad #1 as shown on the attached
map.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of this request will recommend an appropriate building site for a single-
family home on a 5-acre lot within the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) Zone.
Staff Report
HPR/PP 08-259
August 28, 2008
Page 2 of 5
III. BACKGROUND:
A. Planning Commission Action
On July 1, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed potential pad sites for
the applicant in an effort to recommend an appropriate building site for a
single-family residence. The Commission's 2-2 vote constituted a "No-
Decision" action. The applicant subsequently returned to the Planning
Commission meeting of August 5, 2008 in order to establish a definitive
action.
At the August 5, 20008 Planning Commission meeting, the request again
received a 2-2 vote. The Planning Commission then voted to refer the
case to the City Council for identification of a preliminary building site.
B. Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) Zone:
Key elements of the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) Zone are as
follows:
Ridge Top Deve/opment — The current HPR ordinance defines a
ridge and also prohibits any development on or across ridges within
the hillside. Ridges defined in the ordinance are identified on the
attached map in red lines.
Deve/opment Standards — The ordinance also states that "Building
pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or minimize
any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible".
The HPR Zone includes a section regarding `Optional Preliminary
Approval' (PDMC 25.15.130, attached). Under this section of the
Municipal Code, applicants may propose standards of development for the
property, including building site location and access road location. Once a
preliminary site is approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant
can prepare the necessary documents, including the architectural design,
for the full Precise Plan submittal as required by the HPR Zone.
C. Property Description:
The applicant, Mr. Bruce Kuykendall, purchased the property in 2003. An
approximately 18,000 square foot pad (referred in this report as Pad #1)
was previously graded in the 1960's. Surrounding the pad, the topography
G:�PlanningVienee Schrader�Planning Case Files�I-IPR PP 08-259 Kuykendall propertyk:ity council OR-3R\City Council Staff Rpt.doc
Staff Report
HPR/PP 08-259
August 28, 2008
Page 3 of 5
of the site is very steep and difficult to develop. An additional pad (referred
in this report as Pad #2), was graded sometime later and is approximately
one third the size of Pad#1. Pad #1 is located at the center of the property
and on top of a ridge. Pad #2 is located on the down slope of the
property's east side, very near the property line, and is visible from the
valley floor.
D. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: Hillside Planned ResidentialNacant Property
South: Hillside Planned Residential/Existing Stone Eagle
Development Company
East: Hillside Planned ResidentialNacant Property
West: Hillside Planned Residential/Existing Single-family
Residence
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The HPR Zone allows the City Council to approve a preliminary building site,
which can also include consideration of the density of development and access
road information. The applicant proposes to utilize Pad #1. In order to build with
sufficient space for a home and garage, the pad would be lowered and expanded
somewhat on the south side. Berming on the north side and re-naturalization of
the slope that faces the valley floor is proposed. A few view areas recessed in
the berm would allow the resident of the proposed home a view. With this
treatment the building is proposed to be fairly concealed from the north elevation.
With respect to access, the applicant proposes to link a drive from the existing
Upper Way West road to the home from the southwest side of the property.
V. ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property encompasses land on both sides of a steep hill. The
prohibition of developing on a ridge has made more challenging his ability to
build a home successfully.
In an attempt to locate viable solutions, staff has visited the site and consulted
with the applicant. It appears that the applicant's choices are limited. The first
option is to build on the portion of the site located on the relatively flat area
indicated as Proposed Pad #1 on the attached map. The subject property and
the existing graded pad occur on a ridge. Upper Way West is an existing road
that runs along the northern portion of the subject property. An access drive
G:�PlanningVtenee Schrader�Planning Case Files\HPR PP 08-259 Kuykendall property�city council Ofi-38VCity Council Staff Rpt.doc
Staff Report
HPR/PP 08-259
August 28, 2008
Page 4 of 5
could be constructed from the Upper Way West; following contours it would
access the proposed building site from the south.
Staff has reviewed the site plan and believes that only one other possibility for
development of a single-family home exists, and it may pose development
difficulties. The alternative development site is the area indicated on the site plan
as Proposed Pad #2, located at the eastern edge of the property and on the
downward slope of the ridge. Pad #2 sits at an approximate elevation of 618 feet,
which is approximately 55 feet lower than Pad #1 higher on the ridge.
Developing on Pad #2 would require that the slope be substantially graded to
create a pad large enough for a home. In order to expand Pad #2, cutting into the
hillside would be required. Staff believes that the grading of Pad #2 to create a
residential site would result in greater visual impact and environmental disruption
to the hillside than would the type of mitigation necessary to build on Pad #1. The
alternative, Pad #2, would also require an access easement from the property
owners to the east in order to construct a drive to the residence. The drive to
access Pad #2 would be much steeper and more difficult for construction to
access the home. The access drive would also be visible from the valley floor.
During the second analysis of the case, at its regular meeting of August 5, 2008,
the Planning Commission reviewed the two pads for optional preliminary
approval. Pad #1 would be the obvious choice, as it could be mitigated to be
minimally visible from the valley floor. Access to Pad #1 would follow contours
along the backside of the hill and would be minimally visible as well. However,
Pad #1 is on a ridge, which, in accordance with the ordinance, would not be an
allowable place to build a home.
Pad #2, however, is a less likely choice. While it occurs on the downward slope
of the ridge, it would invite a dramatic cut and fill to build the pad sufficient in size
for construction. Access to Pad #2 would mean the carving out of the hill and an
easement to cross property. These disturbances would be more visually
disruptive than Pad #1. The Planning Commission considered testimony and the
letters received in response to the Public Notice. In consideration for the
applicant, the Planning Commission Chair called for a vote to refer the item to the
City Council following the Commission's second 2-2 vote.
VI. CONCLUSION:
Staff has identified two development options for consideration. Pad #1 is the
easier option; however, it is located on a defined ridge. While the applicant
believes this location could be developed in a manner consistent with the goals
G:�PlanningUtenee SchradedPlanning Case Files�fiPR PP 08-359 Kuykendall propertykity council 08-28\City Council Staff Rpt.doc
Staff Report
HPR/PP 08-259
August 28, 2008
Page 5 of 5
and policies of the HPR Zone, staff discourages development on ridges, in
keeping with the letter of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
Pad #2 would provide the applicant with a potential building site lower than Pad
#1. Unfortunately, this option would have greater visual impacts and would
require creation of an access road that would further disturb the hillside.
However, it is a potential alternative that should be given consideration, since it
would eliminate new construction on this ridge top.
VII. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council preliminarily identify Proposed Pad #1
as the home site for the subject parcel, requiring such grading, berming, and
renaturalization work as is necessary to obscure the view of the home and
improvements from the valley floor, per the Hillside Planned Residential Zone
section 25.15.130 `Optional Preliminary Approval'.
Submitted By: Department Head:
�
C�c.�—e—
Renee Sch er Lauri ylaia
Associate Planner Director, Community Development
ApprovaL• �zTY c�3U�iCZL AC��c�N: �
�PPROVEB D�NI�fi3
REC�IVEI3 OTH�R -1�Q'jfl/YI
:i� � S
MEETSNG �t�1�E
7a'�'ES: �/ � / a �
Homer Cro N��;�;
ACM, Develop ent Services A��EN'y':
ABSTI�IIV:
VERIFIED BY:
Oric.�inal on File wi C�ty Clerk's Office
��
�r Carlos Orteg , �
City Manage
C:�Planning�Renee Schrader�Planning Case Files�I-IPR PP OR-359 Kuykendall property\city council OS-?R\City Council Staff RpLduc
City of Palm Descri ArcIMS Map Out2�ut Pa�c; 1 of 1
ku kendall aerial
, . � Mw .
��� � g� . �'. F'S. ab, ' .
� ��; ��""�$.; ,� �� � E�,"� '.�
x °+��„` ��
� t" ��' � �k �4 ��" �.. .*� ,
t. .�t,�-�'
',�
. ,
� � �»
art
� � �
� r �
��" o-ii:'� s.; .�
�
�.if g ,�"� ''{�.
� �"y'�. ���` �i,yc 4 ' ilJ
"`�` � �ro ���gr# ' n fl..
���� 'dd� rt . , ��p Ma � g„ '�'�'
E`"�"��� .,.?�;' 11P,'ai�+'�' � "�`'P
� �} . � �� ���.
,
,`. :'�wk+� ,�, . �/
1 ' � "� r � 8 � .
� "& �� •� �,'"� ,tt ��� �� �� f i�.Ld
� �� > 5
� h, ''�� ,��'�fi � .� � ':k � �;�� `^ �! j�¢�k ,�a�.�: h���` �
;R 'v�:»� � .: � 5 �y �=,' �.��b�"� #� x„ ,� ��
. � � � � � � � �
.. .,s � � r � � . � � h � +�� �
4���� 'ak"d �� .� 2%? � y � a° �, +6 �
�g T �� ��P�, R'�� �r^ ^ wMr. �y`,�,' :t'�8� �^� �„
��� �� " ��� +w.5 $3� ���"fr�M� � ��i'w
�t�,. � � �. #t #�±s..g x, "pp�' ;� a.a.,
q 8 +�
,g'. � ,R 4� :m���xt'3t-"'t�
z: ,rv��� �' 6{.
�Y �� �
9 4
«�. �,�, . °, ,- d4. � ..;n�
♦ �"� ,�t�' �y �'.�, ��y` Y
1
,, a..x' ° ., r ,� "" �
t �
'� �.r�sw �,. � r : e � z-��. � e,�
x
`'p�."" �" �& � � �;"�` ` ,g y '_�" .� ���:. c�.�,� "s� �
vg
�#�. � ,� '�,&�.�, ��,. 3, �'�;�� � r�
�� � y��� � � � ��� � � � ��w. � �
�.�-
�' ��� �� * � � �.�
�; � ,
' � �, �,� �
�
t� �_ � � � � ,, �, � I
t.'ax �, ,� " i �,..� „n �,'�" .ar �R� ��I
..
,
;� ^.�. f kn�' ��,
-� , - � , �
r �'`-
+f� �'il��`!y.3,`. t",+i(� ��xsx��;-� �a ��,_,� '`W
� ��� ��'� � w ��, � � �c.,§� �
a
.,,,�;� }" y t 'S.§°�q �� ��� ���� Jk. z�
4. #.�. ��,. �i P��' p� f A�.
�� r' �8
�,% ��` �;��`�
�
����
�`
x
.0, y �- � �. ,e
Xa''�k. ��.
�,
http://10.20.2.35/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esri�nap?ServiceName=CityOverview&ClientV... 6/17/2008
MINUTES
DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5 1008
Mr. Swartz also said no.
There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Tanner
asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the
proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments.
Commissioner Campbell indicated that this eame before the Planning
Commission in 2006 and was approved them, she was in favor of
approving it again.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner C�npbell, seconded by Commissioner
Lirnont, approving the findings as,=presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0
(Commissioner Schmidt was absent).
,:�
It was moved by Commissioner C��mpbell;seconded by Commissioner
Lirnont, adopting Planning Commissiorr:'Resolution No. 2483, approving
Case No. CUP 08-266;'subject to condition� (Commissioner Schmidt was
absent).
IX. MISCELI,.�NEOU��
�
�� A. Case No. HP�!/PP 08-259— BRUCE KUYKENDALL, Applicant
_�
Request �i� approval: o€,a preliminary building site for a 5-
�
acre par.cel of land in the Hillside Planned Residential Zone
pursuant�the requirements of Section 25.15.130 (Optional
Preliminary A�proval) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
Said'`;requesfi cioes not qualify as a project under CEQA
guidelmes; no' environmental studies are required at this
time. P�operty is located west of the Palm Valley Storm
Channel on Upper Way West (APN: 628-130-015).
Ms. Renee Schrader explained that approval of this request would
recommend an appropriate building site for a single family home on a five-
acre lot within the Hillside Planned Residential zone. As background, Ms.
Schrader noted that the Planning Commission reviewed potential pad
sites for the applicant in an effort to recommend an appropriate building
site for a single-family residence. The Commission's 2-2 vote constituted a
no decision action, so the applicant was returning in order to establish a
definitive action.
7
MINUTES
PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISS� N AUGUST 5 20Q$
Two potential sites were identified by staff. Pad #1 was an already graded
pad; it was graded in the 1960's prior to the current ownership in 2003 by
the applicant. There was also a smaller pad about 56 feet lower in
elevation which was somewhat on the ridge as well. The issues were
identified as both access and grading issues. Access to Pad #1 could be
made through following contours and accessing toward the rear. As it is,
the property currently is traversed by Upper Way West, so access would
be directly off of an existing roadway.
, :�
To access Pad #2, an easement would be r�quir'ed and a roadway would
basically be very visible from that portion c��the city l.valley on that side. It
had also been identified that Pad #2; in order to' rri;�ce it developable,
would incur a great deal more disturbance to the site requiring coming in
along the side and filling on the side:"
As proposed, Pad #1, although ther� was n���actual project, ttie applicant
would propose to naturalize the slope along the existing ridge which had
looked like this sincextf��1960's, but a built-up berm could be made in the
area. Using a powe��oinf �resentatior�,e Ms. Schrader showed the
proposed pads, the locafi�n of filt; and the ridgeline.
Staff concl�uded that develo�ing,o�� Pad�#2�.�,�uld incur a great deal more
disturbanc�:- Deve�aping on Pa��#1 could, while it would violate the letter
of the code, could t�+� more likely able to maintain less visibility and less
impact and could bg a potentiai building site. Ms. Schrader also noted that
a public'notice was sent out to property owners within a 4,000 square foot
radius.
In response to the July 1, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, a letter
was recei�red from,the Ironwood Community Association indicating a
strong support for maintaining the restrictions stated in the Hillside
Ordinance. �, letter was also emailed and was distributed in the
� Commission's packet which also supported prohibiting development along
the ridgeline. A handwritten note was also distributed that requested no
develQpment on the ridgeline.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission preliminarily identify
proposed Pad #1 as a home site and require that such grading, berming,
and naturalization work as necessary be required to obscure the view of
the home and improvements from the valley floor as' per the Hillside
Planned Residential zone section. She asked for any questions.
There were no questions of staff. Chairperson Tanner explained that this
was a Miscellaneous Agenda Item, so there wasn't a public hearing, but
8
MINUTES
P��_DESERT PLANNING COMMIS�inN AUGUSr 5 2008
the Planning Commission had the option to ask the applicant to come
forward. He noted that Mr. Kuykendall requested the opportunity to
address the Commission and Chairperson Tanner invited him to do so.
MR. BRUCE KUYKENDALL, P.O. Box 4737 in Palm Desert,
California, addressed the Commission. He stated that as three of
the Commissioners were aware, there was a no decision
previously. He said they were asking for an exception to the Hillside
Ordinance based on some real, very st�ong points. Those being
that they started this process in 2003 and`at finro different times the
City showed interest in purchasing the pro�erty for open space
easement or open space. Just-:-recently they�=�poke with Carlos
Ortega. Mr. Ortega had therr���go out and get an"appraisal and he
had a company he said t4 t�se. They used that company and came
back with an appraisal. T�iey had a t�ling agreement<in place at
that time with the City su�mi�ted tQ., rlos' office, and during that
time they were negotiatingt�:th��w��al Hillside Ordinance was
approved.
He explained that this property was� y�aded back in the 60's as
Renee said. They were at the lowest RQint of the ridgeline. Using
the displ�yed map, Mr. KuykendaU s�id they had Jan Wood who
lives�behint�#hem, and she was present and was in favor of what
th��i were dc�ng. They.had John McCormick who lives up near
there and he Viras in favor of what they were doing. The people who
wer.e not in f�avor.were over in Ironwood and couldn't see the site
from��heir�,place.' They ha�e no real opposition from anyone within
visual sight of this pad.
Mr. Kuykend�ll said they submitted a driveway coming in the back
of the propetty, going around the knob, and coming in with a
turnaround. Tfiey rec�ived Planning Commission approval with a 5-
0 vote for that. Again, they submitted five different times to the City
and had some opposition and moved some things around, but the
most likely spot to build on this pad, per staff recommendation, was
the area that was graded back in the 60's. There was roughly 1,800
square feet of graded off ridge; it was not an actual ridge, and if the
Hillside Ordinance is enforced, that red line running through the
property as the definition of the ridge had already been graded and
leveled off; it was graded in the 60's. But if they take that ridgeline
and the road they have running through their property, where does
that ridgeline end? Where does it stop? So in other words, the
Ordinance takes this property from a $2 million appraisal six
9
MINUTES
T PLANNING COMMISS�nN AUGUST 5
months ago to unbuildable. They couidn't use it; they couldn't
develop it.
If they did buitd here, they were looking at a humongous
maintenance facility, parking for over 300 cars, the Stone Eagle
sales office, and visually coming up Highway 74, they couldn't see
it until passing St. Margaret's and they get a glimpse, but as soon
as they pass it, they see roughly 60% of tF�is property developed.
All the natural outcroppings that were there? Demolished. Stone
Eagle was mass graded. End of story: Tfiley used 60% to 70% of
their property right there. They used it and have additional units
they are trying to spread out ir�,addition to it; k�ut right across this
imaginary property line, the�;were being treated::>totally different.
They have mass oppositiQ�ti`" against them and the,City Council
saying never build ther�: (t.has alread�,been graded and they feef
they have a right to build th�re an�, �fiat their value shouldn't be
taken away. He said if they h'ad': ,�� questions, he would like to
address them.
��,
There were no questions: Chairperson Tanner thanked him and asked if
anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR of ar in OPPOSITION to the
proposaL
M�: SUSAN ,PAULL, President of the Monterra Homeowners
Association, said she had some information that she would like to
know. She wanted to know the elevation of the lot, the elevations of
Pad#1 ar�d�Pad #2. The property is five acres. She wanted to know
» .the density and what Mr: Kuykendall planned to do with the rest of
tfi� acreage. She wanted to know if the total request was just for
the two lots, or if he planned on expanding or developing additional
lots on the rest of the five acres. The reason she thought they were
all so'sensitiv� in this matter is what happened with the Hagadone
project and this was something they didn't want to see happen
again. She was sorry this gentleman had to be here at this time and
involved in this situation. If that had been handled properly and they
hacf''�� accepted the responsibility of going along with the
Commission's recommendation, they wouldn't be so on edge for
this particular area.
She thought the Hillside Ordinance should have teeth, it should be
enforced, it has a purpose to protect the beauty of the mountains,
not to penalize someone in an area which maybe out of the realm
of the hillside development. She thought they needed more
information before they could give him approval. She knew these
10
MINUTES
PALM DFSF_RT PLANNIN� COMMIs��nN AUGUS 5 20og
things always went through in the summer. She happened to be
here in the summer, so they only have one or two people who
happen to be in town at this time to raise questions. She was sorry
she wasn't well informed and didn't know the answers to these
questions, but they have a Hillside Ordinance that needed to be
enforced and the integrity of it maintained. It needed to be done
responsibility.
Mr. Kuykendall, in response to the questions raised by Mrs. Paull,
stated that they planned to build ont =tirie home; that was what it
was zoned for, one home. He saic�he ha�, been doing hillside
grading here in this valley for over 20 years. H��uilt all of Bighorn,
other than Hagadone and The Canyons side H�=�,has worked with
the Planning Department on those five submittals tha�,he made. To
answer her question, the main pad, Pad #1, he was ga[ng to drop it
12 feet and leave the outer edge of it up to obscure th�'view of the
house. The driveway that he got app�roved comes in from the back
and comes arou�t�,the knob and he would tuck in to where even
Jan Woods, whr�was �ehind him, would have a hard time seeing
the house. The only exptisure would be toward the Stone Eagle
project, but he thou�ht thaf was only fair.
Chairperson Tanne�r thanked hjm and asked Ms. Paull if her questions
were anSwered. She said yes: ;Ms. Aylaian also added that the proposal
here was for preliminary identification of a pad site. It was not a complete
and developed proposal. When a site is identified, the applicant would be
re c�uired ta;come- back, go through the public hearing process, have the
arcf�i#�cture reviewed and approved, and the entire project would go
througt��� formal; review process. At that time they would have greater
detail to re�iew anct comment upon. They would also go through the same
noticing requiremen#s, so if they were within 4,000 square feet, they would
, get notificatio�,
Chairperson Tanner asked is anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR of
or OPPOSED to the proposal.
MS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73237 Somera, stated that she lives within
the notification area. Her question was mainly of staff. She was just
curious how this case was different from David Nelson's case. It
seemed like there were a lot of similarities, offers of building and
berms and so on. She would just like clarity as to how this varies
from that one.
11
MINUTES
PAL ESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5 ?00
Ms. Aylaian explained that each of the properties on the hillside is
different. Some of them have existing pads, some don't. They have
access from different areas. The terrain and topography is distinct for each
property. So the recommendation that was made for one would not
necessarily be appropriate for another. The recommendation here was
based upon the pre-existing pad, the orientation, and the best way to
shield views from the valley floor so that the intent of the ordinance, which
is to keep the views of our mountains shielded from signs of development,
they wanted to optimize this site by minimizing the disturbance to the hill
and minimizing the views that would be visible from the valley floor.
Ms. Housken said that clearly in terms of the` intent, though, the
intent would be better met by Pad #2.
Ms. Aylaian said that staff disagreed with. that. Staff believed that the
intent could be better met with Pad�#,1, not P�i��#2. �
�
Ms. Housken said�she would alsa disagree with the last speaker as
well saying perhaps this person wa�,just unfortunate that this was
the time for his project. She noted tFt�i a lot of time has passed
since 2003, but she happened to be here�when Hagadone's people
wer�u h�r� that fateful day' at Planning Commission, and she
thougfit tha�°�Commissioner Sonia Campbell was perhaps the only
r�maining p$�rson (on. the Commission). Everyone was so
impressed with how beautiful it was going to look and it was going
to blend rigFt� in. Her fear was that the Hillside Ordinance was
develope�because th�t didn't turn out the way everyone was led to
believe �t would. She 'would recommend looking for a better
altemativ�.,�Perhaps Pad #2, although it looked very small, that was
what she wb�ld lean towards. She asked them to stick to their
guns:They devetoped the ordinance and asked them to go forward
with it. She thanked them.
There was no one else requesting to speak. Chairperson Tanner asked for
Commission comments and then a motion.
Commissioner Limont agreed with Mrs. Housken and Mrs. Paull. She
believed they have an ordinance that came about honestly that staff
worked very hard on and this Commission worked very hard on that the
Council did and did for a reason. That was because our hillsides mean so
much in this valley. She thought it was also unfortunate that these two
pads were not exactly in a perfect world what they would want to build on.
One sits directly on a ridgeline. In reading the ordinance, she would say
that Pad #1 was definitely out. It flies right in the face of our ordinance.
12
MINUTES
P � PLANNING COMMISSinN A GUS 5
There was no reason to have this ordinance if they weren't going to
enforce it. Palm Desert residents were relying on them to enforce the
ordinance and she didn't want to let them down. As difficult as it was, she
still thought they needed to stick with the ordinance and take a look at Pad
#2. She wasn't an engineer, but she would say that her recommendation,
or leaning, or opinion, was to stick with the ordinance.
Commissioner Russ Campbell stated that he had nothing to add.
Commissioner Sonia Campbell said that she was not changing her vote
from the last meeting. She agreed with staff to have.Mr. Kuykendall build
on Pad #1. Staff believed that "the applicant could su�cessfully build his
home on Pad #1 that would conform,r,�rith the intent of the HPR zone". Just
because this applicant bought the:�property, then the Council adopted an
Ordinance, she didn't believe he�s�ould be �e�alized for building his home
on Pad #1 and that's what staff agreed wit��also. Her vote remained the
same. °
Chairperson Tanner ect�oed th_at. His vote��hadn't changed either. It was
simply a recommendatior�, They vveren't app�puing this, as they well knew;
they were suggesting�� that th�ey ':�,take th�s�� to Council with their
recommendatior� to potentially t�uiid` on si#�e Pad #1. They would go
through th�=forma�'process as:�hey would for a brand new project. What
they were trying to do was determine what pad and staff was
recommending that the applicant further his investigation on Pad #1. He
asked if a motion was needed. Ms. Aylaian said yes.
Action;
It wasE�moved by.Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Chairperson
- Tanner, to;�„by minute motion, preliminarily identify Proposed Pad #1 as
the home sife for the subject parcel, requiring such grading, berming and
renaturalizatiQ� work as is necessary to obscure the view of the home and
improvements�from the valley floor, per the Hillside Planned Residential
zone Section 25.15.130 `Optional Preliminary Approval'. Motion failed on a
2-2 vote (Cammissioner R. Campbell and Commissioner Limont voting no;
Commissloner Schmidt was absent).
Chairperson Tanner pointed out that they were at a stalemate. From an
earlier discussion with staff, in the event of a tied vote, Chairperson
Tanner indicated that a motion should be made to move this up to City
Council. He noted that they were stalemated and it was not fair to make
Mr. Kuykendall sit through this again.
13
MINUTES
P SERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGLIST 5 ?00
It was moved by Chairperson Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Limont, to,
by minute motion, forward this matter to the City Councit. Motion carried 4-0
(Commissioner Schmidt was absent).
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner S. Campbell stated that they didn't have a meeting, but
the sculptures mentioned under revi�v�- of Council actions were
reported on a few meetings aga TFie sculptures were very well
diversified and she thought everyone would enjoy::them.
B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE.
Commissioner Limont said she would report at the next m�eting.
C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE
:
Ms. Aylaian reporked that Project Area 4 had not met since the last
Planning Commission meeting.
D. PARKS &RECREATION
Chairperson 7anner reported that the Parks & Recreation Commission
did not meet.
X�• COMMENTS
The Coirlmission welcomed new Commissioner Russ Campbell.
It was also noted that the next meeting on August 19 was canceled.
. ,.
XIL -�� ADJOURNMEiVT
It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner S.
Camp6ell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 4-0
(Commissioner Schmidt was absent). The meeting was adjourned at 6:50
p.m.
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
ATTEST:
VAN TANNER, Chair
Palm Desert Planning Commission
14
MINUTES
' LM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 200
Mr. Bernard stated that in speaking with the Department of Public
Works, the proposal of grass and the fountain, and he was just
finishing a similar project on Santa Rosa and that project, and
because of the drought situation, they cut out all of the grass and
the water feature on that project, and would probably do the same
with this project, depending on Public Works' input.
Commissioner Limont appreciated it.
Commissioner Campbell thought the project was very nicely done and had
great architecture. She thought it would do well on that street. She
remembered Mr. Bernard's other work and was in favor of approval.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2479,
recommending to City Council approval of Case No. DA/ PP/CUP 08-50,
subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
""��► A. CASE NO. HPR/PP 08-259 — BRUCE KUYKENDALL,
BARRACUDA, LLC, Applicant
Request for approval of a preliminary building site for a five-
acre parcel of land in the Hillside Planned Residential zone
pursuant to the requirements of Section 25.15.130 (Optional
Preliminary Approval) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
Said request does not qualify as a project under CEQA
guidelines; no environmental studies shall be required at this
time. Properry is located west of the Palm Valley Storm
Channel on Upper Way West, APN: 628-130-015).
Ms. Schrader stated that approval of this request would recommend an
appropriate building site for a single family residential home on a five-acre
lot within the Hillside Planned Residential zone. As background, she said
that currently the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zone code does not
allow development on ridges. She provided a vicinity map to familiarize
them with the site. She pointed out the project site, stating that the project
site was west of Highway 74, to the west of the channel, and was
accessed by an existing road, Upper Way West, for which there are
5
MINUTES
• M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 2
hillside homes higher up that travel on this road. The site itself
encompassed both the ridge and a sort of downward slope looking down
toward the Stone Eagle development on the side.
Currently, Upper Way West traverses the actual property. There is an
existing graded pad that was graded in the 1960's prior to the applicant's
purchase of the property in 2003. Staff concluded that there were really
only two viable options where the applicant could develop a hillside home.
On the topographic map, there was a polygon labeled Pad 1, and a
secondary one labeled Pad 2 substantially downhill by almost 50 feet in
elevation.
Basically, the analysis of both of these pads was based on two ideas: one
was access and one was grading as far as the impact on the site. Access
to Pad 1 could easily be made as a drive that would derive from Upper
Way West and circled on a slow uphill toward the rear of the property,
which is south facing. Pad 1 would probably incur very little, there is a
contour it conforms to. Pad 2, however, in order to access that, would
require an access through offsite, and contours would make it a little more
of a lengthy impact.
She showed a slide and explained that the images being provided were
basically for discussion and were not design images or staff's necessary
recommendation for one or the other, but to illustrate the fact that this is
the ridge that traverses the property. She also had the reference map of
the ridges if they wanted to view it.
Pad #1, as seen before, the idea behind it was that fill or a berm would be
created along the ridge to renaturalize that ridge so that views toward the
north of the city and the valley floor would be very much minimized. The
idea would be to fill in the southern portion in order to make up for the
berming.
Pad #2 would require a great deal more cut and fill in order to make a
sufficiently large enough pad to develop. Therefore, there would be cut on
the side and identified the theoretical fill that would happen on either pad.
Staff recommended that given the options and impact that would be
created by either pad, Pad #1 was the lesser of the impacts and the
applicant discussed with staff and brought images to discuss how that
impact would be minimized through the renaturalization of the site and
other options that were designated in the ordinance as ways to follow
through and minimize any impact to the view.
6
i
MINUTES
� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 2008
In conclusion, staff recommended that if Pad #1 was chosen, that it also
be conditioned that the applicant return with a design for Planning
Commission's approval.
Commissioner Limont asked if Pad #1 was on a ridgeline. Ms. Schrader
concurred that Pad #1 is on a ridgeline and it was graded. Commissioner
Limont noted that our new ordinance prohibits building on a ridgeline.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that the elevation was 670 and asked if that
was the flattened off area. Ms. Schrader concurred. Commissioner
Schmidt asked for the elevation of the top of the ridgeline. Ms. Schrader
said her answer would be conjecture; it would have to be interpolated and
they hadn't gone that far yet. Commissioner Schmidt noted that as Ms.
Schrader indicated toward berming and almost rebuilding the ridgeline,
from what she gathered Ms. Schrader was saying, her question was how
many feet they were talking about: was it five feet, ten feet or 20 feet? Ms.
Schrader deferred that question to the applicant, who would have a much
better idea of what they were intending on that site.
There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
MR. BRUCE KUYKENDALL, a local grading contractor who has
been in Palm Desert for 26 years, stated that he has specialized in
hillside development with Bighorn Country Club on The Mountains
side, not The Canyons side. However, he purchased this property
back in 2003 with his partner, Dave Barren, and made his first
submittal to Phil Drell back in February of 2004. The way the
property tays right now, back in the 1960's, someone went up the
face of it and dozed off the top. What he proposed to do, like he
was doing with all the other hillside lots in Palm Desert, was to
leave the sides of the hill up, they were all natural right now up to
that plateau, and then the plan he submitted back in 2003, which is
that Pad 1 location and described exactly what staff recommended,
was the most friendly pad site on that property that could go inside
that cone and be somewhat like a volcano, so to speak, from the
front three-quarter sides facing the city. He would leave that natural
elevation up and then cut down inside roughly 20 feet off of that
mountain edge; cut down roughly six to eight to ten feet and set the
building back in such a way that the angle of the view of the roof
would be barely visible.
He worked with Phil Drell on five different revisions as the Hillside
Ordinance developed. Mr. Kuykendall said he came in and he
7
� � f
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISS�nN JULY 1 2008
spoke; he superimposed homes for the City Council and got a write
up in the Desert Sun stating that he was given an exception at that
time that it could be done. But as the process went on, he was
asked to do five different renditions: one where he could only have
4,000 square feet to develop; the other one he brought in and
received last year was his driveway approach to a cul-de-sac and
that was entering from the rear of the property behind a knoll so it
wasn't visible to the city whatsoever. It approached the property
from the back and had a cul-de-sac and received a 5-0 vote of
approval at Planning Commission; however, as soon as he
received that, he had a couple of City Council members who asked
to meet with him on the property and thaYs when he was told that
he better withdraw his application because he did not have the
support to proceed. He met with a couple of other City Council
members and one said that he would never develop on this site, not
on her watch. The other one said, "well, let's buy `em out."
To shorten up a long story, he approached, at the recommendation
of three City Council members, and met with Carlos Ortega, who
said they had some interest and told him who to go to get an
appraisal on the property. So he used that firm, paid for that
appraisal, that appraisal came in. Three or four months went by and
Mr. Kuykendall asked for a tolling agreement while the Hillside
Ordinance was being approved and again, three months went by
and they got their tolling agreement back unsigned and the City had
no interest in purchasing it.
So he's back at their mercy again, coming back to the Planning
Commission. He felt he had the right to develop a home site on that
property. He invested in that property and it's roughly worth ten
times what he paid for it. But he would like to develop it or he'd like
to be bought out.
The approach they have and the plan he originally submitted back
in 2003 would really put a nice home up there with earth tones, rock
veneer, and non-reflective glass; all those ordinances he helped
establish with the Planning Department 12 years ago when Bighorn
was starting to develop their 12 estate lots. In fact, he built those
lots. He has worked with the City, he was here in good faith and
owns that property, and he either needed to be bought out or he
asked the City to tell him where he can build. And the most logical
spot, again, with Renee and Ryan and everybody's help, was that
original pad that was developed there. It's a flat, dozed off pad; any
disturbance that he does, he's the best there is in the valley at re-
8
�
MINUTES
� SERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 2008
naturalization, hillside building and permeon and rock set. He knew
he could develop a very, very nice pad with very limited impact,
especially based on the conditions right next to him; within 125 feet
is the Stone Eagle sales office and he has the maintenance facility
he's looking into, and the club house will be a higher elevation than
he is and could be visible above and beyond him once he builds.
He asked them to please, take a serious look at this and help them
go forward on this project. He asked for questions.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for confirmation that when Pad 1 was
originally graded in the 60's, that would put it in the County and not in the
city at that time.
Mr. Kuykendall didn't believe it was in the city.
Ms. Aylaian explained that the city wasn't formed until after the 60's.
Commissioner Schmidt concurred and explained she wanted it on the
record. She asked if Mr. Kuykendall knew what decade Pad 2 was graded.
Mr. Kuykendall said no. Whoever graded the property went up the
front of the properiy off of Beacon. Using the map on display, he
showed where they came in off that road and went up and there's a
turn where he went up on top and dozed that off. That person also
dozed off a Pad 2, and there was a little homestead shack there. It
was dilapidated and unsightly, so Mr. Kuykendall took it down by
hand and disposed of it. But they could see the road, and showed
how the other owner went up on top and pushed all the material out
and then turned around and went back down and off. But Mr.
Kuykendall was familiar with this property because a friend of his,
Terry Weiner, had it prior to him for roughly three years and he
looked at it for him and was going to design him a house pad up
there and then later he did buy him out and used the same concept
and submitted it back in 2003.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if Mr. Kuykendall had any idea what the
original ridge line elevation would have been had it not been bulldozed off.
Mr. Kuykendall guessed that it went up another four to six feet was
all based on the way the hillside comes up and the width of it all. It
could have peaked at roughly six to seven feet above that and it
was roughly 150 feet long and 40 feet wide. If he left the outside
edge up, he didn't want the noise from Highway 74, sa he was
going to leave the front lip of it up, recess it about ten feet and then
9
f
MINUTES
' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 008
put in a waterfall to the inside to disguise the noise of Highway 74.
And then do the berming in such a way when they design the home
out of the great room they could get a sliver view of the city lights.
As stated, Commissioner Schmidt noted it said that the existing pad is
approximately 18,000 square feet.
Mr. Kuykendall said yes, what's been disturbed.
When he got through with resculpting it, Commissioner Schmidt asked
what size of pad would be there and what size of home he was
contemplating.
To answer the question on the pad, he believed it would need a
motor court up there and he would need to perc, so he would lose
approximately 1,400 square feet to the pere situation and thaYs why
he came in to get the driveway approval prior to this, so he could
perc in that area and make sure he could put it there before he
designed a home. He would like to end up with roughly 16,000
square feet of pad, put in about a 4,000 square foot house and
maybe a detached little casita or something, but set it back roughly
on the pad where it says pad on the plan and have the front for a
pool, waterfall, greenbelt area like an oasis, so to speak, and then
have that sliver view down to the city. He planned to have one
story; it is all bedrock up there, so he would not want to go with a
two-story subterranean dropping a level. The way he engineered it,
it crawls up in there, from the time he leaves the asphalt up to the
pad, is about eight feet; he would leave six feet, plus he has a big
knoll behind him that protects him from the Carver residence and
they can't see that location. It was the ideal situation for that
property. Anywhere else he would be protruding out and creating a
lot of slope. It wouldn't be cost effective and woufd be very
unsightly.
Commissioner Limont asked if Mr. Kuykendall had been unable to build
during the four-year period between 2003 and 2007 due to the City.
Mr. Kuykendall said he wouldn't say that.
Commissioner Limont asked why he didn't build prior.
Mr. Kuykendall said he dabbled with it for about three years with
five different submittals. As that period was going on, there were
numerous hillside ordinances being passed and he was receiving
10
�
MINUTES
� SERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 2008
recommendations that Stone Eagle would take it and trade it for
open space, there was another project that proposed that to him
and it came through Planning and was talked about, so he kind of
sat back. And he had just built a home further up in Cahuilla Hills,
so he was just kind of sitting back and once he got involved again,
it had been one dead end after another.
Commissioner Limont said he did build a home during that time.
Mr. Kuykendall said no, he had already built that home.
From what she could see, Commissioner Campbell thought when he built
the home, it would be very well camouflaged and it would blend into the
hillside. It wasn't Mr. Kuykendall's fault that somebody graded the ridge,
but he would build his home, camouflage it, and just bring everything back
to its natural landscaping for that area.
Mr. Kuykendall said exactly; the current home he did build up in
Cahuilla Hills was at the very back of Cat Canyon and the
mountains are his backyard, he used total earth tones, he had
Buford Crites up there, who thought it was beautiful. It is an
awesome home; it was done very well and fit into the hillside. He
was all for that. He has one right above him that is pure white, two
stories, so he was very conscious of the impact to the city, has
been here 25 years, has been in business and watched the city
grow, and was just part of it and happened to be in this
predicament, but he's the right guy for the job.
Commissioner Campbell agreed that he wasn't going to paint a house
white up there, so as far as she was concerned, she would give her
approval and recommend taking staff's recommendation of Pad 1.
Regarding the berming and the renaturalization of the slope itself,
Chairperson Tanner asked how much berming and renaturalization he
was talking about and how much work that would involve for Mr.
Kuykendall.
Mr. Kuykendall said it wouldn't be a lot on the front edge out there
because that would be the natural hillside coming up. Then what he
would do is get on the inside of it, round it off, and roll it back down
so what is there will be there. Off the front, he wouldn't be trying to
replicate any naturalization, he would leave all that up. Then there
would be a fill area on the south side, a fill zone like all the estate
pads in Bighorn. He would rock set that and permeon it just like he
11
MINUTES
� DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 2008
did with the Carvers, a roughly 75-foot rocWslope half a million
dollars worth of work to their residence to get theirs in. His would
not even be half of that. Then again, he would make it big enough
to roll it into a berm, use natural, indigenous vegetation, work it all
in, permeon it, and blend it all in. Again, the roof colors would be
earth cotors and he would go through Architectural Review and he
would put in a desert home there, a desert-friendly home.
Even though this wasn't a public hearing item, Ms. Aylaian suggested that
the opportunity be offered to the public to give comments.
Chairperson Tanner concurred and asked if anyone wished to speak in
FAVOR or OPPOSITION.
MS. JANICE WOODS stated that she was in the home probably
most affected by Mr. Kuykendall's proposed plan. She lives at
72375 Upper Way West. She heard Bruce mention the Carvers'
residence; she would be interested in knowing the exact impact it
would have on her residence, although she certainly was not
opposed to Bruce's building. She felt this is the United States of
America and people who own land should be able to build and she
would never challenge the constitution of the United States of
America. She thanked them.
MR. JOHN MCCORMICK informed Commission that he owns a
piece of property at the very top of the hill and he had always
wanted to build his home on top of that and just never had the
finances to put that together, but he planned some day to hopefully
put that together. To see Bruce putting together what he's got going
to him all made sense. Him being in the business he's been in and
what he's done, and he's got a lot of things he's done that is just
right on track, so he was in favor of what Mr. Kuykendall had going.
Mr. McCormick said his home address is 29220 Via Las Palmas in
Thousand Palms, California, but he was in Palm Desert until about
four years ago. He was totally in favor of the proposal and hoped to
maybe someday come back because he was still here in Palm
Desert and hasn't left. He was totally behind what Mr. Kuykendall
had going. He thanked them.
MRS. ANTOINETTE CARVER, 72275 Upper Way West, said they
spoke to this issue a number of months ago and while she and her
husband believe that Mr. Kuykendall would build a beautiful home,
they had no doubt about that, their only concern was that he was
going to have to make some serious cuts on the side they look at
12
i
MINUTES
• PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 2008
and Mr. Kuykendali wasn't certain that the property would perc at
that time. What they would hope is that if Mr. Kuykendall goes
ahead and makes those cuts and it does not perc, that he would
commit to renaturalizing (she didn't like that work, but it seemed to
be popular), renaturaliiing those cuts so that the mountain would
again look like it looks. That was all. She knew Mr. Kuykendall
would build a beautiful home. She thanked them.
MS. BARBARA STILES, 72895 Amber, asked about the destruction
of the hillsides. Would it scar the hillside? She has lived there for 21
years and there are a few homes up there just east of the churches.
She asked if it would be set below the churches where they couldn't
be seen so much.
Chairperson Tanner asked the applicant to respond to Ms. Stiles'
question.
Mr. Kuykendall pointed out the location on the displayed map in
relation to the churches. He didn't believe out of her backyard that
she would be able to see the hill they were talking about, it was too
low in elevation. He pointed out the CVWD pump station, the Stone
Eagle entry and the churches. He didn't believe that she could see
it from her location.
Ms. Stiles said she has been there 21 years and was worried about
everyone else. They didn't want to ruin Palm Desert because it is a
fantastic community.
Mr. Kuykendall agreed, wholeheartedly. He said it is a beautiful site
and could be done in such a way that it would be hard to notice
unless someone was really looking for it. He didn't believe it could
be viewed from her property. Someone going 55-60 mph up
Highway 74 would get a quick look at it.
Ms. Stiles thanked him.
There were no other public comments.
Action:
Commissioner Campbell moved for approval. Commissioner Limont asked
for discussion first. Chairperson Tanner agreed.
Commissioner Limont noted that we have a hillside ordinance. She didn't
disagree with everything that folks were saying, and didn't know Mr.
13
%.
MINUTES
' M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 2008
Kuykendall's work, but did know the Carvers work and Toni's comment
had merit with her. But she came back to this whole group who worked
really hard for a Hillside Ordinance that specifically says no building on the
ridgelines. As much as she could look at this and go, you know what?
Look at the two pads, staff was right, this is the better way to go, obviously
the neighbors feel he'll be doing a great job, and they would be marching
all over the ordinance. This was the second time in finro meetings they had
been asked to take an ordinance that hasn't been in place seven months
and just throw it by the wayside. She just had difficulty with that before
they voted.
Commissioner Schmidt acknowledged that this was tough. They knew
when they proposed and passed the ordinance that they would be facing
some of these issues. She was certain that Mr. Kuykendall would build a
most wonderful house, but she could not, like Commissioner Limont, just
fly in the face of an ordinance that so many people are depending on with
exception after exception after exception. It was unfortunate that it was
graded prior to even being in the city, and that did not constitute the
grandfathering in her view. If anything, they should be looking at
reconstructing the ridge without a home on it. So unless she saw
something really concrete, a picture of what it would look like, she couldn't
encourage any further development on the site or encourage any more
expense for him, and it would be expensive to make pretty pictures to
show them a home in there. If he wanted to do that, she would encourage
him to, but it would be a whole new reapplication. They worked hard at the
behest of the people of the city to pass that ordinance and they had to
enforce it.
Chairperson Tanner asked staff about the construction below the
ridgeline. The ridgeline itself, he understood it had been disturbed; the
original ridgeline had been disturbed. His question was if this construction
was on a ridgeline as they see it today; as it's being proposed today, is it
actually construction on the ridgeline. Ms. Aylaian explained that the
Hillside Ordinance itself has a map appended to it that actually draws red
lines on what was being identified as the ridges. That map shows that this
is a ridgeline that runs through that properry. So according to the Hillside
Ordinance, this is considered a ridgeline despite the fact that work has
been done there in the past. Chairperson Tanner asked if the ordinance
itself gave any latitude as far as if the actual construction of the home itself
was below the red ridgeline; was that correct if they were not interrupting
or encroaching on the ridgeline in the construction of the home. Ms.
Aylaian explained that the other provisions of the Hillside Ordinance would
then take effect, but they were not prohibited from building on it if it was
14
, i' ,
MINUTES � `
� ESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1 2
not identified as being a ridge on the map thaYs appended to the Hillside
Ordinance.
Chairperson Tanner reiterated that what she was saying was that this
piece of property is in the effected ridgeline area. Ms. Aylaian said yes, it
is. Chairperson Tanner said that applied even if it wasn't building on top of
the ridge, but below the ridge. Ms. Aylaian concurred. She added that this
was only the second time that this portion of the ordinance has been
implemented, and that's for the Optional Preliminary Approval for the site
and access location. When a site has been identified that does not
approve the project, the project then goes back through Architectural
Review for design analysis and would come back for consideration in the
future. At that time the Planning Commission would have greater analysis,
as well as exhibits that would demonstrate what the architecture would
look like and the proposed mitigations as far as reshaping of the hillside or
grading or rebuilding of the berm so that they would not be making a
decision in a void.
Chairperson Tanner noted that what staff was asking the Planning
Commission to do today would be to recommend to staff and to the
applicant to continue the process if they choose to and then bring it back
to Commission after it's been through the Architectural Committee. Ms.
Aylaian said that was correct; the action today would identify a pad that
would then go through the full process and go back for architecture,
design, and the CEQA analysis to determine what kind of environmental
impacts there would be. The project would then go through the formal
approval process. Chairperson Tanner said or, if they could recommend
that there be no more continuance of this effort on their part. Ms. Aylaian
said staff was asking the Planning Commission to preliminarily identify a
building pad and access to that pad. Chairperson Tanner clarified that that
was all they were asking them to do is to identify that pad. Ms. Aylaian
said that was correct. Chairperson Tanner said they were not being asked
to say yes or no. Ms. Aylaian agreed that they were not approving a
project. Chairperson Tanner asked if that was clear to everyone.
Commission concurred.
Chairperson Tanner noted that there was a motion on the floor. He asked
for any further discussion on this issue. Commissioner Schmidt indicated
that a second was needed for the motion. Chairperson Tanner seconded
the motion (which was, by minute motion, to direct the applicant to
proceed with Proposed Pad #1, including grading, berming, and
renaturalization work necessary to obscure view of the homes and
improvements from the valley floor, per the Hillside P_lanned Residential
Zone Section 25.15.130 "Optional Preliminary Approval.")
15
,
MINUTES
' ESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1
Chairperson Tanner asked if there was any other discussion.
Commissioner Schmidt commented that if they look at it as a pile of dirt,
the pad is a flattened pile of dirt which was the ridgeline and the dirt that
was moved away from the ridgeline, if she was correct, now constituted
the fill which allowed a large enough pad to build approximately 4,000
feet. So to berm it back up again, was really a major undertaking and he
had to do the peres on it. She for one could not encourage more money
into that project unless there was overwhelming support for him to do that;
it's expensive. Chairperson Tanner thought that should be left up to the
applicant, but they were being asked to suggest a pad, either Pad #1 or
Pad #2, for the applicant to continue the process.
Mr. Kuykendall asked to make a comment on that.
Chairperson Tanner invited Mr. Kuykendall to readdress the Commission.
Mr. Kuykendall asked them to bear with him. He has been after this
for five years. And politically he has been told again by two Council
members no; he's got opposition again here. All they were doing
was putting a different dress on the same girl. He keeps spending
money, he keeps going at this, he keeps talking to City Council
members; the bottom line is there is stiff opposition to building on
this property. They have Mr. Lennon who gave him a letter and said
if he did build a house there, Mr. Lennon would give him golf cart
access into the course. But at the same time, Mr. Kuykendall
couldn't help but feel that maybe he is in opposition to this too
because it is in his view corridor from his clubhouse.
He said he was really tired of playing the politics and he would just
like to be either bought out for open space and treated fairly in lieu
of...if he was going to go forward spending $80,000 like he quoted
last time in a City Council meeting, he said it would cost him
roughly $80,000 to really design something, not wasting his time;
he wouldn't throw $20,000 out and get a balloon case that can pop.
It would cost him about $80,000 to do photo sims and design
considerations. They could talk to any good architects here, and he
knew them all and had worked with them all, and it cost $25,000
just for a retainer. So he didn't feel like spending that money when
he had all this opposition politically that's out on the table.
He said the City Attorney was aware of it and everyone here was
aware of it. He would rather have an answer; if they didn't want him
to build there, then buy it, it's for sale. He would trade it. He would
16
1
MINUTES
� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMIS ION JULY 1 2008
do something, but this sitting in limbo for five years and then where
they were headed again right now was right back to where he was
in 2003, right back to the same spot again. This just wasn't right. To
see Ted Lennon develop 60% of his property and Mr. Kuykendall's
property line was right there, that was not equal. It's called a CEQA
lawsuit. He was sorry for talking like that, but this was out of hand
and was getting old.
Commissioner Schmidt asked since 2003 when he purchased, or even
before that, since he's been aware of that property, she asked if he had
ever been encouraged by anyone in this city to build on that site.
Mr. Kuykendall said he never had opposition, real opposition that
came forward until after he received Planning Commission approval
last year with a 5-0 vote for a driveway to go in there and a cul-de-
sac so he could perc test it to see if he wanted to go forward, and if
not, he was going to renaturalize it, draw back out and know where
he stood before he started spending the money.
However, when he made those statements, Mr. Crites wrote a letter
and sent him a copy of it where he said Mr. Kuykendall pretty well
lied to the Council, which was totally untrue. That $80,000 in cost is
real. He had to grade the road to get in there to perc it before his
grading plan would even be accepted, so it was a catch 22 and
that's why with Phil Drell, bless his heart, for three and a half years,
he was honest with Mr. Kuykendall and told him he was supposed
to discourage him from going forward. They kept submitting and
doing this and that, but he has had two City Council members and
an ex-City Council member tell him he would never build there, so
why should he go forward? Why don't they get to the bottom of
this? He was told to come and resubmit again. Well, he has and
this time he would submit and go to the Council, and as far as his
lawyer said, take that route and go from there. But that's not what
he's about. He liked to know what he was doing.
Commissioner Schmidt didn't think it was in their purview to authorize the
purchase of the ground. ThaYs certainly for Council to do, she assumed.
Chairperson Tanner said they were there today to make a suggestion to
Mr. Kuykendall on a pad site, and they had a lot of conversation about it.
He asked one more time, to staff and to the City Attorney, what they were
looking for the Planning Commission to do. If it wasn't to approve Pad Lot
1 or Pad Lot 2, did they have any other choices on this miscellaneous
item? Ms. Aylaian explained that the purpose of this item is that there was
an application for the Optional Preliminary Approval to identify a site. If the
17
MINUTES
DESERT PLANNINC GOMMIS�ION JULY 1 2
Commission were to look at both sites and feel neither were appropriate,
but knew of a better one, they could certainly identify that one.
Chairperson Tanner said they were asking staff to present to Commission
those two sites or alternatives to those two sites. Ms. Aylaian said that
staff has not be able to identify any alternatives to these two sites; staff
believed these are the only two viable sites.
Chairperson Tanner said it was presented to them as Pad 1 or Pad 2 to
continue to pursue building on this lot.
Mr. Kuykendall said that would maybe get him to City Council
where at City Council he would guarantee that he would get shot
down again.
Commissioner Campbell said this was Planning Commission's job and
was all they could do.
Mr. Kuykendall said he appreciated that.
Chairperson Tanner said they again come back to a motion on the floor
that they go with staff's recommendation, Pad #1. There was a motion and
a second. He called for the vote. The vote was 2-2 (Commissioners
Limont and Schmidt voting no).
Mr. Hargreaves explained that was a no action, basically, and subject to
appeal to the City Council. He believed the applicant had 15 days.
Chairperson Tanner thanked him.
B. REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
FOR VACATING A PORTION OF GUADALUPE AVENUE.
(Related to Case No. PP 07-07, the approved Delio office
building at 44-450 Monterey Avenue.)
Ms. Aylaian stated that the report was before them and if they had specific
questions, City Engineer Bo Chen was available to answer them.
There were no questions. Ms. Aylaian noted that this case was a follow up
on a project the Planning Commission approved several months ago for a
new office professional building fronting on Monterey.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Limont, by minute motion, finding that the proposed street vacation of a
18
CITY OF Pfllfll DE5ER1
73—S�o Fxr:u Wna�Nc DKivF
PALM DEtiERI',CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL:]�i0 346—ob�t
Fnac:76o 34i-7o98
injo@palm-desert.org
---—_ .. _.. .___._ ----- ___ � ------------ .__..... _.. .
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC NOTICE
Case No. HPR/PP 08-259
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Palm Desert City Council will consider approval of
preliminary building site for a 5-acre parcel of land in the Hillside Planned Residential Zone
pursuant to the requirements of Section 25.15.130 (Optional Preliminary Approval) of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code. Said request does not qualify as a project under CEQA guidelines; no
environmental studies shall be required at this time. The property is located west of the Palm
Valley Storm Channel on Upper Way West (APN: 628-130-015, Barracuda, LLC, Bruce
Kuykendall, Applicant). The above mentioned case was presented before the Planning
Commission on July 1, 2008 and on August 5, 2008. The Planning Commission voted 2—2 at
each meeting, constituting a "no-decision" action. The Planning Commission has referred the
item to the City Council for consideration at its August 28, 2008 meeting.
� �,��I ���� � '�� �� , � at-c�r
r m:
r- �I � y �c,�
.�. ?� � � ����'� ` � � ��� ����
��;�.� W
,� �
�
r� . �:.
, a �
�
� �
�, .� � � . :
, , '�: . � aaaaaasra sr �AMBFR S ,
� �
� ' ` :: O " . �` .
� ` frEER7 GRaSS DR
�, s� r ,, isaU�Cf�Fi� �o
v; # s� :`,,:y„� �4+r v
�' <. ., �r -"'�., ..ar� �.,.. ti. < . . . . �
s-< .r..., � .,
i .J .: . . � ��-. �. ..
'r �'I' ���' ,� ,� �. CaLC�NI?t7.45T
�<'^ MAYSTaCICRIJ�NAY5TACK RC�
i �,..'�j �.W
>, ., , , .
'': . CC 1$Q�" ' �q ' .. • :
_. eHa�L�rr y , � �
���' „� �`�-� soa�an Ra
� � ,
,y , � � i
e -
, � '
� _ ,� '� ", � �r�. } � S�('YWARD WaY
�_ �>�
�` ;d4 .� .
, ;���� ��� � � Z
k .. ..
., , � � .
- Q. , BEL A!R!?D
,.. ,y
,� ,; 'r�,�, , � ,
, , ' HOAQES7FAD RD
�_. ,
��� ; _ Ed ,
'F� 'm
STONE EAGLE OR , OESER7-VlEWDR A
� � � � � ` , r, � CL4YCT�
��%�:� 1�O y�SUNDOY4�NLN _ : C-c� �1
��', , o . � , A� m s
�u�' �`� � �.m �
�'• . , o , m A m
� ' • �� ��J CANYON LN/O�CRFST4N � THEOOORA��IY � � A r r�~ 2
.�:, v ' >
�• MESA VlEWDR MESA VIEW OR
VJ �� . �' � � � —
2 `SO,y,� GREENBRlAR LN' .: - 5 . • ,�
r t rti� , qs,Fr - • � ,
D ` .
,�,��-y�' „ /�� .,., �
.. '1.` .. . ,.. .r.. .,� :
��o __�.4�... . . ; .x . _ . .» � .. .
SAID �eview will be held on Thursday, August 28, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chamber at the Paim Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,
at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written
comments concerning this notice shall be accepted up to the date of the review. Information
concerning the proposed project is available for review in the Department of Community
Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
Palm Desert City Councii
� �
- � �
`�
��
' IRONWOOD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION �
August 25, 2008
City o�f Palm �?esert
ATTN: �City Counc�]
i 73-51� Fred Waring Drive
� Palrn Desert, C,4 922fi0
RE: City Co�ancil Nl�e�#ir�g of August 28&the Hi(tside Ordinance
I �
Dear City Caun�il hllembers: . �
� Under New 6usiness of#he August 28 ager�da, you will again be considering a
petitian to ailow construction art a fiv�-acre parcel flf�and in th� Hillsid� Pfanned
Resider�#ial�one. . . '
As you are well aware, allowing building on fhe hillsid�—5pecifically an a
ridgefine--is not allawed and would requEre you to grant an�xceptEon to the
Hillside Ordinance. On behalf of the 1066 homeQwners in the Ironwaod
Corrimuni#y, I strongly urge you ta upf�ok!the integrity of the Hillside Qrdinance
and not grant this req�est.
The recent and im�Qrtan#changes ta the Hiliside Qrdinance must be upheld, or it
wii! be diminish+�d. 7here is widespread support in the communit�for mai�taining
the natural sta#e of au�-F�illsides and �idgeltnes, �
�es�ectfu!!y,
�� �
� � Lawren�e T. Sui#er � -
Presiderrt, Ironwaad Gammuni#y Assac�ation
,....., -
� Copies: The S�mmi�-Pete Szambelan � � =
Monterra�Gene Grant and Susan Pault ' �� �
Th,e Reserve—8�1t Ebert =:-�
� Ironwoad County Club—Don �lack ;�, `;�;;;,�
lrrsnwaod Communi#y Courcci� � `°-'�` -� �
Palm desert 7ennis Cl�� Baard of Dir�ctors ° �"�;'`�s����
� - :.f,. .
.. :�--,
� c� ,•�.
w �w,
P.O. Box 4772 * PALM DESERT, CA 92261-4772 * (760) 346-1161 * FAX (760) 346-991$
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 1:56 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Web Site Inquiry
Attachments: LStoCC25Aug08.pdf; ATT207635.txt
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Sutter [mailto:larrysutter@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 1:53 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Web Site Inquiry
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Sutter [mailto:larrysutter@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 1:53 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Web Site Inquiry
Please see that each member of the City Council receives this letter prior to their meeting
Thursday.
Thank you,
Lawrence Sutter
President
Ironwood Community Association
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:41 PM
To: Klassen, Racheile
Subject: FW:
-----Original Message-----
From: Pam Carlson [mailto:pam_carlson@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:35 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject:
We are very upset that you are considering allowing an exception to the hillside development
ruling. We are long time residents of Ironwood and STRONGLY OBJECT to this. PLEASE KEEP OUR
HILLSIDES NATURAL.
Rick & Pam Carlson
73481 Mariposa Drive
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
...,
- .,`-._
->
-� .,...
,_:�
=;�
,,�
�.� `-t'.,_�.
�,��+.,.::
,.„:� ..
� ..
_ ,t;`
.C-- .,
•, C"�--r?
�M y"ry�w
W �..�rvi
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:41 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW:
From: John Wiggins [mailto:jwiggins@jhwiggins.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:33 PM
To: InformationMail
Cc: Larry Sutter
Subject:
As residents of Palm Desert at 49-839 Desert Vista Drive my wife and I respectfully ask you to denv the request to make
an exception to the Hillside Ordinance for the property planned to be located west and south of St. Mary's church.
Thank you,
John Wiggins
,..a
.:_�
� , .
_�
:�. '
`�
, W..�._;,.,,
h.a ... .:
c1'1 �
"� - .��: ...
� ._
� -,r�;w..
.. c�-�
� '"C"�
C�'3
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:42 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: exception to the Hillside Ordinance
From: Jes &Jay Niblo [mailto:jniblo@dc.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:16 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: exception to the Hillside Ordinance
To Whom It May Concern: Do not waver in your rejection of any exception to the Hillside Ordinance. I was at the
hearing for the Nelson Property, and the City Council's rejection of same, last month. I am unable to be at the meeting
Tuesday, but please accept my strong urging to uphold the integrity of the Ordinance, and give no building permits to any
project that would affect the sanctity of the ridgeline.
Thank you for including my email in your consideration.
Jessica Niblo
73159 Ajo Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
.,
-� ,
� ._.
�
-;'�. ,�
;� :,�� ..
, ,._
„� �..- , ;
r� �,;.;,
�.-;-; .
� yy;,-
,� r�,t.^,
--;�;;,�:::.;
.�` " •-rn
.. r-7-r,
� ���'�
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:42 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: hillside construction
From: LANDON DALE [mailto:dclandon2@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:14 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: hiliside construction
It has come to my attention that at your 8/28 city council meeting you are going to consider an exception to the Hillside
Ordinance. I strongly urge you to deny this exception. Allowing exceptions severely weakens the ordinance and creates
a"Daly City risk"to our beautiful hillsides. We do not need any more Haggedon fiascos.
Respectfully submitted,
Dale C. Landon
Palm Desert
. _.�
_'_� _
��
T�� .
�
_ ,.....
�;,
,�,� r
c:r,=�
� fu, ,
—�-
_.� : �i...
,�`- ���s
.. A.��-�^s
O :��
CYJ �µ,
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 4:24 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of 28 August and the Hillside Ordinance
From: RobertL142@aol.com [mailto:RobertL142@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:51 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting of 28 August and the Hillside Ordinance
Dear City Council Members:
At your August 28 meeting , you will be considering a petition (Case No. HPR/PP 08-259 (Bruce Kuykendall/Barracuda,
LLC, Applicant)to allow construction on a five acre parcel of land in the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. This
construction is NOT allowed and would require you to grant an exception to the Hillside Ordinance.
I am a resident of the Summit and I urge you to uphold the Hillside Ordinance and the recent changes thereto, and NOT
grant this request to allow this construction. My neighbors and I strongly request that you uphold the integrity of the
Hillside Ordinance. Granting this request would be a step on the slippery slope of destroying the natural state of our
hillsides and ridge lines.
Please vote to DENY this request for an exception.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Lilac
48570 Olympic Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
760-837-0371
It's only a deal if iYs where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
t�.,9
C::L'? ��_�..
;`� . ,
„=�.�.. f:�^�
..� ._. -..,
,.,..'j...� t,_.,�,.., . .
L,:�'t',:.....
� f',�_
%'+' � �..
."L3 �r �� ...
� "`�x��
� - �...
.. ,-,y..�;
GY'� 2�^`-�
C.17 �
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 4:24 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of August 28 -Case No. HPR/PP 08-259
From: John A. Hinds [mailto:johnahinds@dc.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 4:03 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: City Council Meeting of August 28 - Case No. HPR/PP 08-259
Dear Palm Desert Council Members,
We are strongly opposed to the Council granting an exception to the Hillside Ordinance to allow
construction on the 5 acre parcel of land in this case.
There was a great deal of thought given by the City to recent changes made to strengthen the Hillside
Ordinance. A failure to enforce the provisions of the ordinance will weaken the Ordinance until, once
again, it will have no meaning.
We urgently request that the Council not allow the applicant to proceed with the proposed
construction.
John and Carol Hinds
126 Heather Court
Palm Desert, CA 92260
..,a
: �
� -. _._
��
-�. _
_ �,
� �,,;.. ..
.,.� ���
<_,., ,-,��;: ..
c�:-,; _. ,..
r .'
�� -�•','j p
- - C°:'�
.s' � v�
.. ;s-z�i
CSi ^,=,
� r�9
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 4:25 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: request for building on hillside west of the summitt and palm desert tennis club
From: Dan8864775@aol.com [mailto:Dan8864775@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 4:04 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: request for building on hillside west of the summitt and palm desert tennis club
Dan Forbush,resident of palm desert tennis club. I am not in favor of this request.Thank you.
It's only a deal if iYs where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
,._,
--�
� :
�=,.�
�
�'-.-=3 , -.
T,�a -
�
� `
� 4 � �
�
� . :.;a�w...
.. ���
cn �;,
cn �,:,
�
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 4:35 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Hillside construction
From: Judymetz@aol.com [mailto:Judymetz@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 4:26 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Hiliside construction
How can this happen? You decided previously to protect the ridgeline in our beautiful mountains
and now your are thinking of succumbing to some outside pressure to cave. Do not cave. The
future of this gorgeous valley is in your hands. Hold firm on your previous decisions. Thank
you. Mrs. Frank A. Metz, Ironwood Country Club.
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
'.� ��.,
-..a ...
_� - ..
,-� ,'�
:�. �_;
:,;~� _d�. _
-v ;:.�_
c.r� �-�
,....
CF7.�;...�:..�_�:
� '`S�y••- ..
� 07..,
� " .✓t....,
.• t..�"T
� Y,'3°'F")
� �y„�
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:35 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Web Site Inquiry
From: Alison Delf[mailto:alison@stonepine.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:34 AM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Web Site Inquiry
Re August 28'h meeting agenda
Hello
I am a resident of Ironwood Community. I would like to know WHY you are AGAIN considering granting another
EXCEPTION to the Hillside Ordinance. We now have a blight to look at above our community every day. I personally
think you were bribed (yes bribed) to allow the massive construction of the enormous house looking over the ridge above
our Ironwood North course—complete with a noisy helicopter pad.
I urge you to stop this erosion of the strength of the Hillside Ordinance.
Yours Truly,-
Alison Delf
73315 Boxthorn Lane
Palm Desert CA 92260
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524/Virus Database: 270.6.9/1635 -Release Date: 8/26/2008 7:29 AM ';;�
� ,.,_;:
-�:.-� ,.;„. _
� .
c�`� ,
��,� .-;; ..
,� r�._.,'..:
c,;.
:.�,:'.
�� rT� ..
:...,, �;*+:�
�� �•,
'_'i!'"';4.,..�
� � i
s• �.^•?,.
�. yi*�
� � �tl�
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:36 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: web site inquiry
From: Richard Ruffell [mailto:sheruff@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:59 AM
To: InformationMail
Subject: web site inquiry
Dear Sirs:
Please add us to the list of those opposed to more hillside building in Palm Desert. As full time residents, we feel strongly
that more building on our beautiful hills will drastically affect our lifestyle and standard of living. Please maintain the
integrity of our wonderful views.
Richard and Sherry Ruffell
Palm Desert
Richard Ruffell
sheruff(�earthlink.net
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
�..)
',:�.:;� ..,`3 k.�..
C:�
�-::3
,.-^'�..;..
� _""
,� ...«�i..._
�ry� 4,��' .
� i���`
{+`" -. ._.
'i ,,.
�' e"i C,
.m �� _ '
� ,��.F .�,.
�` br�`rs
�1 ("!";
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:36 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Building Ordinance--Cahuilla Hills
From: LeeRMarsh@aol.com [mailto:LeeRMarsh@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:50 AM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Building Ordinance -- Cahuilla Hills
I am opposed to an ordinance change being considered by Riverside County that would allow the building of one house
per acre. the current requirement is one house per five acres.
Lee Marshall
73 102 Ajo Lane
Palm Desert CA
92260
IYs only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
_,
�
... .
� _ ..
.�
,�
,1� -
.,,� �,
,� �~�:.
.� ^�s i r. ;
�� — ,
.. �')—r
� ���
� �
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:37 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: hillside development
From: Golf Admin [mailto:golfadmin@ironwoodcountryclub.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:50 AM
To: InformationMail
Subject: hillside development
First of all, I oppose any new buildings on any hillside in palm desert.
When is the city council going to learn that all residents of palm desert do not
Want any hillside development.
The city got away with one with the contstruction of the hagedon house, Bighorn.
I still look right at that house every mourning. It used to be a nice hillside.
The only reason you are considering this project is for the money it will provide the city.
There are other ways to collect income for the city.
Concerned citizen of palm desert
Chris Gutierrez
Lilautz11(cD.aol.com
....�, -
_� _„ `:
�3
'y�
� ��y _.�,..
i� _
:'`«� �...:.t".�'.-
� �„� (9 1;�J ' :
L.�'
r"�,:
?� ;�3 i����:,
.,.nr. ._-3(.._..,.�,..
� �—�'T.i
A' jYx
� i�1
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Giiligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:37 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Ridge Line Development
From: LeeRMarsh@aol.com [mailto:LeeRMarsh@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:42 AM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Ridge Line Development
I am opposed to the proposed ridge line development west and south of St. Margaret's Church off Route 74.
Lee Marshall
73 102 Ajo Lane
Palm Desert, CA
92260
It's only a deal if iYs where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
�._�
�-� .
::�:�
�-.� - __
x�„ .
.�
y�
�°+ .
;,�,� _ .
� yA
::� _. �..._
:,,..,.._..
� - :�;�Y.�,
c-�-,.,
�` �,-
�
�
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:39 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: PALM DESERT HILLSIDE ORDINANCE
From: NLHaase@aol.com [mailto:NLHaase@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:43 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: PALM DESERT HILLSIDE ORDINANCE
We are very much against any exceptions to the Hillside Ordinance that would allow any homes (or other buildings) to be
built on the hillside and ridgeline to the West and South of St. Margaret's Church. After the Hagadon fiasco, I do not
understand why the issue of continued requests for building on any ridgeline continue to be considered. Any request to
build on the ridgeline should be turned down immediately without further discussion.
Why is it that residents must continue to notify the City Council of our feelings on this issue?
I am also very much against change to the current building ordinance in the Cahuilla Hills area from one house per 5
acres to one house per one acre. The requested increase in density is offensive.
The integrity of the Hillside Ordinance (no building on ridgelines) must be held!
Nancy and Gunnar Haase
73203 Ribbonwood Court
Palm Desert, CA 92260
IYs only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
�, _.
� _ _._.
,�.._
:�- -
�
� ,
�•4� ;:�,_,
�+ �
,.�:: �.
�"° �.�,cr,'A._
�..�
"� _ `�M _.
�# �,`�•,
.� >s"C':
� 6•1
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:40 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Hillside Ordinance
From: gern nagler [mailto:gernnagler@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 6:26 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Hiliside Ordinance
How many times are you going to be tested on a subject so dear to the homeowners in south Palm Desert.
PLEASE do not approve any building on the ridge line. I am a resident of Ironwood C.C., so you know why I
am so vocal on this subject. Thank you.
R. Gern Nagler
16190 NW Agave Lane
Palm Desert, CA, 92260
,.,
�
.._., _,.�:.
����
� _
;� -� —
-�,
� r�T;;,'
ti-=_,9,:;,...,..
?'�; -
� ;w,;'i��,��,'
_ "t`.� ..��,
� �'��
•. (�i-<^
+� r�'��'^i
� r=r
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:40 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Integrity of Revised Hillside Ordinance
From: PAUL A MUELLER JR [mailto:pauljane65@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 6:20 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Integrity of Revised Hillside Ordinance
Dear Council Members:
I write as a property owner in Ironwood Country Club whose house sits below the "mansion" in Big Horn
which resulted in the revised Hillside Ordinance. I implore you to deny the Petition regarding a home to be built
on the hillside and ridgeline to the west and south of St. Margaret's Church.
Much study and effort was put into the revised Hillside Ordinance. My wife and i feel that it is so important to
maintain the integrity of this Ordinance. Do not grant this Petition, for once done it will be like a leak in a dike!
Sincerely yours,
Paul A. Mueller, Jr.
_,.7
_:�
�.._:J _'..,_._:.
�..,-r.3 ..,__..
°k."„1s �� �
u"""� ._., �:h ..
_
"`.J ,..., ,_,�';:
�.`91 ""�"r.�.
c,'�� _ ,_:
� � ,.
Y� + m .:
"� -,
-� ;�—*�
t71 �=
e-�
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:40 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Ridgeline construction
-----Original Message-----
From: meyer margie [mailto:margiemae2@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 6:05 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Ridgeline construction
PLEASE do not permit any homes to be built on the Ridgeland off of Hwy 74------Margie Meyer
.,
�
_ ....
,� � __..
_�
:�. �".: _:
��7 _.
�,� .
� .:,;�
a:�a-_, .
P.�
;r.:a. .;.�•
—,-,
�.�:
�� _ �--i'a...
.• {•�...t.y
� .;��
Qti {-1�
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:41 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: CONSTRUCTION OF MONSTER HOMES ON OUR RIDGELINES
From: Judy Peery [mailto:judepeer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:09 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: CONSTRUCTION OF MONSTER HOMES ON OUR RIDGELINES
CITY COUNCIL:
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT MOST NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS BELOW THESE HUGH HOMES
THAT YOU HAVE ALLOWED HAVE TO ENDURE THEIR LIGHTS AND UNSIGHTLY ROOF LINES.
THERE IS NOTHING ATTRACTIVE ABOUT A HOME BUILT IN THE DESERT MOUNTAINS. WE
ARE ALL THERE FOR THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE DESERT....WE THOUGHT YOU PASSED A
LAW AGAINST BUILDING ON RIDGELINES, BUT APPARANTLY THIS COUNCIL IS WILLING TO
MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR MONEY/INCOME GENERATED BY TAXES. YOU PASSED THE LAW,
THERE SHOULD BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO IT. WE ARE PERSONALLY BOTHERED BY
HELICOPTERS THAT HOVER OVER OUR STREET AND GOLF COURSE AND MANY TIMES ARE
BELOW THE 1000 FT. AVIATION LIMIT. YOU ARE JUST ENCOURAGING MORE OF THAT
NUISANCE.
PLEASE DON'T ALLOW OUR SPECIAL PLACE TO BECOME AN OVERDEVELOPED COMMUNITY.
WE LOVE THE PEACE AND QUIET OF THE DESERT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINION,
JOE & JUDY PEERY
49204 QUERCUS LAND ,,
PALM DESERT, CA. 92260 � � -_
,:.�
:�
;.� .
,.,,� :_�;..,
� j'f.,,J'J_,T!I.,:
Cf�Y�!�':,.:�.
�r�o. r ,, .
:� _���..^ .;
_._�l_
C'� — _'.'. 'w
.« `,.�`�
.T' Ir.�.�
� P'�"t
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:42 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Note of concern.. SUMMIT HOMEOWNER... *""*RE-SEND with address correction
Attachments: image.jpg
From: Tommy Imperato [mailto:Tommy.Imperato@fox.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:39 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Note of concern.. SUMMIT HOMEOWNER... ****RE-SEND with address correction
NOTE: Re-send
To Whom it may concern,
Please accept this email as our personal vote against allowing a home to be built on the hillside and
ridgeline to the West and South of St. Margaret's Church off Highway 74. Construction on a ridge
there would likely be very visible to residents of The Summit, to which we are one.
Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter on behalf of myself and my wife.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Imperato (Summit Homeowner)
Thomas A. Imperato
Executive Vice President&Head of Physical Production
20th Century Fox/New Regency Productions, Inc.
10201 West Pico Blvd. Building 12, Suite#110
Los Angeles, CA. 90035
3l D/369-5957(Office)
310/969-0895(Fax)
tommv.imperato(a�foz.com
--� . .
.�....W..—� � ,:�_�.:
_..
� .. _
.w ...- ':�. � '
i�,.0 i��4V 1.#.1?.�..i�.:�Y�-i<..._;.3` �:..� —.;' .
a _.
F'R t:"t I1 C,!'C'.T i[t'.:t.S.t�T[('. :�'� =•�.�
+,3 \„J i.'':
C3"1 '—"'
�`ax
***** Disclaimer Notice ***** ��`
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of t�e in€�rit�ed,
recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prol�ited:��#�:°":�
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. •� ��-��,
.F" ;y,`�
� �'°1
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Giliigan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:23 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Enforce the ridgeline ordinance
From: richard plat [mailto:richard-plat@sbcglobal.net�
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:19 AM
To: InformationMail
Cc: larrysutter@earthlink.net
Subject: Enforce the ridgeline ordinance
Attention Citv CounciL•
I am a resident and tax payer in the city of Palm Desert and I strongly support the existing ordinance
to prevent construction on the ridgelines surrounding our city. One of the beauties and attraction of
Palm Desert is the natural look of the hillsides. By allowing construction on the hillside it may
increase in the short term the tax base of the city but in the longer term decrease the larger tax base
for all the homes on the flat land of the city by making the city a less attractive place to purchase a
home. Palm Desert must continue to maintain the beauty of the city so as to be able to compete for
new residents with cities to the east which already have a more natural environment. I hope our City
Council is not so short sighted as to grant an unwise exception to its recently passed ordinance.
Many homeowner associations are very supportive of the hillside ordinance which was recently
passed to preserve the ridgeline and can be expected to vigorously object to any move by the City
Council to grant exceptions. Homeowner associations are a powerful block of city residents and can
be expected to support City Council members who enforce existing ordinances.
Richard Plat
49580 Canyon View, 92260
_�
�-� _
.� -_.
;��,
��, - .
,�,,
�,;.__
�--y
�.� �; -
�r, ;.,,;'�:;�; .
�� .
� v3 L�: ,.
_..,,_���
� ���
� " �
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:03 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Hiliside Ordinance case#HPR/pp 08-259
Attachments: pd city council hillside ordinance.doc
-----Original Message-----
From: anas2anas@verizon.net [mailto:anas2anas@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:51 AM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Hillside Ordinance case #HPR/pp 08-259
Please see attached letter regarding the above mentioned case number.
Thank you
Teresa Anas
._."a
_�
--7 '";?,..:_
_.�
w.,� .
v`"7 -�mm�'_-
"a3 l::rj,.,, ,.,
e� 1'�i�.�.;r��,,.�,
C.*'i—:w;:�..,�....:
u�n 's-3�',� ...
-.tl"' _..� ...,..��.M.
�.�.� _ G.J i...��
��. -�y��
�♦ �'1"�
..... ,*y��
r�-
.o. ,„q.�
1
/ �..y ,.
�
August 26, 2008
City of Palm Desert
ATTN: City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: City Council Meeting of August 28 and the Hillside Ordinance
On August 28, 2008, under new business, you will be considering a petition to allow
construction on a five acre parcel in the Hillside Planned Residential Zone. (Case No.
HPR/PP 08-259 (Bruce Kuykendall/Barracuda LLC)
As a resident of The Summit in Palm Desert, we are opposed to allowing any exception
to the current Hillside Ordinance. Any exceptions to the current ordinance will only
weaken its integrity and would make it easier to allow further construction on the
hillsides and ridgelines.
Please do not weaken the current Hillside Ordinance by allowing exceptions. We value
our view of the mountains with their natural beauty.
Sincerely,
Teresa Anas
George Anas
72591 Sun Valley Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
760-862-1139 ��, c:
,�.r� ._,.;..�._.
(� _;.
�
�
,� "''�'m ..
.,,�� �:i"'" ..
� t i .:
C!� ",:: ..-,
�" :�:5 L,"+��„
�' _ `'*''_:'C...
_,�
.. a:"?—r�
"'.. `c�{'�
,� �-.�
� J� i�r
��'� � _
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:30 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Hillside Ordinance
From: Xsabl@aol.com [mailto:Xsabl@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:20 AM
To: InformationMail
Cc: larrysutter@earthlink.net; Rob@lovetheview.com; golfer824@yahoo.com; dwgseal@gmail.com;
WABGibbons@aol.com; richard-platt@sbcglobal.net; bunnelles@yahoo.com
Subject: Hillside Ordinance
Dear Council Members,
I understand that you will be acting on a request to grant an exception to the Hillside Ordinance that would allow a home
to be built on the hillside and ridgeline. Your consideration of this exception is of grave concern.
I have applauded the efforts of the Palm Desert City Council and Planning Commissions over the past 20 plus years for
your awareness and commitment to preserve our natural desert beauty. And as a developer, it took some education and
exposure over the years for me to reach the point of understanding the importance of your vision. Right now no other
issue, in my opinion, has been more important than this.
Palm Desert is singularly responsible for setting the standard by which all other desert communities currently aspire,
having blazed the trails into more conservation awareness and protection of natural resources. You have initiated
guidelines and authored ordinances that have insured the protection of our desert views and vistas, our water and
air quality and provided the foundations for healthful living for future generations. Please do not dilute this valuable
ordinance that safeguards the important work you have done.
I urge you to vote against any exception to the Hillside Ordinance and prevent any construction on the ridgelines of our
mountains. The entire Coachella Valley and beyond is looking for your continued strength and leadership to fortify your
position.
Respectfully,
Pamela Sma�lwood
73490 Mountain Vista
Palm Desert, CA 92260
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
,,�,
--� -
--� -�- .
:-�
� .
��
-.:s ;�:;.°,-�;,
� �-;;;�� ,
�,.,_ ,_.
e�., -.
:i� ��,c;i...:
.,..�""'+. ..Wt::�'iW:�
CY} ��)�,,.�
L�J '-�'C;
N �
1
, � - [,j
t ��-� 3�• �� 9^}TI 1��
. a. t� �.i!�
� � � Vg..� I.�i=t7 4.1"� 1 , ,<!��
�''�� ���� �� ��`� ��� 5 '
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA.92260-0611
Re: case No. HPR/08-259 August 23, 2008
Dear Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk,
I am writing in response to your notice of a public hearing regarding the proposed
Hillside residential5 acre parcel in question. I am not in favor of any variance to the
current guidelines concerning these hillside residential developments. If the proposal
does not fit within the guidelines (as adjusted after the Bighorn Hagadon fiasco),then the
project should be rejected.
We are responsible to preserve our mountains,hillsides and especially ridgelines from
aggressive, greedy and unconcerned development! That approved Bighorn project has
gone against every guideline set by the city and I hope that will be the only one ever
allowed in our city. I am angry every time I look out of my window and see that
oversized, and unattractive mess ruining the ridge line.
Please learn from past mistakes and do the job of enhancing but not destroying our
marvelous hillsides and mounta.ins!
Thanks for listening.
Yo s . y, �
W.H.Shank
73131 Ajo Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 776-0075
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:32 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: refer-counci� meeting-Hillside Ordinance
... .... _
From: COOKIOS@aol.com [mailto:COOKIOS@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:18 PM
To: InformationMail
Cc: COOKIOS@aol.com; allanhurst@dc.rr.com; clubmanager@palmdeserttennisclub.com; grthomas98498@comcast.net;
PLandye@comcast.net; RHOLLYOAK@MSN.COM; rchalker@woridnet.att.net; Dan8864775@aol.com; Pete Szambelan;
RFilley649@aol.com
Subject: refer- council meeting-Hillside Ordinance
To Palm Desert Council Members
Refer: City Council Meeting of August 28 and the Hillside Ordinance
I understand you will be considering a petition to allow construction on a 5 acre lot of land
in the hillside planned residential zone. Building on the hillside ridge line is not allowed
per the current ordinance, and would require the council to grant an exception for this
project. As Vice President, Board member and home owner at Palm Desert Tennis Club, I
strongly urge the council to uphold the integrity of the Hillside Ordinance and NOT grant
this request.
The council needs to take the necessary measures to assure that the natural state and
beauty of the ridge line be maintained.
The 32,000 square foot Hagadone property located on the south has destroyed the
natural state of our mountains.
Please don't allow this to happen again. Your decision will impact all 100 homeowners at
our Tennis Club. The Palm Desert Tennis Club Board of Directors supports this letter.
Sincerely,
.�,
�:�
� -.
_.��
�„, ..
Bill Cook �' �-+}
Vice President/Palm Desert Tennis Club -� r ��f� :
� �,__.
72-955 Grass Court Lane � -�`w�� ��
Palm Desert, California 92260 =�F°�'���x
� `�� .
:'c=�
�a �
IYs only a deal if iYs where you want to go. Find your travet deal here.
�
z008-08-z6 17:15 LuAnn 6eckloff 7607i91155 » 7603a0�57t1 P 1/1
73-175 Silverleaf Court
Palm Dcscrt, CA
August 26, 2008
.._a
_,� �._.
_..
�., .._ ,
::_:� �� ..
�
G`"7 ... -
a
"*+,] S�x
C�ty of Palm Desert `�' ��' A°:=-.'
73-5 l 0 Fr�d Waring Drivc � .w�'�"'"
Palm Desert, CA 92260
� < ,�:.:,
� �
.. �-�-
Attention: City Council � ���',
R�: City Council Meeting of August 28 and thc Hillside Ordinance
De2u�C�ty Council Members:
�?,i - � _ . , �• '�s�y�t:��. � �
��m a full-timc resident of Palm DesCrt residing in Imnwood Country Club since 1983.
,,s
It has been brought to my attention that at your August 28``'meetinb you will bc
�vnsidcrin�,a pctition tv allvw construction on a five-acre pazcel v�la�d in�k�e H�llside
Alanned Residential Zone which appears to me to be a diree:t violation of the recent and
important chang�s of the Hiltsidc Ordinance.
Every day, I avoid lookin�at the Hagedone mausoleum which i can see plainly from my
front yard which di�tt'acts sa much from thc bcautiful ridgoline that was vncc thcrc.
P�,EASE,do nol allo�v an exception to be maude to the Hillside Ordinan�e and protect the
inte�rity of the Hillside Ordinance.
As I am sure you aze awate,there is tremendous amount pf support in our community for
mainta.inic�;the nat�iral state of our beautiful hillsides and ridgelines. If this exception is
allowed,there will soon be cluttered ridgelines and eluttered hillsides�d t�,e on�ce
beautifu}matural st�will be non existent.
Tlaaetk yau far yowc�Qnsidera�a��. �
Sincerely, . ,
. .� �C�.t. �
i
Lu Ann Beckloff
r , t
Y' .. . � . . . � u . .,.
.. x ,e 1 , , . ��
. . Yrxl:l�. , , i - �,
J�.,�.I': . .. ... . . .
r: � ' •'Y �li.: .
Racaived "d�`�Aua-26-08 04:58pm '`'" ��rom-L,uAnn Backloff To-CITY OP PALI� DESERT P�ae O1
�; ;
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:32 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Proposed building west&south of St. Margaret's church off Hwy 74
--Original Message-----
From: Keith & Jan Sorensen [mailto:keithjan@telus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:23 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Proposed building west & south of St. Margaret's church off Hwy 74
Dear Council Members:
Please register our vigorous objection to any building on the higher reaches of those
beautiful hillsides to the west of Highway 74
and south of St. Margaret's Church. One of the reasons we bought
into the Palm Desert Tennis Club not long ago was the lovely view of those unspoiled hills.
To watch the sun set behind those pristine hills is one of the highlights of our day. Please
don't allow it to
be spoiled by construction. Yours truly, Keith and 7an
Sorensen (48265 Racquet Lane, Palm Desert).
7an and Keith Sorensen
Hornby Island, B.C.
V0R 1Z0
250-335-2745
keithian�atelus.net
,_ �
.,�
,.:3
.:, � _
-�. -� -
��.. �'�
�.:�, _ -.
:;
��•� ;�-�,r
e�o �,y_,_
���:�;-_...:
�'� '��S iJ^ -
� ' -.,.��,....
"� �°!"'1
�
1
i '
.. • .—+' �+ r_,
' � ri �f i�q�E. '— .. .�}
t � �r:A �, . „�
.- # :.� 4 �_'. n
. . .. � V'` f..._
7�1�'f� �}1�; `�� �`� �; �� ♦- i>,.
� � _,-;
� �= .��.
. � _ Y`
� �
a�
� _.
a
� � � �
� �.
� �
� ,
�
(r � � • � _
� � • �
� �
R , �
- 4
�
�
• ,,.� ,� :. r:��
� �. . ��� ���: �������€ ��� ���.� �
�a�� � � ��
,�."�4�...� .�k� � � �'' ��,,, -�"
��►-.acs��a� ��„�,,.; �
` ���-��),�,� ,
�
�� � '�"
? 3 '�1 ° ���
��,- ���, �.-
pa �- � a :
... . _...�._..'^'/F�`���� r 4 i 3 t • 's ji i i• .
.33. 3 I F •ii:tl�fii3}'t{i!i���t�:i�iF?t�F�?e:f:i?f�