The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes 2013-06 - DP 12-371 - Bighorn DvlpmntCITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN ESTABLISHING UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 25.25.190 AND 25.24.330 SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner APPLICANT: Bighorn Development, LLC. 255 Palowet Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: DATE: CONTENTS: Recommendation DP 12-371 January 24, 2013 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Resolution No. 2o13-ob Legal Notice Preliminary Exemption Assessment and Notice of Exemption for CEQA Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 18, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated December 18, 2012 Objection by Homeowner Pasternack Letter, dated December 17, 2012 Memo from Robert Hargreaves: Assistant City Attomey Lot Owner's Opposition Document presented to Planning Commission Copy of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296 Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2oi3-o6 , approving Development Plan 12-371 as proposed. Commission Recommendation The proposed Development Plan was reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission on December 18, 2012. Staff presented the Development Plan and Resolution No. 2013-06 Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 2 of 19 January 24, 2013 informed the Planning Commission that 596 legal notices had been mailed to property owners within the Canyons at Bighorn, and the owners of property within 300 feet. In response to the mailed legal notices, staff received one opposition letter from an attorney representing a homeowner who lives in the Canyons at Bighorn. Staff addressed the concerns raised in the letter orally at the meeting. Those issues are addressed at a later section in this staff report. After staff's presentation, Mr. Andrew Fogg (attorney for Bighorn) addressed the Planning Commission and summarized staff's comments by pointing out that the modified setbacks will create an effective developable envelope for each lot. After Mr. Fogg spoke, Mr. Gregory Hatten and Ms. Lisa Neal (attorneys) spoke in opposition to the request on behalf of their client Lawrence Pasternack. Mr. Hatten presented a large document referred to as "Lot Owner's Opposition To Bighorn's Development Plan" to the Planning Commission. He highlighted the document in his presentation. That document is provided with this staff report. After Mr. Hatten and Ms. Neal spoke, two attorneys spoke in favor of the Development Plan. One attorney who spoke in favor represents a property owner who is building a home adjacent to Mr. Pasternack. The second attorney who spoke in favor represents Bighom. After the discussion, Commissioner DeLuna moved approval of the Development Plan creating uniform development standards for the Canyons at Bighorn. Commissioner Limont seconded the motion with the comment that this was a heated situation, but she believed from reading the staff report and public testimony, that the City needs to have clear standards for development in the Bighorn area. The motion was approved on a 4- 0 vote, and Commissioner Dash also commented that the City is trying to create something that is uniform. Executive Summanr The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Plan to create uniform development standards within the Canyons at Bighorn for all residential lots within the Planned Residential portion of the project. The Canyons began construction 15 years ago and most of the lots have been built out, with only 26 lots remaining undeveloped. The original approval allowed for 372 lots, however, less than that have been constructed because of lot mergers and other changes during different phases of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. These changes have moved property lines, combined lots or redesigned them around the natural environment, resulting in many of the lots being irregularly shaped, located on sloping lots, abutting curving streets, or containing other conditions that make it difficult and impractical to apply the set of development standards identified on Vesting TT 25296. The Development Plan will provide clarity for uniform development standards that the applicant, developers, builders, and City staff can follow for reviewing and approving new construction. The request will also memorialize the current practice used by Bighorn and staff in reviewing and approving plans. The Development Plan will apply G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 3 of 19 January 24, 2013 for Canyons at Bighorn Resolution No. 2013-06 retroactively to previous approvals due to variations in setback requirements throughout the 15 years of homes being constructed, and will rectify any potential inconsistencies between the tract map and the zoning ordinance. The Development Plan will not modify the overall project in terms of the number of residential lots, grading area, maximum building height, density, or boundary limits. In addition, the plan will not be applied to the portion of the Canyons at Bighorn located in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. Those homes will still be subject to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15 governing all hillside development within the City. Backaround � : C. Property Description: The property known as Canyons at Bighorn is located in south Palm Desert, on the west side of Highway 74. The Canyons at Bighom is a private planned community consisting of single-family homes and villas with a private golf course with amenities supporting the community. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: Planned Residential-Five units per acre (P.R.-5) Planned Residential-Seven units per acre (P.R.-7) Planned Residential-One unit per acre-Drainage Overlay (P.R.-1, D) General Plan: Residential, Low Density (R-L), zero to four units per acre Approval of Tentative Tract Map 25296, Canyons at Bighorn: On July 17, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1456 for TT 25296 with the following conditions for development standards: Setbacks for detached units: Setbacks for attached units Front — 20 feet Side — 5 feet Rear — 10 Feet Front — 20 feet Side — 5 feet Rear — 10 Feet After the Planning Commission approved the project, it was presented to City Council in October of 1990. The project was referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration based on issues that the Bighorn Institute raised about the project density and potential impacts to bighorn sheep. Specifically, G:1Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 4 of 19 January 24, 2013 they were concerned with the mitigation measures in the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR), not the setbacks of the homes. The project was modified by reducing the density by providing more open area and larger lots at the south end of the project that is closest to the Bighorn Institute. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on May 21, 1991, and by the City Council on August 5, 1991. However, as part of the new approval, the applicant changed the setbacks from the uniform ones shown above to eight different sets of standards that were assigned according to lot number and lot type assigned in tables on the map. The lot types varied from Lot 1 to Lot 8. Each lot type is identified as a rectangular lot with certain setbacks described below: _.........�... :�....._� ._ w; +.7� �«'s"'� .. . .._.. . M.� � <w ..t? "' a � , �" r ��'�� ».,.,. .. . . �J....� . �� . . . ... , . _i • ••••. Y.^4wY � , n4txY � � � � � �l�Me.k � i ..,_. .....� .._. ...... . � , :._.... .. , z _. . s E' : . _. _ _ .3..R �.9..Jt uw x „xwc.� _ :.x,a .» .�.z.. a ........._...,...,m.... X....,..« . .,.._.. _ �. ... aQtatY�F J t�}t rT.Yp� 7t � « � . «,.� ... .. ,� .. � .. . . «e .» .S '" �rw.� s-,�e�� s ..: i"5s"+w: > .w �...i........�...:..: , t,..�. : � � � � � € ..R. z. ' ....... ...... ...�. ,.. _. . � : . . ,_� . � ; �, €' ...�... ^ v �..+Y. S f +. �..�fiAr f �n....`.� � � 3� � � � ..X�'ew. _.: j .e,. �_...; . »....._ �. , W. T i �'RV.lk, .. , .. .�.,..R "�...a ( f :.+a ;» +.»:.x« w.� .m v......... � ,. � .,...,..... �.. ._ ...,� .\ . iRt �t1riR„� 6�I..TYi'� ! i�TT T!� � . N".. :�.. .....^a . . ... *�. « C�tiB.4'� „F'l�,,,, ,(: Ps7 � _ �` . ;.� , ".} :e. , ,».� ;T«—�: � ..�s i�,.0 a,uerswe:a+��s .u�aw.t I +��+ww ;wx,�a. b f } t � " �am'+VY3 :�C7WR = �a�rKmc j #.i« � �. ...� . . � fr-'C .^r 9LT'� %'L13� 3L� � ti8."Wk."ze � >,.:r�r ` � � ,� y �./sw, q � ..�...«.. � ' . 9 � . ;� L, ♦ ' f M:�� . 'M' � ' �� 4K�ae� � t A` � � i'^Yetf i �. •,qN'r � Y � � �w' ,�/ �A�vH�t,I� � . j S�C' , � 'a++ k a' �K mr%�i l f JY ,« . -t^Y^� +*'4(s -. a aMw � '� ir ss:ai; � � ..,.a. �,..ne» a �.r «� ,r...,. ... �.... , ;, �er ,.�» , ; � . •r �' � `i ' .....x.�e � ; ., ...,,.v € .. .......` �t..'.,` I � , e.� ,, t.._.._.. _ �... _. _.,..._t.. .... .._..�... �„�< � rre� a uar rwx x uzx ,xx�n . .. _ ...,,.- . ,. ..... ......... .. ... ... .._..... . ... � ,.,..... . . .., _ . . (Vesting TT 25296 provided on full size attached) Since the applicant provided the development standards on the map, the conditions of approval were modified to state that the setbacks "Shall be identified on the map." This replaced the uniform set of standards approved by Planning Commission Resolution 1456 described above. Neither the City nor the Bighorn Institute required that the setbacks be modified. This modification was proposed by the applicant. After the project was approved in 1991, amendments to the project were approved in 1992 and 1997. Again, the conditions of approval referred to the lot types identified on the map, and the condition of approval for setbacks states: "That the setbacks for dwelling in this project shall be as shown on map exhibits." G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 5 of 19 January 24, 2013 In addition to the changes in the conditions of approval, the lots as physically graded today have been modified from the amended Vesting TT 25296. During the project grading, the applicant was allowed to modify the lots and streets on site to minimize grading by incorporating the natural terrain and topography as much as possible. Furthermore, the original lot configuration and numbers were changed by the different phases of the original map, and by parcel map waivers that moved or combined property lines. These modifications are typical in large planned communities that take a number of years to construct. However, the changes resulted in different lot numbers on the lots as they exist today from the numbers on original map. In addition, the modifications changed the physical shape of the lots making them larger and irregularly shaped. Many lots are now located on slopes, abut curving streets, or contain other conditions that make it difficult to apply the development standards identified on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. The exhibits on the approved map illustrate rectangular lots that do not match the current shapes of the lots in the Canyons as shown below: m_ _ �"~�,� ��c:,,,,, l�% � �/ �� \ '1�a-rraaa�i ^.. t+oases: o �� t � � �N�ous�s#':6 7 APN:77t10RDDS Haame�IP: S�iA Ai*N: 7itAtlCfMB -4 tiwaseaC �iS This makes it difficult to determine what the length and depth of the lots are, and this information is needed in order to determine which of the 8 types of lots a parcel is. The changes described above make it difficult for staff to determine what setbacks should be applied to lots. For example, what is shown on the original map as Lot 198, a rectangular lot designated as Type 2, may now be G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 6 of 19 January 24, 2013 twice as large, roughly square in shape, meeting the criteria for Lot Type 1, and numbered 26. Proiect Description The applicant is requesting approval of a new Development Plan for the Canyons at Bighorn to create uniform development standards for all residential lots within the Planned Residential Zone of the Canyons at Bighorn. As described above, many of the lots have been modified since the original approval in 1997. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296 identifies setbacks for different lot types, all of which are rectangular form. However, the modified lots are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it difficult and impractical to apply the set of development standards identified on Vesting TT 25296. To address these issues, the applicant is proposing a Development Plan to create a new set of development standards that will be the same for each lot. The proposed Development Plan will not be applied to the lots designated Hillside Planned Residential. Those lots will continue to be subject to Section 25.15, which governs all the standards for hillside residential properties within the City of Palm Desert. The Development Plan will be applied to the area identified in Exhibit A, identified on the following page, and in the draft Resolution for adoption. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 7 of 19 January 24, 2013 _....... ,�''/� � . �.�� i�.' a � �XH�B�T "�" �� ,� . .. .. . . . .. .... .. . . ......... ,, ..,_�.. .. . .. , . . ,. „ , .� , .. .,� The proposed Development Plan is as follows: A. Incorporation of Chapter 25.24 Development Standards Except as otherwise modified by this Development P/an or a subsequent action of the City's P/anning Director, as set forth below, the Deve/opment Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Deve/opment Plan. 8. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the fol/owing minimum yard deve/opment standards shall apply to habitable structures G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 8 of 19 January 24, 2013 (primary residence, inc/uding garage or guest residence) located within the P/an Area: Minimum Front Yards — 15 Feef Minimum Rear Yards — 10 Feet Minimum Side Yards — 5 Feet C. Q E, r G Non-habitab/e and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walls, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanical equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. Minimum Separation Between Buildinqs Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buildings, including two-story elements of sing/e-family detached homes, sha/l be at /east 10 feet. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts Notwithstanding the standards building height shall be 20 feet. Section 26.56.300 sha/l app/y t P/an. Maximum Buildinq Coveraqe set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of o structures within the area of this Deve/opment The maximum building site coverage on any /ot shall not exceed 60 percent of the total /ot area. Modifications of Standards in Site Plan The Planning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Development Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Such decisions of the Planning Director may be appea/ed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapfer 25.86 of the Municipa/ Code. Effect of Development P/an In accordance with Sections 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the deve/opment standards contained in this Development Plan shall govern and control all development within the plan area. In the event that different or conflicting deve/opment standards are stated in any tentative or final subdivision G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 9 of 19 January 24, 2013 map for the plan area or in any other provision of law, the provisions of this Development P/an sha/l supersede such standards and control. A/l development within the plan area shall comply with this Development P/an. 11. Retroactive Application Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Deve/opment P/an shall be treated as though the reso/ution approving this Development P/an had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. Analvsis Until recently, staff relied on approval by the Bighorn homeowner association when determining the development standards for reviewing and approving new construction in the non-hillside portion of the Canyons at Bighorn. This was the standard practice for staff and Bighorn for finro reasons. First, given the changes to the physical lots and lot numbers as described above in the "Background" section of the staff report, it can be difficult to determine which setbacks to use for each lot given the actual lot numbers have changed from the original map. In addition, the physical shapes or sizes of some of the lots have changed so that they are irregularly shaped, which makes it difficult to figure out how to apply a setback standard used for rectangular lots shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. The second reason staff has relied on the homeowner association's approval, is that Bighorn has an Architectural and Landscape Review Committee that must review and approve all construction for individual homes in accordance with the Bighorn Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines. The guidelines were adopted with the original CC&Rs approved with Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. The Architectural and Landscape Design guidelines require each lot to be developed with: a"Building Envelope Boundary" for physical improvements, a"Transition Area" that is visible from the golf course, streets or adjacent homeowners, and a"Natural Area" that must be included to provide a natural area between the Building Envelope and golf course or natural areas. See the Building Envelope Diagram on the following page: G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 10 of 19 January 24, 2013 � �. � �, � � �,..., � ��.� � � f� �' � ;�'"'".�' ..... � ''�� "'..�r,,c..M-!" � t � 1 / f /� `�``/ t � �i � �� 1 � � � `"�w. "„«:, `~A, » ...�.., � � � �� il r�""` iia+a�rrcr +�oanr�iirr,�r � Ati�sws ttnra ii:u porti� af dsr fl�rrXiu� �'mr� vrif�ach i► nna �rirx�6e ;�x+�m xtec �# c�c,�xc. �rccti ar� "�a�sbq'rt'r� �rc Haae�sitiac be�uac � is scr+trncd b� peiwacy sKx11s. Mt�d'ar� a�Ntaar ad�sr ia�d+c� elrancrtsa� Br��nrveloPe a;y �� zmptc�r�rR:. rv:hc tic�xres;Ke r�ss xaakc plaa�c. " is�ersri�►rr rir�aa 7�u p�iat oi �riidr� �'Raniopr whieh ie viuribie Fxxin �'th�e rau�c. wrrrst aad , n Fi�aises> � � � � � t {�...� � A[ � � "�... «.,� ��,�'`�„�� ` ti, �' -�., .�,..� '�,.,,,.'" M1 "~'- -.... .�,.. ...... -..,.- """"' ""� �,,,, �"^^ '�.. ",^. ��`""t^�•,�,.�,�„� -`""` _--�w•,--.,,„,,. .�... """' ..�„ -�.�. --.., .._., ..�,,. . �+�:�,,: '^� «. y ""�. 1Vatarat tl,ru �"""'9r+"'�""'" »..., Thsu p�acs a�:i� . No�tim x�Aic#� 1ux eaursa� thc $ui1d�� nrciopt. 1�i�urar � - :�ustdix,� L�'rwelo;�+c .�i�grnm .,,. .... r.__.._..._..._._.„_. ,., ..�.... ......_..__,_.T... _ . .,.... ,�I Based on these two reasons, staff has historically approved new construction by reviewing construction plans with an approval letter from Bighorn's Architectural and Landscape Committee. This is not atypical in Palm Desert, where staff has relied on private communities to determine the development of individual lots for setbacks. Such communities are given leeway in governing their appearance, since the residents themselves are the primary audience; the homes and streets are not viewable from the public right-of-way. In Bighorn, this practice has been part of creating a high end resort community without complaints to City staff until recently, when a homeowner (Lawrence Pasternack) began ligation with Bighorn Development. City staff understands the issue with Mr. Pasternack's home to be that it was built closer to the property line than the original map allowed; however, it was approved by the Bighorn Architectural and Landscape Review Committee and City staff. Over the last year (since staff became aware of the litigation), staff has looked at setbacks in Bighorn G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 11 of 19 January 24, 2013 more closely. In April, staff approved construction plans for a new home adjacent to Mr. Pasternack. Staff researched conditions of approval for Bighorn, and approved the home based on the original Planning Commission setbacks in 1991 that allowed the 5- foot side yard setback. After the home began construction, it came to staff's attention that staff may have used the wrong setback in reviewing and approving the plans, because it was based on a complaint from Mr. Pasternack. After further research, staff determined that the adjacent home is a Lot Type 4, which requires a 5-foot setback. In response to issues such as these, Bighorn Development is requesting approval of a Development Plan to modify the standards within the Canyons of Bighorn. The proposed Development Plan will provide uniform standards for all the lots within the non-hillside portion of the Canyons at Bighorn and will allow the continuation of current practices that have yielded an outstanding result over the last 15 years. The modified setbacks will create a developable envelope for each lot, and will rectify any potential setback issues related to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. The Development Plan will not change the density, grading, or approved maximum building height of 20 feet, and will not apply to the hillside residential properties. Approving a Development Plan requires a public hearing and notification to existing property owners, and owners of property within 300 feet. For the Planning Commission hearing, staff mailed 596 legal notices with the proposed Development Plan standards to each property owner within Bighorn, and to owners of property within 300 feet of the Canyons at Bighorn. In response to the legal notices, staff received one letter in opposition from an attorney representing Mr. Pasternack (attached). The following information was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, is staff's response to the issues raised in the opposition letter. Objection by Homeowner Pasternack Letter, dated December 17, 2012 1. Complete application not made available: On Thursday, December 13, 2012, Mr. Hatten (attorney representing Mr. Pasternack) came to the counter and discussed the legal notice Mr. Pasternack had received. He requested a copy of the Development Plan for his review. Staff informed him that the legal notice provided all the information with the proposed development standards on it. Staff informed him that the only additional information would be the staff report and resolution, which would not be available until December 14, 2012, when the Planning Commissioners packets were delivered. No further documents or information was requested by Mr. Hatten before the packets were delivered. The following Monday, December 17, 2012, Mr. Hatten was given the staff report and resolution presented to the Planning Commission. 2. Not consistent with the General Plan Community Design Element: In response to that point, staff citied the following Goals from the Community Design Element (Page III-151 and 152) that the request is consistent with the General Plan. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 12 of 19 January 24, 2013 Goal 2 "As aesthetically pleasing community appearance achieved on all levels, which preserves and enhances the City's resort identity, community image and natural setting." Goal 3 "Standards of community design, architecture, and landscaping that enhances land use and development efficiencies and are integrated with the City's desert setting and natural scenic resources." In addition to the citied section, the Bighorn Architectural and Landscape Guidelines (2-1) states: "the goal of BIGHORN is to achieve harmony with nature by blending all improvements with the existing Sonoran Desert and Santa Rosa Mountains." Staff believes that the Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan. 3. Does not comply with CEQA: According to the letter, the proposed Development Plan should require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Canyons at Bighorn is already developed and all previous mitigation measures from the EIR approved in the 1990's have been implemented. The proposed Development Plan will modify the standards for each home on individual lots that were previously graded. The Development Plan will not result in any physical (built), land use, or density changes to the Canyons at Bighorn. In fact, adoption of the Development Plan facilitates continuation of the practices that have been employed over the last several decades to achieve a preeminent residential development. Based on these facts, staff has determined that the project is considered a Class 5 Categorical Exemption (15305) for "minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density." If a project is determined to be exempt, it does not require an EIR as part of the request and approval process. 4. Standards in Vesting Tentative Tract 25296 are clear and simple: The standards on the map are based on a designated "Lot" type indentified in the "Lot and Grading Summary". The table identifies each lot as a certain "Lot Type". The Lot Type determines the setbacks based on rectangular lots. As described above, the original lots numbers have been changed over the past 15 years from different phasing maps or lot mergers changing the size of some of the original lots. That makes it difficult to determine which Lot Type a particular lot is supposed to be. In addition, many lots within the Canyons at Bighorn are not rectangular as illustrated on Vesting Tentative Tract 25296. They are irregularly shaped, fronting on curved streets, and in some cases several feet higher or G:\PlanninglTony BagatolStaff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 13 of 19 January 24, 2013 lower than the adjacent pads. These physical constraints make it difficult to correlate a specific Lot Type to different size lots. Creating a uniform set of standards would be clear and simple compared to the existing standards. 5. Interferes with the CC&Rs: The City cannot address this issue, since it is not party to the CC&Rs, which are a private matter befinreen Bighorn and the homeowners. However, the Bighorn homeowner association will continue to review and approve all new construction based on the Bighorn Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines as is required by the CC&Rs, and as has been standard practice over the years. Each home will be designed to the following standards in the guidelines: :4�uturaCArro �"ranstfr`on Rteu � i � Pritwte r�`rea � i i'mnsil�ian eairca � �, ,-%A�,.-"`'��.. � i . � ` ,�,' �,, �,w��:, �.. � � �% �� .•',Sf� '�� ' r�, S' t� � L ✓ �: � '� .-��, ,�• � a r i � '�, • �.�...� � � �. �� , �` r� ; � �� l �. f;� � � Lush �tcas ia Tranxitzarr Zara` _ encloscd by waIis, -.; " "��.. �� . �� P �`s �„ f� Landsc�pe chacaccer transitionx fmm Natu:alRrra to lux�tct �Y!'4`fitC.�1"!R CAiiIL171tC�S. � � � E . , ° �,, ; `� L.ush cr�rm�axd oxsas �tantin�. jua3cious use rrf wateneor�,res a�kn�awIed�es water in €h� desrrt as a °�+teeiaux ec�rttmc3c3it4". f�AFli7t4�.r�1"M � i . ✓ • 3 "'�ti"1,� ' \ �, � � �: ..t � � '� � � . � � i� , " y �•' • ^Fhw 1..' . 14'r,�ure b -�esert �ivrrra Stter Pl,a�ti�zg �'onrt�pP � � ..,�`�. � Liris�rsvay a�i�ment dircccs taSiTO(S LO �tG3pi t�U(kG 6. Bighorn has no right to seek approval that will negativity impact the majority of the homeowners: The request for development standards is similar to a rezone or modification to the zoning ordinance, and has been processed accordingly. In some cases, these requests are made by an individual property owner or a group that has an interest in an area being changed. Staff reviews such requests and determines if they will benefit the majority of the residents in G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development PIanlCity Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 14 of 19 January 24, 2013 that area. In this case, Bighorn owns vacant lots and is responsible for managing the Canyons private community. Staff has reviewed the request and believes it will benefit the majority of #he homeowners and the City by establishing consistent development standards that remove any uncertainty for new construction and potential disputes. 7. Most lots are rectangular on flat land: Many of the lots within the Canyons are not a perfect rectangle as shown in the development standards of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. Every lot fronts onto a curved street which creates some irregularity in the lots. In some cases, the lots are more circular than rectangular, as shown on Page 5 of the staff report. In addition, the lots in Bighorn are graded to a flat pad for a future home site; however, some lots vary significantly in elevation from the adjacent lot. The following exhibit illustrates the fact that individual lots are irregularly shaped and higher than one another. � :g h �. �� . x;� � Y�. .� . -��y S' w,r � 4 ,� � �f .i 3. ;,�1. .. � ., : . . .,,,,,,,, :� � �� 4 mm '"�:J �;;.%' /%" .�µ` � . • �,. � ` > ,I✓�"' • , .� �, ,.,,.,, ... .�., `� ��.\-....;A....� M l d / � � F > . ,f$Y� k v ` .� ,„_. .. , ` `j ' f •. r .. j � � a•r:ww ;'.r f�t �,� � �.,` .,'' F, �\�" . '� ' . , f�,:j .. . -. \Z M~ , _ • �\ ` � � 4� , � �` � .. In this exhibit, Lot 22 has a pad height elevation of 712 feet. From Lot 22 to Lot 19, each pad drops 6 feet in elevation from each other. This makes Lot 22 G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 15 of 19 January 24, 2013 approximately 17 feet higher than Lot 19 which is three lots away from Lot 22. In another example, Lot 19 is 12 feet higher than the immediately adjacent Lot 18. 8. Seeks approval for litigation reasons: City staff does not know firsthand, and therefore cannot confirm, the reason for any applicant's submission of a request. However, in staff's opinion, the request by Bighorn Development is not unreasonable and does provide a benefit to the City in terms of clarifying development standards and simplifying the review of proposed residential projects in the development. Bighom representatives report that they are proposing the Development Plan to create more flexibility to design each home in accordance with the Bighorn's Architectural and Landscape Guidelines. The guidelines focus on blending the homes into the natural area to capture the views looking at the golf course or natural view sheds surrounding the private community. The Development Plan will memorialize City staff's current practice of reviewing and approving plans by Bighorn that has resulted in a beautiful, upscale resort community. Lastly, the Development Plan will rectify any potential inconsistencies between the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296 and zoning ordinance. 9. Conflict with BB&K / BB&K represents both Bighorn and the City: Best Best and Krieger (BB&K) has worked with Bighorn in the past for legal reasons unrelated to this matter. The attorney representing Bighorn in this matter is Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP. BB&K has prepared a memo that is attached to this report in response to this concern. Conclusion The proposed Development Plan will create uniform development standards for the non-hillside residential lots within the Canyons at Bighorn. The Development Plan will memorialize the current practice used by Bighorn Development and City staff in reviewing and approving construction plans. The Development Plan will apply retroactively to previous approvals due to variations in setback requirements throughout the 15 years of homes being constructed, and will rectify any potential setback issues related to the conditions of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. The Development Plan will not modify the overall project in terms of the number of residential lots, grading area, maximum building height, density, or boundary limits. It will not change the land use and will only be applied to individual residential lots that have been previously graded. In addition, the plan will not be applied to the portion of the Canyons at Bighom located in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. Those homes will continue to be subject to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15 governing all hillside development within the City. Staff is recommending approval of the Development Plan, and that the City Council adopt the Findings: G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighom Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 16 of 19 January 24, 2013 Findinqs 25.24.330 Approval Criteria "The Planning Commission and/or City Council may approve a development plan only after finding that the requirements of this title and other ordinances affecting the property have been satisfied. In granting such approval, the City Council may impose and enforce such specific conditions as to site development, phasing and building construction, maintenance and operation as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and the General plan." 1. The proposed Development Plan is in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance; 25.24.010-Purpose, states: "It is the purpose of the PR (Planned Residential) disfrict to provide for f/exibility in deve/opment, creafive and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of /and as coordinated projects invo/ving a mixture of residentia/ densities and housing types, and community facilities, both public and private. The PR district is further intended to provide for the opfimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments. The PR district is a/so established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land deve/opment techniques will be given reasonab/e consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval." (Ord. 94 § 1, 1975: Exhibit A§ 25.14-1) The Canyons at Bighorn is a high-end, upscale private community that has focused on developing homes that view into fhe open space, golf course, and natural view sheds by incorporating the natural terrain into the grading of the project. The views of the deve/opment are not to the interior side yards of the individual homes adjacent fo one another. Many of the lots are irregular in shape and size, which makes following the original map requirements difficult due fo the fact they provide standards for rectangular lots. In addition, the phasing of the original map has changed the original lot numbers shown in fhe table that determines the lot type for individual residential lot. This has made it difficult to determine the standards to be used for new construction. The proposed Deve/opment Plan will create deve/opment standards that will provide the applicant, land developers, homeowners, and City staff assurance and standardization of setbacks for new construction with the Canyons at Bighorn. In addition, the standards provide flexibility if needed, by a/lowing for modification of the plan to be approved by the P/anning Director or his/her designee. 2. The proposed Development Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 17 of 19 January 24, 2013 The proposed Development Plan will not result in any physical changes to the original approval of the overa/l project in terms of the number of residential lots, grading, maximum building height, or any boundary limits that would create a potential impact to public health, safety or general welfare, or that will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Canyons at Bighorn. The Development Plan will memorialize the standard practice of staff re/ying on Bighorn's Architectural and Landscape Committee's approva/ for new construction. This is typical in Palm Desert for other high-end, upscale private deve/opments. The Canyons at Bighorn has developed into an exceptional private community over the past 15 years with this standard of practice. The Development Plan will not be detrimental to improvements in the area. Staff believes it will be beneficial to the improvements in the area by establishing a trustworthy plan of regulations that removes uncertainty for new construction and potential issues or disputes. This benefit improves property rights, and may increase the property tax base of these properties. The portion of the development zoned Hillside Planned Residential will continue to be subject to the standards identified in Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15, which governs deve/opment on the Hillside to protect the surrounding properties in the vicinity. As for new construction of individual homes within the Canyons, all construction will continue to be required to meet the State of California Uniform Building Code and other provisions of the municipal code, and to be constructed in compliance with OSHA regulations and other /aws designed to protect the safety of the public. The Deve/opment Plan will establish new, uniform deve/opment standards for a/l new construction of single-family homes in the Planned Residential portion of the development. Conformance with the General Plan "No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan." The proposed Development Plan will create uniform standards for Bighorn that follows the current practice used by staff and the Bighorn Architectural and Landscape Committee to review new construction that preserves the natural viewsheds and golf course views of the existing and future homes. Other than Mr. Pasternack, staff is aware of any complaints about approving setbacks based on approval by Bighorn's Architectural and Landscape Committee over the past 15 years. Approving this Development Plan is consistent with the following goals and policies in the Community Design Element (Page III-151 and 152) of the General Plan: Goal 2 "As aesthetica/ly pleasing community appearance achieved on all levels, which preserves and enhances the City's resort identity, community image and natural setting. " G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorn Page 18 of 19 January 24, 2013 Goa/ 3 "Standards of community design, architecture, and landscaping that enhances land use and development efficiencies and are integrated with the City's desert setting and natural scenic resources." Policy 4 "Equally apply City community design standards to all private and public sector development to assure of the community's scenic viewsheds, provide community cohesion and enhance the image of the City as a premier resort community." Policy 6 "Specific Plans shall continue to be used to establish area-specific land use and development standards and guidelines that address community design goals for the area. " Environmental Review According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result in a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant impact on the environment. In this case, staff has determined that the proposed Development Plan is a project subject to CEQA. Staff conducted a preliminary assessment of the project and determined that it is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption (15305) for "minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density." The non-hillside portion of the Canyons at Bighorn is located in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent. In addition, the proposed Development plan will only modify the development standards for new construction on existing residential lots that have been previously graded and mitigated as part of the original EIR approved for the Canyons at Bighorn. Approving the Development Plan will not result in any changes to the land use, density, or environment. Adoption of the Development Plan will approve continuance of existing practices. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment and Notice of Exemption are provided with the staff report. Since the project is exempt, no further environmental review is necessary. There are no significant impacts to the environment and an EIR is not required. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff Report_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 for Canyons at Bighorrt Page 19 of 19 January 24, 2Q13 Fiscal Impact There is no direct fiscal impact to the City related to the proposed Development Plan. Su�y. Tony Baga o, Principal F�lanner Department Head: __-- _--� � Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development � � J �ger CITY COVNCILA�- ON APPROVED �� R EIVED OTHER �j�� -1�� 20/3 - c)(o MEET p � l�- ,�5�- �fY,� � AYE5: T ��Pr, �.rd/�i�i� NOES• � �1 ABSErrrs ��/�l' ' ABSTAIl�T:..L��N'-; � VERIFIED BY: � S � Originat on Fil� with City erk's Office G:\PianninglTony Bagato\Staff ReportsiCanyons at Bighorn Development Plan\City Council Staff fZepoR_Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2013-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PORTION OF THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONE. CASE NO. DP 12-371 WHEREAS, the Canyons at BIGHORN Project is located within the City's existing Planned Residential (PR) District Zone; and WHEREAS, the Canyons at BIGHORN Project has been developed over an approximately 15-year period as a planned master community comprised predominately of individually designed custom homes; and WHEREAS, many of the subdivided lots in the Canyons at BIGHORN Project are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make a literal application of rigid development standards impractical; and WHEREAS, the individual structures constructed at the Canyons at BIGHORN Project have been developed in an effort to achieve neighborhood harmony and consistency while preserving significant views and other community aesthetics; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and approved various site plans for the Canyons at BIGHORN Project pursuant to which individual structures have been constructed; and WHEREAS, Sections 25.240.190 and 25.240.330 of the City's Municipal Code authorize the City to approve a Development Plan for properties located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone, as shown in Exhibit A, to establish standards for development within the area covered by such Development Plan; and WHEREAS, BIGHORN has requested that the City consider the adoption of a Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone, and the City has determined that it is in the best interests of the City as well as the residents of the BIGHORN Project for the City to adopt a Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone in order to clarify and confirm the development standards for development within such area shall be governed by the Development Plan approved by the City; and WHEREAS, in order to avoid any potential confusion that may exist regarding approval of structures in the area subject to this Development Plan, the City desires to confirm that individual structures approved for development in the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone pursuant to and in conformance with an approved site plan and a City-issued RESOLUTION NO. building permit are and have been consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's Municipal Code. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14 § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 2012-20, and City staff reviewed the Project and prepared a Preliminary Exemption Assessment; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption (15305) for "minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density.", and an Notice of Exemption was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of December, 2012, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC. for approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2594 has recommended approval of the Project DP 12-371; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert does hereby resolve to approve the following Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone: I. Development Plan for the qortion of the Canvons at BIGHORN Proiect located within the Citv's PR Planned Residential District Zone: A. Incorporation of Chapter 25.24 Development Standards Except as otherwise modified by this Development Plan or a subsequent action of the City's Planning Director, as set forth below, the Development Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Development Plan. B. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the following minimum yard development standards shall apply to habitable structures (primary residence, including garage or guest residence) located within the Plan Area: Minimum Front Yards — 15 Feet 2 RESOLUTION NO. Minimum Rear Yards — 10 Feet Minimum Side Yards — 5 Feet Non-habitable and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walls, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanical equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. C. Minimum Separation Between Buildinqs Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buildings, including two-story elements of single-family detached homes, shall be at least 10 feet. D. Maximum Buildinp Heiqhts Nofinrithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum building height shall be 20 feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 26.56.300 shall apply to structures within the area of this Development Plan. E. Maximum Buildina Coveraqe The maximum building site coverage on any lot shall not exceed 60 percent of the total lot area. F. Modifications of Standards in Site Plan The Planning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Development Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Such decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code. G. Effect of Development Plan In accordance with Sections 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the development standards contained in this Development Plan shall govern and control all development within the plan area. In the event that different or conflicting development standards are stated in any tentative or final subdivision map for the plan area or in any other provision of law, the provisions of this Development Plan shall supersede such standards and control. All development within the plan area shall comply with this Development Plan. 3 RESOLUTION NO. II. Retroactive Application: Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Development Plan shall be treated as though the resolution approving this Development Plan had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council held on this day of , 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAN C. HARNIK, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 4 RESOLUTION NO. LEGEND: PROPOSED OEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA r,�i.�.� EXHIBIT "A" � � x � � ,._�� 5 C�1V OF ��ll�i� �BSEI��I 73-5�o Fkeo WnkiNc Dwve Pu.ni DeseK7, CAUFORNIA 92260-2S7ii TEL: ]GO 346-06�� F,v�: 760 ;qi-7og8 in(oC�pal m-dc>crcurg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. 12-371 NOTICE OF INTFNT TO ADOP7 NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.25.190 AND 25.24.330 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT LLC, has submitted a request for approval of a new Development Pian for the Canyons at Bighorn. Many of the subdivided lots in the Canyons at Bighorn development are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it impractical to apply any set of rigid development standards. To address these issues, the applicant is proposing a Development Plan to create a new set of development standards that will be the same for each lot, except for the Hillside properties. The Exhibit below identifies the properties that the Development Plan will be applied to: �I� owo�s� DEVEIOaMErii I � EXHIBIT "A" The proposed Development Plan is as follows: � A Ig incorporation of Chaaier 25.24 Develooment Standards � Except as oEherwise modified by this Development Plan or a subsequent action of the City's Planning Director, as set forth below, the Development Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Development Pian. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the following minimum yard development standards shall apply to habitable structures (primary residence (including garage) or guest residence) located within the Plan Area: Minimum Front Yards — Fifteen Feet Minimurn Rear Yards — Ten Feet Minimum Side Yards — Five Feet Non-habitable and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walls, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanical equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures, may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. Minimum Separation Between Buildinas Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buildings, including two-story elements of single family detached homes, shall be at least ten feet. Maximum Buildinq Heiahts Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum building height shall be twenty feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 26.56.300 shall apply to structures within the area of this Development Plan. Maximum Buildinq Coveraqe The maximum building site coverage on any lot shall not exceed sixty percent of the total lot area. Modifications of Standards in Site Plan The Planning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Development Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Pianning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code. Effect of Development Plan In accordance with Sections 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the development standards contained in this Development Plan shall govern and control all development within the plan area. In the event that different or conflicting development standards are stated in any tentative or final subdivision map for the plan area or in any other provision of law, the provisions of this Development Plan shall supersede such standards and controi. All development within the plan area shall comply with this Development Plan. Retroactive Application Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Development Plan shall be treated as though the resolution approving this Development Plan had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert City Council on Thursday January 24, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the request 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. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk January 12, 2013 �. City of Palm Desert, California PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: I Canyons at Bighorn amended Development Plan E 3 Project Location — Entity or person undertaking project: 4. Staff Determination: The project site is located on the east side of Highway 74 at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. See attached map for location. A. Bighorn Development, LLC I B. Other (Private) I I (1) Name � l I (2) Address � 255 Palowet Drive, Palm Desert CA, � I 92260 The project will not result in any physical changes to the existing development. It will not change the land use, increase the density or change the environment. The project will modify the development standards for new construction on individual lots that have already been graded. All previous mitigation measures as a result of the original approval have been implemented for the existing condition that the project will not change. The Lead Agency's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. ❑. I The project is a Ministerial Project. c. ❑ I The project is an Emergency Project. d. ❑ I The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. � The project is categorically exempt. I Applicable Exemption Class: i 15305-Class 5: Minor Alterations in Land Use � Limitations f � h Date: ❑ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: ❑ The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: ❑ I The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. + Name of Lead Agency: December 11, 2012 Staff: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM "A" NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: Office of Planning and Research P. O. Box 3044, Room 212 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 ❑ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or � County Clerk County of: Riverside County I 1. Project Title: 2. Project Location — Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 3. (a) Project Location — City: (b) Project Location — County: 4. 5. 6. 7 � ( 8. 9. 10. Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries of Project: Name of Public Agency approving project: Name of Person or Agency undertaking the project, including any person undertaking an activity that receives financial assistance from the Public Agency as part of the activity or the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement of use from the Public Agency as part of the activity: Exempt status: (check one) (a) ❑ Ministerial project. (b) ❑ Not a project. (c) ❑ Emergency Project. (d) � Categorical Exemption. I State type and class number: j (e) ❑ Declared Emergency. (� ❑ Statutory Exemption. ' State Code section number: (g) ❑ Other. Explanation: FROM: Tony Bagato, City of Palm Desert Community Development / Planning 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 ! DP 12-371 Canyons at Bighom Development Plan The project site is located on the east side of Nighway 74 at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. See attached map for location City of Palm Desert — Riverside County Creating uniform development standards related to setbacks, building setbacks, lot coverage, etc. for construction on individual lots. City of Palm Desert Bighom Development 15305-Class 5: Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations The Development Plan will not result in any land use changes, Reason why project was exempt: density changes, or environmental changes to the existing community. The Plan only modifies development standards for � existing residential lots. Contact Person: � Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Telephone: �(760) 346-0611 ext. 480 Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A") before filing. . � � Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) � < T )�b Signature (Lead Ager�y Representative) Princinal Planner Title I � � - --� J � I � Notice of Exemption FORM "B" � CITY OF PALM DESERT � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN CREATING UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 25.25.190 AND 25.24.330 SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner APPLICANT: Bighorn Development, LLC. 255 Palowet Drive Paim Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: DP 12-371 DATE: December 18, 2012 CONTENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2594 2. Legal Notice 3. Copy of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296 Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2594, recommending to the City Council approval of Development Plan 12-371 as proposed. Executive Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Plan to create uniform development standards within the Canyons at Bighorn for all residential lots within the Planned Residential portion of the project. The Canyons began construction 15 years ago and many of the lots have changed in size from phasing the original map, changes during construction, and parcel map waivers to move or merge property lines. These changes have resulted in many of the lots being irregularly shaped, located on sloping lots, abutting curving streets, or containing other limitations that make it difficult and impractical to apply the set of development standards identified on Vesting TT 25296. The Development Plan will provide clarity for uniform development standards that the applicant, developers, builders, and the City can follow for reviewing and approving new construction. The request will also apply retroactively to previous approvals due to variations in setback requirements throughout the 15 years of homes being constructed. Staff Report ,� Case No. DP 12-371 Page 2 of 8 December 18, 2012 The Development Plan will not modify the overall project in terms of the number of residential lots, grading area, maximum building height, or boundary limits. In addition, the plan will not be applied to the portion of the Canyons at Bighorn located in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. Those homes will still be subject to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15 governing all hillside development within the City. Backaround � � C. Property Description: The property known as Canyons at Bighorn is located in south Palm Desert, on the west side of Highway 74. The Canyons at Bighorn is a private planned community consisting of single-family homes and villas with a private golf course with amenities supporting the community. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: Planned Residential-Five units per acre (P.R.-5) Planned Residential-Seven units per acre (P.R.-7) Planned Residential-One unit per acre-Drainage Overlay (P.R.-1, D) General Plan: Residential, Low Density (R-L), zero to four units per acre Approval of Tentative Tract Map 25296, Canyons at Bighorn: On July 17, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1456 for TT 25296 with the following conditions for development standards: Setbacks for detached units: �Front — 20 feet Side — 5 feet Rear —10 Feet Setbacks for attached units: Front — 20 feet Side — 5 feet — 16 feet between buildings Rear — 10 Feet After the Planning Commission approved the project, it was presented to City Council in October of 1990. The project was referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration based on issues that the Bighorn Institute raised about the project density and potential impacts to bighorn sheep. Specifically, they were concerned with the mitigation measures in the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), not the setbacks of the homes. The project was modified by reducing the density by providing more open area and larger lots at the south end of the project that is closest to the Bighorn Institute. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on May 21, 1991, and by the City Council on August 5, 1991. However, as part of the new approval, the applicant changed the setbacks by identifying the development standards on the map based G:1Planning\Tony BagatolStaff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\PC Staff RepoR.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 3 of 8 December 18, 2012 � on lot numbers identifying certain lot types. The lot types varied from a Lot 1 to Lot 4. Each lot type is identified as a rectangular lot with certain setbacks (see attached copy of Vesting TT 25269). Since the applicant provided the development standards on the map, the conditions of approval were modified to state that the setbacks "Shall be identified on the map." This replaced the set of standards approved by Planning Commission Resolution 1456 described above. Neither the City nor the Bighorn Institute required that the setbacks be modified. This modification was proposed by the applicant. After the project was approved in 1991, amendments to the project were approved in 1992 and 1997. Again, the conditions of approval referred to the lot types identified on the map, and the condition of approval for setbacks states: "That the setbacks for dwelling in this project shall be as shown on map exhibits." In addition to the changes in the conditions of approval, the lots as physically graded today have been modified from the amended Vesting TT 25296. The applicant was allowed to modify the lots and streets on site to minimize grading by incorporating the natural terrain and topography as much as possible. Furthermore, the original lot configuration and numbers were changed by the different phases of the original map, or by parcel map waivers that moved or combined property lines. These modifications are typical in large planned communities that take several years to construct. However, the changes resulted in different lot numbers on the lots as they exist today from the the numbers on original map. In addition, the modifications changed the physical shape of the lots making them larger and irregularly shaped. Many lots are located on slopes, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it difficult to apply the development standards identified on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. The exhibits illustrate rectangular lots that do not match the current shapes of the lots in the Canyons. The changes described above make it difficult for staff to determine what setbacks should be applied to lots. For example, what is shown on the original map as Lot 198, a rectangular lot designated as Type 2, may now be twice as large, roughly square in shape, meeting the criteria for Lot Type 1, and numbered 26. Proiect Description The applicant is requesting approval of a new Development Plan for the Canyons at Bighorn to create uniform development standards for all residential lots within the Planned Residential Zone of the Canyons at Bighorn. As described above, many of the lots have been modified since the original approval in 1997. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296 identifies setbacks for different lot types, all of which are rectangular form. However, the modified lots are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it difficult and impractical to apply the set of development standards identified on Vesting TT 25296. To address these issues, the applicant is proposing a Development Plan to create a new set of development standards that witl be the same for each lot. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighom Development Plan\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report � � Case No. DP 12-371 Page 4 of 8 December 18, 2012 The proposed Development Pian will not be applied to the lots designated Hillside Planned Residential. Those lots will continue to be subject to Section 25.15, which governs all the standards for hillside residential properties within the City of Palm Desert. The Development Plan will be applied to the area identified in Exhibit A, identified below and in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 2594 LEGEN�: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA � EXHIBIT "A" �� i IR z ,-_,� G:\Planning\Tony BagatolStaff ReportslCanyons at8ighorn DevelopmentPlanlPC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 5 of 8 December 18, 2012 The proposed Development Plan is as follows: Incornoration of Chapter 25.24 Development Standards � Except as otherwise modified by this Development Plan or a subsequent action of the City's Planning Director, as set forth below, the Development Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Development Plan. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the following minimum yard development standards shall apply to habitable structures (primary residence, including garage or guest residence) located within the Plan Area: Minimum Front Yards — 15 Feet Minimum Rear Yards — 10 Feet Minimum Side Yards — 5 Feet Non-habitable and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walls, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanical equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. Minimum Separation Befinreen Buildinas Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buildings, including two-story elements of single-family detached homes, shall be at least 10 feet. Maximum Buildina Heiahts Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum building height shall be 20 feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 26.56.300 shall apply to structures within the area of this Development Plan. Maximum Buildin4 Coveraae The maximum building site coverage on any lot shall not exceed 60 percent of the total lot area. Modifications of Standards in Site Plan The Planning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Development Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Such decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighom Development Plan\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 6 of 8 December 18, 2012 Effect of Develoqment Plan � In accordance with Sections 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the development standards contained in this Development Plan shall govern and control all development within the plan area. In the event that different or conflicting development standards are stated in any tentative or final subdivision map for the plan area or in any other provision of law, the provisions of this Development Plan shall supersede such standards and control. Atl development within the plan area shall comply with this Development Plan. Retroactive Apqlication Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Development Plan shall be treated as though the resolution approving this Development Plan had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. Analvsis The proposed Development Plan will provide uniform standards for all the lots within the Canyons at Bighorn zoned Planned Residential. The new Development Plan will address several issues that staff and the applicant have recently encountered with permitting new construction. Given all af the changes to the original setbacks and the physical changes to the tots described above in the background section of the staff report, it has become difficult to determine which setbacks to use and how to apply a standard used for rectangular lots to irregularly shaped lots that are sloping, abutting curved streets or that contain other limitations. In addition to the proposed Development Plan, the applicant controls design standards through an Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines that may require larger setbacks to accommodate their transition areas for the golf course, streets, and neighboring homes. Approval of the Development Plan will create uniform development standards for all residential lots that are straightforward for staff, the applicant, future builders, and home owners to follow and implement. The Development Plan will not change the density, grading, or approved maximum building height of 20 feet, and will not apply to the hillside residential properties. Staff is recommending approval of the Development Plan as proposed. Findinqs 25.24.330 Approval Criteria "The Planning Commission and/or City Council may approve a development plan only after �nding that the requirements of this title and other ordinances affecting the property have been satisfied. In granting such approval, the City Council may impose and enforce such specific conditions as to site development, phasing and building G:\Planning\Tony BagatolStaff ReportslCanyons at Bighorn Development PIan1PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 7 of 8 December 18, 2012 � construction, maintenance and operation as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and the General plan." 1. The proposed Development Plan is in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance; 25.24.010-Purpose, states: "It is the purpose of the PR (Planned Residential, added) district to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residentia! densities and housing types, and community facilities, both public and private. The PR district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments. The PR district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonab/e consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval. (Ord. 94 § 1, 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-1) Most of the lots within Bighorn are irregular in shape and size, which makes following the original map requirements, illustrating rectangular lots, difficult to follow. In addition, the phasing of the original map changed the original lot numbers shown in the table that determines the lot type for setbacks. This has made it difficult to determine the standards to be used for new construction. The proposed Development Plan will create development standards that will provide the applicant and land developers assurance for all new construction and standardization of setbacks for new construction with the Canyons at Bighorn. ln addition, the standards provide flexibility by allowing for modification of the plan to be approved by the Planning Director or his/her designee. 2. The proposed Development Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; The proposed Deve/opment Plan will not resu/t in any physical changes to the origina! approval of the overall project in terms of the number of residential /ots, grading, maximum building height, or any boundary limits that would create a potential impact to public health, safety or general welfare, or that will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Canyons at Bighorn. All deve/opment will continue to be required to meet the building code and other provisions of the municipal code, and to be constructed in compliance with OSHA regu/ations and other laws designed to protect the safety of the public. The Development Plan will establish new, uniform development standards for all new construction of single-family homes in the Planned Residential portion of the development. The portion of the development zoned Hillside Planned Residential will continue to be subject to the standards identified in Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.15, which governs development on the Hillside to protect the surrounding properties in the vicinity. G:1Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development P�an1PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. DP 12-371 Page 8 of 8 December 18, 2012 Environmental Review � Approval of the Development Plan is considered a Class 5 Categorical Exemption (15305) for "minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density." Since the project does not result in any changes in land use or density, no further review is necessary for CEQA. Submitted By: �� " �- ��% Tony Bag to, Principal Planner Department Head: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Dev�'�e�rr�Pi� G.1Planning\7ony Bagato\Staff Reports\Canyons at Bighorn Development Plan\PC StaN Report docx �"J PLANNING RESOLUTION NO. 2594 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PORTION OF THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONE. CASE NO. DP 12-371 WHEREAS, the Canyons at BIGHORN Project is located within the City's existing Planned Residential (PR) District Zone; and WHEREAS, the Canyons at BIGHORN Project has been developed over an approximately 15-year period as a planned master community comprised predominately of individually designed custom homes; and WHEREAS, many of the subdivided lots in the Canyons at BIGHORN Project are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make a literal application of rigid development standards impractical; and WHEREAS, the individual structures constructed at the Canyons at BIGHORN Project have been developed in an effort to achieve neighborhood harmony and consistency while preserving significant views and other community aesthetics; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and approved various site plans for the Canyons at BIGHORN Project pursuant to which individual structures have been constructed; and WHEREAS, Sections 25.240.190 and 25.240.330 of the City's Municipal Code authorize the City to approve a Development Plan for properties located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone, as shown in Exhibit A, to establish standards for development within the area covered by such Development Plan; and WHEREAS, BIGHORN has requested that the City consider the adoption of a Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone, and the City has determined that it is in the best interests of the City as well as the residents of the BIGHORN Project for the City to adopt a Development Pian for the portion of the Canyans at BiGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residentiai District Zone in order to clarify and confirm the development standards for development within such area sha11 be governed by the Development P1an approved by the City; and WHEREAS, in order to avoid any potential confusion that may exist regarding approval of structures in the area subject to this Development Plan, the City desires to confirm that individual structures approved for development in the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone pursuant to and in conformance with an approved site plan and a City-issued building permit are and have been consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's Municipal Code. PLANNING RESOLUI�.:�'- NO. 2594 � NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert does hereby resolve to approve the following Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone: Part 1. Development Plan for the portion of the Canyons at BIGHORN Project located within the City's PR Planned Residential District Zone: A. Incorporation of Chapter 25.24 Development Standards Except as otherwise modified by this Development Plan or a subsequent action of the City's Planning Director, as set forth below, the Development Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Development Plan. B. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the following minimum yard development standards shall apply to habitable structures (primary residence, including garage or guest residence) located within the Plan Area: Minimum Front Yards — 15 Feet Minimum Rear Yards —10 Feet Minimum Side Yards — 5 Feet Non-habitable and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walls, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanical equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. C. Minimum Separation Between Buildinqs Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buildings, including two-story elements of single-family detached homes, shall be at least 10 feet. D. Maximum BuildinQ Heiahts Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum building height shall be 20 feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 26.56.300 shall apply to structures within the area of this Development Plan. E. Maximum Buildinq Coveraae The maximum building site coverage on any lot shall not exceed 60 percent of the total lot area. � PLANNING RESOLU�;;��1 NO. 2594 F. Modifications of Standards in Site Plan � The Planning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Development Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Such decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code. G. Effect of Development Plan In accordance with Sections development standards development within the standards are stated in other provision of law, standards and control. Development Plan. contained i plan area. I 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the n this Development Plan shall govern and control all n the event that different or conflicting development any tentative or final subdivision map for the plan area or in any the provisions of this Development Plan shall supersede such All development within the plan area shall comply with this Retroactive Aqplication Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Development Plan shall be treated as though the resolution approving this Development Plan had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. Part 2. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission held on this 18th day of December, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson ATTEST: Lauri Aylaian, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 3 PLANNING RESOLUT�:b� NO. 2594 LEGEND: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA riii� EXH I B IT "�" � � � 0 � ,-_,�. � l; I i'r �� r►i L il� 73-5�� FRt.D WARING DRI�'E P,�i.n� De�t:irr� CnuFuk�i,t qzz6o—z57F3 reu 760 ;q6—o6�� f.LK: 760 3qi-7oy8 i �i (uCi'pal m-�lc �c rc. urg � CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. 12-371 �iSCi� I NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.25.190 AND 25.24.330 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT LLC, has submitted a request for approval of a new Development Plan for the Canyons at Bighorn. Many of the subdivided lots in the Canyons at Bighorn development are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it impractical to apply any set of rigid development standards. To address these issues, the applicant is proposing a Development Plan to create a new set of development standards that will be the same for each lot, except for the Hillside properties. The Exhibit below identifies the properties that the Development Plan will be applied to: �ecerro a'MeH p �aAvfA� T � IL! '1_1 , EXHIBIT "A" The proposed Development Plan is as fotlows: rI (l 91+ 1' �, Incorporation of Chapter 25.24 Develooment Standards ' Except as otherwise modified by this Development Plan or a subsequent action of the City's Planning Director, as set forth below, the Development Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by refere�ce into this Development Plan. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the following minimum yard development standards shali apply to habitable structures (primary residence (including garage) or guest residence) located within the Plan Area: � - Minimum Front Yards — Fifteen Feet Minimum Rear Yards — Ten Feet Minimum Side Yards — Five Feet Non-habitable and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walls, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanical equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures, may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. Minimum Separation Between Buildinas Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buildings, including two-story elements of single family detached homes, shall be at least ten feet. Maximum Buildina Heiahts Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum building height shall be twenty feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 26.56.300 shall apply to structures within the area of this Development Plan. Maximum Buildinq Coveraqe The maximum building site coverage on any lot shall not exceed sixty percent of the total lot area. � Modifications of Standards in Site Plan The Planning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Development Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code. Effect of Develoqment Plan In accordance with Sections 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the development standards contained in this Development Plan shall govern and control all development within the plan area. In the event that different or conflicting development standards are stated in any tentative or final subdivision map for the plan area or in any other provision of law, the provisions of this Development Plan shall supersede such standards and control. All development within the plan area shall comply with this Development Plan. Retroactive Application Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Development Plan shall be treated as though the resolution approving this Development Plan had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Paim Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday December 18, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shali be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the request 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. Monda}� through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian, Secretary December 8, 2012 Palm Desert Planning Commission 1 � 73-5 t o FRcn WnK►roU DxivE YAI.M �iliSERT, CAI.(FpR�ItA cJ22(�0-257fi TBL:76a 346-o6ii in fn<�ci ryofpalmctescrc.nr� PLA�INlNG COMMISStON MEETtNG NC�TICE OF ACTION December 20, 2012 Bighorn Development, LLC 255 Palowet Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Subject: Recommendation ta the City Council for Gonsideration of a Development Plan Cr�ating Uniform Development Standards far the Canyons at Bighorn The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert considered your request and taok the following action at its regular meeting of December 18, 2012: THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTED APPRC�VAL OF GASE NO. DP 12-371 BY ADOPTiQN OF PLANNING COMMISSlON RESOL.UTION NO. 2594. MOTIQN CARRIED BY A 4-0 VOTE. Any appeal of the abave action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. �___.---�-,r.._�--.�.�---- _ . . -- ..�.---�- � ., Lauri Aylaian, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission ,u'�"I7• cc: Tony 8agatc�, Principal Planner Building & Safety Department Public Works Department Fire Marsha( �� 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Councilman Van Tanner expressed that it was a pleasure to serve on the Planning Commission for seven years. He wished the Planning Commission the best of luck. He distributed a thank you card on behalf of the City with a gift card enclosed for their service on the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission thanked and congratulated Councilman Tanner. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2012. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a lot line adjustment (APN 652-320- 008) at Bighorn Golf Club. Case No. PMW 12-365 (Dan Sandy, PO Box 4094, Tumwater, WA; and McGee Surveying, Inc. 45-100 Golf Center Drive, Suite G, Indio, CA, Applicants). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a lot line adjustment, Case No. PMW 12- 365. Commissioner Connor Limont stated she would move for approval, but asked if the lot line adjustment would be affected by the action on Case No. DP 12-371 (under Public Hearings). Mr. Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney, replied no. Upon a motion by Limont, second by DeLuna, and 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS � A. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of a Development Plan creating uniform development standards for the Canyons at Bighorn in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Sections 25.25.190 and 25.24.330. Case No. DP 12-371 (Bighorn Development, LLC, 255 Palowet Drive, Palm Desert, CA, Applicant). G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\t2-1 &12 min.docx � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Chair Campbell stated that a booklet was given to the Planning Commission before the meeting, and asked the City Attorney to advise them on how to proceed. Mr. Hargreaves suggested hearing staff's report, then asking the person that submitted the booklet to inform the Planning Commission whether the information is materially different from the information that has already been supplied. At some point after the explanation, he suggested the Planning Commission and staff take a few minutes to review the booklet. Mr. Hargreaves stated that if there is information they are unaware of that materially changes their understanding of what is going on, the Planning Commission may want to continue the item to digest the information. He also stated that if the information is an elaboration of what staff has already reviewed and prepared to discuss tonight, and the Planning Commission feels comfortable based on the information provided to them to move forward; he suggested they do so. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, stated that the item is a Development Plan; No. 12-371. He displayed Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2594. The Canyons at Bighorn is located along Highway 74 in south Palm Desert. On the west side there is a golf course called the Mountains at Bighorn. He said that the Mountains have a much higher terrain above the street level so many of those homes are visible from Highway 74. He said the Canyons at Bighorn golf course is below the street or there is a significant berm with a wrought iron fence surrounding it that blocks many of the interior homes. The only homes that tend to be visible from Highway 74 are located in the gray area (Exhibit A), which is zoned Hillside Planned Residential and is not part of the request. He stated that the request applies to the dashed area of Exhibit A, which is zoned Planned Residential and separate from the hillside lots. The hillside lots would continue to be subject to the City's hillside ordinance. The General Plan shows the non-hillside portion as low density, zero to four units per acre. Mr. Bagato stated that the project was originally approved in 1991 with the history outlined in the staff report. He noted that Tentative Tract Map 25296 was last amended in 1997, which is where the development standards are coming from. He displayed an image of eight different lot types. He explained that each lot type has varying setbacks depending on the size of the lots. However, many of the actual lots are irregular shaped, streets are curved, and there are slopes within the development. He said all the pads are graded; but there could be a seven-foot variation in elevation from one lot to the next lot. Bighorn worked on creating views into the open space around the golf course, as well as trying to incorporate some of the natural terrain and minimize some of the grading. He displayed a photo of the zoning map, and noted that many of the lots are not rectangular. 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\MinutesN2-78-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Bagato reported that the applicant is requesting to amend the development standards from the approved 1997 Tentative Tract Map. He said issues with the current standards are irregular lots, curved streets, and changed lot numbers and sizes that were changed through the mapping process. The original map was done as a phase map so when it was initially approved, the original map had 372 lots (numbered Lots 1 through 372). He explained when a dash map (phase map) is brought in and recorded, the lot numbers are changed and can also be reconfigured for various reasons: 1) grading is performed on site and an as-built is brought in later; 2) parcel map waivers to adjust property lines to accommodate the golf course, natural terrain, emergency access points, or easements; or 3) homeowners bought two or three lots and merged them into one bigger lot. He said with this proposal it would create uniform development site standards flexibility. The standards for this proposal would have setbacks in the front to be 15 feet, in the rear 10 feet, and on both sides 5 feet. This would apply uniformly to every lot. The separation between buildings is 10 feet. He said the maximum height is 20 feet as previously approved, and the lot coverage is now 60 percent. He stated there is now a modification section that allows the Director of Community Development to approve modifications to the site plan. He mentioned that Bighorn has their own architectural and landscape guidelines, which was approved with the original Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Mr. Bagato stated staff reviewed the applicant's request, and staff is recommending approval to the City Council. He said from a CEQA standpoint, staff believes it is a Class 5 categorical exemption for an existing development. He noted that 596 legal notices were mailed, and the notice was published in The Desert Sun. He stated he only received one letter of objection from a property owner that is in litigation with Bighorn, and is now in a separate litigation with the City. Staff also spoke to the Ironwood homeowners' association. Their only concern was if it was going to change their views and hillside, which he told them no. There was no objection from Ironwood Country Club. He stated a letter was received Monday, December 17, from Rutan & Tucker, LLP (representative for homeowner, Mr. Lawrence Pasternack). Mr. Bagato presented a response to the letter addressing each issue separately, and using visual exhibits to illustrate his responses. Staff recommended approval of Development Plan 12-371. Mr. Bagato offered to answer any questions. Mr. Bagato added that he briefly reviewed the booklet that was given to the Planning Commission before the meeting. He commented the booklet addresses points that already have been made. He said it also highlights items in litigation or photos of the neighbor's site, which he does not believe are relevant. He asked that the opposition only highlight what is pertinent to 4 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 this case, and only highlight items that have not been addressed by his report. Commissioner Limont commented that due to the irregular lots, terrain, and other issues, does the City look at where the builder is looking to have their foundation. Mr. Bagato responded that they measure from building of the wall to the property line, and not from the foundation. He also noted they look at it from a bird's-eye view. Commissioner Limont asked if the Bighorn CC&Rs are above of what the City requires. Mr. Bagato answered typically they are, but there are some cases that they are not. He said that Bighorn tries maximizing the visual aspect of the lot, and they have reconfigured lots sometimes not knowing or following the setbacks. In the past, the City would rely on the homeowners' association for the approval. Mr. Bagato said because Bighorn has transition areas, which require berming and landscaping, that the City does not require on a typical single-family home; Iot setbacks may be larger than the City has required. Commissioner Limont reaffirmed they are looking to standardize for the City to have a level playing field for everyone. Mr. Bagato replied that was correct. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired how many lots are left to build? Mr. Bagato replied there are 26 lots to build, but the standards apply to all lots. The number of homes yet to be build might be less if people merge lots. Vice Chair DeLuna clarified if there are approximately 300 lots covered by these standards. Mr. Bagato responded that the original approval had 372 lots, but through the phasing and the parcel merging he does not know if there are technically 372 lots in Bighorn. Vice Chair DeLuna understands that even though they are establishing uniformity and minimum setbacks, irregular shaped lots will automatically have greater setbacks than what is allowed because of the way the terrain is configured. Mr. Bagato stated that is potentially correct. 5 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Commissioner Dash asked if there is a difference of opinion between the City and the homeowners' association, how is it resolved. Mr. Bagato responded that the City could approve based on the Development Plan, if the homeowners' association was reluctant to approve something that was stringent. He said if there was a homeowner that came to the City, and said they want their plan approved based on what the City has approved, the City would ultimately move forward since CC&R issues become private matters, and the City would not get involved in a CC&R debate. He stated that historically the City would rely on any homeowners' association that has an architectural review commission to approve the home and give the City an approval letter as part of the permitting process. Mr. Hargreaves interjected that the City has its standards which it applies. A homeowner coming to the City for a permit would have to comply with the City's standards. The homeowner also has to comply with the CC&Rs. He stated that the City does not enforce private homeowners' CC&Rs. Commissioner Dash asked if the standards would apply to future plans or modifications to existing plans. Mr. Bagato responded that it would apply to the existing development of Bighorn; all lots except for the hillside lots. Chair Campbell declared address the Commission FAVOR or OPPOSITION. the public hearing ,o�en and invited the Applicant to on this matter, followed by any public testimony IN MR. ANDREW FOGG, Cox, Castle, & Nicholson LLP (attorney representing Canyons at Bighorn), 2049 Century Park East, 28th Floor, Los Angeles, California, thanked City staff and thought Mr. Bagato's presentation was excellent and comprehensive. The point he would like to make is that the setbacks create effectively a developable envelope on each lot. He stated that under the tract map there were certain setbacks arguably under the zoning code with some inconsistencies. What Bighorn has always driven to do and would continue to strive to do, is build a cohesive-well integrated development that respects the natural environment, and put forward the golf course uses that is in center of the project. For example, if there is a lot with a 20-foot setback on one side, that may restrict the ability of the homeowner in the homeowners' association (HOA) to site the house appropriately on that lot in order to maximize the views and respect the natural environment. He stated the Development Plan gives the maximum flexibility to the HOA while assuring that there are minimum separations of at least 10 feet. There would be a minimum separation that protects the privacy and the security, and makes the transitions appropriate. Mr. Fogg stated that the Development Plan represents a tool to allow the homes to be looked on an individual lot-by-lot 6 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\12-18•12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 basis and sited appropriately. He said there are circumstances where there are variations in elevations amongst neighboring lots that can get close to 10 feet, variations along the street of several feet per lot, there are setbacks from the golf course and cart paths, and hazards associated with golf courses. He stated that having a rigid set of standards that provides for expansive setbacks really is not needed in a home development such as Bighorn where there are a lot of factors that go into each individual lot. Mr. Fogg said the history of the development is that they have applied those principles to preserve the golf course and environmental views, and minimizing the impacts on the natural surroundings to create the comprehensive feel. There may have been times when there have been inadvertent violations of the setbacks. He stated that no one intended to do that purposely. He said initially the master developer and the HOA intended to act in good faith, and tried to apply things as well as they could with those issues in mind to the extent that there were inadvertent setback violations. The violations are being recognized to the extent that this new building envelope is created and will apply to those moving forward. California la�v recognizes the ability of the City to adopt a curative legislative provision, and that is exactly what they are asking the Planning Commission to do; effectively go back in time. As long as the City is not violating vested rights, and there are no vested rights at issue here, the City could adopt the standards retroactively. Mr. Fogg mentioned that there are a variety of tract maps that the opponent cited in his letter. He said those were statements on the tentative map, they were not a condition of approval, and they were not on the final map to the extent there was any vesting. Those vested rights have long been expired, and he noted that vested rights only last a year after a final map is recorded. The maps were recorded many, many years ago. Mr. Fogg emphasized that Bighorn's HOA, Design Review Committee, and Architectural Landscape Committee will continue to zealously look at setback issues, continue to perform the same service it has provided to the community, and assure the development is done in a sensitive and harmonious manner to promote the values that they have had throughout the community since its inception. He thanked the Planning Commission for their support and offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair DeLuna commented that Mr. Fogg presented a letter to the Planning Commission, and asked if anything in the letter substantively different from the presentation that staff has made. Mr. Fogg responded no. He said the points they make are very similar to the points staff made in response to the point-by-point issues raised by the one opposition letter, which they received late yesterday. The one thing they expand on in their letter is that they provided the Planning Commission with a number of examples of specific lots, elevations, and different constraints that 7 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\12•18-12 min docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 are present. He stated that they concur with the City Attorney and staff in terms of how the CC&Rs function and the issues that were raised. Mr. Hargreaves asked Mr. Fogg if the Development Plan is approved, would it materially change the kind of developments that are approved by the HOA Mr. Fogg replied no. He stated that the HOA and Architectural Commission will continue to function as it has. Commissioner Limont stated that staff pointed out that Bighorn allows for 60 percent of the lot to be developed, and asked if that was correct. Mr. Fogg responded that is what the standard would allow, which would include a total coverage area of the primary structure, accessory structures, patios, and any sort of improved paved surface. He doubts many lots are developed to that, but they want to make sure that there is sufficient coverage to allow for terracing and other features. Commissioner Limont asked if the Bighorn architectural guidelines allow for the 60 percent lot coverage, as well as what the City allows. Ms. Aylaian responded that the percentage varies in different zones. Mr. Fogg added that he does not believe there is a specific requirement within the CC&Rs. This requirement would apply if they felt it was a reasonable balance on an individual lot-by-lot basis. He said there is substantial open space that is required with transition zones. MR. GREGORY HATTON (attorney representing Mr. Lawrence Pasternack), 20281 SW Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California, stated Mr. Pasternack is present along with Ms. Lisa Neal who is a municipal law specialist from Rutan & Tucker LLP. Mr. Hatton referred to a booklet given to the Planning Commission before the meeting. The book illustrates their objections, and requested that the Planning Commission take time to review the book. He noted that the book has new matter, and there is no urgency in reaching a vote tonight. There is an appendix raising legal issues regarding constitutionality and enforced ability of the provisions in the appendix. He recommended the Planning Commission get an independent legal review of the appendix. Mr. Hatton stated they are concerned there is an allegation that 596 notices were mailed. He has not seen a list that documents proof of mailing, although he has no reason to doubt what Mr. Bagato has said. Mr. Hatton noted that there is a loose leaf inemo in the book, which is a memo by a subdivision map act and planning expert by the name of William Ross. The memo is about the lack of a General Plan consistency analysis, and why the CEQA analysis is incomplete. He thinks this matter also needs 8 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\12•1&12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 an independent legal review before the Planning Commission moves forward. He stated the book has a copy of the proposed Development Plan, the Planning Commission agenda for this evening, a summary of the lot owner's objections, and itemized objections. Mr. Hatton referred to photos under tab K of the booklet. He stated the Development Plan would allow property owners in Bighorn to place swimming pools and amenities up to the property line with no setbacks. Mr. Hatton said the representation to the Planning Commission is that the Bighorn HOA has an interest in preventing that; it is flat out not borne out by the facts. He stated that this manner of development was brought to the attention of the Riverside County Superior Court and an injunction was issued. The Development Plan being submitted to the Planning Commission is in direct response to that injunction. He stated a court took a look at it, and said that they are building into the setbacks. After 14 years of development under vested Tentative Tract Map 25296, it is too hard for developers of a multi-billion dollar development to figure out the setbacks that they themselves requested and were able to get the City Council to adopt under 25296. Mr. Hatton referred to tab A and tab B of the booklet, which shows the Development Standards chart and lot diagrams. He also referred to tab F; deposition of Mr. Carl Cardinalli, and the quoted material from the deposition. In tab G, he stated that property owners have contract rights in the CC&Rs under Section 5. Mr. Hatton went to tab E; copy of the injunction and a stop work notice. He stated the purpose of getting approval of the Development Plan is so that Bighorn could go back into court to get the injunction lifted. Mr. Hatton mentioned that the current setbacks on the lots result in side yard setbacks of 10 to 20 feet depending on the lot size, and refered to the Development Standards. He stated under the PR zoning code, if there are not any special standards adopted by the City Council governing the lot coverage the code applies. He noted that the lot coverage in the PR zone is 35 percent not 60 percent. After approximately 15 minutes of testimony, Mr. Hargreaves interjected, and asked Mr. Hatton how much longer he intended to speak. Mr. Hatton replied a couple of minutes. He continued that under the proposed plan, they are going to change all the setbacks and Bighorn estate lots that are not owned by the applicant are going to have five feet for each side yard with amenities built right up to the property line and 60 percent of lot coverage aflowed. He referred to the exhibit under tab L. He respectfully urged the Planning Commission to take a cautious look at the Development Plan. He voiced that it will be subject to a legal challenge in court. He said this is Bighorn's problem. They are coming to the Planning Commission to clean up a mess they made at Bighorn, which is only going to result in further litigation with the City. He stated the existing property owners who bought properties in reliance on the desert estate setbacks are entitled to those rights under the 9 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning CommissioM2012\Minutes\12-18-72 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 CC&Rs. He asked that the Planning Commission not allow for a"McMansion" to be built right up to the property line. MS. LISA NEAL (attorney representing Mr. Lawrence Pasternack), 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, California, stated that they strongly oppose any recommendation to the City Council for consideration of the amended Development Plan. She strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to review the book that Mr. Hatton has provided. She said the book has an in-depth review of the severe impact of an approval of an amended Development Plan would have with regards to the Bighorn community. She concurs with Mr. Ross' conclusions that the amended plan is inconsistent with the General Plan, which she thinks it needs to be taken seriously by the Planning Commission. She also concurs that the CEQA analysis is incomplete at this stage. She believes the Planning Commission has a copy of the letter dated December 17 that Rutan & Tucker provided outlining their objections to the amended Development Plan. Ms. Neal stated the proposal is to reduce the side yard setbacks on all of the lots in the Bighorn Development regardless of size to five feet on each side, which is inconsistent with the General Plan. She communicated that this would reduce the setbacks from the largest lots in the Bighorn Development from a minimum of 10 feet on one side and 20 feet on the other side down to 5 feet on both sides. She voiced that is simply unacceptable. As Mr. Hatton indicated to the Planning Commission, it is not true that the Bighorn HOA has implemented increased requirements with regards to the setbacks. She said Bighorn has violated the current development standards approving development plans in the community in direct violation with the applicable setback requirements. The CC&Rs that Bighorn HOA follows provide that it is the requirement of the City that is going to be followed by the Bighorn HOA. Ms. Neal stated if the Planning Commission were to find that the applicable setbacks are five feet on each side for the side yards that is what the CC&Rs would therefore be bound by. She said Mr. Hatton is correct with regards to the litigation that is occurring. The superior court did issue an injunction in favor of Mr. Pasternack. She stated Mr. Pasternack's neighbor is in violation of the setback requirements, and that this is nothing but an attempt to come to the Planning Commission to try to get that retroactively changed to say that it is now okay to build six and half feet from the property line. Ms. Neal commented that Mr. Hatton did an excellent job going through all the points as to why the Planning Commission should not make a recommendation to the City Council, with which she concurs and would submit that the Planning Commission deny any consideration to the City Council with regard to the amended Development Plan. She thanked the Planning Commission. Vice Chair DeLuna mentioned that in Mr. Dahl's letter it is alleged that many, if not, most of the homeowners purchased homes specifically because etc, 10 G:\Planning\Moniq OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\12-18•12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 etc ... She asked Ms. Neal if she has been retained by or represents anybody other than Mr. Pasternack. Ms. Neal responded she only represents Mr. Pasternack. Vice Chair DeLuna stated to Ms. Neal for clarification that she seems to express concerns on behalf of other residents. Ms. Neal commented that it is her understanding that those are Mr. Pasternack's feelings and feelings of other property owners as well. She said she does not represent other owners in the community. Vice Chair DeLuna asked Ms. Neal that the information provided in that paragraph comes by word of hearsay from someone else and not directly because she represents anyone other than Mr. Pasternack. Ms. Neal replied that is correct, but if the Planning Commission would like her to provide more information with regards to that as the Commission does their review and analysis she would be happy to do so. MR. MARTIN MUELLER, Mueller, Olivier, Whittaker Attorneys LLP (attorney representing Dr. Bruce Fagel, Mr. Pasternack's neighbor), 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Rancho Mirage, California, urged the Planning Commission to recommend and move forward to the City Council. He mentioned that he has lived in the valley his entire life, and has practiced law in the Coachella Valley since 1984. He has seen the desert grow and has seen Bighorn be built. It is a credit to the City and a credit to Bighorn that it is what it is, which may be one of the finest residential golf communities in the country. He shared that he has traveled and played golf everywhere, and has seen clubs developed. He stated that Bighorn has evolved and developed into being a special place where properties are so valuable that people will spend $1 to $5 million on lots. Bighorn was developed with this flexible model to create views to the golf course. He stated that he has walked Bighorn and has been to many homes at Bighorn, and the views are not of a side wall of an adjacent home. The views are of mountains and the golf course. If you stand at Mr. Pasternack's property, the view is not to the east across an adjacent lot, the view is down to a panorama of the golf course and other fine homes that are built there. Mr. Mueller stated that his client is now in litigation with Mr. Pasternack. He said that a repeated misstatement to the Planning Commission is that the plans that were approved for Dr. Fagel's home are at a six and a half foot distance from the property line which is patently false. He said they know and it is true that those plans would provide for a home that is eight feet from the property line. He stated he knows because he measured it. He said there are some folks that approach life as a series of conflicts and litigations. He asked of all the people that own homes and lots in the Canyons of Bighorn, how many of them are up and arms about the pfan that Bighorn has developed with a more 11 G:\Planning\Monica OFieilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 flexible model that has oddly configured lots with setbacks that are sometimes less than 10 feet like Mr. Pasternack's and like Mr. Fagel's, if it were built as it is presently designed. As far as they can tell, only one person would come here and threaten to sue the City if it proceeds to memorialize this Development Plan a process which has been going on since 1991. He urged the support of the plan simply because it is an endorsement of Bighorn as it is developed with all the practical realities of the homes that are out there. He thanked the Planning Commission. MR. STEVEN SEDACH (attorney representing Canyons at Bighorn), 1221 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600, Los Angles, California, commented that before purchasing the property at 1018 Cahuilla Falls, Mr. Pasternack saw the property. Mr. Pasternack saw the proximity of the vertical walls relative to the berms that are between his dwelling and the neighboring lot. He stated Mr. Pasternack saw the actual space befinreen those walls and the berm, and he saw the view from his rear patio out to the beautiful fairway and golf course. Mr. Pasternack cannot deny that he saw this view, and what he saw on the exterior and the proximity of the dwelling and the non-dwelling improvements were the cause and fact for his purchase of the property. Unfortunately, after he purchased the properiy and the close of escrow about November of 2006, there was a series of punch list items that Mr. Pasternack wanted the developer who sold him the property to repair. To Mr. Pasternack's dissatisfaction, the items were not repaired and the developer initiated an action to recover $65,000 for a$7,065,000 purchase price for a room addition. Mr. Sedach stated the $65,000 claim led to Mr. Pasternack's cross complaint against the developer. He noted that the claim never involved the setbacks that they are hearing about today. These setback claims came about after a year or two of litigation. He stated that Mr. Pasternack wants to fuel his litigation with as much criticism and complaints as he can to recover his $7 million. It is not being offered for purposes of claiming that somehow his rights when he purchased the property and he saw the proximity of the dwelling and the non-dwelling improvements on the property was something that was unacceptable to him. They were acceptable to him. He said the sole purpose of this objection is to substantiate Mr. Pasternack's his fraud claim in Superior Court to try to recover his money. Mr. Sedach respectfully requests that the Planning Commission accept the recommendation by staff, and that the recommendation is approved so it can be considered by the City Council. Mr. Fogg stated that the CEQA exemption does apply, and there are no unusual circumstances that have been cited. He commented the issue has been well covered by staff. Mr. Fogg continued that there is no inconsistency with the General Plan; no setbacks are required. The Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan in every respect. He again urged the Planning Commission to support the Development Plan. 12 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minuteslt2•18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Hargreaves communicated that there has been an allegation that Best, Best, & Krieger has a conflict in this matter, and he would like to set that straight. He stated Best, Best, & Krieger has represented the City for decades. They have also from time to time represented Bighorn on various issues over the years. He said the principal attorney that was involved in representation was Mr. Mike Andelson who retired two years ago. He stated that he does not believe Best, Best, & Krieger has represented Bighorn in anything within the last couple of years, and they have never represented Bighorn on the Development Plan. Mr. Hargreaves shared that they do represent the City with respect to the ongoing litigation; therefore, there is not conflict. The matter was discussed with the City Council, and they are comfortable with Best, Best, & Krieger advising them on this matter. Mr. Hargreaves stated that in respect to the legal issues that are raised by the various attorneys. The City's analysis is consistent with the analysis of Bighorn on the CEQA issue. He said CEQA has a categorically exemption for minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent. He stated at Bighorn the average slope is less than 20 percent. In the City's view, this a minor alteration of land use criteria. He stated the approval of the Development Plan would not change what happens in the development considerations at Bighorn. Mr. Hargreaves commented that there has been confusion on what the setbacks are. If you go through the process and look how the setbacks and maps change, there is good reason for that confusion, but the reality is that Bighorn and the HOA has been much more focused that the development proceeds in an aesthetically pleasing manner. He does not believe there is evidence that the standards are going to change dramatically, based on that, the CEQA exemption applies. He mentioned there has been a suggestion that somehow moving forward violates someone's vested rights or contractual rights. He said that is not the case, and explained that the City has the ability to modify its land use criteria after giving an appropriate notice and hearing, which is what they are doing tonight. He said there are limited exceptions where if you change your land use standards in a way it precludes someone from developing their property in an economically viable way, then you can interfere with their vested rights. Mr. Hargreaves stated that under the circumstances for the approval of the Development Plan he does not believe there is any vulnerability or challenge on vested rights or contractual rights. Mr. Hargreaves communicated that there was a preliminary injunction with the court that said "there is enough evidence here to create some issues so he [the judge] is not going to allow the homeowner to go forward with the building with a pending trial." He stated that there has been no final determination with respect to the preliminary injunction. Last, he stated that he had a chance to review the booklet, and does not believe there is anything that the Planning Commission has not already been informed of in the staff report and 13 G:�PlanningVutonica OReilly\Planning Commissioa�2012\Minutes\t2•78-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 presentations. Mr. Hargreaves did not see any reason that would compel the Planning Commission to continue this matter while the booklet was reviewed. Vice Chair DeLuna asked for clarification on the side setback for Mr. Pasternack's house. Mr. Hatton responded 9.3 feet, which is supposed to be 15 feet. Commissioner Limont commented that when someone from Bighorn comes to the City for their permits to build, and has gone through the approval of the HOA, the City checks that it coincides with the City requirements. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Bagato responded that is correct. Staff would rely on the HOA, and that is how it has been done. Commissioner Limont asked if it is a private matter. Mr. Bagato replied yes. Commissioner Limont asked if the Development Plan is retroactive. Mr. Bagato replied yes. Commissioner Limont inquired how many homes are in violation of the setbacks. Mr. Bagato responded that he did not know. He would have to go back and look at every plan. He explained that he has been with the City for 12 years, and was trained under the former Director. The process was to take the letter from Bighorn if their HOA approved it, and staff made sure it was not in violation of any health or safety code. He mentioned that the original map approved in 1991 had a condition that said the setback was five feet on both sides. He said what happened with the Fagel residence, the architect came in literally four days before his [Mr. Bagato's] deposition on the Pasternack lawsuit. Four days before, he had a different opinion because he looked up the setbacks from the map approved in 1991 thinking he had the original conditions. He found out after his deposition that it did not meet that. Commissioner Limont asked with all the other homes that have been built, have there been any other issues. Mr. Bagato responded that there could be other homes that do not meet the setbacks on the map, but it would not violate the proposed Development Plan. He stated out of all the homes approved in the twelve years he's worked 14 G:\Planning\Monip OReiIlylPlanning Commission�2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 with the City, staff has never had one complaint or one issue from a homeowner or Bighorn. Commissioner Dash commented he understands the City has certain standards, but the City allows some flexibility on the part of Bighorn to adjust to the typography or whatever to allow for differences with what the City has as a guideline. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Bagato responded that is correct. He briefly discussed the conditions and standards of the approved maps. Commissioner Dash inquired if there has been a problem with flexibility in any other complex because of the typography. Mr. Bagato replied no. He said most of the problem is that there have been changes in the approved maps. Most of the developments will have setbacks written in their resolution that are clear cut. In Bighorn's case, the condition states it should be shown on the exhibit. He stated the problem is the map that was physically built does not match the exhibit that was recorded, and that is where the inconsistency has come through. With no further testimony offered, Chair Campbell declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, for approval to recommend to the City Council a Development Plan creating uniform development standards for the Canyons at Bighorn. Motion was seconded by Limont and carried by a 4-0 vote. Commissioner Limont commented that this is a heated situation. She believed from reading the staff report and hearing everyone speak that the City's position is simply that we need to have clear guidelines as a City. She said that it sounds from everyone that has spoken that there is a personal issue at Bighorn, which needs to be addressed within Bighorn. She has seconded this motion because she thinks they need to move forward otherwise they would be leaving staff without any guidelines in the Bighorn area. Commissioner Dash agrees with what has been said, and he is also listening very closely to what the City Attorney has said. He stated that what the City is attempting to do is to have something that is uniform. Commissioner Dash commented that whether this is going to retroactive or not, it is a matter for the courts. He said he is looking at this in terms of doing what staff is requesting for Planning Commission to do in order to have uniformity throughout the City with zoning. 15 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\12•18•12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Vice Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2594, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Limont and carried by a 4-0 vote. B. RE�UEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of a remodel and expansion to the existing 111 Town Center to accommodate a new grocery store and retail use. The project is located at 44459 Town Center Way. Case No. PP/CUP 12-223 (Aubrey Cook McGill Architects, 1045 14tn Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA, Applicant). Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated that updated plans were distributed to the Planning Commission. He noted the drawings in the packet had an error. He reported that the applicant is proposing a portion of the building heights at 41 feet, and two tower elements at 45 feet. The applicant has informed staff that the renderings are incorrect, and the actual height to the tallest point of the building is 42'h feet with the two tower elements remaining at 45 feet. Staff reviewed and analyzed the applicant's updated request. He stated staff is satisfied with the overall height of 421h feet, but staff is recommending that the proposed 45-foot towers be reduced to the same height of 42�h feet. Mr. Swartz commented that he would go into more detail in the presentation regarding the height. Mr. Swartz stated the project site is located on the west side of Town Center Way between Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. The site borders the Palm Valley Storm Channel, and the site is currently referred to as the Best Buy center. The zoning for the project is Planned Commercial, Regional Commercial. To the north is Planned Residential (One Quail Place), to the south is Office Professional (Palm Springs Art Museum/Henderson Building), to the east is Planned Commercial (Westfield Shopping Center), and to the west is Planned Commercial (Fairfield Marriott). He reported that the project consists of demolishing the existing Banner Mattress building, the Floor Store, and a portion of the former Best Buy building to accommodate Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods. Mr. Swartz displayed a photo of the site plan. The applicant is modifying a portion of the parking lot in front of the proposed Whole Foods to improve vehicular circulation. He said the applicant is also relocating the existing utilities for Southern California Edison (SCE) and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). In addition, they are proposing to modify the median along Highway 111 to provide a left turn pocket into the shopping center. Last, they are modifying the landscaping to remove all turf and replacing it with drought tolerant landscaping, as well as providing new trees and removing four eucalyptus trees. Mr. Swartz reported that the property is zoned PC (3), which has a maximum height of 35 feet. He made clear that the applicant is not asking for a height exception. The proposed project height is in accordance with the zoning code. He displayed site drawings and photos to point out the heights of the 16 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2012\Minutes\12-1 &12 min.docx ��;. ; ;,;'. . ;`� i -�: ,}-3 ; ?K .; ;,�. �# :: �. ; ��. � F�UTAN RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP December 17, 2012 N[ilford W. Dahl, Jr. Direct Aial: (714) 641-3438 E-maiL• mdahl ��i,rutan.com �`.I�y q/ p�lfn ONrK �Con►�nunNy D,v�lopment DEC 17 2012 VIA ME5SENGER City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 � Re: Objection by Homeowner Lawrence Pasternack to Notice of Intent to Adopt New Development Standards for the Canyons at Bighorn Palm Desert Planning Commission: This firm represents Lawrence Pasternack ("Mr. Pasternack") who owns the properly located at 1018 Cahuilla Falls, Palm Desert, California. This firm also has extensive experience in representing municipalities, large and small, as both general and special counsel. v<, On or around December 1 l, 2012, Mr. Pasternack received the City of Palm Desert �,egal Notice for Case No. 12-371, entitled "Notice of Intent to Adopt New Development Standards for the Canyons at Bighorn in Accordance With Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 2525.190 and 25.24.330" (the "Notice"). Mr. Pasternack was entitled to receive such notice pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.94.020 because his lot is located in the Canyons at Bighorn (the "Canyons"), which is the property that is the subject of the Notice. The Notice states that Bighorn Development, LLC ("Bighorn"} subtnitted a request for approval of a new Development Plan for the Canyons; however, a complete copy of the application submitted by Bighorn has not been made available despite efforts to obtain a copy. The proposed new Development Plan seeks to decrease the setback requirements that are currently in place, thereby eliminating space between the homes in the Canyons. 5uch a proposed plan is wholly improper and should not be approved for the following reasons: Pursuant to Government Code section 65454, "[n]o specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan." The City of Palm Desert general plan (page III-142) states in pertinent part: 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO 6ox 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1954 I 714.641.5100 I Fax 714.546.9035 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com � 2s.3ninz � 9zo-oo� t 47712i7.2 a12/17/12 ` .� RUTAN RUTAN bTUCKER,L4P City of Palm Desert Page 2 Structures should be planned as integrated elements within the natural environment. This primacy is achieved by establishing guidelines for building scale and proportion, structure, height, and setbacks that are environmentally sound and sensitive. Within the context of existing development and appropriate design, new structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in the vicinity, with the goal of preserving and enhancing design qualities of the built enviranment while maintaining important viewsheds. Assigned setbacks should be hazmonious with the streetscape, surrounding structures and scenic resources. Variations in building massing are encouraged but should reflect a sense of compatibility as a group. The proposed amendment conflicts with the general plan, because the decreased setbacks are neither "environmentally sound and sensitive," nor are they "harmonious with the streetscape, surrounding structures and scenic resources." As such, the proposed amendment cannot be adopted because it does not further the general plan's objectives .(See Ideal Boat & C'amper Storage v, Counry of Alameda (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 301, 312 ["a local agency will not approve a project that is not compatible with, and would frustrate, the general plan's goals and policies."].) 2. The proposed amendment to the Development Standards does not comply with CEQA. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is required to conduct a thorough environmental review and prepare an environmental impact report to identify the environmental impacts of adopting the proposed amendment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100, et seq.; Pocket Protectors, v. Ciry of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 937 [holding that an environmental impact report was necessary under CEQA when there were objections as to the adequacy of the setbacks in the proposed planJ.) No such investigation has been conducted, nor has a report been prepared and thus, the proposed amendment does not comply with CEQA. 3. The current Development Standards applicable to lots in the Final Map and the required minimum sideyard setbacks are clear and simple and are based on the lot dimensions (S'ee, Development Standards set forth on the Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map for 25296.): 2530/021920-0011 4773257.2 a12/S7/12 � RUTAN flUT 4ri 6 TLLCHER, LLP City of Pa1m Desert Page 3 - -� � � � ��lrf ��..��'`�f��' ��►�l�� - ��.c��' ��t��M� r�1��u� �h�iNa�fu� �M�Nc�lut� ��rr�ch�� r,�xfMur� �� 'RC��lTYAF�t� 5�t7�Y�{3 REAR��.R(� �U�L.�IIV� - 7Y�'E �'�lf�TH� ��Tk� ; ��BAG� � �E'�B,�GF� SET�A�#C . h1Ef�MT 1 � 15t1,w 't�c�' �., �D'�.�._.�.�' 1Z' I�i- �p' ' �`_.-.�,' Z ) id1• ,..."y. ��i 5t3' , 13" � 5' i iY' �{I�l.1 15' _ _ ��' . ..,_ 3.._... � o�F_��_� :' 1 �4n� ,.-_---�-,_(Ys� 20' , ,�' .k€lN,,� � .. �5` : .... �D' � • � i �o� � y�� i�� z� �`�� ui�;� , tzK � �� {.' d0' 1 S�Q` �O' 1�" (5' F�{hi�7 ib" � ' z0' � �o� � �,Q� � �b• �a• �� W4iN.i ia� , 2�a� — 7 �Q' � 1 ��' 10' '��' +�N� SID� t G' � �... _ . �a � Q` O�Y;EEi S�iD€ €� � 5�' I ��4� 70� it�� r�nE sat�� 2or �t' Ck7'�1�,�.•�.7 ��•f1��:5�4t� R�'F�S "f�i 'rH� C�Af'f�I�F�? SI$>�'fARf1�, 1'1fsH h�rN�hltlhi ��,'� �iVF SI�EYr#R�'�dN� ( j� 4. The proposed amendment provides for decreased setback requirements that would interfere with the homeowners' privacy rights as well as the use and enjoyment of their property in the Canyons. These rights are protected by the Bighorn CC&Rs, which is a contract between the applicant Bighorn Development (the "DeclaranY' in the CC&Rs), Bighorn Homeowners Association (the "Association" in the CC&Rs) and a11 Bighorn lot owners (the "Members" in the CC&Rs). The CC&Rs are made available to all property owners who own property in the Canyons and advise property owners that they are established for the "purpose of enhancing and perfecting the value, desirability and attractiveness of the Property." These rights vested when building permits were issued for each lot. Many, if not most of the homeowners, like Mr. Pasternack, purchased homes in the Canyons specifically because of the open-air environment created by the expansive land and the layout of the homes in relation to each other. If the proposed amendment to the Development Plan were adopted, homes would bc built with very little space between them, thereby interfering with the homeowners' privacy rights and their use of the light and air surrounding the properties. Adoption of the proposed decreased setback requirements and increased building lot coverage would create a crowded and congested community and may result in a taking of vested property rights. (See Pocket Protectors , supra, at 937 [plans that do not provide for adequate setbacks lead to the "overall degradation of the existing visual character of the site from the excessive massing of housing with insufficient front, rear, and side yard setbacks."].) Such an overcrowded community is certainly not what the homeowners bargained for when they purchased their homes in the Canyons. � 2530/021920-0011 47712572 a12/17/12 � RUTAN RUTAN 6 iUCNER, LLP City of Palm Desert Page 4 � Moreover, the United States and California Constitutions bar a governmental entity from enacting a law which has — at its primary purpose or effect — the arbitrary elimination of pre-existing rights of contract or pre-existing property rights arising under the law. 5. Bighorn cunently owns only 10°fo of the property in the Canyons and therefore has no right to unilaterally seek an amendment to the Development Plan that would negatively affect the other 90% of the property owners in the Canyons. 6. The Notice represents that Bighorn is seeking the amendment because "[m]any of the subdivided lots in the Canyons at Bighom development are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it impractical to apply any set of rigid development standards." This is a blatant misrepresentation. Most of the lots in the Canyons are rectangular lots are located on flat land. Moreover, the current development standards are not "rigid;" Rather, the development standards are flexible and the requirements applicable to the lots vary based on lot size. The proposed development standards are rigid and impractical as they impose the same setback requirements on lots of all sizes. As a result, under the proposed development standards, a lot that is 75' x 100' will have the same setbacks as a lot that is 1 SO' x 1 SO'. 7. It appears that Bighom seeks this amendment not because of the reasons stated in the Notice, but because there is ongoing litigation against the Bighorn Homeowners' Association. There is a pending lawsuit against Bighorn regarding its practice of approving building plans that do not comply with the setback requirements mandated by the Palm Desert Development Plan and adopted by incorporation into the Bighorn CC&Rs. Bighorn now seeks to retroactively validate its improper approval of illegal building plans by proposing this amendment. 8. Should the City approve the amendment, the City of Palm Desert may be exposed to potential liability in the pending litigation. "1'his is complicated by the fact that Bighorn and the City are both represented by the same law firm, Best Best & Krieger. The fact that approval of the amendment would benefit Bighorn but expose the City to liability creates a clear conflict of interest. Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Professional Conflict, Rule 3-310, Best Best & Krieger's continued representation of both entities may be improper. 9. Best Best & Krieger's representation of both Bighorn and the City creates another problem; the homeowners are being deprived of their due process rights because a fair hearing cannot be had when both Bighorn (who made the request for an amendment to the Development Plan} and the City (who is making the 2530/021920-0011 4771257.2 a12l17l12 r RUTAN RU (AN 6 TVCKER, LLP City of Palm Desert Page 5 � determination of whether the amendment should be adopted) are jointly represented by the same counsel. These objections to the proposed amendment cannot be fairly heard and determined by an unpartial commission when both the party requesting the amendment and the party hearing it are represented by the same attorneys. For the foregoing reasons, the praposed new development standards for the Canyons should not be approved. Sincerely, MWD:nb RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP �y �1 '� II�A��"�"��r� h Milford W. Dahl, Jr. 2530/021920-0011 471i257.2 al2/17/12 CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, City of Palm Desert FROM: Robert Hargreaves: Assistant City Attorney DATE: January 15, 2013 RE: Case No DP 12-371 (Bighorn Development): Alleged Conflict of Interest of Best Best and Krieger In correspondence to the City of Palm Desert dated December 17, 2012 and testimony before the Planning Commission, representatives of Lawrence Pasternack ("Pasternack") allege that Best Best & Krieger, LLP ("BBK") has a conflict of interest with respect to Bighorn Development's ("Bighorn") application for a new development plan for the Canyons at Bighorn. Specifically, Pasternack alleges that BBK represents both the City and Bighorn in this matter and that that dual representation presents an improper conflict of interest and deprives homeowners of a fair hearing. Pasternack's allegation of conflict of interest and due process violations are unfounded. As you know, BBK has represented the City for several decades. BBK has also, from time to time, represented Bighorn-related entities on various matters. BBK has not represented any Bighorn-related entities for several years on any matter, and has never represented Bighorn- related entities with respect to the current development application. In an exhibit to his submission to the Planning Commission, Pasternack included cover pages to several discovery-related pleading filed by BBK attorney Michael Andelson on behalf of Bighorn Development and related entities in 2007 in litigation arising from Pasternack's residence at Canyons at Bighorn. Mr. Andelson represented Bighorn as a third-party witness in those proceeding, in which Bighorn was not initially a party. It is my understanding that neither he nor any other BBK attorney represented any named party in that litigation. Mr. Andelson retired in 2010. I would be happy to answer any question the Council may have with respect to these matters. 72500.00854\7776409.1 IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SHEET 1 OF 7 SHEETS REVISED '° -�.. 1! • I THE CANYONS AT BIGHCRN ESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 2 ANI PRECISE PLAN VICINITY MIE LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF SECTION .31TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH. RANGE 6 EAST. S.B.M. PORTINER' P JR ION OF SECTION 5, TOWNS' b 1001H, RANGE 6 0451E S B.M. A5 r-vSCR1BED MORE PAR710U14RLY AS FOLLOWS: • BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION- 31; THENCE SOUTH 81249'18s WEST, A DISTANCE OF 14059 FEET TO 11,E NORTNEAST'CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6, THENCE SOUTH 00'20'06' EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LANE OF SAID SECTION 6, A DISTANCE OF 2539.41E i'EET. -0 THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE SC0'H B3'45'18- WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF ONE NORTHEAST BLEAR; ER OF SECTION 6 A DISTANCE OF 1531.61 FEET;" THENCE NORTH 04'DO'35" EAST, A'DISTAN E OF 687.1173 FEET: r ENCE•SOUIn 72'10'O5' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 487.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51'46'08' WEST A DISTANCE OF 621.28 FEE1 TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY tlE OF THE ,NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE SOU14 0006'15' 16500, ALONG TILE. WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTNEAS;-QUARTER A C)5TA4:.{-90- 152.61 FEEL TO THE'LEVIER QUARTER CORNERDE SAID s0CTAN 8; T+6nk EIGHTH E'45'i8' *EST ALONG souTNERLY I.,NE CF T.1E NORTHWEST OUARIER OE SAID SECTION 8 A DISTANCE. OF 1970.82 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 00102'39' EAST, A DISTANCE. OF 660.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'49'40' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 410.83 FEET TO A POINT ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY 74: THENCE' NORTH 17'55'43" EAST ALONG SAID RTGEN-OF:-WAY A DISTANCE OF 6197.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'46'19. EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1185.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01'37.54` WEST, A DISTANCE OF 564 04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'49.12' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 66986 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01.37.25" EAST, A DSTANCE OF 631 24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01'38'10' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 66669 FEET: THENCE ,NORTH 8952'14' WEST. A DISTANCE OF 4,1742 FEED THENCE SOLON 01 37'40", EAST, A DISTANCE OF 363.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE. SOUTH WITH A RADIUS OF 302500 FEET AND A RADIAL DEARING,OF SOUTH 08'40'20' WEST; THENCE,EASTERI,Y ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08'00'45' AXE 'ARC LENGTH OF 423,03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73'18'54' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 582.74 FEET 1'0 THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT G JRV CONCAVE TO,766 BOOTH WITH A RADIUS OF 302500 FEET; TRENCH FRSTLRLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL TANGLE OF 0352.35" AN A8C LENGTH QF 204.65 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSEC110N OF TIE EASTERLY _ONE OF SAID ' 3EC110N.31 AHD NAWNC A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 26'33'40' WEST; THENCE SOUTH 01'37'40' EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SINTHEASTERN QUARTER OF. SAID SECf10N 31 A DISTANCE OF 1317.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF REGINI.81W..' - C,OMPOiSING.461.0?, ACRES, 60RE,OR LISS- PROJECT NOTES 1 REFER 10 THE PR07EC,'S HILLSIDE 'LOPE" STUDY FOR 'DENTIFICATION AND JUSIIETC4TIGN OF TOE L 015 IN THE HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, DISTRICT 2 IRRIGATION WATER TO BE PROVIDED TO THE SITE VIA A PRIVATE IRRIGATION WELL LOCATED OFF -SITE. 3 AIJ. 'INTERIOR STREETS ARE PRIVATE. ftNG BIRI:4TI400 WILL. BE OEM0USHED . OR RELOCATED: fjE'7.r/R,PT1gNST� ATE f' NO. E V' 1 -S.1 ,0Pt S BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF SECTION 6, T. 6 S., R. 6 E., S.B.M. AND SECTION 31, T. 5 S., R. 6 E.,- S.B.M. SEC HT LOT AND GRACING SUMMARY TAT ' LOT # OF MAXIMUM MINIMUM NUMBERS 1 'TPE LOTS PAD ELEV. PAD ELEV. 1 "1..1 15 6-7-1 —� 79, z - 4_ ._1r 34 61- 57 �1 E 73 4 5 _?{_0 — c))}66 a 6 5 7 }44n>'77nT �'d__._. - 625__.. 4 6`,0 _ 8 1'2 5.5 td4 670 E 4 59S 4 67'3 6c0 E75 A06 �3 7 ,,2 272 f' 13 i Ri- 6 ff 1. 840 76 a9 L 8#5 89__ -L 045= -- ..-.-_.505 - M. 4,5 �g7 _�$6T4�iQ�_ 3O 5 y4_ _ PL7 959 2 _._.. __.. 853 fi55_ ab'h 653 R A]fi • I PnR.ANENEVI II �1 ATE �O14kPER R'N F•YE0 ` 'OAIG CRNN PPE W'OR4K! PACK RESDENTIAL +Ll$ STRST ORMAhT < 5 ISO' H3' MN" L._ ___ WOE OF PAVEMENT LOT_ YEE_ i 10' �� ' Bw0•NG REsCsRmAk b6w`Eo5 00kNT NTS I6• -'-1— iE• jw 25. RFCP056') 6' - CORM N COWED FROP , Nf_JIAN- fi .-WAY Rua E:r Orr. §'T (CO Y.:L )� �--- - FN0PERIV WE Imo--� -- I -SMACK -I b1 VICE OF PAVEMENT VII TYPE Q N.t.S. WOE OF PP/ENE/ET -- LOT TYP_E_3 LQT__T_YPE 7 00405ET0 u' 15. a I aSA- A 1 mews 19.4IMENT waL AA.' PH $MF[T ON OM:N88. 512806S OY6R 58, Q ON YPRIVY NOTE: 1W0 WAY POR'1CHS OF CANTON DONE S AL- CO.4F0H6 0 RGRIEMW- ERNE 060504S. ' • 1 ! II I I RADIUM CO N- 1l 1 6 C CURE, i1D. + . j• O 2 (COLORED j E(imOSE^ AGODEVADO ` 7<R A9. QSGUTTERJ0 Frain TI i r.— - PROPERTY LINE EDOE OF PAVEMENT L4LIY?N;i A.-. It-11 gI - - 5F18ACK I I 1 ' °t 0E OF, LQt TYPE 5, itIOSA M.. SETBAQK, STAMAF D EJ(F IT AC-t06L I,OT LINES WILL VAR': TO BE E5TASUSHE0 AT EOM, MAPPING C)040 LVNCRE"E GIh 6r111,14 :Mt ,,At7P 10E0RArrvc •'.5210E BAx'vN0 EMERtaNCy CF.Ess < —00, I+•--6Er0,4K 'rc0R AFL MA* SLIMED DRIVVVAY 1. T5. SERVOR AND E1Eft(,jY /1GYEs� A5' JAN ) u#N0�Y I EDGE OF MtMEH -A, LQl �1.tr Y I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOT MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM 4MINIMUM 1 MINIMUM NIAX-MUM TYPE WIDTH DEPTH FRONTYARD SIDEYA�p RF.4RYAF20 BUILDING SETBACK SETBACK j" SETBACK HEIGHT zD Tr_L • 01NENSION u G Gnu TO ARE 1(046408 00FYAR0R, M>R1 611E s OWNER/APPLICANT , WINMAR PALM DESERT, LLC 700 EETH AVENUE SUITE 760)1 SEATTLE, WASIENGTON 98104-5025 329 DEVELOPMENT MANAGER HEARTLAND GROUP, INC. 45;'•V c.110•481A CENTER 70, F,FT11 AVENUE SEA1T1-E. WASHINGTON 96104 ENQI_EER/MAP 1.EPAE R ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3E41 E TAHOCIT1 'CANYON WAY, #200 PAW SPHIN35, CALIFORNIA 92262 !TI"A.ITY PP MyEYORS TELEPHONE GTE 5<30 jACKSON 01010, 0A3i'ORNi0 S2201 ELECTRIC GAS WATER/SEWER CARLE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI50N CO. 36--100 CATHEDRAL CANYON DRIVE CATHEDRAL Orr, CALIFORNIA 92234 PHONE 01.07 73 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO, 75-095 MAYFAIR ORATE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 COACHEILA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1058 COACHEL-A CALIFORNIA 92238 CONTACT. LARRY OLSON PHONE (206) 223-45C0 ^ONTACT. 5160EN 'WAL.KER PHONE: (206) 862-2500 CI)N2A6T TEICHARO CLARK: P. PHONE. 019) 320-4220 PHONE: (619) 342--0542 CONTINENTAL CABLE 41...725 COOK STREET FAT U DESERT, CANE ORN41 93260 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL TXSTRICI PHONE:(619) 34 PONE 0,001 Z62. 2651 PHONE (619) 340 DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 32--819 HIGHWAY 11T IN010, CALIFORNIA 92201 ' PHONE: (619) 347-6631 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL R $ 531 120-004 631-130--017 i 180 002 831- 120-005 831-130-018 6 1 8O 003 631-120-006 771-030-092 - 631 6e 005 631-120-007 '771_030-003 631 ,0-00C 531 120-G08 771-030-004 631-180-008 631-140-001 77' -030-005 631-000-009 631-130-010 1T1 030-006 631 190 004 83,-130-011 77 -030- 007 63150-005 831 130-013 631-160-001 63 1.0-013 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNNN QJ4 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTML 3-5 0.11/AC64 ANO 5-7 0.1./AC1W ZONING AND LAND USE EYIS,ING ZONING: PR. -1(0) PROPOSED 20WNG; N0 CHANGE PR P SISP) R 51R0) PR 7 EXISTING LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED PROPOSED LAND USE GOLF COURSE AND SI4G.,0 FAWtY RESIOEKTIM. LOTS. PROJECT AREA GROSS: 461.68 ACRES NET: 460.67 ACRES SHEET INDEX' SHEET NAME SHEET E,�,T NUMBER `ITLEaSE1' COMPOSITE_ 1NOEX MAP 2 TE61AT^%E. TRACT MAI9 3 - 4�— AND PRECISE PLAN MASTER TLITY PLAN 5 - CONCEAL ;AND USE PUN. Y 201v 033767`03340\10 4ii-9,Er11094 7': �� • � ` !� fl'� ��.� � � -. . , � dr/ � n . �l ,l ,'� : "�,`�t,. �'r - . - c:��' �.�. "J� I �� , .!'�+A�. � w � } . �.., T. . .. � � 4 y, �i��'7J � . � e ,..-�,� ; . ] '�"_"' —... ��^ '� e .� � �3 � +y k $ ,� ,j�J �l �� . � �. �' � � � 7�'�..w, � y,: � �,"��.,.t'.r ... , ' - � � / ti � ,� G� , � j >`r . , �, __ < �� , ,i,�F \\�\��6 '._"'z ` .. . . �S'" i- A�'.�,��j �` '' . .. . � ,,'.��:F ��-�i��—�—^��c:.— '��1� �"'' �� '•:��^� �l7' / . ��!+t `'� ' " .. �• �r�, ..'/+� �✓��.. / �a �6 \ 4. � . . P l� . J/�� ` W } �5 . J MY.�� . �� l��yp 1' � /� ^ � f �k� . . f f� . ��4. � ' �. �"C��j,! � � / � 1:... . - ,�� , �, /�� . �� 1, . { j ;(`� `3' _. . � � d ,.�,��ll ,/ ��r .�`:�, '`..., �_..._ � - - - . . . . '� r ;'F �1 � i. � � L � �� ` 1� �,� F �!�i�� ` Z Z! .-' � .^ e� M +_ .. 3 �-� dv�'� J•_'f+� � � "�� . � x�� ::� s '" -�� Lot Owner's Opposition To Bighorn's Development Plan City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Case Number 12-371 December 18, 2012 �` . �, �` l Memorandum to Planning Commission From Owner of 1018 Cahuilla Falls RE: General Plan Consistency Analysis; and Incomplete CEQA Analysis Lack of A General Plan Consistency Analysis. It is well established in this State that the General Plan is a constitution for all future development; any decision by a City affecting land use and development nzust be consistent with the General Plan. Citizens of�Goleta Valley v. Board of'Supervisor,s (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570-571 ; Families Unafraid To Uphold Ru�°al ElDorado County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4 �n 1332, 1336; Enclangered HabitaCs League, Inc. v. Counry of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4�n 777, 782. "[T]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable General Plan and its elements. Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, Government Code section 65302)." The judicial standard for determining consistency of a project with the General Plan is "if considering a11 its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment." Corona-Norco Unified Schvol Dist. v. City of Coroncr (1993) 17 Ca1.App.4�n 985, 994. The Development Plan is much like a Specitic Plan in that it contains certain specified detailed restrictions relating to land use and major infrastructure development. A Specific Plan must be consistent with the City General Plan (Government Code section 65454; Mitchell v. County ofOrange (1985) 165 Ca1.App.3d 1185, 1191-1192. A review ofthe Staff Report reveals no such analysis. Consideration of the Development Plan Amendment cannot proceed until a General Plan consistency analysis talces place. G:A482.003\MEMOS\Hatton (advocacy IetterDevelopment Plan Amendment) 121812.doc i � �+ Memorandum to Planning Commission From Owner of 1018 Cahuilla Falls RE: General Plan Consistency Analysis; and Incomplete CEQA Analysis The CEQA Analysis is Incomplete. The claimed use of a categorical exemption by the City is improper as it is not supported by substantial evidence and absent a record evidencing preliminary review, has not resulted from City examination of the impacts of the Project. The authority in this area is clear. "[W]here there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the envirorunent, an exemption would be improper." Azusa Land Reclamcrtion Company v. Mcrin San Gabriel I3asin Water Master (1987) 52 Cai.App.4th ll65, 1191. The CEQA Guidelines themselves note the same. CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c) provides in pertinent part: "[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." By relying on retroactive application of the possibility for "waste" or teardown of existing improvements is more than probable_ As well as the interference with existing easements entriquently associated with the "design and improvement" of an already Final Vesting Tentative Subdi vision Tract Map. The Staff Report makes the unsupported conclusion that there will be a minor impact associated with this action without first having the action subjected to the type of public comment and criticism that would normally be associated with a Subdivision Map of other owners within the affected area, as well as adjacent land owners onto this critical change in development standards. The appropriateness of the categorical exemption cannot be properly evaluated until there is more analysis and factual support presented by City Staff. WDR:Icm G:A482.003\MEM(�\H�ffon (adv�cacy JetierDevelopmont Vlan Amendment) 121 812.doc � � �IIY QF ��i�l�l iliSE��I 73—S�o F�eD W.�ktNc Ditive P,�t.Ni Deseirr� C.aLir'oitni,� 9zz6o—z57g �rEL: 760 ;q6—o6n F,�a:76o 3qi-7o98 in(oE�palm-de>rreurg . CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. 12-371 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN W ACCORDANCE WITH PALM DfSERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.25.190 AND 25.24.330 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT LLC, has submitted a request for approval of a new Development Plan for the Canyons at Bighorn. Many of the subdivided lots in the Canyons at Bighorn development are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curving streets, or contain other limitations that make it impractical to apply any set of rigid development standards. To address these issues, the applicant is proposing a Development Plan to create a new set of development standards that will be the same for each lot, except for the Hillside properties. The Exhibit below identifies the properties that the Development Plan will be applied to: �cFwo; mo seo - otveiovM�r i nH r.nE. i � .. �. . _. ._.... _. .......__...._.. ..._ . .. ..._... EXHIBIT "A" l. '"i . ._.�.... ...._._.. .. �i u The proposed Development Plan is as follows: �,Incor�oration of Chapter 25.24 Develo�ment Standards ' Except as otherwise modified by this Development Pian or a subsequent action of the City's Planning Director, as set forth below, the Development Standards set forth in Chapter 25.24 of the City's Zoning Code shall be and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Qevelopment Plan. Minimum Yards Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.250, the following minimum yard development standards shall apply to habitable structures (primary residence (including garage) or guest res+dence) located within the Plan Area: � Minimum Front Yards — Fifteen Feet Minimum Rear Yards — Ten Feet Minimum Side Yards — Five Feet Non-habitable and other accessory structures, including without limitations, walis, decks, pools, spas, outdoor cooking areas, mechanicaf equipment, landscaping features, pergolas, and similar structures, may be constructed within the minimum yards required under this Section. Minimum Separation Between Buiidinqs Notwithstanding the standa�ds set forth in Section 25.24.260, the minimum separation between buiidings, including two-story elements of singie family detached homes, shall be at least teri feet. Maximum Buildinq Hei4hts Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Section 25.24.280, the maximum building height sha�l be twenty feet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 26.56.300 shall apply to structures within the area of this Development Pian. Maximum Buildinq Coveraqe The maximum building site coverage on any lot shail not exceed sixty percent of the total lot area. Modifications of Standards in Site Plan The Pianning Director, or its designee, may, in conjunction with approval of a Site Plan for structures on an individual lot, modify the standards set forth in this Develapment Plan as an adjustment consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 25.78 of the Municipal Code. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.86 of the Municipaf Code. Effect of Development Pian �� ln accordance with Sections 25.24.310 and 25.24.330 of the Municipal Code, the development standards contained in this Development Plan shall govern and contro4 all development within the plan area. In the event that different or conflicting development standards are stated in any tentative or final subdivision map for the plan area or in any other provision of law, the provisions of this Development Plan shaii supersede such standards and control. All development within the plan area shali comQly with this Development Plan. Retroactive Application Any structure for which a grading or building permit has been issued within the area of this Development Plan prior to the effective date of the resolution approving this Development Plan shall be treated as though the resolution approving this Development Plan had been in effect prior to the issuance of such building or grading permit and shall be deemed to be consistent and in conformance with this Development Plan. PUB�4C HEARtNG: Said pub{ic hearing will be held befare the City of Palm Desert P4anning Commission on Tuesday December 18, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Paim Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place af{ interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning ail items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the request 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. If you chaUenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone eise raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian, Secretary December 8, 2012 Palm Desert Planning Commission � CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and � giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, Commissioners will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on fhe agenda, including those received following posting/disfribution, are on file in the Office of the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, telephone (760) 346-0611, Extension 484. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER. OF THE AGENDA. � AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2012. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a lot line adjustment (APN 652-320- 008) at Bighorn Golf Club. Case No. PMW 12-365 (Dan Sandv, PO Box 4094, Tumwater, WA; and McGee Survevinq, Inc, 45-100 Golf Center Drive, Suite G. Indio, CA. Applicants) Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a lot line adjustment, Case No. PMW 12- 365. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. � A. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of a Development Plan creating uniform development standards for the Canyons at Bighorn in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Sections 25.25.190 and 25.24.330. Case No. DP 12-371 (Bighorn Development, LLC, 255 Palowet Drive, Palm Desert, CA, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2594 approving Development Plan 12-371, subject to conditions. Action: B. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of a remodel and expansion to the existing 111 Town Center to accommodate a new grocery store and retail use. The Project is located at 44459 Town Center Way. Case No. PP/CUP 12-223 (Aubrey Cook McGill Architects, 1045 14th Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2595 recommending approval of Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit 12-223, subject to conditions. `�rr 2 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012Wgenda\12-t6-12 agn.doc�c AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 � IX. MISCELLANEOUS None X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION � � [ � Xi. COMMENTS XII. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penaity of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 14th day of December, 2012. Monica O'Reilly, Recording Secretary G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission12012�Agenda\12-18-12 agn.docx 3 � OBJECTIONS AND SUPPORTING EX�IIBITS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE N0.12-371 SIIMMARY OF OBJECTIONS �.. Bighorn's proposed Development Plan says it is "required" because the current setbacks at Bighorn are "rigid." In fact, just the opposite is true. With the exception of six lots in tract 33854, the current setbacks for all lots in the proposed plan area are flexible. The size of the setbacks is dependent on lot size: The larger the lot, the wider the setbacks. The current setbacks are perfect for a community comprised primarily of 25,000 to 35,000 square foot estate lots. They "flex" with the size and shape of each lot. Contrary to the stated "purpose" of the plan, the proposed setbacks are entirelv ri�id, and virtuallv nonexistent. They would allow for: • Elimination of all privacy, landscaping and yards between estate lots in Bighorn; • Construction of 20,000 square foot structures on Bighorn estate lots, within five feet of the property lines; • Placement of pools, HVAC equipment, pool equipment and walls right up to the property lines. The itemized obj ections below and the very brief Appendix of Law at the back of this book explain why the proposed Development Plan is unlawful, and unconstitutional. It is a"special" law that would deprive Bighom lot owners of vested property and contract rights. The itemized objections also explain that the true and only purpose of Bighom's proposed Development Plan is to exonerate Bighorn from responsibility for its bad habit of approving and encouraging intentional zoning violations. If the City adopts Bighorn's proposed Development Plan, it will have �+' to spend a small fortune of t�payers' money to defend an unlawful and unconstitutional enactment that has one, and only one, beneficiary: Bighorn. Most lot owners in Bighorn have attempted to comply with the estate lot setbacks shown on the 25296 tentative map, and with the Bighorn CC&Rs, which mandate full compliance with those setbacks. They have maintained 10 to 20 foot wide side yards with landscaping and trees, consistent with the estate lot development plan approved in 1997. And they have built their homes at least 20 feet from the rear lot lines, thereby respecting the view shed of their neighbors' lots. The proposed Development Plan now before the Commission would destroy the vested property and contract (CC&R) rights of these law abiding lot owners --- and, in the process, would also rob them of the privacy, lush desert side yards, and equal rear yard view access that they acquired when they bought their lots in Bighom under the current setback laws and CC&Rs. Fortunately for these law abiding citizens, Bighorn's Development Plan is dead on arrivaL The reasons for this are detailed below in the itemized objections, and in the supporting lettered e�ibits. Here is an overview: `� 1. The proposed plan covers roughly 300 acres. Of that, applicant Bighorn Development owns only a handful of lots, and no more than 10% of the total land. Bighorn Development no longer owns the HOA common areas or roads. Nor does it own the golf course property. 2. As a 10% property owner, Bighorn Development cannot obtain or modify any of the vested property and contract rights that govern the other 90% of the proposed plan's acreage. 3. The last final map in the plan area was approved by the City seven vears a�o, in December 2005. Since then, the Canyons at Bighorn has been largely built out. With the exception of six (6) lots in subdivision 33854, the flexible setbacks on the vesting tentative 25296 map e�ibits (E�ibit A) govern all of those lots. 4. Bi�horn is concealin� the true reason for the new "development plan." The sole purpose of the Development Plan is to evade the law and iudicial review of Bi�horn's intentional failure to complv with Citv zonin� laws. � • Page 2 � 5. Testimony from Bighom executives and Planning Department personnel cuts straight to the heart of the matter: Bighorn simply does not care about City setback laws at Bighorn. (See, E�ibits F and G.) 6. Fortunately, the courts do care about the law. On November 20, 2012, the Riverside County Superior Court finally put an end to all this, entering a preliminary injunction stopping construction in the setbacks at Bighom. (See, E�ibit H.) 7. In response to the injunction, Bighorn submitted the proposed Development Plan. 8. The Development Plan serves other unlawful purposes as well. Bighorn's captive realty company, Bighorn Properties, Inc. is fully aware that Bighom approves construction in violation of zoning laws. But Bighorn Properties conceals this fact from lot buyers --- who get to find out the truth long after they have closed escrow, when their neighbor pours the foundations for a 15,000 square foot behemoth within five or six feet of their property line. 9. There is no public purpose served by the plan. It exists solely to exonerate those who have intentionally violated the law. Approval and adoption of the Plan would be an arbitrary act, subject to reversal upon judicial review. 10. As it stands presently, only Bighorn is exposed to further litigation as a result of its chronic zoning violations. But if approved, Bighorn's Development Plan will expose the City to costly litigation necessary to obtain judicial disapproval of it. Whv would the Plannin� Department or the Citv Council approve Bi�horn's proposed Development Plan and expose the Citv to unnecessary liti�ation? For the reasons detailed below, the proposed Development Plan benefits only Bighorn --- at great expense to the taxpayers. Bighorn needs to clean up its mess at Bighorn's expense --- not the taxpayers' . � • Page 3 4�.r' ITEMIZED OBJECTIONS AND EXHIBITS 1. The applicant cannot impose a new "development plan" on lots that have been sold and fully developed. The applicant owns less than 20% of the lots that would be subject io its "Development Plan", and less than 10% of the total acreage subj ect to the Plan. 2. The plan as presented appears to have no benefit to existing home owners in Bighorn. Instead, the plan unfairly allows new building right up to the property lines of homes already built in lawful observance of the estate lot setbacks in the Canyons at Bighorn. 3. As explained below, the current setbacks for all lots not owned bv the applicant are: ➢ Sides 10 to 20 feet, depending on lot size; '�..� ➢ Front 20 to 25 feet, depending on lot size; ➢ Rear 15 to 20 feet, depending on lot size. 4. The proposed plan would change all of the setbacks on Bighorn estate lots not owned bv the applicant, and reduce them to setbacks that typically apply to beachfront properties: ➢ 5 feet for each side yard; ➢ 15 feet on the street; ➢ 10 feet on the rear yard (view side); and ➢ 60% lot coverage allowed. 5. The stated basis for the proposed plan is misleading at best. At the top of the plan, the PROJECT DESCRIPTION states: "Many of the subdivided lots in the Canyons at Bighorn development are irregular in shape, are located on sloping lots, abut curved streets, � or contain other limitations that make it iinpractical to applv anv set of ri�id development standards." (Underlining and bold added.) • Page 4 6. The true facts are preciselv the opbosite of those stated in the Development Plan. The "development standards" currently in place are anything but "rigid." The proposed plan covers part of tract 25296, and all of tract 33854 (33854 includes only 61ots). The setbacks for these tracts are as follows: a. The table of development standards that currently applies to the 25296 tract (E�ibit A) is flexible, based on the size and shape of the lots. And indeed, Bighorn's consulting landscape architects ha�e had no problem applying these fle�ble development standards to each of the lots in Bighorn. Attached as Exhibit B are exemplars of Bighorn's home site diagrams that apply the flexible standards to actual lots at Bighorn. There is no evidence before this Commission that would suggest that Bighorn or its consulting landscape architects have had any problems applying the appropriate and flexible development standards to any lot that might be subject to Bighorn's new Development Plan. b. As for subdivision 33854, the six lots in that subdivision are not "irregular" or "sloped". The setbacks in PDMC Section 25.16.070 (E�ibit C) apply with ease and certainty to all six lots in this tract (E�ibit D). c. Oddly, the only "rigid" set of development standards before this Commission is the "beach front" property setbacks in Bighorn's proposed Development Plan. All lots in the proposed plan area would be subject to the same identical and rigid setbacks, re�ardless of lot shape, size, or slope. 7. The true pumose behind the Development Plan has not been disclosed to the Commissioners: Bi�horn's Architectural Committee and its HOA have been encoura�in� and approvin� construction in violation of Citv setback laws at Bi�horn for vears. 8. On November 20, 2012, the Riverside County Superior Court fmally put an end to this, issuing an injunction prohibiting construction into the setbacks. (Exhibit E.) � • Page 5 � 9. Construction into the setbacks at Bighorn is not a"mistake". And it has nothing to do with the "irregular lot shapes" or "slopes" referenced in the proposed "Development Plan." It is an intentional, calculated violation of the law, intended to maximize the square footage of mansions on lots in Bighorn --- which sell based on "dollars per square foot." 10. E�ibit F is the testiinony of Bighorn Development attorney and Vice President in charge of developinent, Carl Cardinalli. Mr. Cardinalli is, for all intents and purposes, the "Chief of Operations" for all things Bighorn. Mr. Cardinalli wears all of these "hats" siinultaneously: a. The Vice President in charge of Development for the applicant, Bighorn Development. b. The President of Bighorn Golf, Inc. c. The Broker-Licensee and President of Bighorn's in-house realty company, Bighorn Properties, Inc. d. The senior member of the Bighorn Homeowners Association Board of Directors (since 1991). � e. The senior member in charge of the Bighorn Hoineowners Association Architectural and Landscape Control Committee. 1 l. In his testimony (E�ibit F) Mr. Cardinalli states --- without reservation --- that Bighorn approves the placement of houses and improvements on lots in Bighorn without re�ard to Pahn Desert setback laws. 12. Attached as E�ibit G is a portion of Bighorn's CC&Rs. The CC&Rs require all lots to comply 100% with City setback laws. 13. All of this should appear highly irregular to any seasoned Planning Commissioner. So why is the Planning Department pushing for approval of a"development plan" by an applicant with a virtually non- e�stent ownership interest in the lots that would be subject to it. Again, the answer lies in the sworn testimony. Attached as E�ibit H is an excerpt of the testunony of Principal Planner Tony Bagato. In it, Mr. Bagato admits that the Planning Department is complicit in the setback law violations at Bighorn, by allowing HOA's to detennine their own setbacks. \r • Page 6 �/ 14. Not surprisingly, Bighorn's and the Planning Department's "wink and nod" approach to City setback laws has resulted in litigation. a. As noted, on November 20, 2012, the Riverside County Superior Court issued an injunction, stopping construction on a lot in Bighorn in violation of City Setback Laws. (Exhibit E). b. Yesterday, on December 17, 2012, trial commenced against the applicant Bighorn Development and against Bighorn Homeowners Association for, among other things, Bighorn's strident refusal to comply with City setback laws. 15. Evidently as the result of substandard legal advice, Bighorn believes that the City's "retroactive" change in setbacks --- under the guise of an incomplete and arbitrary "development plan" --- can somehow exonerate Bighorn from responsibility for years of zoning violations. 16. Unfortunately for Bighorn, there is no lawful way to get that done. As explained below and in the Appendix, any such enactment by the �� City would be illegal and unconstitutional. 17. As the Commissioners are undoubtedly aware, setbacks required by law typically vest in any lot in Palm Desert, once the City issues a building permit for that lot. Thus, the rights associated with the existing setbacks vested when the building permits were issued long ago for the majority of the lots in the proposed plan area. 18. Interestingly, it is the Planning Director's position that the setbacks on the lots in Bighorn "vested" under Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25296. E�ibit I is a letter signed by the City's Planning Director. In it, the Planning Director takes 2 positions: ➢ Position 1: The setbacks for all of the lots in tract 25296 are vested. The table of Developinent Standards on the map e�ibit (enlarged as Exhibit A hereto) applies to the lots in that tract. ➢ Position 2: Incredibly (and contrary to the law), the Planning Director even takes the position that the setbacks on the map e�ibits in 25296 apply to a completely different subdivision in Bighorn, 33854. � • Page 7 19. E�ibit J is a Google Maps aerial shot of the Canyons in Bighorn taken in 2010. Obviously, all of the structures in the photo have building permits issued prior to today, December 18, 2012. The setbacks on those lots are property and contract (CC&R) rights of the owners of the structures shown in E�ibit J. 20. Bighorn HOA and its Architectural Committee have systematically violated Bighorn's CC&Rs by approving the placement of 10,000-plus square foot structures within a few feet of the properiy lines on 30,000 square foot estate lots. For this, they can be held liable under the CC&Rs, and enj oined from approving further zoning violations on the few lots remaining to be built at Bighorn. 21. The Planning Department's eagerness to approve an HOA's refusal to comply with City setback laws is every bit as disturbing as Bighorn's systematic violation of them. And the City has nothing to gain from it. As it presently stands, the City can only be enjoined from further violations of its own zoning laws (PR setbacks). If the City simply enforces the e�sting setbacks (E�ibit A) on new construction, it will avoid litigation. 22. Conversely, if approved by the Commission and then City Council, the proposed plan guarantees costly litigation challenging its constitutionality and enforceability. As noted, the proposed plan would arbitrarily and unlawfully impair the contract rights and the vested property rights of property owners who purchased and built on lots in the Canyons at Bighorn. Here are the specifics: ➢ The applicant developer sold over 200 hundred estate lots in the Canyons at Bighorn under contract rights (CC&Rs) that fixed setbacks in accordance with two vesting tentative maps (25296 and 28575), and later under a new subdivision map covering six lots (33854), all per the Palm Desert Municipal Code. ➢ The setbacks currently in place (and in place at the time the CC&Rs bound each lot owner and Bighorn) guarantee each lot owner all of the following: � • Page 8 a. Side yard improvements sufficient for the placement of privacy benns, trees, and shrubs between each house; b. Rear yard setbacks that preserve down valley views without allowing any one lot owner to "push out" into his/her neighbor's view shed; c. Lot coverage limitations that prevent covering 30,000 square foot estate lots with 20,000 square foot "McMansions;" and d. Street side setbacks that keep houses behind landscaped benns, and off the streets. ➢ The proposed development plan is a wholesale elimination of the setbacks that protect the privacy of estate lot owners at Bighorn. But the privacy guaranteed by these setbacks in the CC&Rs was, and is, a matter of contract between the applicant Bighorn Development, (the "Declarant" in the CC&Rs), Bighorn Homeowners Association (the "Association" in the CC&Rs) and all Bighorn lot owners (the "Members" in the CC&Rs). � ➢ Property rights additionally vested when a building permit was issued for each lot. ➢ Under both the United States and the California Constitutions, no �overnment entitv can enact a law which has ---at its primary pumose or effect --- the arbitrary elimination of pre-existin� ri�hts of contract, or pre-existin� property ri�hts arisin� under law. (See Appendix.) ➢ Here, the elimination of setbacks that existed at the time of contracting (i.e., when each owner purchased a lot in Bighorn and became bound with Bighorn to the CC&Rs) is the sole purpose of the Development Plan now before the Planning Commission. ➢ As such, the Development Plan, if enacted, would subject the City to irrunediate and costly litigation regarding its constitutionality and enforceability. And to what end? To exonerate a developer and its captive HOA from liability for their refusal to comply with local zoning laws? '�r • Page 9 �� ➢ If the City elects to join this legal battle, would that really be a proper use of taxpayers' money? This is Bighorn's problem, not the City's. 23. The harm caused by eliminating existing setbacks is not hypothetical. The "before and after" photographs (attached hereto as E�ibit K, and the Cover Photo) show the destruction of the side yard on a Bighorn estate lot after Bighorn approved the unlawful construction of the neighbor's house less than seven feet from the property line (see approved precise grading plan, E�ibit L). The privacy berm, trees, and shrubs, and the lot owner's irrigation system have all been demolished. 24. The owner of the lot shown in the photos (E�ibit K) submitted the site (grading) plan attached as E�ibit L to Bighorn and the City, and got it approved. To find out how and why this could happen, simply review the testimony from Bighorn and the Planning Department in E�ibits F and H. 25. The precise grading plan approved by Bighorn and the Planning Department (E�ibit L) --- which resulted in a Superior Court injunction �, against Bighorn --- is consistent with the Developinent Plan now before the Commission. To see what Bighorn wants to do to lot owners who paid between $1 million and $5 million just for the bare lots, the Corrunissioners need only view the photos in E�ibit K and the grading plan (E�ibit L): a. Effectively, there are zero-lot-line side-yards full of inechanical equipment, with face-to-face walls on the shared property lines; b. There is no privacy berm, no significant foliage, and no landscaping in the side yards on either adjoining estate lot, despite the fact that the combined size of both lots is nearly S0, 000 [sicJ square feet (1.12 acres); c. The new structure is to be pushed out into rear yard within 11 feet of the rear (view side) property line, obscuring the down-valley view of the neighbor, whose house is placed in observance of the existing 20 foot setback; and d. The grading plan for the new structure calls for placement � of an 11,000 square foot structural "footprint" on a 26,000- plus square foot lot. • Page 10 � 26. Was the placement of a"McMansion" on the lot pictured in E�ibit K compliant with local zoning laws and the Bighorn CC&Rs? Of course not. Attached as E�ibit M is Bighorn's hoine site diagram for the lot shown and in E�ibits K and L. The combined side yards are 32 feet (12 foot minimum, as long as the opposite side yard is at least 20 feet). The rear yard (view side) setback is identical to that of the neighboring lots --- 20 feet. Notably, these setbacks are identical to the setbacks shown for "Type 1" (large estate) lots on the table of development standards (E�ibit A) that establishes the setbacks for all but six (6) of the lots in the proposed Development Plan area. 27. Bighorn also wants the Planning Coirunission and City Council to fix all of the zoning violations already "on the ground" at Bighorn. To get this done, Bighorn wants the proposed Development Plan to be "retroactive" to the date the Planning Department first approved a grading plan for each lot in Bighorn. 28. Contrary to the misrepresentations in the proposed Development Plan, the purpose for the "retroactivity" has nothing to do with "irregular" �,, shaped lots or "rigid" setbacks. As noted, the current developinent standards "flex" along with the varying size and shape of the estate lots in the Canyons at Bighorn. The proposed setbacks, however, are "rigid," and virtually non- e�stent. 29. The proposed plan purports to "cure" intentional zoning violations by making them lawful. If adopted, this arbitrary enactment would trample the properiy rights of every lot owner in Bighorn by allowing his/her neighbor to build monstrous structures covering 60% of the lot, and extending to within five feet of the properiy lines. 30. In the end, the only thing that the City will get out of Bighorn's Development Plan is litigation. What lot owner in Bighorn who complied with zoning laws wants a 20,000 square foot "McMansion" built five-feet from his property line, with pools, walls, HVAC, and pool equipment built right out to the property line? � Page 11 � 31. Finally, why is the City Attorney, Best, Best and Krieger, backing Bighorn's play here? Unless BBK no longer works for Bighorn, the answer may be in E�ibit N. BBK has represented both the City (as a party) and all of the Bighorn entities (as witnesses) in litigation pertaining to setback violations at Bighorn in two different lawsuits. BBK can hardly give the City "independent" advice, if BBK still represents Bighorn, and if that advice is also harmful to Bighorn. In any event, the recommendation that the Planning Commission and the City Council let the City of Palm Desert "fall on its sword" to bail Bighorn out of its zoning violations cannot be the product of sound advice. 32. If adopted, the Development Plan will be challenged. Ironically, the taxpayers will be probably be paying BBK to litigate a Development Plan designed to rescue Bighorn from its zoning violations. 33. One would assume that the Planning Commissioners and the City Council are too smart to fall for any of this. � � • Page 12 State Laws May Not Impair Obligation of Contracts � The California contracts clause, Cal. Const., art. I, § 9, is similar to fhe contract clause of the federal constitution, U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. 1. prohibiting the states from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts [White v Davis (2002) 108 Ca1. App. 4th 197, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 691, rev'd on other grounds, in part, remanded, ordered published 30 Cal. 4th 528, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 648, 68 P.3d 74]. Given that the parties, consisting of municipalities, utility companies, and cable television providers, did not contemplate that the cost of repairing inherent trenching damage would fall under the repair cost provision of the franchises, new municipal fees to cover trenching damage were simply a unilateral increase in the franchise fee. Such an increase was a substantial impairment of franchise contracts in violation of the federal and state constitutions [PG &E Co. v City of Union City (N.D. Cal., 2002) 220 F. Supp. 2d 1070]. For purposes of the constitutional limitation on the power of the state to modify the obligation of contracts [see Const., art. I, § 9], a statute [San Bernardino Public Employees Assn. v. City of Fontana (1998, 4th Dist.) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1220, 1222, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 634] or initiative [see Hermosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition v City of Hermosa Beach (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 534, 549, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 447] will be treated as a contract with binding obligations when the statutory language and circumstances accompanying its passage clearly evince a legislative intent to create private rights of contractual nature enforceable against the state. However, the right against the state must have vested in order for the unpairment to be invalid [Olson v. Cory (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 532, 536-538, 178 Cal. Rptr. 568, 636 P.2d 532; White v Davis (2002) 108 Cal. App. 4th 197, 228, 133 Ca1. Rptr. 2d 691, revd on other grounds, in part, remanded, ordered published 30 Gal. 4th 528, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 648, 68 P.3d 74 (public employee right to compensation)J. The vested rights doctrine is predicated upon estoppel of the goveming body. This is a principle of equitable estoppel which may be applied against the government where justice and fairness require it. An equitable estoppel requiring the government to exempt a land use from a subsequently imposed regulation must include (Hermosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition v City of Hermosa Beach (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 534, 551-552, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 447 (citing Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Board (1984) 35 Cal. 3d 858, 866-867, 201 Cal. Rptr. 593, 679 P.2d 27)]: � • A promise such as that implied by a building permit that the proposed use will not be prohibited by a class of restrictions that includes the regulation in question and • Reasonable reliance on the promise by the promisee to the promisee's detriment. ,� � � �� : _ ��. � � �� .. �; . � cN y �� ;� = H - ✓'� �r'%.3 . � � � � �� v �' � r"�'�' � ►� � � G � G-- /� � � � 00 V� Cii � C.� N� �r r � � O � � � M � � r� � 1 �? �, � L p (J� O� U� 4� V O N G Z O O O O d p O O �� = C fl � :Zl � � � m �' Q u ir u� cn cn �• cn oo -Q � � o 0000aoo � �t = C � � o. _____ Z cn v � a �az s ..+ � �. _. ... ►J Z ,� vO 000 Ju CA (Jrp n�� C D � �'� p � � � � �O4 OOOP1 O C�RN (��% � x,-�{ p d-1 p r..--. .-. .Y� �� Q�1 =2zZucnc��1-.� z � �rn�� ! �N �� ;nacnozzz�� C��C � j�q�,.„„?,�,.y �v� ��.� rn � � �� o ��'z � o 000+ic%cno �D� � . ,,,,.� � v � D �11 O m � Z ` = C �' ^ N N fV N N N N N m(� X � c� oaooaoo G�v � • �� r O � � � � � r: � � � � � f ��. �'� �_ �-�`�-. � a - �_�1 is:�-a!` ;��.e� �s.��-�1��:�� t'i.� ��"�.�'. �:�.a��4'�}ir�� :..�i°r�� .k�.171��1__� E"i. P."K_�l;�I. 2j?a�- i � 7'r';2.. «� �:t..�'rt•:� / ! , . E� � f• � ,�' � �-�. . �, �'� s�Ci� �i"+ �. . . _� y �'` � �� :` � '� /� :' j ': ,r� �t :ti - , 1 �'\ F / f :� :� , � j ff ,,'" /�'. �` �'�` ti `t r�r ,`�' ,�, `� f' �; � ,� '� �� ''� �,`�� r•�— E� � ��n: � ; � � ,, �`�. .�t� � � �,� � �EiC �t � � �; ��;t'� :�'"fF G��r 1: ,� `"�3'" �' �EC"�'�-it3€iFt t� �. �`''� `, s � 1 {1' ti 4ti d?n€P:t��.�'ir / y�., ,;�� -{-T�� i � � ` f � ` � , � i-''7�.tTC'tSTi.';i j :�,� �'� i.e� ' �` ' � i ; � � f ,�.�,,�f 4' 1. �`l�' 1 '�. , �� f . ft '�f / � =:'��r �-.. ��. / "; ✓ � f . ,�" i . �;/ .,,: �'' �� ` if ,r, f �'^�'-.:{ .. A� �'` '�` '-.. �� . - — ---- �` � '^�. .-.. � �� 'T�, _ _��^ `�`�� ` � � f,` ,J� ~ �i'I.�'��&7 t7:LJi" —..—% � � .\ � `- � �� k ! '` � �t f;::,� ; � ! , t �..,�` � J f,.� i `~'��_ r . �I I .,F �.�i�t�y'��',`a:�PEi��,. .�C�L;f.':i4 :-n I � ;. � � �' `� �"" �}-.. -� ... ` _ � .^. �. �� '^�..` "7t-.~�� . t 7';Z'iS'liiiTft ,4f't?fl ,?`� r�41.-'rEa t':�'t � 7 e,ir k'..;'F� " r"'r�'.` �£i3£l�r.-,�t.C2�.'�t.' G^�i;) i<<; f'i«L':.i L Pt� - -.r f ; ~�' ' / T �� %� 6' �' �., f' fff f � {;, { � � � ` J � �� y"= `� � ! � '� f,i i � 1�� ': f;' i t' :t t' 3 �{ � �„`�'",—� i e .'� �`'-��--�1 p': �"' ��., f � _. j � ,� �sTTI.`.?lt7TtTiC i'if�n�:i tiJ SLtft�.l:l e�C)=•r2 t'S'�f+id�i((Zti:u � �� k��'� � *�� > �t7+iv! �£ 8;�%��:'�,�.°JLLIl.��,l` l i.tsi �:Ia'�{, :'�3t�r . �� { U .,t c'�ii:T'C �t;t;l I3tt;l��rr�� Fr:r c't�� _� ��a 9 �, =�:; �s+��t�rt #a�i f'i. cC.II��'Y-�1 . , �� ' �� F�$� �g�9�*�°� :.,.,;; `. � .. . �fi��t�t� t � .:. � ' I = h . � i � �� J� . . ...�1�. �,'3i�V➢ ii�IFi.FI�.R�� r"� i��5 Ml�`\,�T !'h y"5 � � 44�r.icr �j}. 1( �t� �4ti�u�' � l�i _�,,�/ � nrM r u.s r^...^^^m--•I ,...k . . �'1 X�I ��. a�k a ~� ; � �..r''t+,. � "`... y p �. � _ _ _ , �_._-.�...�., , ,_ �_. � ,:�,_. _,.� � . _.M�_..� ___.:.. _.�:._._ ._...,_��._ -- --- _._L. =z___ti_��:.ti:�-,_�� .__�_. . : ,e :. . _ � __ � �� . �� -��.. X'��' �S� _. � \ \ �!ifi�.=�!i,�i'.•'�L �t%'�'.S% � � (t� 2 r•' i ;� �i`�....�� # �r� � �- � ' f ''i d^�� '.ti /~ �t t ` ,t � P �a � � $j � " /!� F ' -"1 1 �' � �; , 4 � „ t`'' � ``�,e € � \�._.. �``,.. -� i a; ``' � �%s i: ��3Lt�� JCi'.,�i :•'e7 it�� C;^;�v i�f3;d C`t_)C�I:SI; .0 3 �'S.�i�. .S-i �ii.��''.1,.�4.. 7 S^(y�_? � � �``� '�� 1-,-x"uz�cdi;��' `� � �✓ ��` 't<<t��E' �., t �'",� �' �, � !i,';l,��ti?^r t � v ;��,;��'�-�. �,`" � �` `�. `�>��.,,,x +•`� w�`�•,�� -',q � \ $LL.,: iJ `"�`. �` °'�.. 'et 1 `~�. '�,, � \ ,' �' `��``� � 0. �''``, ``� I,;�$ ;d E�ez��t��.1�� r/��`` _�{�� J � �'ria �if -2 ��ea ;"t(i,:�h1 Y.,') ...,.�� •. '� �%T n'pt t�c? if �. �'�.. � �—'` ; -- � .,,.... `"�`�[�.r-.2`' '`�-.. `�.`` �� ,"` ��, � ' :=� � ,. r 'o:,� �`a''�.,�'�..-"� � � �"-- �:�_ I�c�r 3�r€�;:'ra; ;; .�r �/ � � .— , c.,_ � ,� ''� � y� ��. � � -' � � � 1 i��,et.riy ��:7! .7:f't'iT -^---; �''Cf'S:f.*'t?% �i'�� ,a,�,.tC�:?u�a_ 3fd."�a 3C ".X.St."��e tfliL3 na�esiie � f � � rc: �.1� 1 f i y� i�� ;J� tf r, r �f r i l,�. � � 1,, t �. t � � r ': f `ti' , � i �--�-- i' � t � .`__1._' � �.... ��. �' � -;.._� C� ��'s--. � t i �� .; � l � t 3 � i � t ( �( � % � � t; TI' ; r ,t�iTT;t}iCC7??iC ':�G'SM:S „C7:.t.?.T�'�sa; a ..fJfi'Vf �1<..<jer;?i.'It7RS � ��aa� �� <b` �a.u��::;eN��r13t 4s��.rsiatl7 h �..,i?t r"�ir�3.�.��.-�,`3ti.fl, -,:,(i,�'±�7 — �',=C�1.C8:4"i: �'i'c'.t �iliii-i :� i:1Ti't:��4 ,�7�3 >_�.��i� Sitl<L �:�t �,.yr.,� 4.. !I-'1 � .. .. _.. . /.�...v �� `� �t i��T''�:..::° �.� � ��t� a�� f'J"' "'t r J ^J".;... r .I .��• .:� . . LW� �s f e! d6�b:i.�Ei t aL�� l:2�:J.9 k9! b 11 i7.8uWL�' .. ?'�i s^� 1,��-� .�.l1 " '4�J�-mter ��, �; , �% sm; , ��I _. �a+rr ti;,� .+�KO' ^t � F� _r� �� i,,.,. � . ;� � - N�r�� Y.� ��r_�7; . �: I�s�3-�-,�_..,ti R'u�tl?L�'�' T�> >=.T THE C`.4;ti�'(;�! CV€�t�}��^�� `I�_�.;>:} : �3. _ .�;�C�":=�:?52�fi-? � � � "�� ,% �%' ' _.,_,�-�- � `. -�-_�ti'' -.,.:.'`-- '".---� ` � ri _' �� . . ""�' ' :�t � �'r` '..^ '�:� / .. � C 1 _,,,. ....° '"� �-` ' � ? ,�' �,- --' �;r ' �� L�t � � � i �}4f,.�it�@i F � � _-'�`� s =-£i�C �r � ;''J`il't1 iC'. .i:'"c^t3 i f . f�a,ir�.� `'jt � ? tC�'.:r .'�. idl�'rn,�f� � AC�.FS,S ! i> �`� � ry�' �::_ � ! ��, i � �� +; � t �r � ~^ '`�� '�• �� ;-i�3� . �.�� . , ,.- _ � - --� � -- - __y. � �— � � � � —} � � � _�� A�' �r, ._.�.. '�% -.___.._��- ." ---�"��. �. �__�`-----_-- _.._ __� _.Y. ---`" �.-`',. �3'+ �% �\ E.td�l:lil;`it7 1"�Ld.!t'.� � �' �_ ;i,: i ,< �'w � �---- ---.- -----� -,.., _..... ____ -----_ _-__ �-� y,-.'^"""...... �. �, .. ...-...�..�,._,______�_ —._.. �. _-.,-„^"' �- — _ ._...._�._,.___�.._'_ f t27t?",-`7`ui7Ti�i: �`�t2i�l?S .%iJ ��LiP1�e;Z� }' :.5'!'i �i��%1??e'!',r.1%S � - f�. ._�...} � � � � . _� � � � __,,. ..,.. �— Ifi � '� � � �� fi i � ;,� r: ± � �� # 2� � { i a � � � � �,}� # f �.{�l'� � �L8}?G�it�` __'i� � � . r i + � --�>'� € : � � .�- - �'°., i � �' � � , ,� � � f` ��: ��s�� I-��=��e � � �� Gi £uls::? l�cli,Jt �i'i`�.Iiiltll;� h !� �' } i.�,� , C3 ii_�� t�.C�, 'iti �.�.'t .. :�trC%,"-.'I'i j:".Li �'il'.;�'tili�'? ��.Di�..r;i��U,'I.YY'.i l�3. �3.� �Lik.� i�:'.Y� �, ..- "£'Si" .' Il.L`; ..�"•'I;X k7'i:;�8t tt�, ",1'„n. 3_=.n $Ga 1..�} � f:t.cf t� � _,t?, �.� �tr-�: ;; �zdl (7�,�.,� i?'Fl�fi*71`d!1i? .�?Y'.'L ,'t'l;.ft:�'i<'.f .��r�zZ i:i fe �"i! Y �rSr`� t; �' iC?z,'�'.5'C`(tt�E' 7��"7>�ti : tt': 7t2�'Z�£ ;� :V ! �'� ~�,'�, � a-�,rn ! �.�, sz��_ ��1 i= , .,d ` . � 3��E`t6��t.38 Y��a�. . ��"��F�� . � � .-� .�" " �"' � , ; � � ., i r � � m � � IiC�e.��,��tW �r6��!'��!��ii8i!. � /�`'�� % 1, / " 1 � � �x. /(� �•' , �' pp7 � ,7 � r;•;�'��: � f f-�n } A r�.,_ �if'.;lJ . - �, ♦� 'TlM � � �fr 1 ,"�� f. i , �f ' �; f, i f l.:_.�' �,%'r i � 2r�., ��;��.�? .�' Y �.:: � . �',�;;� z� ,-ST,. �{ a I��_7.i."s�:3�.1�. ��fi��lF;�'1.�..�`s.��i �{'�E:�'r'1r:��`l?l�? ('f.��.>a�i�i ��.�� '.4 �? .,"�' 3_ _� : � q.� 4 � �� y � m f rGf�ti ':LF17 t L.'i:: \ ``� — LOl ?�S'ki;'?c��r;"7" � .�'+�� ., .,. y `�: � ' �: `�-- Lat 2 ��cE��ti�its —`+3 i P+ �rt< <�� a�'i„��_ �J;i j' gtE+?;:i7'?<� .. ,/� F�r��it.��e ` -.,� � ._, ilr.tz?��i�, '' � �'� ,,`. � �,�> `� �� `� � v�� . �.,� \` . ._�� . 4�'� � �., ��,� �� :t,�r;:i .�.rr� � t:�'ZEtt�: � isttat? icT.�"i!��t+7f t i7:'itr !iCTTt1e=.S:,�G „�>�r. ` �._,��:s:�ra' ti ,'i c-ceN c � � I� � \ \, �t�� _.-. t � : �� r.=,_ � f � ., 7'� �l � � � ,� � ;� `� ��'� T.�� €��:�s��e � � lt� .�..�L tiiliii` 1 a�.'�is�:9'3� �yS :','.'��{i�Y }_l�L. i-i.�v�2%,'. (�i �ii�C.. 3^��:.'�'��9 ':";' �"a.Jl.:'.�.Tit� �C�4'i: �=i�; . E?n�r�c}pe i�r�a 2�.St-� s�u� r� ;�et � . . r. . �. r.".Fv � ^�. .. ' � N _":) � •, �� `..;```. `'�. � ti � :•''t�n rir�n;firc:. r� ^ti }�c?tZrt�"::.�tdi ��tt."i,'c' tc� Jti7:iit �`':T_Cil t�t�?��a?t�,'t1i7?:` �, �,, �� ; f � `� 3c. V.r: �'`:..1 �`�' � � . 1 i €��E��4�'��`�� --- ��_ ,� � � t J: .r ; .. ie6lu�a�.l�� eibe P �' i 1 ! u�.J �ti.�.iY .:lhe 25.16.070 Development standards £or lots fifteen thousand square feet or mo�•e. Page 1 of I Ralrn De�ert Municipal �ode � Up Previous f�ext NEain �earch Print &Va Frarnes Title 25 ZONING Chaoter 25.16 R1 SINGLE-FAMiLY RE5IDENTIAL DISTRICT 25.ib 070 Development standards for lots fifteen thousand square feet or more All developments on lots fiftceai thous�ld square feet or more as shown on ihe zoning map shall comply to the follo��ing minimum de��elopmcnt standards: A. Mininzum lot depth, one luuidred twenfy-five feet; B. Minim.uin Iot width, ninety fe�t; C. Miniinuin front,yard, t�enty-five feet; D. Minimum rear yard, ri��enry feet; E. 1��3inimum side yard, fifteen feet; F. Minimum street side yard, fifteen feei; G. The minimu�� dii-elling uuit size as specified in Section 25.56320 slzall be ulcreased to fifteen hut�dred squa�•e feet fior alI lots lar�er tha.n fifteen thousand s�luare feet; H. Maximum buildin� site coverage, tllirty-five perc�nt. (O�•d. 866 § 2(Exhibit A), 1998: Ord. J�8 �§ l, 3, 1976: Ord. 94 § 1, 1975: E�lzibit A§� ZS.10-7-25.10-7.08} � � hitp://w��w.qcode.us/codes/paln�desertiviev,�.plap?topic=25-25_16-25_16_070c4cframes=on 12/14/?{112 � . �� ...,. . � � `�l' = ,,;� _ � ` � ,```�� _ t � � y��, - . � §' �. � }},�'� �:"-�� r / ' � . - � . � _ r � lJ�. � . "_-:. j � � � - �i : . . �� . � - .� f� . s .p YY . . - . . . + . . a � � � f ,�, ? � �; �.; � R f r.i _ e � . . . . �j�.� �y G� a� f'��' . . ��` �. ' i ` � . �. �~��'�� ..`y 6r � � 1 � . . 1 �+�O�N ; �� `��=`-��_�, �, J g i �t ��` �., � , , , _ ��; _ .`�� - `�� ' ' �� .,l� , � �'�^ a `•, !( _ � � a< � � �:'��5 . � o��; � -/�-' �,,\ �', �/ � � � - i .- g r � �� .�� . �l� �,� '� %- , . . . ,� � � . z�W� � � � - � ? . : c4. .. ' a�� .. - ll"{� � .. .' �J;�-`�f'��!'�A'.�-- i<'� � `?�. . �- ,1,, _ . �;v-' ews� ' = l'"i =��M � � � �� :� _ �� ..i - �¢ -�;^�;� `` _ - - - .� t , � ,� � _�� w i i-x = � � _ � �� . } �� f .�`=. -'�.. J �, ( � ;� . �o.� � � �p i 4 �, � .� _ i5� - N � J. �It � �+.y'' �'!j� . . .. � ��.�s4r� �z. �'g��, . 4 . 1�. , . � � � . �i- . _ � .— � � �a ' �. l" ur � �+� . �4 � '� - . ��F�J� / 8��«, i .. �°a �� . ' .. � ��_ �t�� J� �3�� y' . � Ae-y_� f r�'�.,. �� . � � � � }.�, ��6� , �- IN �� `�S "i''W, 4:�.� �-��'r i� _�' � ��y( � _ - - s � r- O'��0 G`� � �. - '� �� `�� -. �* � � �y.' iJ� li.,, ^ 1, 3 . 4 _ . . `', � � � �. � Q� . 2'.�ti+.f K^ `F3' O� G ' �S �'�— � �� 0 � �� ; � ` �', �` "� � �;� :��;, r- � , . . .,W� �..� :.w,� . . . F.s` . . \ ,+ _ �Y''3'i, —' _ . _ � � � a` � < . � ,` �, " � �n '�. ta4 � . . � ,. � i� � � �� ,\1 �� ' _ _ - '=��, �_` ��,�'a � '� ",�,: _ � - G �� _ � �'\ ..�a �`Y ` �,,� �� `,`� � _ . , : � ��: , , .<. s � � _ .� <�� _ � �-��g � ` ;� ! �:: ,. o � �� -� - � \ � ` � �, ; � , �g s � .-r"1�'��` '�_�-�`-1- �? � r ��"�"'" r _ - _ _ "�"•-;n, ' '� � �3T `; a , `m � -�'_._ _ __,_ �.��s � . g� F,i �� -.!1 1� � _ �� ,�rJ ' -S� ""�z� �� 4 �y + � �� ; /''� j J' �' � .. . . _ � �� y, � . .'" ' �� "^�� 5��} � � � � � � � _ . r "�--,.._ f�.i' � .,, k -�� . � t L;��'^ .`_.. ,^ . "�. ¢ . . � . . �-.... � . � �j . * �. . . _ ,.,. � � ��sl''"`�� '�' � ,.. �� ._ . . . . '� ..1 . V �'-.gi . - . � . . �' . �-. r. � . � 1 . . � Y-��y� . . . ' . . . . .�f �� f ^ . . . . - . � � . .. . � � . . . � : .. .�,�, ..... . . .. . � ..... . ,. � , .,.,,�.,. �. .i 1� � ��... �1 � �, BUILDE� ��►��" �QC�� ' truct��n Ir��. , 'i%�� ?��}.34�.1�90 � i t�i �� r�ith ,��- ` ��i��r�it � �' ��f� . �- ' �I�bitat Designs � .z _w ( ��,, a � � ,r.. ,;�, y r�ier �� - �� :��//�, S�e�e Pl att t y' ! ,�M� �_ . , � � `��(� �� t ° `�2t� C h �II F �I� � ,-��` .' � a u E a a s T-``��`��" LOT NUN1BER �,� �. .. � �� r•"7p.. �� .� : � ' .. � Y 't. .y �� . �a � �M �^ • � y a�'� 1 .' � y � �.� �y � .. • .�: ,� � � � � I hln'�-i6-2Q1'? FR( 03:41 PM ' , : LEGRL DOCS FRX No. i��-a64-6�8) P� GU3 � � � � � � Z SUPERIaR cOkJRT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY Of RIVERSiDE � �: N01► 2 0 2012 4 ' . . � c. P. Rias 5� 6 � � a SUPERiOR CI�iJR'T OF T'H� STAT� Or GALII'C�Rt*tIA � � FOR �"H� ClJi�`I�ixY' �JT' R�Vr?ZS�UF, LAItSI�N JtISX`Ci C� C�.FT� �0 � 11 i LAWRE7�ICE PA�T.�ftT�%h,,C�, Ct�se No. TiVC �2Gfi949 `I Plaintiff, X�o�a, ltan.dal� :D. Wb.xta Y � ; 1�e}>t. 2H � 3 VS� i 14 BRiJC� �'AG�L �,s trustae of Cl�e �'AGSL ��'Q�7�JE� b�E PRE�..YMIlYAiY"� ' � Ft? MII.�' �'RUST; `Z'RIJUY PAGEL, as trustec ��'N��C�ON T 5'' n ft1a6 I�AG�L TAMILY TRUST: ]3rGHUFtN' T-�On�iFOWN�RS �SSOCIATIC��1, CTT"IY OS' l 6 PALM b�S�RT; a�7d DOES ktizou� 1 tlaxoagla �,� 10, incl'ssi�,e, Date; Nave�z�be� 16, 24�2 x�rn�: s:�o A.�. 18 ��reaid�ts. Depc: 21� i� Date �lckion ��led: Qctob�,r 2, 2012 , • Tr.isE. Date; Nt�na , LL+ . . . . _. �, rA �� I [rR�►�d�s��j 4�� A,N"��t� Y��L��kvF�N,��x �1w:tClnTCTT�N 2� On Oc�nber i8, ZOI2, tlie Coutt i.ssued its C11�der C,�antin.� Teuxporary Restxai�ylli� Qrd�r �4 yec�u.irin� tl��.t vvork ofjrt��o��r�t:nt and construction at 1020 C�imiila k'alls, Pa1n,� )�eaez�, ?$ � Califarn�a (T,ot 9 af'T�act ZS2�6-7} €>tap im.;�ri�diately ('°i'RO"). Tl�e '�.0 was ef�'ectzve untaa � No�emher ] .Fi, 2412. 27 On Novcinber 1 b, 2Qi2 al $:30 a.tz►. in i]e�axtmt�nt 2H o�t�e Itivexside Co�uity Superiar zs sr q Rutan & Tu�ce�, L�N - D l:� �% � � "� � I � �ffQYn9Y58t1R'N gdtilfy21930-0CY1 JIy aFazs�e,i ottl�wlz C1R�LR t7RANTINCr PRELIMINAl'tiY AJJi]PiCT[��N ��jl�% � 6 2�� $v �A 0 m � � � N O N � NOU-1�-2�1? FRI Q3,47 PM , . ., � �� LEGAL D�CS FRX Pdo, ?BD-�fid-6381 P�OU4 1 Cou�t, #t�s Co��rt heId a heatzng vn plai�tx#x ��Wz'��a.ce Paster��flck's �Jlc�t�nn f�r Prelizxi�nar�Y j 2 Injuz�cti.�t� ("Motion°'}. �avin� considered t}�e p��iexs sEibmitted 'u1 suppoxt ofthc Motiou, � � I iz�c�nc�lz�� `�E1t Declarati.ozz.s and oth.�r evidence sttlxmitied therewitb., and having coneyd�zd tk�:e j • 4 I� a�gumeu� of aounsel, tlie Coazt finris goad caus� a?�isfs fnt 'rssuing apxeliruiu7at•y it�june�ion 5�I 4�jQi�iittg a11 �uture c�inst�ucti�n ftt 1020 Cal�uiila r�lis,1'altn I�csect (Lot � of Tract 2529b-7) it� 6 vat?latoj2 t�f il2e setback requit�n�ents, , � i �'k�e Coart �nds tlxa#. p�xintiff i.a��vrance .Pa,�;te.tnacic is Xilcaly i� succeed �tt tbe nle�its i.�, t1�# �' � 8.I Dcfen�iai�ts buildi� plat�s violate tb� seibacic requirerrreuts. The Caurt fiurt6er finds tEiat th� i `; � 9! bata�cc ��har�u wez�t�s inplaintit�f T�aw�t�x�c� Pas�tan�ack's ;Cavor. lU ' �� IS Ii�12�TDY �RIG►�R�33 that be�'etad��tg €�,r,ra hereby eujouted fi'am consiructiza� a I ! l 1�' r.esiclence at ).02Q Cahu3lla FaX1s, Pals�� D�sert (Lot 9 0#' Txau�t 252�6-� in vi.c�latioz: of'the setbacl< j �2 xaquiremants, whic�a ure d�tecmined �y i,he �3�veic�pin�nt S�dards set out in the R,evis�d � 3'T`eutativa �'taci A�[ap 25295, tiSad ktte inc0�p�rated znto Che �inal �raat �&p 25296-7. ; � � 14 k�' ZS �'U�t'1'HL+`R ��tD�R�I� ihat a boz�.a i� the a�nount of $ I OO,QDO.Q4 shall be posted 15 by 131�znti�'f I�awtence Pastarzzecl� as 52cutity for t�,e issua�l4e t�f th'ss T'�:elin�inaxy �jr�action. A oapV of tl�e Couit's Mz�aui� Order of �?ovenahex � 6, �.012 is att.�lteci �s E�hibit !1. �'fi' I5 SO ORID��J�p, �--�,.. Dated: No,mmber ZU , 2�112 ' Hon. Randall il. Wftttc 3udge af tlae Superi�r Court ��the State oi' Califoxnia 24 25 ?5 27 ; 28 Ru�n & ru�kar, lLP , ettorr�sys of lxw aao,roxtv:o•Do f t �d82G76,1 a1 Vld/l2 � I 16 17 1$ i9 2� 21 �a z� -2- CJRJJER nTtA1VTINC3 PRL'LTI+'�NA�X I7VJI71VCT'IaN ��1V-15-211� FRI �3:G7 PM ' , , 0 LEGaL DOCS FAX N�, 76�-�84-6787 P•Oi�� , . , ��„i,� � � � NOV-18-2012 FRI 03�47 PM LEGkL D�CS FAX P�a. 7oi�-�84-G167 P� OD6 Miuute Ch•det • Casc TNC12Uci949 -1.,A.Vi�RE1�iCE �'A.S�'FRNACK. VS BRUCE FA,GBL,... �age, l. o� 1 i �� _ I��IBLIC �.C�� '_ ;:(?,rliltThiB•FlCpOrt':'".u�',� :�._ .:�:.:�.,- f ��'w .�Glasa-'�h1s,Windotia`•:� �� _.�_._�a:..e�,.:, _.a.,.,...:.�,�.»_...Jii��i.a N9i�tute �3rder Gass [NC'120G948 ��AWI��IVGE PASTERI�ACK VS BRUCE FAGEL;ET AL H�ARiNG oN pR�LIM[NARY {NJUNC'fION 1 �t11Gl��1 � $:�D /�M aEPT, 2H HONOtiASI.F JUDt3E FiAN�ALL D WHfTE, PRESICIING CLF�tK: C. D41VdVAN C�URT REPOR7ER: 9. S�HULZ LAWRENCE PAS7�RHAC}(��PRES�PlTED BYJIN MIIF�R� W. DAHL JRAi�D tfSA NERL Bf2UCE FAGEL A5 "fRU57� dF 7HE PA{��L, TRIJDY FAGEL A5 TRUSTEE OF THE FAGEL FAMILY REPRE9ENTED BY/IN f�qRTlh! I�1U�LL�Ft BI�HORN H01M�OVt�N�FtSA550CIAT1t�N REPRESEfUTEp BYlIF! MAP.OARETG, WANGI_ER GITY OF PALM D�SERT P.EPRESEMTED BYIIN DOUGLAS PHILLI�� LAUVR�N�E I'A5TE�NACK REPRES�NiEq �Y/iN .��Ff�EY CHRtS70ViGH (NOT ON iN� C�CO�d) VIA GOL1R7 GALI. � 91raHQiZN HOMEI�V�RJcF'�SASS�CIA7IUN F3�PR�SENTEt3 BYlIN 6T�V�N i7. SEDACH (NOT ON TME RECOtiDj VIA CQUftT GALL ARGUMGNT PRESENTED BV DOUGLA,S $�HII.I.IPS. AR�iJMENT PRESENTEQ SY MAf�7(N MUkl.1.6Ft. ARGUM�NT PRESEN"f'�C1 BY MARflAR�T WAIJGLER. ARGl1RAENT pRESE'ntT�p N'{ RijILFO�D W, �ANL JR,. PRELIlViWAFtY INJUNCTION 7AK�N 11NDER SUBMiSSi�H 1l11! �4URT SUBSEQUENTLY RUL�S ON MA'I"TER TAK�N UNbER SUSIVHSSION ON 11/�6(12. PREL1MIhlAPY ItdJUNCTiON TC� 15&UE, UNDERTAK{NGlBOidD T� BE PQSTED 1N THE AFYIt7UM1iT OF $100DOd.00 EY PL.AM7IFF. IT APPERRS THAT PLAINTiFF IS �.IICELY 7p SUCC��p C)N THE M�RfT9 IN THAT DEFENDAM7'S k'LANS VlOLA7� SETBIICK Ft�f�kjl�iEMF,.NTS, FUR7HEF2 iHE BALANCE OF HARM W�IGHS !N f'I.AIN71�F5 FAVQR. NdiIC� TO B� GI'�tEN C3Y CLERK PRlfJT MkNUTE O�DER Ctiverslde Pu�J�c A.cc�ss 5,7.� � 201,215D Cotporation. All R3gkts iusetvtd, v+hvw,isd-crnp,�ons Conkack Us 1tttp:,�l�u6Iic-aceoss.��v�tsid�.uourts.oa.�oe/4penAccessl.PrintMiuznteUc�r.asp?Casel�tum... 1 �Il b1201? � NUV-16~2�12 FRI �3:4P� °M LEGAL DOCS FAX No, 760-6B4-6i8? P.�01 . . „ � �I � i m z( ��oo� o� si�z�vzc� �e�r n��a� 7 r STA'�� t��' �'�.LJ�qJftl�TiA., C4�UN'Z'Y C1F �RANGE 3 4 I a�m ezi�layed by the law affice o� C�utan ��'uckeTr J�P in #fie Cotu�ty of Clrange, Stete �of CH�1#4j111A• I SS'll 01'ez the age o� 18 n��..d zt.ot a par�� ta tEae wxt�,�,n, ae�,oz�. My busir�e3s addr�ss zs 5 611 ��tnn Boul�va,•,3, Suite i400, Costa Mesa, Califoi7�ia 92�26-I931, G On �ovam�e� ��, 2012, I sarv�d on �ae ir�t��sted pa�t��s in ��id antxou the v�lztk�zx�: � i�e�.oFos��a ��t � ��tr.�,Ar�r��.r�� z�r,��rcT��N 8' by pls�aiz�g a tttxe copy 4hereof in sealed ecivetape(s) add��essed as stated o17 tite aitaUhed m�iling li s1.. !� !�i tIie Gnurse af my ctnplo}��icnt wifil Ru1�t1 Rt Tu��ccr, LLP, I iiava, througlt �u-st-hand � � 0 pei�ona! obset'vatic�n, b�cortxc zeadily [`am.itx�t witk� �i�rta�n �'�'ualcer, LLP's'pA��ctico aE coll�ction and process�ng canespoudenca for mailing with tho TJni"ed Staies Postal Service. Under th.at 11 praa'�ice I deposited �1ich enveZv�e(s) i�3 �C'� out-box �or cnlleetiou by odi�r per.sannel af Rukan & , Tucicer, Li.h, En�j �px� �aiiSr�.EttB p�St��.g 8�.d paaCeJX��i7.S W1th t�j� U.�a. �c�StBI SCrViCe On fl�flt sai�e day 12 in the ordinttry course of business. If t[ie ciistomary businoss practices af Rtltan & Tuaicer, LLP witl� i�gard lU callectiou a�7d processit�g o�'cp�res�oaade�ae and xx�ailing were followed, and I arn 13 c0A�1�e�t i�7,at kIAC}' W�TC, sucZ� envelope(s) r�,�re pasfed ac�d plac,�d in tue Unit�d States mai� �.t Cc�stn I��esa, Califoi�la, tliat aame daie. I 7m aw3re that �u inotion of pa��y served, service is l4 pr�sn�ned ir�v�ili�3 if p�stal cance[13tinti date or �ostagr� meter d�te is more tlzan on� tia,y a{�ar d�tte of de�osit for inailing ii�, a#'ficiavit. • J. S Execu�,-d on Noveinb�r l G, 2012, st �:asta R+1esa, CAl'zfonlia. 16 T declare t�nder pet�alty of perjury un�er ti�� t�vas taA ck�o Stats of t�a►ifoz�niA Chat tbe z7 fox•egoit�g �s tt�Ye at,d cdrrcce. 18 � N��cy Bush � �. .. 19� � r 1 (Type ar �riat t�me) (5'ig�3ature} 20 �� 22 , Z3 Z4 2S . 26 '37 I �� I 840N�1924�01 ] nqs;ost.t ai �115/!2 �` � �i �0'd-16-201? FRI 03,46 PM IEGRL DOCS FAX f�u. 76p-564-6i81 P.008 , < , � � S�RVZG� LISx 2 Mnxtin �t. Mueller, �sq. l!1�xger�t CT. Wangl�r, �sq. 3 Jul{�; f�,. R�,ssrA, L�q, T�atlid A. T�li��e, Esc�. P. Tvlarissa Palr�rino, Bsq. F'iore, l�acobs & PawBr6 4 tV�ue1)e�,lQlivi�t•/W1.azt(�1ie�', �.L�' 7�-�30 Couu.h'y Club I�xive, Suito 1 �}2 41-750 R:3ucho L�s Palma:; Drive, Buitding H Palm Descn, Califurnia 922f,0 5 I'u,v�clio Mirage, Califoraia 512274 r�ttArneys �or Di�laox�� T�inrnep�vrG�rs � iAt�on�eys far $ruea'Fe�c+) �nd Truciy Fa�el, as A�sa�iation, h3e. trvstees of t��e Pa�e! FamiaY Trust 7' f7�vid. Javries Exw�ita, �3n. 8 1�est F3est & I�.tie,et LLP P. O. Pnx 13650 9 I �atm t?osr.zi, �A 9�255 1 10 Counsel for Ci,iv a�Z'alm Descrt 1 l. 12 i . 13� • 14 a5 � . - 16 � �7 X$ � I t9 � : �.0 21 ?z �� , 24 I 25 ��„ 27 28 i saa'D2i9R0A01 I , 375in?7.1 nll/(Y�J1z �� 1 2 � a 5 6 7 8 9 1D 11 �2 13 34 15 16 17 18 19 2� 21 22 23 24 25 Carl T. Cardinalli - Volume 1 October 26, 2a30 7 DEPOSITIC�N OF C?�RL T. CARDINALLI OCtObel 26, 2Q10 CP�?L T. CARDIN�LLI, havi.ng been �irst duly sworn., tes�ities as follows: ��zNAxzoiJ BY A�R . HATTON : Q. Could you state and spell your name for the reccrd, please. ?�. Carl, C-a-r-1, T. Cardinal�i, C-a-�-d-i-n-a-1-1-i. Q. Mr. Cardinall.i, are you a licensed attoiney in >.--______. , _ the state of California? A. Yes. Q. How long have yau held that license? A. Since 1974. Q. Any disciplinary proc?eding or complaints of the state bar that you're avaare of? A. No. Q. Az�e you a licens�d real estate broker in the state ot California? A. iTes Q. Haw lo�zg have yau held that lic�nse? A. Since i989 or 1990. �. �� J �� r. n,.x„„a« c�iio c��,n.�,y � �e 7011 Free BDO 300 1214 Facs�r-�ile 951 7H4 9520 Suite 640 3Ei01 L7niversity Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 tivww.esquiresolutions.cnm Carl T. Cardinalli - Volume 1 Octobex 26, 2010 80 _.------- 1 Q. Okay. �nd, to your nnowledge, does �he ALCC 2� have the Bighorn HOA's authority ta grant a variance � 3 that allows the placer�ent of improvenlents in vio� ation 4 cf City of �alm Desert setbac}� ordznances. � A".R.. ?1T�TDERSO?Q: Objection; it's argumentative,�' E c�lls for speculation, lacks ioundation, assumes facts, 7 it's vague. 8 NR. CHRISTOVICH: Joirl. 9 AiR. SEDACH: �7oin, it's also an incomplete 1D hypothetical. 11 TH� `v1ITNESS : Would �-ou repeat the question. �2 T✓R. �-IATTON: Could you repeat it back, please. 13 {Record read} 1� i�_E WITNESS: The BighoLn Homeot�-ners ~�� '��~f �-� A�sociation allcws the P�chitectural and Landscape �� 16 Control Comrnittee to exercise its discretion to �lace s anywhere� n a homes�ite. And v � 17 improvement � ' ahether they ._. 18 violate a.��yone's other requirements, I have no idea. . .. .. 15 BY MR. HATTON: � 2o Q. Ol�ay. And when you say you have no idea, I'm z� not rying to be argumentative here, so I'll try �o �2 phr se this properly. Bear with me. �3 Are�.you saying that, to your lcnowledqe, it is �4 not a concern of the Bighorn HOA a.f improvement �_are 25 placed in violation of City of Palm I3esert lot line . _ �: ` 7oli Free: 300.�00.12i4 .: F.acsimile:_95.i.ZE�_952D___._ ___.. � � �� Suite 640 3801 University Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 �ti.x�,.a« ��3,o co,��,,. www.esq u iresolutions. com � � Carl T. Cardinalli - Valume 1 octobe.r ?.6, 2010 $1 � 1 setback requirements? 2 MR. CHRISTOVICH: Vague, incomplete 3 hy-po�I�etical, assumes facts. 4 MR. AiJDERSON: Arc�umentative . �-----•- °----�, � THE ti�dITNESs: What I'm saying is, that the - 6 homeawners association allows the Architectural and 7 Landscap� Control Committee to exercise its discretian ` 8 to de'tertnine tr.e placemen�t and construction of 9 improveinents or_ a hornesite, and whether �hat has an � . ,..__----- lo_ impact on some other aclency makes no difference. t , .. _ 11 BY NPl . HA'T'I`ON : � �-? Q. Okas�. So the Bighorn Homeowners Ass�ciatiol�, 13 then, daes nat care cne way or another whether the 14 placement oi impravements within �he homeowners 15 association violates City of Palm Desert building 16 ordinances? � � 17 MR. CHRISTOVICH: Well, that's the same 18 qz.iestion. You just substi�uted "care one way or 19 ar�othei" for �'concern. " I' 11 just interpose the same 20 abjectians as the last qZ:eation and allow him to answer 21 it again. 22 MR. A'�TDERSON: Join. 43 �TH� WITNESS:� The Bigriorn Homeownera 24 'Associati.on allows the Architectural ar,d Landscape 25 Control Committee to exercise its discretion in �` '` `.'i .;.- .._. ....,�. �� V Z�� Toll Free: 800.3D0.1?14 __Facslmile; 95.1.Z84,9.5.2Q Suite 640 3801 Unlversity Avenue Riverside, CA 9Z501 www.esquiresolutions.corn � � Carl T. Cardiz7a11i - Volume 1 October 26, 2Q10 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 4 O 21 22 23 24 25 determining the �lacement of improvements on a homesite. Peziod. .__-�----�- BY NR . ?iAZ'TON : (Q.} Is that discretion, to your k�owledge, �..,J` controlled in an.y way or limited _n any way by City of Palm Desert building ordinances? MR. CHRISTOVICH: Vague, compound. MR. A1ti-DERSON: Obj2ction; calls for a legal conclus�on. THE bdiTi�ESS: The exerci�e o= the discretion by . . --,- the Architec�ural and L�ndscape Control Committee is its exercise of discretion. ____ .. -------- BY MR . I-IATTOI� : �.�' So the anwwer to my questic�, then, is, the .----�� Czty of Palm Desert buildirg ord.in�zces dc�not�limit that d�srretioa7, correct? P�IR. ANDER50N: Gbjectian; it's vague, it's azgunentative and calls for a legal conclusian. THE WITN�SS: Again, the exexcise of the dis�retion is not limite� It's the exercise of the discretion by the Prchi'tectural and Landscape Control Committee. The �rchitectural and L,andscape Control Committee is a part cf the Biqhcrn Homeowners Association. Period. `�s BY MP_. kIATTOId : � f;. � ��tJI1�E ,. nl�x.�a.� c:.ito co,�,�,��r To11 Free: 80Q.300.1214 Fa.csim➢e; _951.784.952� Suite 6k0 3801 University Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 WVJW .25qU1�05�lUtig(15. C6[3'1 � � Carl T. Ca.rdi.nalli - Volume 1 Octoher 26, 2010 83 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 35 16 17 18 19 4 O 21 22 23 24 25 �.�-' �,� j"Q.� Okay. Now, to your kr.owledge, "ria�,a lor�g has the �.✓ ,• _ Bighorn Homeovmers �ssaciaticn had the discretion that you -just described for me? .�.� Since the inspection of the Architectural and La.ndscape Control Committee. a-- Q. And when, approximatel.y, did that occur? �. Again, about the same time as the ereation of the Bighoin Homeot�m.ers Association, which �lould have been in 1990 ar 1991.` �,�^ _ r Q. Does the Bigharn HomeotiT.ers Association submit plans that it has app�oved to the City of Palm Desert for its approral? �. No. Q. Does the B,yghorn Homeoc,Jners Associatien ty-pically require the owner To su}�mit plans for approval by the associa�ion before the o;aner turns those plans in. to the City of Palm �esert? A. No. I+�R. C�iRISTOVICH: Objection; vague to �he term ,� rec�iire . " • Go ahead. THE 4v7ITISESS : 1�To . BY MR. HATTON: 9- Is the proceduie for plan apProval that the ALCC appraves first and then the CiLy approves s�cond, � _,� ��- �� ex Alr>..ndrrGslle Co,�nm�7 Tol{ Free: 540.3�0.2214 Fa csi m i! e: 9 51.7 84.9 520 _ . _. ____ _ _ __ _ Suite 540 3II01 University Avenue Riverside, CA 925D1 www.esquiresolutfons.com `� . � 19565/5�+4r�t --, �a9/39/90 $7�V�. :. � t : T:"f; � [�r . RECaRDiIJG RE4tlE5TED HY �12�TD � WgE�1 RECORDEII MAZL T4: � � � � � CQ%, CASTLE & NICEOLSQN � � � 2049 Centur Parlc East, 2Bth E'loor b]]] � Los Angeies� .Ca3:i�oznia 90067 � },,, +� " + Atfention: • Johtf_ i':� NiCholson, Esq. � v 1 a � i s DECLE�TiATION QF � � COVENANTS, CONAXTION5 A�*ID RESTRICTxC}NS { BIGHdR23 ) �- y t �. .,,,, ., ..,, INPEX i • ., pa�e - _ ARTICLE T. DEF'IBiITIdlIS ......................................2 AR�ZCLE II ASSOCIATiON ......................................8 Sectioa 1 Organization ...............................6 Section 2 Membership .................................8 (a) 4ualifications..... .............5 (b) Membership Aights and Duties.....8 (c) Transfer of Mem6ership...........e Section 3 Voting .....................................8 la} Number of 4otes ............. ....8 (b) Commencement of Voting Rigints....9 (c) Joint �wners Disputes............4 (d) Election and Remonal of soard - Cumulatine Vating Features .................10 (e) Special Pxoced�:��.....-.........11 {f} Appsoval by Each Class of Membets ......................11 Section 4 �uties of ti:e Association .................il (a) Maintenance and Management......li {b) Insurance .......................12 (c) Ruies ...........................12 {d) Architectaral and Landscaping Control Committee, Cammittee Lists .................�2 {e) Taxee a�d Asgessments...........12 �,,, s -�- 3s�sse FdqE Sectian 11 Lot Maintenance Assessments ...............2G Section 12 Due Dates of Assessments; Certifzcates Regarding Assessments Regarding Assessments.........26 SecEion 13 Effect Of Nonpayment Of Assessments; Aemedies of The Assaciation ...............27 (1) 5usper:sion of Rights; �lonetary Penalties ............................27 (Z} En�orcement by Suit ..................28 (3a Enfarcemeni by Lien ..................28 Section 14 Asszgnment Of Rents .......................3Q Section 15 Snbordinatian To Cerkain Liens............31 Sectian 16 Znitial General Fur.d ......................31 Sectian 17 Income Tax Elections ......................31 ARTICLE IV COVEIiANTS APID USE RESTRI�2ZdNS .......................32 5ection 1 Residential Use ...........................32 Section 2 Improvements And Aiterations ..............32 Section 3 Minimum Dwelling Size .....................33 Section 4 Dwelling Heiqht Limit .....................33 Section 5 Set Back �equirements .............:.......33 �, ,., ,,, Sectioa 6 Landscaping ...............................33 Section 7 Maintenance Sy Owner ......................34 Section 8 Power Toois ...............................35 Section 4 Signs .....................................35 Section 10 Obnoxious and Offensive Activities.._.....35 Section 11 Animals ...................................35 Section 12 Temporary Structures ......................36 Section 13 Vehicles ..................................3"7 Section 14 Debris And Outside Storage.......•-.•..•••37 Section 15 Pests .....................................38 Section lb Antennae And Facterior Appliances..........38 Sectian 17 Parking And Street dbstructions...........38 Section 18 Compliance with Laws ......................39 � 5ection 19 Extracti.�n Of Minerals ....................34 Section 24 Grades, Sloges And Drainage ...............39 Sectian 21 ilse Of Improvements During Construction; ... Diiigence In Car.structioa....,......•.•.•-4fl �� -ii i- as�sss � Each Owner is deemed to consent to and authorize the Committee to record a Notice of Nonconformaace against such Owner's Lot. Sectian 3. MINIMIIM DF'EL%ING SIZE: No Dwelling may be constructed or maiatained unless the ' interior fZoer area of such Dweiling (excluding qarage) contains the minimum interio[ flooz area zequired by the Guidelines and/or as otherwise approved by the Committee. Section 4. DWELLIRG HEIGHT LIMI'i: No Awelling shall exceed the l.esser of the appZicable maximem hpight previded ia City ordinaaces and requlatians or the maximum height fram the referar.ce g:ade of such I�ot grovidefl in the Guidelines except as atherwise approved by the Comiuittee. No i�apzovement constzucted, installed or maiatair.ed on any Lct shall exceed the applicable height limit(s) for such improvement, as established by the City and/or the Committee. � SeCtion 5. SET BACK RE¢i7IR£MENTS: Far each Lot, the Dwelling shall be coastructed and located only within the permitted b¢ilding area for such Lot set farth in the Gua.delines and plans approved by the Committee. Lats shall be subject to the setback restriction5 required by local City ordinances aad reaulations and in addition, Lots shall be subject to setback and other restrictions on Improvement location imposed by the Committee. Lots adjacent to the Goif Course Praperty may be subject to more atringettt Guid�lines and :estrictians. Secfion 6. LANDSCAFING: Landscaping of Lots shall be done only in accordance with Landscaping plans approved 5y the Co�nittee. The Owner oE each Lot shall submit to the Cammittee landscaping gians which arQ in accordance with the Guidelines, subject to approval by khe Committee. • S�Iithin six (bj montt�s fol2owing cvmpletion of construction of a Dsrelling and the issuance of a Certificate o£ Occupancy or simil.ar dacument for such Dwellinq, the first 1 � -33- ... � I r..• Ori��n� Transcri�t s��z�zoz� covxT o� x� s�r.�rE €�� c a�r�o�� . � �r t� �ox �� cov�rr� or ��RsmE, nti�zo D�sr�cr VISION �'F.ST �TFaTA�NTS, LLC: a Cali_fornia.cQrpora�ion; ��STO�I IILTIII�ERS, a Cairforn;a ca�ar�ion, Plaizitiff�s}, . ' v s. - - . . CASEI�O.Il�COE�750 L��v�II�TCE i��,ST�2NACK, an . irndi��:al; LY`��NE`I"TE PI�STEPu'� �C�, ar� int�i��d�sl; SL'3�iD.qN�E �SCR4�iT> a - Cali��rnia corgoratian; �d T�OLS 1 ihrou� 20, inc7nsive, ' T3efandant{s) . �JEPt)�ITIDN OF T4NS� BAGATO� . r A�rii 24, ?.Ol_^ - 9: i9 a.m. 73-1;0 Fred Wariz�� Drive ' Pa?m De.sezt, Catifornia ' Patricia A_ Case}�, C�R Na. 6816 x i - r, __; ��Y�. ��.TI�� G"ePOS€Ti�:1 ct7:UT1:-td5 m ioll Free: 800.211.BEPC3 Facsimile; �52.?84.952tr Suite 640 s801 Ur�i��ersity Avenue RJverside, CA 92501 � �;�wv�. esr� ui resalutions.corn � � 1 2 3 � S 5 7 � 9 1Q I 7_ 1� �# 16 i7 is 19 2� 21 22 L � 24 25 s�ny Bagato April 2�, �� THE WITNESS: ,If they are -� �. S�DACH: Same objecti�n. ' I�?R _ AQLI�IES : Joirz . ' - R�. C"�:TSTOVICH: Joizi. Ti�E WTTItiESS: If it's not on the physical m�p, � . „ . �,,.�,.. ... _ �.,�,.:.. _-,_. .,,,.,."„_,� c.�re go to the conditi�ns of approval, .�.,� 3Y �Ist . �iF+TTOLvT : Q. If .,the�'_a�e..nat c,n the -chyLic�.l m�p..�r the . condations of a�� wotra� �hen U�h� jr ok? : � .�:,,,w� �, i�J�Il, the�. T��e usually hav� two tliings. Der�end=ng on :no�a it's zoncd, we'li look at the lot sizE and follo� it back cn our gener�l zor�.ing ordir3.ance. Ox iP gated co�nm�anities, t,e hati*e a�cende�cy o� a�lc�aing tr ,._.,�.�-�. ,R��. _.. ... .:,_.� . � . ,�:.a.�t..,�.- _ P � setba�ks thYough ^Tan x�h to a� 3ove th�i� c�an ,,....,.,.,�„��„� :::::,�;:.,:.r�: ,� .., ,..,. .,,,,.,�::.:,:� . . ,.�_�A �,�. ,,..,.._ arr_hi.tec ural ravivwy c.�mmi: si�ri, if they 7vc had an ��'fA�,._.,u�.mu.a - - .�a..v.,s�...�,..u:u..« .�.�.�H.,a�y@ ' a�-chi��ctuXal revie�a bndY- Q. Hc�a is i�. that the �ity decides whether �he ��L�a.cks detern�ir�ed ry an archite�tural re�ie�a body ar� i?-s, co�.fo�-raa.nce with the ccr�diti.ons of apprc�tiai on a tract map? ' - - i�iR. SEDfiCH: �Lacks �.oundation ar�d .calls f�r �pe��llati on . P�. CHPI5T4��IC'F3: Join. . . - n� . xoLr'iF S = �7'o in - - T�Z. LAUBY: Join. ' � _ ��'g" �' .�,; � �� J l�� pE;Oj;Tl�td cnt1:lDNi i T�ll Free:. B(�1.211:! Facsitnile: 9�1.754. Su itc 38�1i University At Riverside, C49 ta�a:� ,esquiresoC utiar� � l� 2 � � � 2 _ � _ G 5 :i ` 6 � � ; 2 i _ q � 10 � i. L �y L 13 14 � 1� i7 ! C S 7 Tony April 24, 2±312 15 "�'�� f S1ZE , . Q� i he � y are a r � `.:GE ,4.95 Suite � =rs'tt� Aven de, CA 92; � sofuYsons.c� th�t. Q�Cc"�� . LO �t . SEDAC�i : Yc�u � re �ree to answ�r _ 'I`�i� WI'I'VESS: �kay. I�rn -�us� con�used by alI N�. SEDACH: Yr�u don,'t �zrzderstar_d �the questi�r�, �tI� I��T?��SS: T��e11, n.o, I u�derstand thu que�tion� I jnst doR't ;_u3.�.ersi�az�d ii I'm suppos�d to arisw�r . I�R. S�D��I: V�7hez1� �er sameb�d� obj ects, it' a only to pres�rs� the reeord. THE' 'f�I`1'N�SS ; U}:dy: � AaR. aED�CH: Yo��re free �o answer th� question if �ou understand tre q-aesii�n. �.t `roiz dori't ur�der�tar_d the question, tell counsel and he'lZ rephrase it_ T_r3r, Zd�T3J�SS: �kay_ I'm so�-ry, c�rc yau. ask th�' qu�stion agai�. I got distracted_ T�R . HATTGRT : Can, you read i t back �o him, � 1s pl�ase. - � . � ' r�-� (Record read as fal.lo�s: .�'�u�stion: , Haw is it ; - - ,� .� ,� �, � ��,�� . t 2n that �he Cit� decides.whe�.hEr �he se�backs - ; �ili,�i�i��u��,,i�,o�li„..��,i�,��:.0 x�i��u��i..�uiliil.��.,� r�,.�id,;.d11,�dIu�:�t�Wnra0.6�611„�I��,r�oJrJ,�� /� a��- determ�ned by �n �rchitectu�al review bcdy are '- ,�/ �. ,�:�,.ai :,� �� n��dai �u, oui:� ;mi� u�,:��i m�,. �o m.. �� nx �.u,�ui„�o�� ,a�,da��„u,i4�r�� i::iL' = L� R�? i� confa�-mance wi�h the condi.tio�s o� agproTral - I��,i,�i� •, ". �u,�, �ii��,ml- ,.,��.. Y� �i�,�G;�•n �r� ,�. ,.�,r.��X�i1�u� ii�i'„ nr,�d,i.innud�ni,� ��,i, � _ a 23 011 • d �.t3Ci; IE3�p? °1} . ' - i�,i;r:��d�uw, ,.,�i.�+� +, u,, �� ' L� TFiE ,�dl`TN�SS : Well, I mean, if th? conditi.flns � ''_ '� oT apprav�I di��,�t specify v,�hac the. setbacka va�re, th�n �! - ' " -�' : Toll_Free_ fiDD.2i1:C�EP4 ; ;�.i � �acsimile: 9�1,784_9520 Suite 64Q �4� �{-1 � � �"�� 3SOi Univers;�yAverrue � ; � Rfv2rsFde, Cq 9z5�i ' ,. �� ti--J hm�w.�squiresoi�tions.com � pc�n,iTtCF SG_�J":�'?5 . � � A�ril 2�, 2� Toriy BaqatO - �l � _ we rely on the i>C�� because usuall th�� noti�e :�: � �,�.�, . . . � ,�,�:�,.,.�,,..;� , � �.:,:�,...�,�,.,�F,.,.�� - �ic�hiisieianu ' I1E.'1g11�30�'S aS j.."`c�r� O� l�,! �lG� ��iG��e�S 110 '�r�� O Sa�% 1�,. �� 3 Vde correl e t�o[J.�he . condi.t�ons o� a.p�roval . z� �'.: ., westrict �h2m, t��en, iu our mi*�d, we-'; � conditi.�ns c1�.dn' t � -� ,,,o;:,��.._T.,..� .��::..:..u,� - 5 cion' t se� a�,P��,,,��'-cn that <,�oul� prohl:�it the� i�� he . ,-�-� ,� d . ` � HC� �aanted ��s3:4�'� - �.��-�..- 7 P� MR. I�hTTC}I� : a - Q• So �he �t�Z� cax3. ap�ro�� a-'�y s�tbac;�� at it � wants i� a gatec3 c�t�m�u�'-i4Y in Palm D2se�t? 10 � ;�IR. A7��9ERS�N: Obj�c'�xon. l . 1, i�? . SED�CH • Obj ec�ian: that' s an iz�com�iete i2 hy�pathetical anci calls for �pecul��zon.. 14 �5 i � 17 18 i9 2O 21 2� ?3 24 �5 n'iP.. H4L1�S : Join. (�p,,. CHR��IQVICH: Join. MP. _ ��DERSd�d : Join . 1�l.it . il1'+V 1.-�SZ � 11 i� 11♦ - TH� i+vrTNESS : Iri some Cases, y�� - � ,� BY MR . �AT'T�JN : .:,�:�-,,:,�_ . �, Q. 0'�ay. Ar..d how do you deter�nzn� winich cases tha� the.C�ty a��ow� tY3.e gated comm�anity to deternin? ,vha�. the setbacks are? . I�'� . S�DACH : S ame �bj ec L �.on.s . MR_ CHR�S3'OVICH: Same ob�ectior_s. TH� [�It�v�SS : T� t�e cand�i-i�ns o� ap�roval didn't specify any other star_dards. -�}, �� Eap<.;;t�k_-�U �- 'Foli FrFe: BOD.211_D Facsimiie: 9�1.'.84 � Suite 35�1 UniversitY Av� PJvefside, CA 9: tra:v�v . esgui resotutlons � �i^1�, �n� 3ay �.t I� fi.h "S��y Ba�aro �gril ?_4, 2012 � 17 _ � .�,,,--;; .. `: - ,�` :` }3Y M1Z _ T�.TT+� N : - . _„<�_ ... '= Q-, 4kay_ "m""� �-.,-. . A. Tf i� was 1.e�� no� specifi.�d and dzd�' � give us i�.d r riTe� _ <_�; .: 'direction, then the Cizy, in �ho�A cas�s, have to rely if �h� � �'`, o,.l the hCA to s�t their standards, as lori3 as i� cioesn't _ � b' 1.d � d i t ^odes � t i� �le�e � aS2s �rntine ._:.5" :�vzolate ui ing an sa e y L . �,._., ,.: ::._. - ` ;`.;; �� 4 ", - ... ... . , ...Y .. , . � ,. . .� -. .. v a� lows . N�., ��ah�re d�d au _ Iearn, y�hat Lhe _Cit.,.� -�... :;`,8�� the HO� to deteraine ;��ha� �he setback� ar� �or a 1ot in , .:... � a�e. 9� _ g 3 cornm,�n�t.�`',�?......,k�ha ta,�,��?t�..v�a �-,_a�? - �1.0.� A. t�?e�l, it v.as just t3�` polic� urhei� I started ` �:� �, . worki�ig und.�r Phil Drell _ _ ��_�► �j�:4_ Q_. Okay. And have you ever had any discussions 1,3 with an�Tbody a� th¢ �ity irheth�r tl�ie policy esta�lished :�4.� by Mr_ L�zell c�n.fo�zns with eith�r sLai� or city �a�.? 15 i��. S�DA�H: I'll objec�; mis�tates �rior i� �es�im��.y, a�sLm�s fac�s not in evidenc�. I.7.. w M�. HO�P�S: JOin. ` :� 1�3 i�uZ. �I�EFS{JT�: ,7Diz1. �.9 : I�'L� . I�rJ�Y : Jo irl _ � U: : ' T'�; i�7ITI� S S: Ido . ; c3�. BY M�.. I��T'I'�,�T; - � " G2 �2. So Iaasi�aliy if T�[r. Drell v�as a17 Gwing H�JAs ta '�3 dete�-Lr�.ine v.*hat t�e ae�backs �Texe as far as you ��-�e - �V �1 � , w 24 cc�r.,�ern.ed. ��iat tn�a� okay? . ys r7R. �2I�STOVICI�: ca1Xs fox speculaiion, 8��m.211..�rtE�?'4 �, �84. ;�G�1� ' /: ;�.;, �� _� _,...,��•:,i Y;. _. Suite ��. iver✓ity Aven�;�; � . ��, �. g� �� I�' I I� F, 'f-SGILtlOE15, Cfl�L-. r€��s�T:c� se� va3�: r:s � ..', ioll Free: £3DQ.211.dEP0 Facsim re: 951.78�.9520 Suiie 640 3a01 l3rtiv2rsity Av�ue Rivzrside, CA 92501 Vi++t1Y.E5Qlitl'Q.46iIJYJUCtS. COCTt ��: �` � w :nr ;��c�� en � �e sei- ' � i (7I7 . 3r? �,� o fird tne ��iqi�a1 f11e. is to plazu,� zar, ; � : of i� il 24, 2012 65 `:'Dkay _ �::z�nd that' s k�hy t1Te create3 the list for th� PR �,A1�. zight. �-�d if a tract i5 not listed in th� �;2� �n ��zibit 53'7, the� wha�. d0 ybLi, C�O �o find aut �he sei.ba�'_�s a'r-e7 If it's zonecl FR ancl rio�. on the list, �th�n we oka�T. I� it's not an �he lis�, do ycu refer t� nunici�al code? 1:,_ �3ot if zt`s za�ed PR, �*e try to f:ind fihe file. '� px Q� _ An� i f i t' s nat an the 1 i s� �n3 yo�s g� : r the fi1e, Uahat are yov.a� l�oring for? A_ Th� conditi�r_s of appraval or t%e rn�p�. . w �r�° i� , Lhe t �-�,5 _ �_ pna�r_ h�d �f the condi�ions cf a��rcv 1 ora t' e . �, . �1AI1OU � ��,... .� ,. . ...:...,. .,.' n r '. �.,�.. , ... ....,.' � �U �,,.. , tll£y�1 Y � �n�a �an' L nay " the s_t ac�s t�ahen V c f ind t�e f i_e , � __ �� . � .. .: zoning � �r nct _he �c�d _aZ, we :andard �3hat do you �'a? �.,..,_�: �.,,,, �. .�.:., A, h,el1, �hen we would ulti�ately go to the zonin� c�. �.�,,.�w urc�ina�ce or ask for their HOA� o,.,.a�p�x'ov� it if it' s in :�Jnlb� - �"��•� - •' f:�.6iil..� Yi�dNenirl�J >;,1� PR zone. 2hey typiCallY have IIOAs. , O. �nd Lxif �he HO.c� approves it �h�n, it d�esn'L ��Yl.uGidn��`lr 'JJ4L�-^•��• I'.:ua:' ibu��WrLa?LWJY'.aLidLfa.L:oJL.u@'furVwk�'¢ibi41 Lu C�:4.6G.a� . ,.matter what th+a�l�' pP „ condzt�ons of a roval or thz zoninct . .e,.�il.�..�.a ..c�, FF'��:,. '.�IF�:�niue�,d�`xu�:.dr.i �bi�- YS.:� �`��• -�:w:.�W,�.�,,,,._,. .. � �.,c..�er'r:��oiu u.it��ua�, in+..i:��, � :,:.. ��cod� say.s ri ht, if �.he HO� approves t73e setback it`s � � . „�. � I'..�,..ee:.%Ja19JG7::B�u�[ I: ;�. goa� to ga� _ .� +�,�.�..� _ - . �- �� .;r .S�N : �bj e c t ioz� ; argumentat i-ve , -� 4.211 D�� 7a11 FreQ: S00,211.DEP0 � � � � cs1 '�e: 951:734.952D f:l�-0 Ss �,.. . . � � �4 � SUi�e bSi7 Sj��` � - 3 rsty �.vertue Jt�ive�sity A� e� � -1 TT T�,� Riverside, CA 925Q1 - etsicie, CA 91� - �� 1�� 1 sfr�soi:.rfio:�s �� nl5�tiv.e5a,u�resolu�nns.Com _ �.>.- �-- C�^GSEiI�ti _OLU:;GrsS � � - T�.;:.:..',',�._.'.:':r, . �" -�i �; � �. � � 'Fcny Bagato April 2�`� '� � �� - �; � � :` f 'i 4 : ,�_ : ; � i. ' ' _ i i sl �' l. ; 5 ��' �' � e:: �;i �I �e=i`� � .t ; ; E: .�,�; • O �. �I: . p'� a �i 9 �, �:. �,�� ?_: � � 1Ct ;�,�F �;;, ,� �; �,: �,; ii; l� �: � _:: i _4; :.�� 3i �� Ifi i� � .. ��il 13 � i'F?iii Za � �= ;� '`'i` '� : `f a� � i� ;.�.i �:., i,., ;j ;,,; ,. �{ ;: =5 ; �� ;i.1: i� <� �: , �': �, i� . �� i � zs _ 2;� ;� � G l� I�. `��.� j �3�,�. - 20 ;. . `� �i � �y � 2I i� - � � ,,':; �; 2 � S {: ;��1; I� tl: � 3 ''�i: r, �� i�'' i � ;� l:' 24 � �` I �:��. � � !°:. � 5 ._ �;. 1� �:; 'li �;1 i" ;� 3;� � ;I �j��, � '� ,� '.. -.� I� ��-� � . y: ; incolnplete hYrp�thetical. � . r. THE ti3ITNESS = i ea�., �.hat' s a framed � ques �ioi?. � ' . • � L N7R. SED�CH: It�s a lcatied auestion. � : ,,,�,y:.��a,__ �. __ _ _ . °��'� . .. � 3 . _ . _ . .. . _ - �a+?n'�,,>,mr.a.�a :., �'me� - _ _�- t�T2TNESS : IL th� conditi��ns c`lidn' � sp;vci�y � Y . ��L setbaik�, t�ien we vJ�uld go by the, HOA. _ , B�.' TvIP.. HATTON : . - Q_ Gkay. So if t�-�e cor�cii�ions don't speci�� . - setback� fc�: a t�a.ct, meaning the co�dit�ons of ap�ro<.�,4 � dfln' � s�ecify se�backs for a trac�. in a PR z�r_e in �he ;: u city o� Palm Aesert, t�ti?� �h= city council h�s decided; ,p t� gr�nt the H0� the discretien to establisr.�he i,1 szt�acks v�ithin t�e HQns? : i" A. I �an't speak -- _ i3 _ A�. 5��H: Qbj2c�ie�; misstaies prior 1fl testi�nony. � ' �5 NP._ C1�YSiO;JICH: I�Iisstate� �riQr �es�imony. ��_ A'iR.. HOL,i��S : Joizi . � �-? T�R . L,�ITS'Y : Jc� i ri. � 18 TH� WTTi�TESS: T can`t spea� an t�e co�;:±�cil's =� rehalf. � " 2C BY Tri"�i. . H�'TTDN : � � . � ` 1 Q_ We�1, i� the city council ,�pproves a map by �� resolution with conditio�s of a��prc�val, a:-zd the ~_ �ont�itions o� approtTal aizd the map don' t state � the -'` setbacks, da�s that m��n that the �city cot�r'icil, ir a PR '` ;;,. Tatl Frce:.800.211-� , facsimile: 951.75�7,�� s Sll It2 � �"'� 38Dt University AV� � ��[{ �J�� }2iverside,GA9x "'` 11'wYv. ESn, uiI'esn! utiGi is.6 ��7�g;:t,t9 $CU!71075 � �� TY [l� P��.��a�S��T 73-5�v �'nan �nit1Nc77nlV� p.�x,rc 17�Renr, CnT.�conizu,szbo—ag7$ 'tst� 7Ga g�G�o6r t d n�fobi cl�po�+nirr doierx�vaq MBTC!1 9, 20'12 0 Mr. ��rl'T. Catd�nalfl Vic� i'resident, BiC��iQR�! D�velopment, i_LC . 253 P�sl'owet Qriv� . . . Pafm D��erT, Caiifornsa 822�0 � • � Dear Mr„ Cardin�lfi�. Re; R�questPar'Ctarifi�catfannFDevelopmenit�tarr�ard�i7rao��3ap�io.33854 Thls 1�t2�� Es •wrl�eri i� re6po�tsa ta your Fe3�tuary Z7, �4'� 2, r�que�t �far Gla�ifi��.iiari af ti�e d�velop��nf �tsnd�rds appitcsbie �0 7raci Map No, 33854, The Cliy'h��an��dr �3koq n1e fo inv�stlgat� and r�spond to �hat reguest for sier�icatlon, Tha pe.rcQls conealid�ted undor �'rect I�isp �to, 33854 wara originatiy s�ubdtvldQd under Vesting T�ntative Tract Map (VTTM) IV�, Z5�296 In 1997. The devei'apmenC et�ndards f�r ail parae3� �r�ati�d by ih� v�ating map w�rs d�fin� by, and approved with, VT-fiVt No, 26296. �1Qna of ths subsequ�rt� m&p� for #he subJeot pal'cais �st�blished dfffe�enx devalap�r,ent' gtandard� vr ex�mpfed the re`ifsod percels frarn tha standttrde imposed �y 'V'iTM �Io. 2628n. Thersfara, the or'rginally establiW�ed dnvelopme�t s#an�ard� r�main in effect, and the parcels consolldated by Track M�p �Eo, 33854 are r$quired to comply witk� the d�V�lopinent stat�dard9 of VTTM No. 25298, P!9ase confa�t.me lf you need ary addltlanal informatior14r1 thia t'nai�er �f �78Q) 3d�- 0611, �xtensian 4$1. �1nc�rely, � � -�-�"' � �•`r . � . �_....� , . ., ' . . Lausi Aylalan � , . - ' , , � , . airec#ar af �Garnmunity DevAlopment � - � �� ' � • lalma • ' � � • cc: ,3ohri M.VVohl�th. - pave E�-wl�, City Attornay '1'ony ��gato, Prsncipal Pl�nn9r �'"5rainr�iU�inrMm . _.,...�,.._� __ .._ ... . _........_..� -_'. .-.. �.. .. _,. • ,.�� .. __ _ _.. ._. ._, .. .... _ _. � __ ....- - . . ._ .. . ... _. _. . .. -' ' _ ,_,_. _ _ _ �_. ... .. .�. _.....�.� ............... M (o�� 4 Z � " �-^ a e e ��.^ - x Siy 4" �� '4 � � �� t7 +a+=*�, '^Yy�tz'�4 h�, >. � "s� r"""«�� ,. ;�,� � � � :�k f � � � b +Z � �y„� 3�i:. � } �,. �., p. t �� r O 'c . a �y� ••'9*A'' � �, , ��,4�, dg ,� �M � ��,�.� �. .�� ` � # t 4ww��' -�; x � .. !;�` ^ �� $ r � � ' ". T �� n � .;k,o,..x..,.. : ^x. �;<` .Wi� '�,«r*� � ' u q�k ." � ��, � 4„y � �� '�;�� g , .. �'�` ...^�r " � � • a �S;b ° : �� q� � � � ?r a„ t _ „i • „ . ,.� • �.w � " ," � 3 `*, t . � � �, � �,�, e b E ,� ". " �$ ,r —"�w � � � �� , � � . . t � �y�y,„,r,y�,�,i�� ., , " �� . � e�.. . �� .�i . # . � ,,,r�,""� f� �.` � �� c � �.�;,��,.�,,.� �� '°�^'"` �� ; �� '� #`�V��. � ; .�+ k;�'", . �,�sr, � �k f�'' yy�,o-,.',� +' G.� '��. b�:�` .�°' [-'� .�'*�' rv�� '�'� � '" � �j�0. � ^''�`�u" ,� � � t �i�� ' "�� s ,,,•,, , � af �;�`�4,� +�, �+ . . � z� w r �� d tlr "Y �{ n �� '#'� � '° �Y� i" '� � � i d ��R�� Ni�SO �� ' „k.,�� S4• « � . rt . � 7 A � �"� � ' '�' � � $ '� � iu '�n � .N � ,�y:�� ^t"'*� � z�# �s � . � ~,� � � q*` �;:b�4Y «d�.�*::.� , • • , q , ,g� `e �. • . • ; '� � al! i� � : ` � . �°", � � � a , r�'� , � ,. '`�• ^+ � �, � �� = ' . � . f r a„� `"p � »' � .r u '..°f"J+K� 4 � � � MC . -i` �.y W' A'.^ � +�, 9 '�'� ^"�#�`a� � � f� � � � � � � t� � �"`�-,�':�� n , *� ° ws a � _ "' � .» + ';� ��r ` �$ � �'�""e te•� � , . ^ !"" .�rk' ,� �'.a�€ . *`� i �^ � �� '�� y�e $ k e � ; .�%t3 * �"'�' t .} � ..r " � � �- <��, "',..� a,' � g.,.;: f � . •` �. t �, m �-�t u.r .-�.°�A..i��• f �� ' � # � „� � .,�. i . � ��;, '^� � � � m>,„�*� �a �.� � � s"-� � t s - s t, �, ,` � � z � P � � �` ' r a.r e2 .° ;p� � � a : , y,�+. � � K �� . � +s � � 1 ' � 7 � �; �° ^41 .�4"„��r .� n� . t ,�. r . � .,j �" � 1 rgjwy�y.. `�;U��L.iJ� �` ¢ ^7� � ""�� _; " � ,t �� s,k � ��.t4° ,. � ,.6 � � � u'^ f �� .ti3� r 7 � � � ., � � . � �&^ � s�' ,,:. � � � : .�* t �� f a : � .�'� a�'� � �"� �a � �" ^'�` � e.,�,�, � ..,�w+�»�« � �+ ` . t ��w�" -'� .a� !F� � �" � � -� ,. '� a��'�`�� 4" ° i� *+�' '' ,-4 ' i r �' �� `�-"�*�� " �� , , . � � ,: � � � �� '''r., "w ^ �'� , ,�.ro ' q �. i, � ��-„ # � k ''"�", ?��s� a u� + N^ � ;.. , �� r �^ � 'i c �" '� c � � � i . \ � i`s � l � '� � '�"v .�.vF �'� » . «t�„" S '� s k ` � � t a rr : �'Y � � � r , a�` "�r ` A 3 � �, �t �� e # � � � �w � �' .�"'�r� '�, '� �'� a � � � �5k' r� � y �. �a , �I. � '�,. t . . . „;, _ �s'F*�+" ��,e , _ . � � � ' ♦ 4 :,«. r ,e,D� � �uA'.ry.t ,;,�}d . � e p � 9 �. d taz` �. ,: 4 ; N #*afi � �, � � � y � � ��' o� �" .,... . ' .�, * ` ' � ^` � '� �� ,� �` � �v�� .`��`�"z�� '� � .e _ '`�t ♦ . „ r � � - . P,�#. t � � � , � � �,E "� ` "�,� , i r m�.. . , j�$ �,y � t .,,3 �. . x'` � 8 ,�/�.�, y� � ��"w` +nb ry k • . "► . yY." �n ¢ � y � ��1' .y � * -y� � ,�•.d'aw�' � ". & Y �'�4'�`"' �"�" � �' >¢ �'• �� }� , � �+Y ,.�. s .. �.. ¢ k � x du . . y � � 4 � .� 5..., `*m � ' . .. � 1:�. +� i 8° .`��' � • x „ � ,. �3� _ �. w s`'�`� � & �. '� �'� '� dK�+U% ( +F `w y. � y,�,��^' ♦ � ` • ,r. ` � y "F R� `, o�Yy �. , � , A W `�, �,"' • y ��, � � .� �,.,��. { �a � �'.. �� t� F . �. � �� `�` `�,� x w,�» � � `.�y,.�.r� ?.� �. ..y�Ai'M :�'*i a1rQ" ,�.., . y� �Y'� 3R� m�� $J �T3�A�..7�a� fd� b �y� ' 1'C` #',� �� « f� '" .� � � �a.`�'}�ua "�"`,� *� r .; qy � .�, �� , t� �w �m +�.sf� � 3� �:`c�"� � . , �� a ` � ��: �zi �a� � � ,. .,. ��Ea�t �„ f�'� µ� "�a � �� , t�° �,�.. x �. fi^w r2� � • ,„ '* t+ �. �„``.,.,, �. • � w �� q- � � , a � � _ � .�. .� a�" Fcx, �.a',as, ,f�� ''�n '� .;�. • � e �� Jlri#'�'° „�jy. F '`�'� . al � �,f :� r` � � ; � , � . h� � �s �"w9°�� 'a - `R �`*.�1 t� � � � .. ` � _ - � "'�S a at „�¢ ��: � - ,c , ��., . `"4, �,� '� �; �� ?- ,� �F��` t �. � ,,� �� . � ,� �,„,.. -� z� .u� �µ �ay'� " �.�$�� '�" k dA, � � � a +� �i � -*F' � � � � � � � :�� : r ,� � ,�°'"�% �..� � x ,� r�"". t e� �''� �,._ a�' � a ,�'�,,.r^'� ,�"ru � e �°., �, ; ; .v ,' �� r �� a , A �� , y,� � � ..`: � ��„ ..!!'` � ` Ne9 � �',�w„,�� "" � . ��i'.,.Mr � � _"4,x+%: " ��°'�` �A�.:�° a �'.�� i �� •i7a1n��4.M��r.i�''��'� � � '; � � "� �.. r' .. ik#� �� ';+�+,f � ��' � #�, �� . � g� '«�'�'�'� ��; � �$ X � ,� .g....: 1 1. $ �r . � a' ` �; �� . � � , � � � e i � "i � G�`�"� t'^y`.' s • � �` �^'e �'S 1 � 3� °` w ��` '�'� °� � ' � +` '� i � .: "� � � "' � �+,��'�'�'�� a��i, `� �� "'�'i��" �^S � � �.� ' `� 'o- , h _#...��."t t� • � "� '�� ,�Mt�''��°""a�^'7"�;,� �� . ,�� .�c � k� E ,� � �� r � r. �, �,� '�` �� '�� " �� . . h.w r . .,+"� � ,�+„� � � ir.h y �^ , t `� ��.-`"g� r� � i � 3 �, +� � ��wt�r��"'* , p � k a �' � �, • y&, rrw. �r .<s.,�� $ � �'3c �,�, ,�� p x�r "�"` „�4� �" �,'� *ir � ' y� � '� �� +�� , �� ,� �,^� °,d � , � ve� w ��., t ., 'r �.� � +, � '1�� a.; `� r � .� >. �4 "t � v � ��:"'� r� "e�t° , � � ��+, x �' � �'a..,«e►`,:�,a � •�> E ;y .�w . :'��,y e^» � �.v« L �«n6 �:�"°+�«,�^� *! . .,;� �'�^�� t � �'t .' .M. �w , aa P �y r �� ."° r.r ,�` .. � �,; -s,r x ' t.« �` w �,, �� v„7t � . ��" ., a a* � '� ., b-,.Y.� � � `` � � �t'� � , � � . ��',. ��, _ t � ,� } ` . � t �`s �'y „� �� t� V � �� ^F � �+.� � r �„ "�� ",�^� *ri, � t � =�' `.t `�, �. dr°� �,o �r �` �„s s� � '�' � - �, i h �' � � +.» . ^� � ' �"` "�e"� c�`� .�"�� *w �� '' .0 ��+ ��,»�� .�` ��'- i2 � "� "`'""��. m�� .. �� '� a3 � �; � >� a� k � •,.. � = 1 �* .y; "�+ .,, t � a .;� �r� .. �"�` � � 'B p t�� . , P' �•,�•^' °.�' �� r � �" `i ti..P� � � .�. .�� ,��^ � #, � � ��'� '�:, 4.��„'�;,� �� r4 � ° "�t� � �s.� � }�' � �� "r ; .P A�.°s w,. �',� � � � 4 i ,� �b "i#a �S s. m �� ,a. w .tew�i� �,�,' e ^� x 1 �� „ 9�„� 'rd � � „ a� � �� a� �s �` �f � ��`; � � �� '� � �+ .., �' � � °M r++� � , , r� ��a'��, '�" �' �. ,x'.F .i�, � �'a'��"�*�x,s�kV�� '� R�..�'"� "F� �� . x g �,�, �`*� „ 4�` ^�8 .*�. "`�-�s��rv��,� ,. ��"'�` �`� !, €�� °�`�, .t �„�� , �' � � �r �� '��a"� fi�`� ,�„�� ,, � z' ,�' �,�+`` �'k"�� '� '� � `` �g� ,� s � � ,yr �� s �'^ � �, �"* s � �. � � n �" � ��- �" � 5 � A� g' ,� � � *� 9 � � � z � a�$�1, Y , ,� Y e F '� f , '� � � �� s: �CA,ytO'� , ��.Sro v. ,b �AJ� 7 � i � ,. a; � ' ,;�i(7�i�t 4+ 's. - S ,� C @r A � r„� M .� � � ,y� � '+� ,y� '*�r 4 � � "� 4:-i # � P �,4 g � ��: �� 9�e � � �„ ��' � � r , b ��" d� � � "" 4 �,� r � � +� � * * � 4„� ��`°s`"`` � a� �.:'�'� ��; . � �*� ` � � � .�� ., , � � �,� � p �"w � z � �.�"� ,"� � ��,,,� ; s ' _ � ' .� "�«� '�,�"�^ ,a�:��`".� . �' m.4�" . � � ��k,a ,��"'. �� +r $ ?�i '� €�� , � ``* �;�"�*' a » . ' " d 'f ,.-�r � �-� �.��+ ,� �� _ . -: � fi`i�`�. � a�, + ;'"�, � � � �. �, . -.. �. � �'aNe_ �� , ._ • � �' �r ��.'� �� . 4F�� . � � �� x,y�'.� � � � � � +x � .� �� a�.� � �. ��*� %� , p�' •i �. . . ° �. . � . ` s°�,�"� y'y *+ `t"� � 7 � �� '` �, - +f a, v�'�� s � � � w;.��y � ��' . , , v Y ,��ke* y �a �'4r&"` t, ' . .. .. f „�.+�n�ry�r �i �' h'�"� . 't "�' °�.``�#�� ' �'' y � .. a *' � � +' '� x-« � ' io � �' �� v �" . - . , ' . } =�d � e9 � ,Y1` 'M . i.. �. y . .y �,Y' ,�A ' ' . � .�wd'"q �2 F� x"�-. k*� �d6- � r� , 1 �. � , , m � 5 � „ . . . . . : A, '.�"., r� Ygr�T �� ,�, , ' �� . . . . �,,, ' „ »� +�'� �y � t� �„ +4y� � �1. � � y. , „ . . . * ', . ��'.f... �'� +� � .iCdR ax �� '� .+ � � „ -�'' "a.,�"'Sd3e+�. ��+� .� � ,n "*` . ,s' �I ��j „ �'�.. . . . . . .. �, g,� a y� s ' �,4� i� *��'��.°9�'r.�. .�r � � ^ d�."'��si . � `� rr4 �,� �, 4 °� �, , � ^: e qw, � a� � � � � �� $ �� ° � � ", .. t�s .�„ ` , ' � ' , r � �'� � � �� . , �„ e � �. w ? , _ . . . . .: �, -, � t,.„. �� e , , r 3- . .. � , x . . . .. � � �r+ k, .�+� . , rW'. � . � ��;��o-#� . _ _ , , s, . � � � rv. • `` /� _ , j ^°' � �. . C f r� . � � � � µ�� W .� +� i..,. � 4 � �` . b, �"a �° d+'l.�E,y„F �u.t ¢ � � Kik ^� +�` . •��• � � �°� # , � � o-,� � #d�� &�, � �� d �t bk �' �� n�� $ s . � F * x ,R 2+Y�x�4.�� ... �¢�� y � . S,- • 1# ' h �k i r 1 �s * . ,� ' . . re L=� rtF � -�� vs *t . '�'� m d� t � � � e€� ' � � �y �rc 3' � � sr -� �;,� n>' �,�,t � �.,� � � �,�; �� a � �. m * t * 4 s � » �: �, +�y, , a ��,a� �+��°�° �9 �,t : , . � � � ...r<•.��. �� "... ' ., h ; _'� � ' ti s a � a�^''� �%�k .:�s�;,>�..«„� o ,.r. ,a .� � � ,... ��` °� ` ,.. .. ' >. . . , ,- ,� a ,� . . .. . � �, . - . < ��,.,� �, ,�,�.> „ s _. , . . ,�: . . . ' , t�, � . ^� . ,. ; . . ,^ -.�, e = `� �. . .. " ...; ' ! � � � ' i �..� �„�' - . . ; . t ''� k,4+ 1' �� t. G .. °�f * +� � . 1� . _ •, ` .�#�F 1J �1,d' k�� . � . i �,��,.� �� : ��4�`� �F�M � . � . s � � � � t.�' " . �"� 1 a, � � �t " �' .,d ` w "'v¢,_ � ,��;�.,� ,.� �f��` 'i��y" x , � «';,. , �i � . '� � y . � ',d„'�' a� '�1 � M� tki�.., � y�, r ;h „ �«.�. �.,�h � '?tx :.'�.�. � fiw. � +,}, r t .�.' .4 eF � y ,h � 'i ++ 1 1 �6 : �� f �t�t`'Y�` a � d a1 y, � M b� �'��^r � "'�' � �'i,� '� - �, � � . �f�� ,�+ "� �1 �'� �`� � e �y f � �I � :1 1 �� ,r, ` � . � ' y �.. �Fa� � � y� fr, '�� q '" �j;-� � � q � r,�� . � y w4i �' y � �� 1 t� '+'4?. - t� �r� �' .�y � d �dd ��j�+i:' W` w� ., . � r' � `, � � ` _ R i �, � r � � > `}�� s 1 e '� � y � ' . �M�iY`` L� '+�r.' n, �. � f� .`��.t . u.� • � � �# �M�4 .� ��,• r. 1"" r„ ,'�� kt it �� Y�� .: � r.i - ,� • {p �+ yq� ' �,�..x ;� �t �� Y� i�.°} � � a �' i, 3 � � � , ` � 1 �F ��, b � �y n,' � . � � +r � . *�1 i a�,wt � �+ }` ! � ., �r�^._ �. �"k"�'.+� .;:� ��-r.�t '7 *,� E."� �,'# � � z:d di' t + . �a s x �,�,,",,�+� w,d:s,.�? .;�'r„ � �' M� � � " i � '. � � =� r �� ' '-• � - r � . � � '�' � � " e � �' � �t,��°� � Y a '� �, ,#� �-�� , k.�,'`�� . � '�' . w a ��' 4'F C + N✓ �� +f � . � 5 k �. y"" ! ^n} � i *," `�'"y z. t ' + �� a �N � � �` `� ''w � r w� � � G vr v +y S � '.rci� a�'. y� ,� P�,� � 3 Y „„. r-. a yf�1 �. �� • t r y, Y -� y�� I 1 d f .jlr A i a+�7' kyv. � .. ,�" �,5. T .. .. ' �F b °i� Y; .. 01 . � . `i • r t 'o* ' 3' ' N � 'i„ 7 �.*a'�' a'x' fi °e.�� . ,� � :-� f�'� t�A�_� . . . w• ' •��,,: 4 �k .A F N�..� �.. �. � �' ��:.� '� . . ,;'d,M h�f'. i.�j3`� . a"t�"' + � � �.�r�`. , .5�� ;� � . . �� i ��+�k . � �S � ..n' � � „ ��, �� - a y ,�i; '.' . :'�� ' ;,`�� " '' ''"" " � F ' � a a.� . � , : «� '' � � � " .�� . , f � ' �c .� �. �,.«,. � '�+ r r•�� n ;�,� � � ` ��6 T i $.N '. 1 a, 1 µ � � i � { �+� i . , ;�*�' '�.".�°�"{�, �� 4x. �,�� is. , i p � ��.; .Y., �� +��° s 'Y � '�1 W �� ^ � , 7 3 {,�,. "L �'M f '��' ��U �`y�ti. ��," �, ' k�� a � �+�',`� ;�,�i�t��'� .ti� . *�An'�� . '�,-;* ,'�•` �',' � � { t . _ y. ..< � �,�-a� ��',�.t- . . . , t� '.. " f �F�'� i�� t��` � �) 5�.1. L� �� * . '1 . � � �_ �:' r..�` , � � ��.Y "�"��.: ,�,�� ` } � q � �. . i � d' �� M � ,�:J' ! . �� Y e a sr�i� � a r � �':� �e,: ,l�� M�rt.*, .�'•±� s � �*' ,i„ .. xr: » �_ _ ._ � ��q;;: ; � � - � ( µ•.» �fi �Xy �k,r�� . � � , a�p`} �`-. a `� }� ;r ��it .�i .�i�.�, >. , r i rI1 ��t, ��. ��" � � � �I.y � . , o' . l ..� �# R �� '�. x: r ,;;, . }�, : `�H p5° • # � 1 ; t I y � . � � 5' " � w � �4 �� a" ,�" �� f'� �#� a, � r t. Y�� ! � �r;+� j� � � .-f � } �� `� � � t � ti , �� '; O F�� * �� . ��, ! 1 f ^d � � i5 b'1.. V . % . ,. a �. ... �' W'�a- -.y+t"}M"7�'"i,' ^r � � �,��I ��,�,� v � '� i �� x , � `��' ' �`�,�lf1� " � ;�� .,r'j9w�� w�'��w+� � m.� �.� q7 � � �� F �� { . �.y ,. i �w g,� � � �3 � "�' ' t y �' �: w y��,y b t '"y 4 _'!t Y -�� ,''+� , '� � � � � � ' �1� . - �t J �;x �� r � � „�., n � . � ,, � ,_ _ , .�.�._ +.� �,{.� L � Z i v � J � Q 0 a � R W � �.�y� '�'h �. I � � ,. `..1 � ----��_.._ r i1"""� � . � � � ��. ��k ` ' �� . �� n'�',. . \ � y `^. � : �a ti � S ^ t ., 1 S �N{ � ' , � r . ( tf��,'�� ' �^ �� i� r +s „ , r AL ; i �.Y� � ��h . � � ` Y� 1 . . . . . 'rr 'S � . 'fM �M I�� . . K 5 {' j r M, .. � F Jl:,• �.1. A � ll 1. � a t� � j � _ .� �.w� C:...n.�_y� � °y,� � � _� �J° ��LY '` �' *�'�� _ ��.��. % �... �. ; ,'. ..� I° , . � _ � � r ,a... . 1 �"�%:° . � sa �i}��7�, �' .,, � � i Y:- . �� , �� a...,... M ' . ' '_ �., � . , , } � ^i �, � � . . r M�u . ` ` : �?�lr � '�' G�/ `. k . 1.' I ' 1�_ � � _. � .. ��`. uo... ...:_ , ' t�� , � � , 4 , ,� , {� ,� �� . , . . ��} _ �,�':a�, ;�� ,� _ �„�`�.�'` � '�`�� _�'`� ""� ! . ._,!�'' ° , � a,, ,. ,v, �*,. ,�, � 'R _,y`.;. , � �.. ��t: �t i �) "s+i r _ ' I � � * .-� ( i°�� '`��„�1� ti� �� + � I �� I I i � 4 • ' . � �� •� ,�"+3';' ` � tv: -'' � �;d^�:n..., _ ' `: . �i ` , � x � . { : . /' � i "' � . ..a,�� Y�� .p.. • � ' , �� " . .: � ' . � .� � , � � � �t 1 I � �q{ �S f i' 4 � �, lk��fl��+�/�� ' .' ,1 ,� �- :.� .a��> ��.' j �l•�4k+' aT��ir'� �..�{ � i� r��, 't `�;,_ry � -. . �i . f 1�..��... .._ +� li� �� ' Ulri��w� R � �! :� � ��; , "� � r . �' a''� �� x \�y ,. -� . . � °�� i�tt'1��1f� y , �� iw,\�.4 "" _ •. . 4 � �£r �� Y _., j t .: �A�i rli�i l , ,„'ueU� ' * �t1�'%A:i �d �k� 4 f� ' .-y �y � y f � � � � R � � �}�j � � �( ,�� .��! 4 �i skl� 4�,� o��' �� i�� ? �r�.: �'��i3�g � I,. . '.' ,�. �-, `� �:, t • � i , . � .. � YY ... 1 L �.'� . - � L'i< � fl 9 � � Y � or'� #��- t( - 1��. a . ��j� .c�+i :,� .. �' ; �!'.« t�� t' . ��r ..;��r .- ��i �::�`�'Y� �.� � � . _ _ .ti %_.��,�� `'_"`.�. .n . .�•t �,� d i�,�,ti�i ��. � ,� ' �_. �, � � �. � � � � . _,�a " } � � s�,a . . � �,,i '� i t ` ^ dX� . ta �� t� � . Y��'�� f y ' . l � a � ' � �, ` � -}I��,, r. ;} � �ta- r �.r�.i . �a. a� - R � s`:r, L � > , � �'' �� y r�Ar �x �i: < i y'{ ;;d i r. .� r." s_ � � .',.�' a� , i.� tF �`� `� °, � �� . � 1' �{yp t t- . � 'c� F 1 � i', AA , `��, �y�� } ' ' _ x ' 3` � ` � �� .R - �,� � � . � i ' ' �`°-, ! r� ;�' � � � �� p �, o� � �r �., ; . ,, F��srV '� � �r�( . ' � �„��, �� , '��,�_-.' �.'�''�:'"`'I ^�.� � � F'�,•' -^�,` �' . �� y� . '' ��' ��IY_� ,��4 �� . �x � y�i1'*�� ` ,� . �. �F� � y �+'.,,, F 4... ""W""°�.. �.w q..:.+1 � ,� ! ^ t; ,, � �'�+ e � � ,�--�...;,�'�, {.i, ��'�,ii±�9s� .." i+ 4� p �p ��w � x+' . ./. �tr. � � i ✓ `( � , �-. -' '�� v i � �•�.� � �.�... y'�( ��Ft.. .. 9 S � -%' � �, {.Fe ��' � � � *' ._. . � �ri , jo'' ''� ' � %, F t rf�.. • �. � °�� . �' ` fi��':. �� "' ' ' � � �• �. ��:: :� �" � r " � �. � • ". ..,,p � i , � �� x � M .. . ..,, ~' , k ~ �.. , v � � • ,: ., . �. � . � � `�, �� . w. �� i i - ' .' . , ' • � . -� ! {, , A r .�ti � � '. . . • . � , ' .�� . c,� �� 3�2 . .o..� �\�.. ,1 i ` � � �� ' r ,L � ' - �' YK \E; . '� i • ' � �, R M� . . . t � � - �. ' . � . . . . � • f � ',, ` � . �, . Y� ` ` . . 't�. �" t �7�� 1`{ � �1�f f b� .9..'�� 1 ��.,. . ' .� , . .. • � t�• � r t� i a � ' +t. , , . . , � . � - ��3: h ;;�i� .d�� i�1 6 � • ' 1 „4,b �' . � � � � W : � � r . . . . r.�� t , �ti �.. � � � r `'4 di, � � � r� �r� 1 .0 � . . - . � � tM1 *t �� tti�"i y�' rlt j� � . �..: , ¢r .� � �y�"� { � � ��h� � `'��•' " � � , ..�. ..� '� ,�� . �� t ��y � ' . _ � � �� c_'�' i1i��r' � �� +'• �� • � � �I S � i�A �� 1 ,t ��i �� `1 ; 1�,�� K � �F' l . . . . A y�. � . , �� ! � . �'��, � , � �� k ' d�t': �� y�,,. � ' , � - �' . ' __.��}l,a`�4��:v ' �� .�, '�� . . ' � � ��k+H ��` . � ♦ � � � � � , � "«� � �. ;,:�*�,� i' �� ;�� a�; �� ;; t " �,: � ., � a � t n .. #" � 4�' �.� ��'�� '+'*T" ��r,r ., . L .� � f" ,..` t �".�'� .� . K� �sr ,�4� �':�� n,�»�� w �,� '�t Y i". "� "1��.+� �i . y• �p y � �� Y'S��M �. . .�yi aW a ��` '�y% R �.Y w'+yg . �,.. a i ��.. +� 4 ��MF .�M•,�'YYIi �+, a * p�� „,� � ,�ry 1 t �.'�G�� Y r +�,�(y4 r;~•y�� e�a�yt � w�» ; �`� �' �u.�: �� : ; � ,r;�� ; t �� , ,;, �. , x�'��' , �" „ ��r ' i�� , � �' ° *! �,`'� ��" , w� ,' ,4'� �°i� ," � . J� �� '�.: �n Kr �, ,x � � �" ,�f �i �� .r+.�,�°°�s t ��k ♦��ia � '„� � �:� ,�..�� a � .� �}q / ��Ref � � 4' ., , A.�..r � � ` ".�t' �,�?�y % Iii ' � ��f � 11�;'. 'A. ,4� � p � � �� , a� !' t3 , i� � y�+�y�'"�,y �r� " � ; �'� �� ,� �., � , kb.. � ye_,�° 4 +��e� 'M7h I. � , J+ p . �R �� ' . � y�� e R ' ` �- � ��!_' � #.� �� i � RN't i'! 4'f� 4,. 1 '� i � � � �x��f��.ft ��'"ye� �� `�� r �a ��I ,� "M�f� � ��I�.:bA��e'� � . i� ��, w'�7 �..� d r ;.r^' � � . , � i � - . h . �p � � ^ � , '�" � �. a`.n �r ..: } J`�� t ' h� �,`.... . ' � �1 i . f �., ' �zw� - ! � o !4 1 � '; � .��* - � a � � a ,� � ��.. s.� :3 ��g � ��„ ,�, � # � .A+Lr�«'�.e � ;:�.Y { •��ro �.. ��.,y w`,�` � t� 4 ' �'d �� f r i � ( � "�t( ::`t a. �� 31 - rt+^ � � r + hR � a" � '' g�t i. �< j4 � g C.�"Yv � ""fr a .✓ . ��+`�� , y r '� � ;e � �� .�. .,'� �'. ��- � ,� � � 'wb 4 S u. M,� a � ,h � � r.l � � � . f ti'd �t :�� '� . �. t p ,R t , �*.� �i �� -w� 9 a� „� �� °` �� ,st � � �a�r i Y .,.�y � ��,�.��1 m� �� M . "�'xb, 1.,. 1. .4 1� ;.. - ��.� � �+� . } � i. . w , . a ,,: � . � � �� i � w '. � .. ' i • {�� .+ � �� .~ MR ,� �.,Y `�-.. .. . �.w ' s.'�-+� ` �� :°"z` � v . q { �'� � f.� �+' ` ' n'�' ` _ � - .. . � .,.;.�, ,. �., x . ,+, -� W r� • r r � �4 . ;�� , � .,� ._ M. tr�� "� . , • r ,� a , � � � ,�� ` , . � � � � :� �s, . � � • `r� a� , :� � '�';..,� . a! r �' ��. j �. -Il . �f � ,�,� ; � . ,, ..,a,, � � .. `� } �� s� -�*" w�" "t . � Y "' ""�� i 1" .., 9 3 �3. ,�' , . � , �"" �n �4w.��,� �a: � 4 � �;�� . �'"tt '� V^ ��{�� M�'� " , . ,t �� ,� � a ' :td � � ,�� • �. ^ y, , f ,r*� i ,,.,.N,� � ' � 4 , �. ,s � a :r � ��„ � �,. . � ,,. , 1� °ar4 �_ �. +r k, , a " �,] � F 1,� t � ,�� y i E. M y� �' ' � r / 'C��'�ri, �t k ��;�+"' �� tn � �.�'e ��fr �_ '�f9.Y �� ¢ o ,y �� , + '. t:v.. .- . . . a q . .�..,+ � i x r : i � ^� "+» t '� �` n �,i ,v- �� ,•ywe W M �' .��' w,�".�- . . ,1 =. #� r.� ey •Y � � 'y:+�'!� "'�, �tM� 6 ,.r� •��, 1 "„'.� e "'"� .f� .` ,.- aS"'K# '�f�` ��'` y: .p,„, aP 9:. �i �� I � �� ` ' . .. s � "" �`� w, �„, � '�,��,�, y �4 ��i.'*� �5,� � �+�` � ,�'�� W t �`< ��,. ',��tl� .: �. °o-�"`' ;.�5.,� �X y', ,� � r � ��' j, ^',4� � ' � � t�' � � � �`7+�iil..` i. � � X :�"�`� y dTg�'q'A . � `d i' � . � i�q� ,� � � '� e Y� ,.� � � '�•w' F .#�, � �� r`"`�� 'r� 'L�yu= �„� � i � ��,. a,i�{,m � Y t e� ., . . 7 i�' �' M: ii S' �� h1 .. �' �1.:`'ifl � �-.� � y �4 �� qy ra, _�:+�`�' }�+'� Nr y'4 n£ y�t,..., '�iA�i°� {¢� _ : J '+'h. d �". . .Y^ j� +�,. ' � ��111�� y �' f} '+ h�4� ��[� ��d} �Y,�� '�.� I � ! R"q r�♦ ' R � � Y _ 'N �� 'Y �]. � . �I ,b �S �� ;� X ' h . },�s. ' .p.��. e*4 �. �e+ �'7' s t ., b• � r � r`,7(��h �''1�°�i . � �k�' `��k . �. i d�� ?� �J+�. x _ F �w="1 �� a s� �, • ' .�� , � �" � �''�,t r .. ; �p,,, „ , � `" •,. , �'�'` . "` .� -I �'� � d �'�"„ � � � � � ��,,�M" � a�''� ��"� � � . I1 �:, �� ., �� ' h �,�} � '� i�'tl�� i��'��'.'�L« �. � " .r.6.a.E4iM � k �J ' ».e' � �^ i � b" r ��, �'# = y . '� , vY .� j + � id'Sa� � a f , 1�� i �. a � . � , a � 1 �.'�' . � r�... . � � 4.� I Y ` �' � r �� . i� �3 � k: � x � F :i� k y{tSF _. � � � t � - . YI -. r 4 1 1 ,�� 1�+ N � +�+a ;�r..I � � ��r ��r�&-i ,."C",1��> , {� � _ -� �i ,. .. .. .� `IWMt "".°' ,;,' � �.a� �.,,et.� 'wr.:.-I "' [ � - ' , '�'r�,�i'ar'e � i � . � o-;�'� � � �k '� . . ;, ! ,; �,.... : .. , f.{,:.. �..' ,.,.we. A • � :� ti. �� . ,.�� ,. . . '� �� . f ` ,� ,� ��; § �� a �i . . � �. , .i $ i.a a .�+ii, - � r t 3 r �'� I � � � y� i' ` � i �'�._t'r' �"' l .,-� �, . . . . . � r ._�- - . � ,r, _ t, � • . .' �* •' .� . . . . _ , 4s�. . � � . a w�� s� .- er i ea. "�� S ,� tp,,�! � . _ _ � � � .....,.. . � s � O 2 OA C �V �0 LL N J � Q. Q a � N W � � � � � I l� � � '� , � ��y..� , �. . , y� , �, :� � `�:� : � �� '� �� `� � �'�� " � �� . � � .�.: �. � `� , � . �, l�',' �r ' r' ` S � '^aM ^I'�.' �._ � �w..� � �. ' / '� � I . ' �, �� t �� ' �� . � �!;, .r , � � , � � � f t t� � . � � � , , '� . � . • } � � (�� ; 'v t ./ �� ,,� � ..` . � I . � . , . 4 I � 1 I i ' .l �� _ . } /. / � � � � � � �jl��' , �I�/��> ,�,, � , f �,`�"` F ,�--. a . ,� r 45 t C�� t l� � � 1 I/�� , ArSy'��,�a.�17'+h�Y � d%.; . �j' ' li �� .. ' ,�'C r! 1 ' t / ��I� � 1 . .'F4+ ��Ii�,. 1 � P�.^5 �r N, •i � N�.��. I� f �� ,,,�[ ' Y�i� { k �1 �NI�(f J��•: ,. '+\ Aj,��{.°' �"t"�,S�F#ra-r� f � '',�� (� �y r d ,�i �.�j ' f r s .' ... �'., �, l 1l �i� ' ., i � �. � �i� f r 1 ;�� yi r� ,' a ."� _. ��+'� i s �C t � � , �5 . -�`' "d' . }� . �1 �;� � .,{�� . �r � �� 1 �� q �)r 9. � . . �'� � Y��i�'s'}� .'� � � �� k t��`�y�,T��• `�� y w.�W �r �',�^ �� ,1 �k � "��`,{ �S ��. �,.��i -,� � �,., `� * 1 e�'3"" ` � i /� t � �i: � .. M. +k;�`�,v �� / e' ca�r�$ y:y' `i'^-ht .�� i.�"' � .��p._� _ `� � ��,� y `1 .1�� j �K � !�� 1,� � � �� { �� f !� ��1t1S�� t � � �� 'G �. '�' -, ,�1 � PP y; ��' f�l �` ,�' � �'r �i,�,�� . + N R� � �� i} l � e �.� � i.rttj t{1._��irFi ',.e r� 3 1 �� %i �,� . � � �.i: � '. �r f i�-��/ t � e .� . �itf F91 4 � �J � � P . 1 I � 1� I' ! +�j ' 1 � 1� � A � �s' � 4-, �r9 . .,- �i ,' t+'i �tCr� .^�5 � .,; '. ..Y� �r �y � �.. � '.- � h � � > � �� .: ; l� ' Y.4 � .t�y� ' � t I��'�, v �f'� �itt ..c��f�Pi� � • • S �. � ;�.'i ,. . : - . S s,��,. ,+.�':;"� . . 1l y�,�b �1,� y� f t v d�''� ' .�, � � t � � � - . ��1 � � � � �� !� ! � ��'�: �Y'1� r�!' .:� i�'�a� �i . . . . . `�)h'. .i � . �e� " �r Y : � � } '�. ` 1 - 1 �' :t. . . �, ,,� �-xy, � f'i i / 1 7 � . �i� v �� 74�' �"q"q�„ 1 , { .� I 1 Y �{� f f � �� ,� �� y�%I�� . , t� . 1 � ! 1 f' a4 , � 1 � ° Y l e✓ .�' i 1'�.t' �' � :� .., ; .. _ .�'� ��rli�� 4�+j I��, � � � x¢} ,' `�� t� �� ' � � � r �� Ey, -, � f„ � w h`r�� '. JR'`c ^�'+ q �� , ` �''"a; � •' � � 1 � S.'��jr'�� ',��"t'1 �; '`'��. .. . � a,�wi� I �b 1�! A/i,�. . 4;I�f t.�"^`�.,,�r .��T1 � �� . i r .� pi � /� � � t � � �Td�s y`i�, +ti.., � �'� s �, � "' . - ✓ ��fi'��x^Z��"'✓ v?c" � �1("�, i'`''ak,�: ,� . ��"`.i'�"�1`�,.4� +r. '�;. �' ��• s `�- '°�'�:, � � �,i�""i."�y .�Ctid;t s'a �` � ��. ,. �j,.. �••''� .�. �� r j ,--`'��`'F+'+ �+'f �Z �'�,� w �,�� ....: . . �� ✓� ��ij'� � .' a �� } . �`. �;P� � f �Y,til � . � � i 7 .y;8� �� A •� "' ��f�� :' I' �� t � �e�.�:t ��w `'t�� `p '�p �r' � � A !,� ��1�� ,�./ �i 1 . : s� i� ! i�r,�i d �! � � � �� . C ° t „'k� s {r ' - � �,�',�/%1 i � ts �' r cr �., ti . a: i rr " e } t'�t1 . 3 � i � ,., � �� .., �� 6' �, , r�'�t�t '� � �;�_ � � + , � .,�� s.�r � � ,� '` .� ��.„ �f � � ' ' "' '' �' �i�y " . .� �u' �1� r�� '7F;� ` � , 4 ',�� "v ( :�"��. . � . � yA:�.�.� � . �� `��:dkt'��•q �": � 1 a , �'� � ' k:' ' ; �. + � �� ! � . } 5 �X^ � ,�'.w..Y,, l � y '� y�,d �,f � �' ;�`y= �i�. � \��' � tif � � j , 1 � � . � J � � . . . . `C�i � ! p p•. : � , � � �t�. .� . �+c �;, r� r .. � _ � - �. .� � ,,. '�. � . �� . .... � ,�, �} � '�i � ` y� � � 4. . .� �.�. �,' '4 1 � � � { v� ._ � . . . . . �� { ��kij`k �� ,�, ��' r ,: � .. , . . . ., .. � : . � : . . , .. . ..f � �� .�� . �.tf . `��`,,� � �� 1 '� 1 �.�. , � x��t ti`� 1°_' i � I � I � � , ,, ,�.,,, !»• "—'*"' 1!�.* `"`r�i�,„'�' 4 �� ..y .. ' ' Ji t�,. 1 �.,,'.. .�., �r< � np� ',q e _ : ,., . � � � �, .� n , �.ti� , ��, w,- . . .. � � � t . n'x+n'+.+�yy - '�(+�, .�.� . .,:{ i!" . � pr� '} i..F.� . "LtC' h "�M' �,. ,+ar_ "' y . u '�� y� ��r� w " y� "'�l¢'' .1:.s'� .* _ .. .� . f ` � _ � . �„ : � '�,. `.�g �. �,x^"r� .�- . .. �� " ` �r . r� � �� '}�. �� , wn ��;�w x. ,. ._a 'v q.,. o-k . .. .. .. � �1 r ., r � � � ' .� ' � �. ,�e� . �� . �� .,+ . 54 '"r;�'r� _ '+�F `4" �t �� '�� r .� {� ��7',�' "r a, �� a1 ° �f �. '� �h�st b,� � � . �� s'�� s � � F ' - � ' ��K ' N�''e��, w. t�� z � ��M. �~r. i , � i+t'+ � „ q� -�``•�, .� •� :' � �•� ,� w�.• � $� �K�� k. .-� ".-.gsi�t.a � « �r �'� �'`sr�i�'` . � �,�y.. . '.y� .0 .�• • �` a' n ry. Y� 1. i ~� k ' °F� F"4' ' '�� ' w td� ��" �.. �' ��' �y�� .1� ��y� �� C) � , k. . � � ��+�"�' . �r�i�,. � .;.�. .. r " ;� tk -�; r .t! '�tf Z �. . a , � . _� , . � , ��.�� : »�' � �y ��i � r, � + x ` �� eo �� '- `�A,�, � d� e ��'i'�'� '"�"" � ' ,' � a �i .s� � {� '�� t � �� C . r r ,. r � Y �ah.. m �. ./ �„�1� � � � An r � � � a r� �1#� { � �y �u � "'� ,sv 'if � i� y � :d : � "�� f� "�' �,,, � 3 � �� .� �. ��f � a�i i ,�' �`t�iA� �. . . .. * G,�:.��w� . " ir a . � � � 'y+ .. � � c��' P� ":� � ' i. ;. � a r� �. r t. .r �� ' att.: �c � � ♦ t � !' : :.�j ° ro� � '. � ra.�..i .�.Ee',h.�„ � , "�`,d'�,ra, •�`' ra"t'�^�, ''°''"; '' �` s '�� # � x�,: �f�"' �� * C ",�q,��`�, � sa ' a�r�,�� w "'��''� , ; �, j w -� "' �p '�` �p � .n. � #�.d �`°YL�,�� ,,� �,,:(f ik��.ar �1��-�y ,e;-.� i !.� sII,, L 4 � �..'V� i � ��lw �'^ �,fi � "l` Y Y . • dl A' $\ ..:...'� ""j? �1�� " 9 • �+ � a, �� ' rh „ f v �, . .@" . , . µ k �. 5'"1�7 T � .�i�� ,�.- � � �� x*� � W .r{ y'�"� A`7 , � rr ( ' �.... '-"H^s�"�� ; _, � . ,�" � � . tp��,� r h" y :�• �� +a "r' Q,� .+°� �" �� . '�e� ,_..W� i M j� , �. � -� ro �w.�t��t5 �d''�' ' A �•'� a b. �k:.�a +.... �. , . � ��fi �� d� d' ��4� *.�:�`�""a• �� " •�'�..�� N 'A -` ��.a o�Ms' '�r � w n iT q �' � �- � , .. ':� � . s"z � �, � .� q� ' � :'�` �� _ W , A � "} r _ � � ' 'a`^r-r, � , * } I , } v�*",,, ,.��f� {+ A`s� ��I�+ ,� ��-.'"�s.-. ".J M�' .;..�'T"*, `" ('�) A� . j�,. �i '�M� �2�y,._y, � •i�. , yp �.��!; �'. ,� 'S . 1��i�' S��` � i , �x� �.. ��w '� , " � � ��', 's .-� ` �!'�,� �'. h . �, ,�,'' �'_ r '+' �� . � c �`" .�", �I� �, ( � ` �', � � �'��. ��."'�'�' � . � � ' ;�, 5 ��I � a�; ,� � � � . +�q, , P. 6 i ., i;6. k � �� a..;. �, i ��.3+ ��. � � � , �� { r4r,,.� „ �w;;! +�.°�tis- ! a a, � � a ,;�`. � . .. ,. �� . _.' ti �: .. '.�� . . ., �. . _ . _-::' ��!.. ..�..... . ,x: , .', Q� r ��i I Y � �, � � � �A;M a`�w �.. �,��r � � � � ;� . �, 1;�»�fei,.i.�� , i� � _ . . �':�i i.r:.�' �, 5 �' S • '9 Ni� �g 4` i' ' 1' {•�;: . � �N �.± � � �!�' r � x j � ��'.... ` T '�� .e �r �.� ��! qd , (� %;� ,�� ,�..t A.+�r�r;�szk.i�'' # � .�1� � ,,}��.�.} � k� �'�� ,� � / � �' � � ; 9�� M � _ ��+1' . ,.�. � i j;_ r+ A , .,;� ,..� . jr � �#, A�I rN y�. � #�{ + IM1{.',.,'I � � � :' � i �i:� ^Iraw..,�iMj��iaR' ' ... .�_ �� i i , . �`S i I' � r � � .. erv^I�a'�W^" . .. .1 : `� � ';+ ... . ,,• _ �I •��"�p.� �. p+..t ��;,7�+=�� 'Ms �� . ,i I,. . �� I I �. .� � � �I �y "f9¢+S1r � ,'�� ,� . ��„ ,� � ��- ly . � � :. t�'4, � r � "� � ;� � �;,.� � ; . ',; ,I:., r , `r! � a" �. � � .i�� A� , . ,,�� • , A � _ �;� ,,� ,� �� j x�:. ,,«: , , ,� � .°�� l �,('.' � ! f°r � ��.,1 i t . ' , , ,:'' � i r; � ' ,�. ` ��;�� ^� � � � � .r . , ,.,,,,�,c t`�x :� ��r . �"t . #�1 ��' ,." �'� ►�„ �,,�" 1 ,�.,f / +' �.�<,"q1� -'a+.v� . lu,� �' � i � ' �y4 s:. � r � �,, �:� :.i �' ,�e�� / ') r � , � .� 4 ` � -�{ , +! ' �'. . �f U j / � _ %*i� r . , 1� r� , , ,� - � , �,� �v"' �. � �t.,� �+, . ,, q ��; � ;; �� T� � } i �k` � 1 ) i: S� � � .:,� � ' f a.+'r:�..� .. Y,�,�.., 1 f ;r� �^�... y�i' ��. �-` � 1 r 4j.,' y' ]"J "t� % _ ,. 'i .-7 .Y� .,� a , ! �� p ..�� / , �� .�i2 �� {,�*�``"�.� '.' f � �� , � Y. g. , fl �y �) � t ..y� ,, �f y��`. � . . Ll,i „ � � w �� . � �.1 �. �i i' " �,�„'*', � . ' ' ,�'�... w" .' r . . . � . j `�" ^ ��"� .,�,5�. (�/ �� I:( J �,�� .r` `. � �� i: � : x � � . i �[� ' �� M / :,�� y +' � � i'r r , :t -}� ��s fi� . lA _,I �. �� P. . , ^3� �' .t ! �j ' ��i, � �",1 ��.r t ' `,,t �,��' � ,, ; /3 . ,� �7 � � �'h �t �' 1� , i�' 'n� ..' , , � � .: y .� '�ia q ` �; di / � r �., � .j t �A ,�. �f . I . �1 �.. :V .. i,f - . . . :�.i �� °t� �,�, . 1 .�" p1� �.t �� r i' �� :�a �y�a�� '+F ��. � �..i4 . � •: i I - -. i � �t��i n � � � f� sr '?� '� ��_ 1 ,,� ,,> � �a �• � ' , -- _. ,�� Xl � . _r q p �'� y6�.lf� �{ � } . . , . , � ,� � � . i � � !f r, .,A � ,✓,Np faF%I' �vh � � rc ! . .5�° 7� r�.�... ,�' .'.i ' s�` � �ti' � ��eP�,.�t jc �{t, �Y��,','tr�'+, r ' -��'m �tr�" :' � a F...{r%�G't ',.�i 4 . . . �9 0 ,� "`r�� ' � �� .,�( � t d`�f`�� ti i t. '�j i ( � ,�"1�r�� S � � .� , . r e ' i = � " R�1j � � 1�„Y, ^M `�� I .. £6 *£ �' �r ,�I �i y f,� �) � � . �r �1: .1`� -1 f ��.�` ��4�C�,� 1 . ��) 1 �� 1 <<`v� `�G �� v � ��lt� �!} h�,y 3°�l'��u ' . � �. � � , �ki� r, � � � , � ..i I �Y�l �� p . , � .. . . .. . "(��' �( 4E s � � � t',�l.j��,� t��,y��[`�r-�,�r ,. � .. � . 7 .y, a f ��i ; :1,'r' �� ,,; ' 'r �°`r ��' � � � ,�,��,by� „��,,�x H�i � , �- � � „ ��Sfar �r6�� r ��,, ,�y �� ,� ��+t� � � 1 � �, �y ' � � #j"� i �, �, , t'��', '; . . . n�iY�` b �`�,j�h � �y ' , . : �. . '. J � iirt� E (�l J�,t � . w .! x ,s,:. T ','�, y^�'� Y� � ..�' � "r,-� � , t� . � , ��11 T' � ' ,♦r ; tY � �: \ t` ` �? . `n' ' , . � , �1 w'�r ti, �� , ,� s, � � (( �,� �, r�� , � , �r�� . � � ' � � '?'; `=�R��i�F � (t., e ' �t i �j �j � :_1i a� . _'. , � ., w .v.^J �. ylY ) � y'�',i �� :/ P 1 W v M 't f 1 Y�`4 1, I � 6 f'-) 1. 1* { ,1 ta �,i .f � fi��, t M{,�..,� ,��r � �. 4� ti f ' �5 � ` � y i Y S � � { ".-1; �v � � .,o'� l5��f N { rs. 1�( Y i. }, 5.� � i,,, i� �;' s� � t i'k y� a� v :' „f �^ �i 1 1� r 4t "� � � � )��I,�i f i i -�1� r�'�Y• -�i ." � w �`4 � �1t � r � VJ:4W n ci ;��t rf b i �` 1` - t r �� a ( � � I �t�:': �Yy Y� h `N . ( q' � � � 'I t 7 � 'y S �' �1 \ � ~',� i ' .w �.7� i',.A y ' X . (1 �� : � ,:. aid`� aj. � y 5 � 1 � 1 v� .�r �� 1.� �� 1 n j�. �� idc �"S . , �d ~ y9' �' .i4c 1 ��. 4 ,� y��.� � � �+' � '�5 r�r ��:a � �...Jll 7 � � � � ,.". �,> � f N M iy yy � h ts ., "' p� yyl r�� 4�'� 7� ' . � � L." ". � .� � �`'w k� .S'�+ .a.-^4 r . ,. i ' F 4t '� � � � + �� ` . � �..� :. a�Yi i t;:, q� tt y' a:� � � 4 Y F� . t� � �' r4 ,' .. , � r ,,X�l , � 1 x �" �" r"} t r �A�� ' � ' � t � j , , ,�, �� v'� � r: � 3��'rr��,�^ '*�4' ,: p{ �^- L '`'�;� 1` y, � r '� ...7 � �x Y � �+�`' � �i�i ♦j,A' �t � M [, k ' . r ' +,� r � � �� . p'� n1y�r 7 a `' �t r� • a, y � uh r'# �., '��`f� t �, � .;� �.r��.,t�'"�� -e ..��, � � �� ..,YG, i� � � , �t� �� ,� . 7• � 1 ,��,i.�, +-,. ,.� , . �. '�l 1 , ; 7 k1 i 1 . � � S J �^� :�� . t � K . �� a� '+ � 1 d ; � . " , ,e r �, as 'a k y. � ; � t � ./ :3+ a`�t �v�:." l�,�6 �, � ��.A �� '� �� w� • `' fi �� -K, � r�` :!� r�p' `d "`� � }�r,��. � i , �, �v `w r,( .r � � ^h �'" � ti��v� i �.� :�,��` 6 �� i ; 'a� `� '��.r � "a^ F . � r M�: ! . .. � p''�� A �� `f� � - r �"'"�'�1� �+�°' v��i^`Q � , .. ' _, .. .' :�� , "�`�� • 1� � ' � � a9 �'� ry��- � � _ , . ..., r � �. . .. ' ' * . . . � ��"' +► . .. ., . . "yA ��r� !�, ':1 �.. �t� �4 � Y}'�'� �1 h�� :�'! � "°C� . I , ... -- �� .� yo . � ��T� . �*1 .. � .�,. �� . 7� ,., � ,,�'I".�,�, '4` .. � � �� a�'� �'� � yi �•" � �y� S +�"�. S ; i � ��J " �� • � �� ,�� li � � ��'{�9� � � �dlti �$ �a, � � � =`� �a. i"�t�.'�.�.� , � ;�!� r �. , � �`' � i�� `. � ... R ^ �,� ,� �� _ __ . ,.,.` � , y°" {, t. � . _ . . %% ,� 5� �— _ ; �.,�.�,.'. % �' � . ►�� `� yr. wl.r' � r�'iif 1:: I • . � , s�., , � '�' � ' �� d a;r��,�y .�� Td ..t� .yo• p �; .�'�,,P �''�yllt '�;`� �, i � ' ' �;, �#4 -- '� n,�' �,4'% w � y�,,, ai�r�� w�� ti , � � ��,y� Yn r�.��y fi �,' - �� ! a- i f.�v+l d!6 �' i . ' , . � ,,,�, . w ' � a +� ''�' .�s, �, 4 �' �`�Z ` �" � � o ,- � ��.��t� , �� ,., �� r �� y . � � ��t* �' ,; _�_ ,��,.� r �'��• �,�. �, ..»w�^� i . � •' � ': Y �s,x��a +` ,� +,�+� »'"!� ��i i' i � ��,,.-' , t � .. '� � � , : �» , � ��Ei�'��r �,�4i�,�� w �v l �,�. � a.tl i� i w 1�1C � `X� , �i'�^} � f' r� {R� �,,�, ! ,. �� r� � , . '•��,. < C� • .r v � ,.�i "u ' `P � �l"� . '" �, t , ,; ��. ��, �. � �l.._.� � . . i ^� " �. � J.,�`., �`� #'6 4 ! �a � �'�i'� fl� �� '��t � * C ' .�, o��` ,� r . k t�+'�+ " „��1 �� 'K � � .� �� R "ay*� '^'hM 1 � �� b�S a �!� t . 5�". a � � A� � a � µ � . ��` 7 ^`, � � _` � " � � �, i �'� 41wi� r �� ;. y e,� "� .� � � � i �t M ' c �. � y � AS. y J . Y � y ". 1 � 'b,'� � d.' ...e � ,. �.M1g',�ti `+ ,� t �}�. � � S 'ra �' � k rf �y i: !� �.. �7 ��++1 'j.�,�.".H �` a.Mi�t �+1 W'��M.y^��' .�w ; �,� j�i �� Ckt i ti �,�e��r �, r � �"k. '{�i � � .� � �t �$�� . �,t r� ^1 : .,�} � y ,�,:� A �. �} ��xk y�,L e f j t. p h: M�M1, 4 R. .� ' y �j 'i.. • .i� .dx Ta'S'a- �!' ,.,� .t� 3� .., F a: }4 �I7�V, y ' yn, � 'w'"� t„�� c�,�"',< 0,4 r� .. K;� a r 4� ...'1'�^i; "�i'�!'k''��cy.'� ��,.�» : : 4 . y kv �•y� ' f �7 c . t w � ; ��`�. �: � ' , --w� u" � �,k � �!�i, ��. IaF rF�.. � �' e..,_.. . Y .. m if �i.. a "� �' �::� TM::x � � ��. � +d �,� ,, „-� ��{ �� "� � � y a�} r �. � � ^�h ��i h- . � �, k. � "" r R _ 1. �_ ��' `' 4a , ;�, �?.�°�,►` ,� ',�'°'��',: '4 � �i r*, k`" x � � j• fR} .'., �� »3��. �� ryy t � '.I � � � � �� {l � �:1 yC" ' `"' ^ . : � � � � � ��. j-yt+'.€+`d + t:. � �,:...� +.'� '°�" wurr..�^� " � � � � .-ti � r- 1-'i tv{-�' �� e T '_ 4w ., yy1 L :,�,, ,. a 1 '� �"'�, w,.�,�, k �� ;� , � , � �� .. � � :r �. � , dr� �, �¢�? � � �� J �y'q°�' M 'ir'r �_'�,�. +� � � �" , , .�,° ,' i a . , r �.ti' b�� : �':� _ . ' M'} � '^ � ,H' � " ^�,•4 ''�y�.'�„� � � '1�.^,_�y�� 4 �� e �i 1 �1 � i�Y�, � . ""`v.,+.'�o�:,+,'w�,« ,;� �1 ; , , � , � � , � " �;;.�; c r °� � �r �� ,K � � ' N!.i. :1 J � r � r� �J � ^t-� f '�-+• .. ,.. . :F"..i.l� i �'�'�"^4'`'�+w,�.ay `"�'�l...ap.��i��'•q ...... . N,.,<d � � � A a.w 4h� .� � �� O .� �. a✓ � ,. rww'�'�^. � � _,,:. ' . G. ^ � �nT"~ ,.+"a'"■w,�""�w"""k++�n�"''"'�MI�R V f4 .., � ,r j W —.��.y......_.. � . � .. ,:Mr„+ � �� i � � ' — I µ ' ' y� � ` I �� , � •'ro.e�... '�y� n#..y. � ..., . � ��.i � I ��+ � , - �,,.��un^�'�..wrruiw�...�i�rr�� "� rm" � �ii+W-is''i ... �,.,t'"..m.- ' � � �� .'p �:{ , .� � .�'. . .� y" � � �� 1 rt�,f� � _. { � A , ! � � i�'" ,�TM �p .� � �."� ��' . . . �..�•' . . . _ . _ _, . .._.. . . � a 1F�'� �- � ��.J. jt F J f� i � � _ ` � � t ��, _ �%" s �"{ , . _ . ,,; �� , 1 k .akVr 9 a. ; � t� t rs ,� `�fl � ..csj�-1^ t� � �� .� -�Qj{�� y 1 .j °��'_� t ' p� '�� '�� .� � . . . . , ' t'� ` . � r �. _; �' :. �,�/. t ��" � a. r. � t. � �1 j � $ i �y� . u.wwa.� . . i % �� ,��+rr�r.s6 1 +�� si h 1nY t-�M1 , , , . 1 �' v� . r� i ' , M . � n _ �4 '�A"'' � � . � �.e � � � �: � � :� �r v .� . �i � � � �.". � �. - , .. K' +�+*w.r.�,�,,�;.,�:., �i4�ft� "r' ;� � k ,'r �� , c i�" rtz; J ` t � 4� i ��. , x � � � . �-;� z + * ,�; „�" t; ,- s� t � <.�s.' . " � , . �" • ,�d ,, , � �,� � , . .� �� ,� � .rt � w ` r � � `�`t�"��+�, ,''�r : � .� �"+,�, � e,� %`y �+a '�� :„��. h r, `�4 "+�y# � w} �,�;(9i � � a'. � � � r� , ' . , ��= .. ' ,,:,� ` .1 � �� u � � � ,� . . � :,� � < � �ti: . ;�'+ a� � �� J�:h. 4 �. �•� ��' � :�"k Y ��r�' . � ' ;s`� - ' � � "�� : �� t e � �F��` j s��` ' �� o"� �l i, �� . ,,.� , ,; ,� � ,r�, � ,� w . . � �,��'`'�`�'t k..,. " s � iY . , . . .... ,, 9At + .. _. � t .. ` r�,- � ,_� ;; � y � � � �j� . � , � t ,.. ` .. �, , `"�� .. , ,��, .,�,� . , � � �� ' ��,� ' '�"" ` ,��' .�, . . �� .�� ' - ° � �, � ��, :� r'� ' , ;� � . � . .� F. � ,' , �'~�. � � . .'�, , . ; - • . 24�� .. ' .'�ti�i�wp � �: A �". , ' .. ' � n 7 . ' . . , i ,�� J��,�t , , ;.�; ., ' ' . ,r. • ' .';� �� R , �°+'�. !' „ ' " , . , , , � �� : �� '1, . . . . � ,,�,� `" � ' .,.�. � � ;' � , . "��.. `,a � s �� M1� ;��. �� . x� , � � ' � „ � ; +• � ��. h. , � x' .{�' f ' I �� ' ' � �� a��r „ _ � � � �,�' ' � � r .v � ' , , �i .. ' -. . . . ' ' J} �' . . . � . . ' r , � . . t � T i' +��I ~ ' ') . �{ ,�r . ' .� .. , . - } �� rV b A - � : •' .. . . � �qy��. � b�f��.r.r' . ,�' �:y �' j. � �: �' ••'t .. � . .�..y � � ; ,�,,, ��.,,w .a I - _'� ,.6 4�` . ' �•� . . �'""" �(^n C�,� -.,� ,'� . �.:..:� j ..1 . ;� f � . . , +...�,.,�"u,,:7,. r�.w.•�»-,..,�.,,, �<,„ua� '� t, � . ' �,, ` 0' . ,' � . . � � ; ;+,, . Y � � . '; .'1 i�� i . . I; . . q a � � . � , . � . t � � � ' : �^'� . t : � � ; . ! ;�t. . . �,. , }+,'1 ` ' .. � 4 : ^~y7', ` � .. � „I�� . ��' �l � ... � ' - �,�'� � i� ` y , � \ . �• 1' �� : Y' �+ . � # :�j. � S ll 4'. � k W � i - ' �t �. , .� ' .. .�.. ' . . ;i �1� '• � 1 ' . ,+' '�1; � ' r, y • } ' , � r �k �� ' �' � ; � • - � � c.�,S � � 1 '�i ¢� , , , , ��, � � �� f � "�.; . d �� , �� •�, � . w . - ,. � '�- . � a� rr ~ j � � �� ; r � . � �t 41� �Ss S V �- } � � .' / . . . / �� # . . __ � � . �� z �� . . •,:,. !' . .t',i i' . . \g \= i' , t . . I S �4 ,) , i . �`` �a. � �1,7 ti � . ,£ � . . � � ��' \ R ` , `�:5' . .. . � A y� ; , � : , , . . . . . . . ' ,�+� � i � �. # . , . . . . � � 4 M, t�� `a .. ,'{S P' . �.. � �� {�� x � 1, . 1 � � , � ; 1 3 f:. �. �, , 4'��i} . . � �i �� ;�Q' � k. � .. � � '� � . S ' j�;q,� r - f�k ji'R . . t • �{, �'�y \ .i " � 4 . � .. � �(�� `t � . .��;� ' ` .�.. �. . . .. ' �.i �Pe . �ea/Yf �1 n Y:'� � � }, � .... �g.{�4r,"�k �1 iha '.i +F ,�' � 4`y�� 4 �i� ' ,� ��1� � 1'�{��,'� d.�y�".. `�k�i Z ��:1 7^.. y� `,� . p� +r :�I YS�, � `'� � . � l, � .. M� 'i' A , � � .. ' `Y'k�ai.fi�' � � ,� � [ , r . ^m �� - i 5�. M��. �� . _ ` . . ,. , . , . �1� e� III{� �:a ^ � y �� ,�� . 2 � , �n ��li�� '.� �I��WII:�`l � J =� L'wl.HIIJ�� 4kEa—.. __� l � .. ��1% ��_ ., .. ��.��. ,. � a�s � , , .�. wr /''� � .. A�� c� o r� n�� n o C� '� i r,) z�, I j - `��a ;�ar��o � aa > 1�� ' ]� z z z .C"_ a C� �,�� ( 1 III \ i; � �� n � � � � � �� -n � � 7ll a�rk �a�"� �� a f il�� ` - /,%' f�_�� m � � �{ � � � D ,� 1��1 fl�d�Ei�� ; "��n � Isr^ i . I� � ;�� r'�" ` J p w � v n o '-'e � o � ��I �i� ,� y �"SF4. �1��.� T� ,5 �' � II 4. � L ,"C� ✓ x�`�� .i _ o i�� u�� r� r'� 'Y �. I Kn � t -��-�� I r �` i e. �._�k��^.� � � y " z z F "".� m � Ir 1�Y� F .� -:rJ �I�I , m u �� ' �$�� rt� P ,n� ; z '"u � � �� tlk af� waG�n�u � . \ ,� � /-�' It�l u � r -o v � ="u `� � � �'� _j �l�)�lh ""� I� 1� �ttu v 1�� - : o � ro � m ,� � �� ]> T `� P . . �� P' -1 Ifl D -1 � p � i[��-� Ill �';. � �,F�� / rf p �1 D rn U � o .G. �' (- % Il t` �' T � � �\ � � � , ' . 5 �' � � � � fn (➢> n Y . � / ' F � � � , t f ' v i� ? p ,_,f o�� /i / � � I� ��'I,� ,�� f � �/ � � �- i o � � N ('[i /� r..�i1� � �� 4i � r� � z � w F' � � a - ci a c� o x; (� � �, E) �� s' � � � / p YI `�� " \ 1 b 9 � � �'' � � �' / � / � � � � ' �1 '� FI 3 � � � ,. � � �li o� `�:2� v v o � y/ / � 1 �� ,��.�y� lY '`�� F� �fti,� �� \ ,\Ir �� I/l� � re� �,'a `.y'� 'o o I I � � z� � , a� � Cs� �' �t� � � �f" I�.�, � Aa V � -}N�> � a 9 �s i `� F �.f��M �r � �� ' :; / / � �§ µ c� 'a , ` ��w � �' � � ' _r,r , " ; . . Y . � . ,� m �n a r� 'I .,, �d �f l�a � � � � fl �� ^. � ��a - r z � a� . � I � � � " � � g � � �" ^ r�� b� � � — �r � � �� y o_ �' � g �.� 3�� Lat �ti, y�J .r �. � � � � � F � � �i � , l � .. A`� � � � b � - %'� F�ar�Y F� . ..t: �7 A m ?� �� : �r }y � x '� .°� � � r� i. � � ¢ .�` �� ,�� sli ; , � ' - J i� � ~�� , p�� ('"J �� F ��. ��, u � z7��,f. £�39� �v. . �-" � t-a 'j `/3�1 /�Ff �� i' 1 � � � w . , m �� ' � �� P � ^g � �G � �� s� � 't�y �,� : "� - � � �� t `'y � 1 a � �i 30 ��v ] w 1R F 'y�a" J - j"�7a. „ �/�'�lt� r .� �1 \ � �1 � ....V...,.-_,.w ;i Rr�o, 0 _.:."� �- ..... � ... :,� ' I , � � �'% � � ' � � � v � ' n r ..... . .: - -- . ' -�-:. .._ ,� - - � -d � , .�, __ --_ ___ -1 � ; �; %I �;� , � � 1, � � -- — - __ : - _. __.._ _ ._ __ �, ,� , -- _ ... m � � -- _ -- r, �� _-- � _. _ ; - - _ �,� � � �f,,, f �� ---- -- ` __ ,. ,.- — — - _ _._. _ � 'h ,.-- � ,� '',, r' . , � A ,a � r - .. . +� � `� , � s9 t�,.i--'- " - -�} I.�� -- " -,-' f 1�'�r% ��-.1� - _. _ f . � , � ,l .� � - ----- -,._ .. v °i �, �.� � , ,- " ` '" ! --_�_ _ ..__. _: � __ . — ._.- — �: ,-- � .�, -., ,� .. ,_ ...._._, 1� -- .. ...�ima�, : .� � � } -�-�- _ _. � ` : , ._... ...- -' % - 1 � � � _ . _ - _ l k _ ��,,,,;,,..,...�� ` r` - ^ \��" . Ib317_' � ' z 9�'j , � ,_ r�\ i I% j�� „._: �. __._ ._._ - , '�, _ _ ��C� i :1 / I �rjtr`}�7� N ; , + ry S��✓r i.r- � ��W�� \ -� _ �j��r! r7�. (, i .V1 _..j 6Z. / Za�:� �i } - --=_ -. I �_ , � �, �, �� ._-- t, � jF ,�- _ �._ � � ��t� ��, �� A . _ . ... � y ,xce � -��; � a �,z� -_'� —�,�yWy a�•�- "toeiv � - .:' ..,� �w `�� i 5s 1 5 - G9 ��' Hn . i'"'�'' I� � � �I t 1 Y 1� � ✓� ' I � . , s� �-� � "�{YA;- � � �� % --� c� � � �i � ':3 � . r'• � �� $ 1 'ri - �' �' ,. �� wi � .4 ��-� _u ' � j � ��;v "�; r� ��\ �\'' ��,, q� ,/ �, _ J, /r: r � _ — ,t 'J; L � _ �1 �,��a '- 1� `�a�y�' � �'. � � . !' � o�,�/ ' �.:.�'� � . .- . � - ... s i . f -��_'.' ' ,%' . � � � L` l � ..' -.. L.-.. � "�r 4 . t} 1`�� f `� r� j .�.__- � -�ar / a�- . � � ( ) �� x. 'rt4�` aN t� "°'t C �= „� •m i;-5 ,.,.=w � � .� r �..�j � - :- / � -- � 5 .�I, �`� . � � ., �� . �� i . aW'�' stiF� a ��_ � a�.� � u� A �� ; J ! � ��, -- - ��/ �dd �B.{-��K .�,x�;�',/ 1...- � a- ..,�1 �' � �r � ' � �; � ��,}�� c / o 1 �, � [�). ! ° � e5lt � f "i � � "� .��. ( \�• u l _ l ) !`: m �� 1( u r i'T, �� • � (i`i 4j1 14' �f � � . r. � . � �- _ ,�\ ti� ' ° �`'�/'`u\7 t � .._� ( 1 `�w N �%� �r� 5 � � ' 1 ' ._ :� f�_ � f,:) a�95. 3 � ��-�--�� !; `1',�r r f �� /� . � � g �� .�� ,` �� . ,�., ��Y�'_"' �� ' � . . `�'i � /'#n,�� '� � i y li�, �� J'��a� , ' _ � ~4 1 „ y� - l.' �, /�' � 1� � _f � ' . �_��.�� T� �y o� �w }�: � � , " � ''' � . �> �v � � i �` � �F i" 7 P� k' 1 •`/ d � � �,° � � : A [ ��`�� r', RE " a ? , � �� r� � � , �� / � � � � �*��j�''� � �\ Y '� 1 j ' � 4€'�� _ �il; In ,� ��' � i=' �,j ��`�F E:�r �cc�i-i ` Y 1�Q �� ,�,��,� r '� � "� '�� zw� � k YuC� �y' -�� 7�-si _ 1 (�)1 ,�`a�b (} � �� hw i3��.�. �/�� '��`� N�,�i ,; � �. a��/ � ij-' �, �� o �� k1 \ ! /r 'iw- � � �a� � V / / � s e�� - d'� ti �� i � i . � �.�,_ a . - ti-_. � � ��A � �� ;aS , /� . �% *�,,.�'%`'"// � E', i '��i � � �� kr � (� 1_� n crnc � / / r,�.->"`' � �: �-� «.,,� ,� �� \ � �r�]�� f � I • � ,:� i � � � 7 i .� i' ; � i _� i ( ' - j �Y� � �� ` �� 1 � �'.�1,R a _ � r� � 7/�� I ! :l / eF I r x�.�W... � � � � �,.} sy � � � 2�{ �'�.� �I � '� �, -�, _. , � � � �~ y / FL , � �� f � ,1 Ci 7 0 � �� V I 4 � � �� [ I ,E� v n � : ii � } i � X' :1. f �1 U �' . -� �} �� ; � P r � / e I�, 1 i� v� � � � -, C-�` . Yc� �' � 1� ��j� � I .. � , � '"� C7 t� y� / ( t' / f ' ` � m r ��_� ,�+ �` f r - � u rn � � w i� �ry'1� � i � i j1 ! � 4 A � � � C� i�g9� �sc �` � �� f � + _, .{ �� 2� � �i -: A �� e s^'^.�1 a'..� j ��t s?i ^' �'- j!'. �-'�j i� !"" .�i � � 1 h2'.�„�i � f'p � ` \�S I . - ( � pm � ro C�JliS�Gf/�Ao :� � �: MY`�\ �'� yd ,� � �a i ll �. �% ti (X� .� � b� � � I 7 � �"� � cr / r � � � �� f f � � I r � � g � ,'� a .I i � � � �5 .:� � '�i: \ % ' �.�J �.✓ I � `,�` � � � V.J , I �\5\ 1 L" = � \,� � �, � �_. t'i� �, '� � 1 � � �t { ��- � ,�.�� \� �a/ � � �� _� I. � cJ "y u ��.. ' � �-, ,�J.�I, � �. . r "1 `� � � � �� '� �l; � �� „� .��> � .� � �,��. )� M, ��iJ��. � „i� f ,�1..� � �� i �, �' � '� � I� ��'` � 2�- I�, }��.�-�'�/��J: -%�� . ts� q� � �,. - (� �� . �.i;. `.�� '� . � �e � � U �� .f�;��. :�; �� A� �� j�j� i �� U c- /' �'�'� r^-.�y�� :� �� - = � � �� `":C�' 'ff �� ,� �%F . ``� ;';- ` ;'� '- ' "�'9' �,, ��d`�,i,�l s,' , � T L . �� , � ,i �+✓ t � 3� ° �� [� I`�� ) �`�� s $ .'c�s il �� G � A� / � � � ��z . � , �r i ��/ � �F�� `� � �� `� � �(C� �. ` I -� � � �i � " � .-...+.r..�.. '`� / ' ` �� I � . � � �i V+�-':L=:% j ]�,c � \ � � � ii _A � ,�, .. �n� '' �� `�� 1�- `��I � � a : �� `' . U� r (' � � L , �''>�- -�� .t �' "� , � 1- 4 \�, z�� g`,. � \ �Y� - ` - �I � (;j� i'� � 'r,9��g� �J `uaiE "�� J V I..�.�� c q��:- ( A � � �'. � � �� \ :'ti`� �� \j��s.._:.1 r, r l� ,� } I .�:t `� , , °'a � \ -� _J � y� o_'F- � F.�� i'�_ � s:�F� �� `�,y, �� ~�� ` �`� �'-�.F t �.��.I° � ��T; �' s� � � e��f� . y�x � _�.e� r M1,E , /Fr_�� `�� .,1l� Y,�t�'r�� '`"r+�� --) I u � �a�Z �9 . � ."' ( � `� \ �.+5 �� 'i /- v �. '�� y �, ! �� f 1 \� � � ! .� %� � 1. � � . . � k L; ,�,,,; i�a >-` .�I _�%Ir ��fLx - � �Fr �� ;h o �%� c� , ` � � �-_� �ll� c ��)` $' IJ �7 .i { , r��'1 � ,�.�,S��y �R i f ). �C ✓ � �I; l' � `/_- I� h�_l�i .�. �,�t :g .., � `d. � � ` , 7 � � � �f'- �� . ��J�� ,�'+ ' �� Y .�� T. y d� F� ' q �� '��^�� -� �� . e ., �� , "V � "... F'pE 'T m i C.� � ° � /� ..�� f�,� � �` - t 1 � I: � f � ��• '. . . �' � � m j f ) � � � � . 1 i .\ `� � � � ..,I . �" I � {1 I . _ :Y �� .�..�.� �' � F _ �R{ _ :' i '� .� i 1 i r .�� . � . . 'v r- t ,� .�I � � �_�. ` � < � '� � � f � � I� _ ; � { � �.• � . o e ^- ,�3� i- �� _ I f �� )•� r �� -. _ I .� at �-�'� � � �,iI��.�„� \ �-.._ 1 � ! , . 7. ' ( ... n ( �� s{/ , i J �t-�a . "� �`�1 � � �� ti � �, � o u' ii d Wl� ��JF� i ��,,; r /77 � �� e`�'�,/ ` /%T 1;\ �` �p �S l� �` �' � ; r �: I, '�• '�+ =:� '^� � �' .,b,-� r_� � � � � Y ///�� r�i k� �� I � � \ . '�� ' � ��r � � �� d t`=� , � ` � a , - I � �� , ��'/ �� Y' yt� � "� P �-��, � � ��_`�._ .�—'� � �� i � � I �� . � "S' i� �� f: �'� j?� \ r L / ��'�,�^ k "f � { � � ,. .� � �`-.a �JIM'o-g2.`��, � �� . . �.�c �.�I,•i ��ri<x ,��\ ��.??�_/�, 7,1J,�-�.�� '�",.. �(- ��- a�� .,�� ,. ��z,+ a .. � ��z � � e . �� _ 1.. _ "�4l-; . � �r � 4'-:.7Y" iN � � �_ r.'�.i 3 � � � ` :� Bzc�o�.�v �sm�rrc�s �� r� c�orr co�� . x PAR�L 2529b-7 x L��o�m�y Panorat3iiC T .e��s io ;S'mzfa Rosa �i�ornztains �� -�� -� - -' ''�' ""� ��9 ��. "_ O �b'9!J .... ---�' 'r � � --�"'�,' . . u - � �� .,, F �/�'� .�� r.�� -� r � � f �- �� Lat � I � . t � � �levatinn Bu:ldin� � .� 1 -E-69� � E�rve7ope �; Q� Private �rea ��"�� ra,a��,� f I � j � i � f , � ,`�'� ��' i �_ f � � � � I � � � �� 1 o � a � suog�st� I � � �_ __ �� . i - __ � .�.___:-�r1 ��_ Z1 �5��' �OillGSi.tE ,� 1 S' Buitdz7zg Fieig�t Ma.�'vt�um. �,at Area 4,59 &cre, 25, $33 -FT square feEst Building En�elope Area 1.4,�33 square feet {sac rewrsr. sid� fprdkrlai�tcrntjormaL'o�l r �✓�. � � r4r�a N'aiztral �re¢ c�:tend ez%�zg land5cape into hom:esife s� N � wm� s�m, � �DEF�N A{N�"'S ��Qr�l� W._ . � .�� f��i1CHAE.L J. AI�D�LSON, Rar No. �500(�� F3EST T�F,ST & I�RTLGER L,LP _ 7�-76C� HigIiway 11 l., Suite ?UO Indian u�eils, Caii.fort�ia 9'?211� � 3 Tel�:phone� (7C�Q) �68-2611 � Telecopier: 760} 340-6G98 4 Attorneys fnr ��Jitness � 5 RIGHOP�N �EVEI C�P11-1Ei�`I', 2?��. � .�,:� ,- ,,, �, ., , .,, . ,� , .. .. ,,., ,.,:,, �. � � S �� ,�� , „,� ,, `� . SUPE�O� C�URT C1F THE STAT� OF CALJQ�U�tI��I� 10 - -� �'��.?[JNTY OF F�IVEnSIDB I i INDIU ER�NCH , i2 � �� V1�ION ��EST �NV`ESTM`ENTS, ct a�,, Case No. I]VC 065760 � � Judge: Plai;�tiff, RES�ONSE QF BICHORN DEZBLOP114ENT, � ,� v� INC. TO DEP�SITIC.�N SUBPOENA F�R FRODLrCTTON OF BU�Ii��ESS RECOP�D� 1 b L��TII�EI�7CE PAST`ERNACIC, et al., � 7 Defezadaats. 1� ' - 1� �'I2��Q[Tl`dl3�i�G �'�,lt'I'ir: F3��'�I�`L��,1�'TS g:r1'�'V�tENCE d':45�')E&ZNA�'li AND 2U LYl'�'1\TE'F'T� PASTIERN �.CK I�E�E ��O�T�[1V� �T�Tt�TE��: ��G�i�RN I�E'4'ELt�i'A-ff�l�''T, %w1C. 21 �� 7j �t �<. 2� _ _ . �6 ?� �b � I'iA4L[T11�1AIJDGLSOTIt?$7001. I RE,POIVSI; 7'O Si}BPGENA - - � 11-02-201� 10:03em From-BEST BEST KRIEGER � -- 1 l�AVID J. �RW�N, �ar No. 032�26 1�4UGLAS S. PHI�.I.IPS, �ar No. 749t?E , , , ,. ..` k � �ES`1 H�ST � �R-��G��. l.l.� 74-760 Higliw�y i 11, `.�'uit� 240 3 Indiaui Wells, Califprnia 9221 Q Tel�phane: (7f>Q) S�i&-2�a l � kacsimile: (7b0) 3�0-6698 e�NiA.TL: Dau;�=Ia5.P41itllip�c:c?bbkl�w.com � A�tc�m4ys for T�frndant .,, � ,.,, � ��_,� [�"Y pF NAL'v1 D�S�RT � .y�yyiY��llWliiL�Jili�ilW�li'.ISMY'iW:iW.�:Y4� O 4 10 ll �ry � 13 1� i5 16 t7 t8 I 1� i �U , '�" �603417039 T-541 P.d02 F-485 � �,x�n�tgr r'��t r'��.r�tG r �Fs ��kz G(�V ERN'v1ENT CUf7E § 6103 suY�Rza� eau��1 �F ��ti� s1�`r� oF c.�.ikdR�T� co[r1�tTY aF �rv�i�rn� �,AWI2�.NC�. PAS7'�R1�IA��, CsseNo. XI�(� 1201iR�9 1ud�e: �ndall I�. V�'hiCe Plai�cit't�, MFMDf'.ANDUIvI OF `1H� CITY OF PAI.M v. DES��tT �1 OP�'QSl'1'I�N TO P�Li1+vSINAKY LN3lafiICTl�N BRfJC�. FAG�1., as uuste� oi'ihe FAGEL F�ILY �`Cti.7��; TRUI�Y FAG�L, as trustee uf �he F��Ei. FACviII�Y T�KIJST; I�IGHaR'� ki�ME�WN�RS ASS�CIA"Clt]T'�T; C!"t'Y OF PALIv1 p�S��T; and 1�C}�.S 1 tlu�►u�Y� 10, inclttsiv�, D�fenc�nts. 21 7� 7� 7� �t � 7� 7� 7$ Tim�: ti:�0 A.M. Date: l 1! l 6/ ] 2 l�ept.: ?H ,25oo.U(1(i4o�763�,.79_ t P�LM 17k5�t23' MkM[:FAAlJ}UM 1N OYPQSITION T� PKkLIMTNr1i�tY ihiJU�CT[ON � � � ` � , ! ��CH.AEL J. AND�L50N, Bar No. 050009 �,� ;,- �,�� B�ST B�ST &: KP�IEGFR LT,P ? 74-760 Highuray 111, Suite 200 � It�dian Wells, Caliioi-nia 92210 � 3 '1'ele.phone: {76U} 568-2611 -- . _ I ' ,� , . ;; Telecopier: (7b0) 340-6598 -- � . -. ---- - ; 4 _ i ttan�eys far V,ritness : �; _ .;� ` ':, ; 5 I BIGHORN DE�'ELOPMLNT, LLC. _,— - - -- _ ....__.—. �' s '> j _ .._. _ -- — --- — --- 7 1 l � ! � � �� . � , �,,, , ., .� � 9 SUPERIOR .C)I?RT OF THF STATE OF C_AI.]FQ 'IA ��'�� "� ��".��, �� 10 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE i 11 �TDIO BRANCH i3 1� 16 17 18 19 20 21 �� , 1? VISTON ��rEST INt�ESTMENTS, et al., :�l�sui��f, i i ! v. I I LA��P,EIv'CE PASTERNACK, ei al., I�efendants. PROPOUNDING P.�RT�': RESPON�II]�G �rITNESS: Case No. I?�'C 0557fi0 Judge: D�V�L��NT, �LC TO llEPi�S� O�I� SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTIOI�� OF BUSII�TESS RF.CORDS DEF�NDANTS LA��'RENC'E PASTERN�ICK Al\TD LI'�1'1\'ETT� PASTER?�T�CK BIGHORN DEVELOP111ENT, LLC � i� . �,�,�,.�,.. „,..,�� .. __.. ..... .. �� . _. _ _ __ _ _ __ .__. 25 ., 26 �� 2S R�1LIT1ivL4NDELSON�R 7GQ 1.7. � REPO� SE TO �UBPU�.fiA j., , �Jr `"�r� ] I�ZICHAEL J. AND�LSON, Bar No. �50009 BEST BEST � KRIEGER LLP 2 74-7b0 Hi;h��ay I 11, Stzite 200 Indian �X�e_lls, California 9?210 3 Telephone: (76G) 568-2611 Telecc�pier: {?60) 340-6698 � ,,.. „ �,, . , Attoznes�s for ��jrtness � B�GHORN P�OPERTIES. II�iC. � 7 � ' �� ff � 9 SIJPERIC}R COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOR�1Lg 10 � COU�ITI' OF RIVER�IDE 11 A!DIO BRAI�TCH 12 ] 3 VISION �X�EST INVESTNLENTS, et 1-� F1aui�C�1, — 15 ��. lh ° LAWRENCE PASTERI�?liCI�, et ai. I7 �' Defendants. IS 19 PROP�UNI}�1G PART�": ?� : RESPONDING WITNESS: 21 �� 23 24 ', �� 7 �, g � �., Ca�se No. INC 065760 Judge: ILESPONSE OF BIGHORN PRC�PERTIES, INC. TO UEPUSI"TIOR SUBPOE.N� FOR PRODUCTION O�' BUSTNE�S RECORDS > DEFENDANTS �,:'l«'RFNCE PASTERl�TACK AI�`Ll LYNNEI"rE PASTERNACK B��FIORl1 PRUP�RTLZ�S, INC. RIvQ.iT1Tv1 �+7dD=LS014� Sf+935. i �- REPONST: TO CUBPOENA I �' 1 MICIi�-1EL T. ANDELSON, Bar No. U50009 e ,,,,,,, .�.�� ,.� BESTBEST & KRIEGER LLP � 74-760 High«�a�� 111, Suite 200 Indian «rells, California 9?210 3 Tele.pbc�r�e: t760) >58-�b1 � Attorneys f6r �Titness BIGHORN �flLfi CLUB 7 s 9 Ifl Il I 12 ' 1� 14 ': � j5 16 ! i7 13 I I 19 � �� . ?� �� , �� '� 25 26 27 2S �. �; � � �' SUPERIOR COLrRT OF THE STATE �F C 4LIF'ORNIA COUNT'Y OF RIVERSIDE 1NDI0 BR�?vCH VISIOl�� BST INVESTA�IEArT'S, et al., � t�taintiii, v. LAV�TRENCE PASTE.RNACK, et al., ( Defendaats. PI�UI'OUNDI'`�G P�RT`Y: RESPONDIl�G ��V"ITNESS DEFE _ ' � TTE P�STERNA{ BIGHORN GOLF CLUB Case �o. INC fl6�760 Iudge: RESPOI�rSE Ut� BIGHURN GOLF CLLTI3 TO DEl'OSTTiON SCTRPOENA F�R PRODUCTION O�' BUSINESS RECOP.DS / � r� P�STERNACI� �TD j RhiLI1lPJ�ANUELSON�SC9?6.1 � j F�E:PONSB TO SUBPUETdA ,. ��i�� ii�i�in,�iiii�iiii,�iim�iiiiuliii{Jill�i ' � _ I � ,�' `Zi�:�S LEGAL M_ALPRACTI(.'�,' years. The plaintif�', however; failed to slZow tliat the conduct was n�gl'zge��t or that Depa3-tment of the .Army negligeatly trained the lawyer. Under the discretionaty iunctiozi e�ce�tian to the FTCA,37 ihe go�ernment could not be liable «hexe the claim is "based r�pan the e�ercise or performa��ce or the fazlt�re to exercise or perform a discretion�-y £uncf:ion ,..." The decision of what train- ing a�d law books to provide xequired discretiozlary,}ud�rnent. In 201J., a Peimsylvania district court disn�issed a legal �nal- 3 practice claizl�, based on alleaedly erroneous advice to have the plaintif�'s cliscbarse status upgraded, because �t was barred 13y the t«�o-year limitations period of the Federal Tort Claims Act.38 The court believec�, but did not hald, that the complaint also was k,arrec� by the intra-militarq immunity doctrine. In the 1994 decision of Heck u. Humplzre��, the Unzted Staies Supreme Caurt held that the recuvery of damages nndex section �;:-;.;; i983 of tha Civil P4ights Act for ai� unconstitutional convzction �r � � i�u.prisoziment required the plaznti�i to prove that the con��iction � or seiltence was: (1) reversed on direct appeal; {2} e�punged by � executive order, or (3) declared invalid by a state tribunal az�tho- �,�., iized ta make sucli a determination or by a federal court's issu- � u�' ance ai a��rit af habeas corpus.39 The Court oi Appe.als #'or the � ~ Tenth Circuit concluded i;hat the sal�e principles apply to an ac- ; " tio�� far da�na�es under the Federal 'l�ort Claims Act.40 � �'��, � �� d��ui��,�e�d�u,��or��u�� 2'�:�� Government�l a��r�n-��--Gonflic��' �ln.terests ; �� `* IntToduction. The case law eallcerning conflicting interests of � u gatiernr�ent attorneys princira7ly addresses alleged ethical ��-.�; � i��roprieties bq mc�tio��s to disqualify. Because of their public � =�` status, attorneps e�zployed or xetained by governmental entities 1 4� .: �,_ a.re in an especially �ensiti`%e position should they und�rtake to � ��; .: ; � r�presei�t conflicting interests. i ;;� �tl�ougl� an atiorney's personal interest can create a conflict of �,;` intea-ests, ihe consequences are not ihe same if ilie izlterest is a G� phzlasophical ox rnoral. belie£. For that reason; a Puerto Rzco � iec�eral court rejected an Assistant Unit.ed States :�ttorney's ' ��, � re�LYest to enjazn her superi.ors from a�s b�z�ng her io prosecuLe �ta. ,..:. . ;�-� persons charged ��i�h trespassing on a Uniied States navel base.° �" Tl�e ccua�t rejected her Firsi Ainendinent claim, statuig i�hat he�- ��r perso�al zeelinga tvere no nlore than complaints ab�ut l�er work ��j. clz�.ties, arld thai s3ie did not have a First Ar.nendment right to 3728 U.S.C.A. § 2g60(a). �OParris ��. U.S., 45 F.3d 3S3 (lOth 3eDidonato v. U.S., 2011 �'JL �'r• 1995j. i?�5i93 (E.D. Pa. 201Z). [Section 24:I9j 3s512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 'Mendoza Toro v, Gi1, 11� F. 1�;� L. Ed. 2d 383 c.1994}. Supp. 2d 28 (D.P.R. 2000j. �92 5 `�4:�� LEGAL MALPRACTIC� �= IaY�yer should not accept private employment conccrning any �`" � matter that may fall within t3ie scope of tlie prafessional respon- `� R' sibilities in his ar her public capacity.`� A statute may establish exceptions.°° The Geor�ia Supreme Court declined to adopt an `� 3 unqualified bar of simu.Itaneous representation of a county and ,� �; . private pariies in inatters adverse to the county.45 The court '' ' explained that the situations were too complex and varied to �'� � ,�., , warrant per se disqualification. � ",�� ,�'�+�.�,� `� , The appearance of im�ropi-iety can be serious. Unlike a pi�vate �,� f r. '�� attorney, the governmental lawyer cannot obtain the iufarmed x��. ��. .�',�v� � '� `''�.� consent of the public to ai�y poteniial confl.ict of interests.`b Thiis, ,��' �~ �, � a municipal attorney should not represent a developer tivithin the � �.,, . municipality, because that client ma� a�eed to seek a vaxiance ":� fi-om la��s re�ulating such activi.ties.°' �' A distinction c�n be made, if actual conflicts are not present.4e �� `. The Colorado �upren�e Caurt found no impropriety in a count� 43In re Supreme Co�irt Adi�isory Committee on Pro£essional Ethics Opinion No. 697, 138 N.J. 549, 911 A2d 51 �20061 (attorney for municipal board cannot represent parties ap- pearing before the board); People c. H�ffinan, 3 Misc. 3d 318, 7i2 N.Y.S.2d 492 (J. Ct. 2004) (la�yer for town should not defeud clients in court lo- cated witnin ine tovvnl; ln re Toups, 773 So. 2d 709 (La. 2000) {assistant district atcorney reprimanded for rep- resenti�c� divorce client wl�ile his office was handling batieiy charges against - her husband); Plaquemines Parish Com'n Counczl c. Delta Development Co., Inc., 688 So. 2d 163, 137 O.G.R. 293 {La. Gt. App. 4th Cir. 1997?, R'rt denied; 692 So. 2d 451 {La. 1997) l'at- to�-ney for levee boards failed to dis- close representation of lessee of oil and �as leases); State ea rel. �;�iley v, u";;�.<�.r �+�cemire, 1i�6 W. Va. 529, �13 S.E.2d �'�` 183 (1991) (cannoi represent private clien;s in domestic proceedings where �"' iosecutar's of�ir.e ma be involved); !%.,;;zc;, P - � '�.`; - Higdon v. Superior Court, 227 Cal_ �'�� App. 3d 1�69, 2;8 Cal. Rpis. 588 (5th "�� Dist. 1991) (former couri commis- � sioner regarding matter heard when a 4� commissioner); National Bonded '�: ' jVarehouse Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S., 13 Ct. �`. Int'1 Trade 590, 718 F. Supp_ 967, lI f�'`'�= Int'1 Tra3e R.ep. (BNA) i.650 (1.9851; �,`°; Sandex= v. Mississippi State Bar Ass'n, 466 So. 2d 891, 2� Ed. Law Rep. 634 (I�Ziss. 1985); City of Philadelphia v. District Counci.l 33, American Federa- tion of State, Co�ea_nty and IVfun. Employ - ees, AFL-CIO by Stout, 503 Pa. 498, 469 A2d 1051 (1983) tpast represen- tation); City of Ha.stings v. Jerry Spady Pontiac-Cadiliac, Inc., 212 Neb. 137, ?22 N.-4�-'.-�d-dF��3-{�9-�2��se3f-dea�i�1' for city's opportunities); Matter of Dolan, 76 N.J. 1, 384 42d 1076 {X9 i 81; In re LaPinska, 72 Ill. 2d 461, 21 I11. Dec. 373, 381 N.E.2d 7Q0 (1978). See the follo�ing sec:txon. 44Matter of Reed, 500 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind.. 1956}. as�equest £or Issuance af Proposed Fcrmal Advisory Qpinion, Request No. S8-R7, 251 Ga. 497, 406 S.E.2d 81 (1991). a6Tn re LaPinska, 72 IIl. 2d 961, 27. Ill. Dec. 373, 381 I�'.E?d ;00 (19i8). �'Matter of Dolan, 76 N.J. 1, 384 A2d 1076 {19 i 8). If the l�u>yer is also an elected official, consent is more dif- ficult because the la��yer represents the public as an elected official. a&Waters v. Kemp, 8�5 F2d 260 (llth Cir. 198$} (�o conflict far special assistant attornev general to have partners represent prison inm3te in habeas corpus petition?. 702 � , I�,'�� . �. , . . , �s,�:. . KNOCK. KNOCK. Welcome to Bighorn. . . . say good-bye to your privacy. ... and say hello to your neighbor's McMansion. • / ; � � "k x � ¢� X„x ;y� � � �``r . � ,�t �` ��`MI I� �� a � � � �, `��° � , I ��'^}� i II' �� ." tf �y' .�'L. a� �.�Rw�C.V. .�'�- s , . �eXss ' . . . � � T1S3 , . . �' "� s /�� "'.� ,�� r ,'� � A, �,� �� . . `"1' � ---,�� . o . . � . � d " j �' . . •p��v� , � �� / f^ / , Y I -�R - ; �� i " ; ��:� .� ; �'E ._ � . � i �R'ki . . .' �?� . . � � } �"1�!.+-.. '.'ri f' e:t.,_ .. . _ . ��d �