Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/20/2000 - STAFF REPORTS (17) DATE: September 20, 2000 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning & Building CASE NO. 5.0827 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 259) -APPLICATION BY LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT CO. FOR A PROPOSED INTEGRATED, SINGLE-PHASED SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF A 57,342 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET, A 14,884 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE WITH DRIVE-THROUGH PHARMACY, TWO QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANT PADS CONSISTING OF 3,589 AND 2,465 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY,AND VARIOUS RETAIL SHOP SPACE CONSISTING OF 26,220 SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY 9.9 GROSS ACRES/8.29 NET ACRES OF LAND LOCATEDAT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND SUNRISE WAY,C-1 ZONE, SECTION 14. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.29638-APPLICATION BY LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT CO. FOR A PROPOSED NINE (9) LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 9.9 GROSS ACRES/8.29 NET ACRES OF LAND, WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.13 ACRES TO 2.82 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND SUNRISE WAY, C-1 ZONE, SECTION 14. BACKGROUND: On September 6, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the above- referenced project. At the September 6'b public hearing, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial Without Prejudice for the project to be considered at the next City Council meeting. Attached is a copy of a Resolution of Denial Without Prejudice for City Council Consideration. Director of anning and Building City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Denial Without Prejudice for Case No. 5.0827 (PD 259) 2. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes t-cCeTl�_24 Page 7 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 09, 2000 Chawfaan Mills stated that, with the promise to the commun' y of its 1993 amendment to the General Pan, ' Council has made it on clear and that this application is not consistent with improving nei M/S/C ws/Jurasky 7-0) to deny, based upon ort. 5.0827 (PD 259) and TTM 29638—Application by Lundin Development Co, for a Preliminary Planned Development District for a proposed integrated, single-phased shopping center consisting of a 57,342 square foot supermarket, a 14,884 square foot drug store with drive- through pharmacy, two quick-service restaurant pads consisting of 3,589 and 2,465 square feet, respectively, various retail shop space consisting of 26,220 square feet and the subdivision of the 9.9 gross acre/8.29 net acre site into nine (9) parcels, ranging in size from 0.13 acres to 2.82 acres, located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, C- 1 Zone, Section 14. Commissioners Raya and Shoenberger abstained due to conflicting business interests. Director reported that the City Attorney has confirmed that the Planning Commission did not take final action on this application at its July 05, 2000 meeting. Director reviewed exhibits for the Planning Commission. He stated that the stacking at the restaurant has been improved and the decorative paving increased. He stated that the Sav-On layout was still awkward; however, common. He confirmed that staff and City Engineer recommend that the driveway on Ramon Road be closed to left hand turns. He confirmed that staff has met with the project architectural designer to assure that the project is accurately represented on the current plans. Commissioner Mills opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Greg Bever, applicant, stated that he agreed with staff on all issues with the exception of the restriction of left-hand turn movements from the center out onto Ramon Road. He suggested that this be allowed at present and conditioned for a limited life, based upon traffic counts in the future. He stated that he would be willing to bond for a future extension of the median. Mr. Dan Kline, MBH Architects, described the changes in the plans for the Planning Commission; pointing out the reduced height of the Sav-On element, that there are no neon signs, the light fixtures are gooseneck lamps, trellis elements for shading, and other improvements for pedestrian amenities. Mr. Daryl Christenson, Sav-On, urged the Planning Commission to consider allowing a left- hand turn from the Center onto Ramon Road. He stated that it is a customer service issue to /k A Z Page 8 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 09, 2000 his company. He suggested that Mr. Bever's suggestion regarding future bonding be considered. Mr. Rob Parker, RGA Landscape Design, addressed the Planning Commission to describe the landscaping plans. He reported that the project will use architectural grade fiberglass planters with a distressed finish for some large plants in order to stay away from raised planters which can be problematic for a pedestrian use area such as this. He reported that, as tenant agreements are finalized, the actual use will be clarified. He reported that the plans call for large trees planted in grated areas. Overall, the design theme is drought tolerant desert plant material. He also reported that sidewalk widths have been increased and provide ample opportunities for landscaping in addition to the pop-out pedestrian nodes. Mr. John Raymond, Redevelopment Director, urged the Planning Commission to consider allowing a left-hand turn movement onto Ramon Road from the center for now and to bond for future traffic studies, medians, circulation changes. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. City Engineer explained that the conditions of approval for ingress and egress stem from the analyzation of the traffic study for current and future issues, as his department is entrusted to do. He stated that the conditions are consistent with the Coachella Valley Association of Government's projections of the area for the year 2020 and his professional opinion as a traffic engineer. He stated his concern that future bonding may not be interpreted as intended in the future by future owners or leaseholders. He reported that more than 20,000 cars per day is a serious traffic concern. Ramon Road currently has 17 to 18 thousand cars per day today and the target year of 2020 is estimated to have 32,000 cars per day. He stated that traffic counts are taken every two years. Commissioner Jurasky called Mr. Rob Parker back to the podium to address the importance of a pedestrian-friendly design. Mr. Parker responded that the drawings represent a viable layout for a pedestrian-friendly site; however, specific tenant refinements will be made as those agreements are secured. He described the Sav-On pad as more oriented to drive-up traffic; although it does have direct pedestrian access. He reiterated that raised planters can be a maintenance problem but plans and renderings will reflect alternate ways of creating a buffer between cars and pedestrians. Commissioner Jurasky then called Mr. Greg Bever to the podium. Mr. Bever stated his appreciation for the Planning Commission's consideration of the application. He stated that a possible consideration for enhancing the site could be with the support of the Art in Public Places program. A tentative theme for the center, he stated, is "The Trails" which could include representations of endangered species, footprints, renderings, etc. He stated that his company is enthusiastic about the leasing program and that good traffic flow is essential to the long-term success of the center. /� � 3 Page 9 of 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 09, 2000 Commissioner Jurasky called Mr. Daryl Christian to the podium. Mr. Christian stated that, although the location of the Sav-On site on Tahquitz Canyon Way and Sunrise Way had been approved, his company feels the subject site is in a stronger area. Mr. Jurasky expressed his concern that the stand-alone building, as proposed, at the corner of the site is a weakness of this project. Mr. Christian stated that his company would move the store to the Tahquitz Canyon Way and Sunrise Way location rather than change the configuration or layout of the corporate-standard building design. He stated that it would be the Vice President of Operations' decision to approve a change of entryway. Chairman Mills stated that this very important site in the City needs careful consideration to ensure that it is developed in the best way possible. Chairman Mills also stated his dissatisfaction with the Sav-On design. He stated that it should not orient away from the site, it does not complement the neighborhood shopping center, and is not well-designed, in general, for a stand alone building. He also expressed his concern regarding having drive-through areas in this major City thoroughfare. He stated that he appreciates the convenience of the drive-throughs; however, he does not want them to be visible from the street. He also expressed his concern that the entries on Sunrise Way and Ramon Road are weak from a design standpoint. M/S/C (Matthews/Caffery 3-2, 2 abstain, Jurasky and Mills dissenting) to approve subject to conditions in staff report and that the Director of Planning & Building determine a trigger point for the cessation of left-hand turns onto Ramon Road which shall be recorded on any subdivisions, leases, and CC&Rs and financially secured by bonds or other financial methods as appropriate. MMISSION WORK PROGRAM: No update. CITY COUNCIL ACTION . No Planning Commiss' items on last week's agenda. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORT EQUESTS: Director reported that t arden Springs Apartment projec CBM Group has been halted; however, the City received nothing in writing, or even a return one call, from the Developer at point. He stated that the financial agreements inclu he condition that the project b Ily rented and occupied by December 31, 2000 and also that the uired uncle ounding of utilities could have been a significant financial risk. He stated the hers may come back to the Planning Commission with alternate plans. & y BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS ARTHUR L LIT LEWORTM• BRADLEY E NEUFELO DAVID J HANCOCK LCCARIE S, WHITFIELD 74 760 HIGHWAY I I I. SUITE 200 WLLIAM R OEWOLFE• PETER M. BARRACK HAYLEY E PETERSON KAREN M FREEMAN INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA 9221 O RI CHARD T, ANDERSON• JEFFREY V DUNN ROGER K CRAWFORD JOHN D HIGGINBOTHAM POST OFFICE BOX 13850 JOHN D WAHLIN- STEVEN C DFBAUN SHAWN O HAGERTY MALATHY SUBRAMANIAN J OKN E BROWN ERIC L GARNER• JAMES P MORRIS U51 MESHREKY PALM DESERT CALIFO RNIA 92255 MCHAEL I T RIDDELL' DENNIS M ..TA KEVIN T COLLINS CRAIG M MARSHALL TELEPHONE 1760) 55B-261 I MCHAEL GRANT' P H W F PEARCE CARYN L CRAIG JEFFREY 5 BALLINGER TELECOPIER(750) 340.659E FRACIS J BAUM• ROBERT W HARGREAVES DAVID W NEWMAN M THERESA TOLENTINO DEC RGi A REYESw C MICHAEL COWETWWW BBKLAW COM I' JENNIFER T BUCKMAN THERESA E ANTON UCCI WILLIAM W FLOYD, JP BRUCE W BEACH MARIA E GLEES MELISSA W WOO GREGORY L HARDKE ARLENE PRATER GLEN W PRICE E SEAN ApTHER OF COUNSEL KENCALL H. M cVEY MPRK A FASTED MgRYMICHAEL MCLEOD TRANG T THAN CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER• C LARK H ALSOP MICHELLE OUELLETLE JAMES R TOUCHSTONE CARMEN MARTN L EZ DE OBA.A MICHAEL L HAp R15• DAVID J ERWIN• KEVIN K RANDOLPH STEVEN M ANDERSON TRACIE PRAM MICHAELJ ANDELSON- CYNTHIAM GERMANO ROBERT U. PA7TERSON JASONC GUESS ANNET TH 0HAS• DON GLAS 5 PHILLIPS' MARGUERITE 5, STRAND BRYAN K BENARD DONALD F 21 MINER. K WILKINSON KYLE A 5NOW PAULA C P of SOUSA FRANKLIN C ADAMS GENE TANAKA JAMES B GILPIN LYSA M.SALTZMAN VICTOR L WOLF KIM A. BYPENS MARCO A MARTNE2 WILLIAM IAN F UDED L D BRIAN FEUDED DANIEL E OSO IEp DEAN D U IOCETH JOHDANI F. WALEV KIRK W SMITH STEPHE B GOLDS SOMA RUBIO CARVALHO DANIEL G STEVENSON DINA O HARRIS USITN EN P IE HAE PIERJOH O PINKNEY JEFFRYF FERRE WREN JOHN P p MUELLE EFEP DWIGH C. DMONT OA AORINELISON LAWRENCE'HUGHES M MIC A, EUMM R WILLIA M DAHLIAS, RY ALISON D ALPERT OFFICES 1. 5 J MICHAEL SUM MEpOUP WILLIAM , DARLING. JP KRISHAN G CHOPpA RIVERSIDE 19091 666 1450 SCOTJACK CSMITH LARK BERME L. ELLIAMSON JAYJ LEE JAMES H BEST1 R (1B 3 19 JACK B CLARKE Jp. G HENRY WELLES JAMES C COLI JAMES H KRIEG Ep 11 9 1 3-1 9 7 5) ANTARIODIEG 1909)95ZS-I3AG 4 BRIANM LEWIS' RICHAROT EGGER MICXAELp OOLIDA EUGENE BEST(I 593-19011 SAN pIEGO(fi 1 91 5 25-1 300 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION File No. September 19, 2000 OF p/114ioq By Facsimile PECEII/Ef r Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Re: Proposed Lundin Development at Ramon and Sunrise, Palm Springs Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council. As you may remember, I am the attorney who addressed you at the meeting of September 6, 2000 with respect to the proposed Lundin Development Company project at Sunrise and Ramon. I represent the owners of the Cheeky Monkey and Sun Clean Laundromat, both of which businesses will be destroyed if the project proceeds as planned. I do not believe that the information that you were given at the City Council meeting was fully complete and accurate. A number of issues came up after I spoke that, given the format of the meeting, I was unable to further address. I hope you will find the additional information provided by this letter helpful in reaching a decision on this difficult project. By way of background, my clients' leases have provisions that give the landlord the option of terminating the leases on 90 days notice if the property is reconstructed. It is my understanding that Lundin Development has an option to purchase the property. If it does, it will likely exercise that provision and attempt to evict my clients without any form of compensation. If that is allowed to happen, the considerable investment that has been made in these businesses will be lost. RMPUB\RWH\171674 Ib LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST S KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 19, 2000 Page 2 During the Council meeting, the Council was advised that the fate of the businesses lost to the redevelopment effort was solely a matter between the landlord and the tenants. That is not the case. When property is acquired under the threat of condemnation, public agencies are required to compensate displaced businesses in the same manner as if a formal condemnation proceeding was commenced. (Langer v Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Cruz (1999) 71 Cal.AppAth 998, a copy of which is enclosed for your review.) In this case, my clients are being displaced by the threat of condemnation, entitling them to full compensation. On January 5,2000,attorneys for Dr.Bochner,the current owner of the property, wrote my clients, stating: "It has recently come to the attention of Dr. Bochner that the Palm Springs Redevelopment Agency has entered into an exclusive a development agreement with Lundin Development Company and the Palm Springs Redevelopment Agency has threatened to commence condemnation proceedings against Dr. Bochner with respect to the Sunrise Center to assist in its redevelopment activities with Lundin Development. As a result, Dr. Bochner has been forced to enter into an option for the sale of the premises to Lundin Development Company." (A copy of that letter is attached for your information). Due to that threat of condemnation, the Redevelopment Agency has an obligation to fully compensate my clients for their displaced businesses. Furthermore, and not withstanding representations that were made during the City Council meeting, it is my understanding that Lundin Development has been engaged in ongoing discussions with the RDA seeking substantial financial assistance for the project, The City Council will have difficulty explaining to the small business community the justice of providing financial assistance to a multimillion dollar developer to enable it to displace small businesses, while at the same time refusing to assist those businesses in reestablishing themselves. With respect to environmental issues raised at the meeting, an environmental impact report is required whenever there is a "fair argument" that a project may have a significant environmental impact. Any court,reviewing the record ofthe City Council meeting,would have little difficulty in concluding that a fair argument exists with respect to a number of potential impacts. I believe that even the City Attorney admitted that a focused EIR may be appropriate on the historical site issue. At a minimum, the EIR should also address noise impacts on adjacent residences and impacts on other nearby shopping centers that may be blighted by displacement of business into the proposed center. Rwirue R1VLFI7187a LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 19, 2000 Page 3 With respect to the noise issue, it would be unconscionable to subject the residents of adjacent apartments to the level of noise that will be generated by delivery trucks queuing up in the truck way within 50 feet of their second story windows. The block wall will not protect the second story residences: to the contrary, it will concentrate the noise and deflect it into the residences. The chillers on top of the supermarket will generate additional noise in close proximity to the residences 24 hours a day. The City of Palm Desert recently required a landscaped buffer and roof enclosure to protect neighboring single story condos from noise generated by a truck access and loading area in the rear of the Albertson's Center on Highway 111 and Deep Canyon. Those residences are more than 100 feet from the rear of the store, are single story, but will never the less receive much more protection. At very least, the City Council should require a professional noise study before it allows the Lundin Project to provide considerably less protection to the residents of Palm Springs. The preparation of an EIR will provide a full professional analysis of potential impacts so that the City Council is fully informed before it goes forward. Also, an EIR would contain an analysis of alternatives that would guide the City Council into molding a project that the City can be proud of, rather than resigned to. The Lundin project is a difficult project for the City of Palm Springs. It should not be allowed to proceed until environmental impacts are fully addressed and the displaced businesses are treated fairly. Good public policy, and the law, require both. Very truly yogrs, ert a greaves f BEST BES & EGER LLP RWH:kc R VIPUBaWMI71874 HH± inW OFFrr]t`. POLSTON, SC0WARTZ, HAMILTON & FENSTER a ao ctemuNAl rnRRi,r,n rroN lair InEL E -c.nw RT$ 9446 SANTA Mrl Nll..,. wc)111 rVARO -rl Fi II—L14 .rcFUEN M r .crER Sulk an; nrnl Svu.uam M t]WI.Rn ETIN(icR BEV Fr+LY HILLS, CALI!'UN NIA 9bCIU 111111 TINE (310) 11n-,1211 5-190.03 January 5, 2000 Teri Conley Judy Conley Lena McSkcane 475 South Sunrise Way Palm Springs, California 92264 Re: Sunrise Center, 475 South Sunrise Way, Palm Snrinvs, CA Dear i.adies; This office represents Kurt Bochner, 'Trustee of the Kurt Buchncr 1984 Declaration of Revocable Trust Made November 29. 1984, the owner of the premises commonly known as the Sunrise Center, 475 South Sunrise Way, Palm Springs, California. It is has recently come to the attention of Dr. Bochner that the palm Springs Redevelopment Agency has entered into an exclusive development agreemenr with Lundin Development Company and the Palrn Springs Redevelopment Agency has threatened to commence condemnation proceedings against Dr. Bochner with respect to the Sunrise Center to assist in as redevelopment activities with Lundin Development Company. As a result, Dr. Bochner has been forced to enter into an option for the sale of the premises to Lundin Development Company. If the option is exercised and the properly sold for redevelopment, the proposed redevelopment of the Sunrise Center will affect the premises occupied by you due to future reconstruction activities. Yours very truly;�/ Stephen NI. Fenster SMV:gp Cc. Sunrtsc Center (via fax) 1 f Y 1 998 LANGER V. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 71 Cal.App.4th 998; 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 [Feb. 19991 t [No. H018153. Sixth Dist. Feb. 10, 1999.] MARK LANGER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, Defendant and Respondent. [ •, SUMMARY i1 Tenants brought an inverse condemnation action against a redevelopment — agency after their landlord evicted them in connection wiih his joint venture with a developer who was accumulating properties in a redevelopment area for a proposed shopping center. The trial court entered summary judgment for defendant. (Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, No. CV132667, Samuel S. Stevens, Judge.) The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that there was no taking of the properties by defendant, either by actual condemnation or its substantial equivalent. The plans for developing the properties were initiated by the - developer and the landlord, who sought assistance from defendant in acquir- ing other properties in the area. Defendant never acquired the landlord's properties, and there was no notice of condemnation or any threat of condemnation of the properties, and there was no evidence that defendant intended to condemn those properties for redevelopment of the area. For inverse condemnation to exist, there has to be a taking, or at the very least a definite and unequivocal manifestation that the public entity in question wasi, ready to use its power to condemn, and in fact would clearly have done so if necessary to acquire the property at issue. (Opinion by Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J., with Wunderlich and Mihara, JJ., concurring.) HEADNOTES Classified to California Digest of Official Reports e - (1) Summary Judgment § 26--Appellate Review—Scope of Review.— Since a summary judgment motion raises only questions of law regard- ing the construction and effect of the supporting and opposing papers, the court independently reviews them on appeal, applying the same three-step analysis required of the trial court. First, the court identifies i i LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 999 71 Ca1.App.4th 998; 84 Ca1.Rpv.2d 19 lFeb. 1999] the issues framed by the pleadings. Second. it determines whether the j moving party's showing has negated the opponent's claim, justifying a judgment in the moving party's favor. If so, the third and final step is to determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue. (2) Eminent Domain § 131—Inverse Condemnation—What Consti- totes.—A tenant's right to compensation under the eminent domain law for improvements on the property does not necessarily depend on the public agency's actual exercise of its power of eminent domain. Its substantial equivalent serves the same purpose. The key issue is whether, under the particular circumstances, the property in question was acquired as part of an open market transaction or whether its acquisition was in lieu of, or the substantial equivalent of, a condem- nation proceeding. (3) Eminent Domain § 131—Inverse Condemnation—What Consti- tutes—Landlord's Eviction of Tenants in Redevelopment Area— Redevelopment Agency's Liability.—In an inverse condemnation against a redevelopment agency by tenants whose landlord evicted them in connection with his joint venture with a developer who was accumulating properties in a redevelopment area for a proposed shop- ping center, the trial court properly entered summary judgment for } defendant. The plans for developing the properties were initiated by the developer and the landlord, who sought assistance from defendant in acquiring other properties in the area. Defendant never acquired the landlord's properties, and there was no notice or threat of condemna- tion of the properties, and no evidence that defendant intended to condemn them for redevelopment of the area. In all of the owner participation agreements, the landlord's properties were already under the control of the developer and thus did not require acquisition by defendant. The fact that defendant ultimately paid relocation benefits to all of the displaced tenants in the area did not tend to prove defendant's s liability in inverse condemnation as to those properties. Relocation assistance under the Government Code is distinct from condemnation - damages. For inverse condemnation to exist, there has to be a taking, or at the very least an unequivocal manifestation that the public entity was ready to use its power to condemn, and in fact would clearly have done so if necessary to acquire the property. [See 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law, § 1057; 7 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (2d ed. 1990) § 23:2.] 1 I t 1000 LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 71 Cal.App.4th 998; 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 [Feb. 19991 f : If , COUNSEL I " Reid P. Schantz; and Michael A. Atherton for Plaintiffs and Appellants. i Atchison & Barione and Antonv P. Condotti for Defendant and Respondent. i Goldfarb & Lipman, Lee C. Rosenthal and David M. Robinson for Califor- nia Redevelopment Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. OPINION BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting P. J.—In this inverse condemnation action, two commercial tenants appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Cruz (the Agency).' Appel- lants sought compensation for business goodwill and improvements lost i when they were evicted from the properties they were renting and the land became part of a large-scale commercial development funded in part by the Agency. We find that there was no taking of the properties by the Agency, either by actual condemnation or its substantial equivalent. Consequently, ' appellants are not entitled to compensation for goodwill and improvements under eminent domain law. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1263.510, 1263.205.) We 1 will affirm the summary judgment. BACKGROUND 2 Charles Scherer owned 3 parcels of real property which together com- prised 3.74 acres of a 10-acre area in the City of Santa Cruz (City) known as the Gateway Project site. The Gateway Project site consisted of approxi- mately 20 irregularly shaped parcels, including Scherer's 3 parcels, which N were dedicated to various commercial and light-industrial uses. Its location ` a on the edge of town at the intersection of two main thoroughfares made it , well suited for an integrated commercial development. Scherer contemplated the eventual development of his property together with the surrounding - parcels in the area, and for this reason he had not maintained any formal A long-term leases with his tenants, who rented from him under month-to- a month tenancies. The Gateway Project site had been declared a blighted area and was thus eligible for Agency funding. It was part of a larger area known as the 'The appeal as to a third tenant, James Reber, doing business as Reber Construction, was dismissed by order dated January 8, 1999. dJ I, LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1001 V 71 Ca1.AppAth 998; 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 [Feb. 1999] i "Merged Project Area," which was identified in the City's "Amended Rede- velopment Plan for the Merged Earthquake Recovery and Reconstruction Project." The entire Merged Project Area was within the jurisdiction of the Agency. Consequently, the Agency was authorized to acquire real property within this area through the eminent domain process. In the late 1980's. Scherer began working with Cypress Properties, Inc. (Cypress), to plan a commercial development for the Gateway Project site. Scl{erer's 3.74 acres was a major piece of the 10-acre site. The project was envisioned as a commercial hub consisting of a few anchor tenants and several other smaller retail outlets. Cypress and Scherer approached the Agency and elicited its assistance and cooperation in pursuit of the project. In January of 1994, John DeBenedetti of Cypress wrote to the director of the Agency regarding platis to develop the Gateway Project site as the "Desig- nated Developer." He stated that it was possible that Cypress "could accom- plish the project without extensive involvement by the Agency." This was largely because Cypress already had a joint venture agreement with Scherer regarding his properties, which comprised 162.000 square feet of the total net useable 410.000 square feet of the project site. Therefore, Cypress would not need Agency assistance in acquiring these properties through the emi- nent domain process. In 1994, Cypress entered into an "Exclusive Negotiation Agreement" _ (ENA) with the Agency wherein Cypress and the Agency agreed to negotiate to prepare a development agreement regarding the Gateway Project. As a result of these negotiations, an "Owner Participation Agreement" was en- tered into on September 10, 1996, and various amendments were signed in the months thereafter. These agreements defined the respective involvement of Cypress and the Agency in the development of the Gateway Project. Scherer was not a party to these owner participation agreements. r The participation agreements spelled out that the project area was com- prised of properties owned or controlled by Cypress, which included Scher- er's three parcels; property owned by the City; a right-of-way owned by the California Department of Transportation; and other privately owned parcels, designated "the Acquisition Parcels," which were to be acquired by the - Agency for conveyance to Cypress. The Agency's acquisition activities were therefore limited to acquiring parcels "which Cypress does not already own or is unable to acquire." As to Scherer's parcels, it was understood that when the plans for the project were approved those parcels would be made available free and clear of any tenancies. In November of 1996, Scherer wrote to appellants, giving formal notice 4 that he was terminating their month-to-month tenancies. Unlawful detainer s 1 i i i 1002 LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 r 71 CaLApp.4th 998: 84 Ca1.Rptr.2d 19 [Feb. 19991 actions were commenced against them on March 5, 19971 The municipal court granted judgment in unlawful detainer on March 19, 1997. The Agency was not a party to the unlawful detainer proceedings. 11 ! The same day judgment was rendered in the unlawful detainer actions, appellants filed their complaint for inverse condemnation and relocation benefits against Scherer's estate, Cypress and the Agency. They alleged that Scherer. Cypress and the Agency had acted together to take the properties where their businesses were located and that as a result they were entitled to just compensation for the loss of business goodwill and improvements. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1263.510. 1263.205.) They also alleged that they were entitled to relocation assistance and/or benefits. (Gov. Code. § 7260.) The claim for relocation assistance is not at issue here as appellants have received some relocation assistance and are pursuing separate administrative remedies for relocation benefits under Government Code section 7260. Furthermore, Cypress and the estate of Scherer have been dismissed from the action. Thus the only cause of action remaining is for inverse condem- nation against the Agency. On December 5, 1997, the Agency filed its motion for summary judgment on the ground that no inverse condemnation action was available to appel- lants because the property was neither taken nor damaged by the Agency. The court granted summary judgment January 12, 1998, and filed its written decision February 5, 1998. DISCUSSION (1) "Since a summary judgment motion raises only questions of law regarding the construction and effect of the supporting and opposing papers. we independently review them on appeal, applying the same three-step 15 analysis required of the trial court." (AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986) 179 Cal.App3d 1061, 1064 [225 Cal.Rptr. 203]; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.) First, we identify the issues framed by the pleadings. Second, we determine whether the moving party's showing has negated the `. opponent's claim, justifying a judgment in movant's favor. If so, the third p ! and final step is to determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue. (Ibid.) Here appellants alleged in their complaint that the Agency was a public agency and that it participated, together with Cypress and Scherer, in assembling property in the Gateway Project area for the redevelopment a� project known as the Gateway Project. They alleged that pursuant to plans gy '-Scherer passed away in January of 1997 These unlawful detainer actions were initiated by a representative of his estate. - i j I LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1003 71 Cal.AppAth 998; 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 [Feb. 19991 z for this project, the structures to be demolished included the buildings housing their respective businesses. They further alleged that Scherer, through Cypress, had an agreement with the Agency for the assemblage of the properties, the demolition of existing improvements and the subsequent redevelopment of the property. Therefore, the dispossession of appellants by Scherer amounted to a taking of their property by the Agency, entitling them under the law to just compensation for improvements and goodwill. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.205, an owner of any " 'im- provements pertaining to the realty'" on property taken by eminent domain, which cannot be removed without substantial economic loss, is entitled to compensation for the value of such improvements. The code further provides that the owner of a business conducted on property taken shall be compen- sated for the loss of goodwill, provided that "[t]he loss is caused by the taking of the property . . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1263.510, subd. (a)(1).) The same rules apply to suits in inverse condemnation. (Chhour v. Commu- nity Redevelopment Agency (1996) 46 Cal.AppAth 273, 280 [53 Ca1.Rptr.2d 585].) I The parties agree that the facts as summarized above are undisputed. The Agency's declarations establish that the Agency itself did not initiate or directly threaten to initiate condemnation proceedings regarding the Scherer parcels and did not ever acquire an interest in those parcels of real property. (2) Under prevailing case law, however, "the tenant's right to compensation for his improvements on the property does not necessarily depend on the [public agency's] actual exercise of its power of eminent domain. Its substantial equivalent serves the same purpose." (tanning v. City of Monterey (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 352, 356 [226 Ca1.Rptr. 2581 (Lanning), italics added; Concrete Service Co, v. State of California ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 142, 147 [78 Ca1.Rptr. 9231 (Concrete Ser- vice).) The key issue is whether under the particular circumstances the property in question was acquired as part of an open market transaction or whether its acquisition was in lieu of, or the substantial equivalent of, a condemnation proceeding. (Pacific Outdoor Advertising Co. v. City of Bur- bank (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 5 [149 Cal.Rptr. 9061 (Pacific); Lanning, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d 352.) Several cases illustrate these principles. In Concrete Service, supra, 274 Cal.App.2d 142, the court posed the question whether a condemning author- ity, desiring to acquire real property for a public use, may avoid its statutory obligation to compensate the commercial tenant for personal property which is part of the realty by means of purchasing the landlord's fee and then terminating the tenancy. In Concrete Service a proposed freeway right-of- way required the removal of improvements constructed by a commercial �4: 1004 LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 71 Cal.AppAth 999; 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 [Feb. 1999] tenant. The agency proceeded to appraise the improvements for purposes of condemnation; however, upon discovering that the tenancy was-month-to- month, the agency commenced private negotiations with the landlord which - culminated in the sale of the land to the agency. Taking on the role of the landlord, the agency then terminated the tenancy and demanded the land free of improvements. The tenant filed an inverse condemnation action claiming a compensation for the improvements. The court agreed that the agency was liable, reasoning that if the agency had exercised its power of eminent domain as it had intended to do, the tenant would have been entitled to compensation for the taking of its improvements. Since the agency had to acquire the property for highway purposes, and gave notice to both the tenant and the landlord of its intent to condemn, its subsequent private purchase from the owner and termination of E the tenancy constituted the "substantial equivalent" of condemnation. (Con- Crete Service, supra, 274 Cal.App.2d at p. 147.) The court concluded that the agency "acquired the real property in question, not as a result of bargaining 4 in the open market, but rather in the broad exercise of its power to condemn private property for public use." (Ibid.) Similarly in Redevelopment Agency v. Diamond Properties (1969) 271 Ca1.App.2d 315 [76 Ca1.Rptr. 269] (Diamond Properties), the agency gave notice to the owners and occupants that it intended to acquire the property by purchase or condemnation. The agency actually filed a condemnation action but dismissed it after negotiating with the owner of the property and completing a private purchase which was conditioned on the owner's giving notice to the tenants of the termination of their tenancy. The court found that f; under these facts the agency must compensate the tenant for improvements it . had constructed on the rented property. r, In Lanning, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d 352, this court relied on Concrete Service and Diamond Properties in finding that the purchase of property by 3 the City of Monterey was the substantial equivalent of condemnation. Ins Lanning, the city purchased property from Southern Pacific Land after t several months of negotiations. A portion of the land purchased was subject to an existing lease and the lessee had constructed improvements on it. The lease provided that the lessee would receive compensation for the loss of his improvements in the event the property was condemned. The trial court found that the private sale to the city had been " `motivated by the threat of condemnation, and to that extent was made in lieu of condemnation.' " (Lanning, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at p. 355.) However, the trial court con- cluded that since the property had not actually been condemned, the tenant was not entitled to the compensation provided by law and under the lease. AGENCY LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1005 1' 'eb. 1999] 71 Ca1.AppAth 998, 84 Cat.Rptc2d 19 [Feb. 1999] 1� loses of This court reversed. Since the facts as found by the trial court in Lanning anth-to- amounted to the substantial equivalent of condemnation, the tenant was i which entitled to compensation even though the city did not actually exercise its of the power of condemnation. We noted, however, that "[n]ot every purchase u1d free - of property by an agency having the power of eminent domain is an [aiming acquisition in lieu• or the substantial equivalent, of condemnation, entitling a tenant to compensation for the value of his improvements." (181 Cal.App.3d at p. 358.) This depends upon whether under all of the circumstances the agency property was purchased in an open market transaction or under threat of : 3o, the condemnation. of its ]; ghway In Pacific, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d 5, the court found the acquisition of tent to property by the city was an open market transaction. In that case, Pacific lion of Outdoor Advertising had licensing agreements with the railroad to erect and ; (Con- maintain several billboards on the railroad's right of way. The city became latthe interested in leasing some of the railroad's property for purposes of beauti- aining fication and providing parking. The city and the railroad entered into a lease ldemn agreement for property owned by the railroad including the right of way where Pacific's signs were located. The lease agreement included a provi- sion that the railroad would terminate the agreements with Pacific regarding 271 the billboards and accordingly the railroad gave notice to Pacific and gave ;_ ` canceled Pacific's licenses. Pacific sought damages in inverse condemnation 1 . ; Ay by against the city, on the basis that the city had essentially caused the railroad lction to terminate Pacific's licenses. Pacific relied on Concrete Service and Dia- r-' and mond Properties in arguing that even though the city had not exercised its iving condemnation authority, the fact that it could have condemned the property I that hin question was sufficient to support an action in inverse condemnation. ins it The Court of Appeal in Pacific rejected this argument. The court found lit that the facts showed that the railroad and the city had engaged in an open Crete market transaction. A lease with the city was of greater financial benefit to y by the railroad than its licenses with Pacific. The city never threatened or even ! i. In mentioned condemnation. The railroad had acted freely in its own interest. after The court concluded that "[tjhe mere fact that [the city] has the power of )jeer >_ eminent domain, when in fact such power is neither exercised nor remotely i' ;�1;1, The threatened, is insufficient to render it liable in an inverse condemnation f his action every time it deals in an open market transaction which results in ourt leases or licenses being broken. The `power to condemn' cannot in and of , R of itself constitute proximate cause where there is an intervening force or ° �•"' factor. In an open market transaction the `power to condemn' is not on- enough—there must be evidence of implied or actual threat of condemna- Cant tion, so that the ultimate result is a foregone conclusion." (Pacific, supra, 86 se. Cal.App.3d at p. 12.) "y P ; 1006 LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 71 Cai.AppAth 998; 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 [Feb. 19991 (3) Applying this case law to the undisputed facts before us, We find there was no substantial equivalent of condemnation here. Appellants con- tend the evidence shows that the Agency "orchestrated" the termination of the leases, similar to the circumstances in Diamond Properties, where the public agency privately purchased the property on the condition that the owner terminate the tenancies. Diamond Properties is quite different, however. In that case it was clear that the public entity intended to use its power of condemnation and in fact actually filed a condemnation action, which it later dismissed. The private purchase by the entity, conditioned on delivery of the property free of tenancies, was therefore clearly in lieu of condemnation. 4 Here, on the other hand. the evidence shows that the plans for developing _ = the properties were initiated by Cypress and Scherer, who sought assistance from the Agency in acquiring other properties in the area. The Agency never acquired the Scherer properties. Unlike Concrete Service, Diamond Proper- ties and Lanning, there was no notice of condemnation nor any threat of condemnation of the Scherer properties, nor any evidence that the Agency ._ intended to condemn those properties for redevelopment of the area. Indeed, in all of the owner participation agreements, the Scherer properties were in the group of parcels which were already under the control of Cypress and thus did not require acquisition by the Agency. [ Appellants argue that Scherer's notice to them of the termination of their tenancies tends to show that Scherer was acting for, or was coerced by, the Agency. We disagree. In his letter to appellants, Scherer wrote: "You have known for some time that my property was in a redevelopment area and that it would be developed one day. Through a very long process with the Redevelopment Agency, the property is finally in a position to be developed. [Q] As you know I am contributing my property to a joint venture with Cypress Properties. In accordance with my agreement with Cypress and the Redevelopment Agency, I agreed to free the land of all tenancies and occupants." The letter explains that Scherer is contributing his property to f the project as a joint venturer with Cypress. Although the letter speaks of an agreement with Cypress and "the Redevelopment Agency," the ENA and } owner participation agreements in the record clearly show that the only parties to the agreement were the Agency and Cypress, as the designated developer. Scherer's letter of termination does not amount to "evidence of !' [an] implied or actual threat of condemnation, so that the ultimate result is a j foregone conclusion." (Pacific, supra, 86 Ca1.App.3d at p. 12.) From the beginning of the negotiations, the Scherer parcels were specifically identi- fied among those parcels which Cypress already owned or controlled, and f thus the Agency did not need to acquire. f 3 AGENCY LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1007 'eb. 1999] - 71 Ca1.AppAth 998; 84 Ca1.Rptrld 19 [Feb. 1999] we find In the termination notice, Scherer also enclosed a form requesting that the nts con- tenants waive relocation benefits. In a declaration by one of the tenants, nination ! Fredric Freiberg, he states that he called Scherer and Scherer told him "they here the 4jhad me do this for legal purposes." (Italics added.) "They," according to the on that declaration, were the developer (Cypress) and the Agency. In context, ifferent, however, it appears Scherer was referring to the inclusion of the forms use its soliciting waiver of relocation benefits, and not to any coercion regarding the action, termination of the tenancies. ' oned on lieu of Appellants point to evidence showing the Agency was involved in the attempt to secure a waiver of their relocation benefits. The waiver forms included in Scherer's notice of termination were addressed to the Agency. eloping Following Scherer's death in January of 1997, Cypress communicated with ;istance appellants and offered them certain sums of money in exchange for waiving y never relocation benefits. The letter from Cypress stated that the offer was made Proper- "on behalf of the development entity (which includes the estate of Charles treat of Scherer)." The letter further stated that Cypress would pursue unlawful Agency detainer remedies if appellants did not accept the proposal. Finally, appel- Indeed, lants point out that after they filed their action for inverse condemnation were in damages, the Agency responded by sending a relocation expert to assess ess and their relocation benefits and that the Agency eventually made payments to ? them for relocation, as well as to the other displaced tenants in the Gateway Project site area. Appellants argue this evidence shows that the Agency was of their attempting to evade its responsibilities to pay relocation benefits under y by, the l Government Code section 7260 et seq., and that it used both Scherer and )u have Cypress to help achieve this end. ad that th the Even accepting appellants' interpretation of this evidence, however, and . eloped. acknowledging that the Agency ultimately paid relocation benefits to all of e with the displaced tenants in the area, this does not tend to prove the Agency's ind the liability in inverse condemnation as to these particular properties. Relocation es and assistance under the Government Code is distinct from condemnation dam- f erty to ages under constitutional mandate and the Code of Civil Procedure. Under y, s of an Government Code section 7260, relocation assistance is available when a 'A and person is displaced "[a]s a direct result of a written notice of intent to ; e only acquire or the acquisition of the real property, in whole or in part, for a l grated program or project undertaken by a public entity or by any person having an nce of agreement with or acting on behalf of a public entity." (Gov. Code, § 7260, Lilt is a subd. (c)(1)(i), italics added.) It further provides that the definition of 1m the displaced person "shall be construed so that persons displaced as a result of 1" f, identi- public action receive relocation benefits in cases where they are displaced as s d, and a result of an owner participation agreement or an acquisition carried out by a private person for or in connection with a public use where the public entity "' al II I I I 1008 LANGER V. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 71 Cal.AppAth 998: 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 [Feb. 19991 is otherwise empowered to acquire the property to carry out the public use." (Gov. Code, § 7260, subd. (c)(2), italics added.) There are no similar provi- sions in the Code of Civil Procedure providing for condemnation damages in similar circumstances. The Relocation Assistance Act thus reaches a broader category of persons, which in this case includes appellants. The fact that the Agency provided relocation assistance to appellants is therefore not proof of the Agency's liability in inverse condemnation. "[T]o have inverse condemnation, you have to have a taking" (Pacific, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at p. 12. fn. 4.). or at the very least "a definite and 1 unequivocal manifestation that the public entity in question was ready to use its power to condemn, and in fact would clearly do so if necessary, to acquire the property at issue." (Id. at p. 11; Diamond Properties, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d 315; Concrete Service, supra, 274 Cal.App.2d 142.) There is no j evidence here that the Agency was prepared to use its power to condemn the I Scherer parcels or that Scherer was acting under the threat of condemnation I when he gave his tenants notice. Rather, the moving papers demonstrate that this was an open market transaction where Cypress and Scherer initiated a joint venture to develop the Gateway Project site and Cypress, as the ( designated developer, solicited the assistance of the Agency to acquire properties other than Scherer's and to provide funds for site demolition and tenant relocation benefits. Unlike Concrete Service, Diamond Properties, and Lanning, where the agency attempted to evade liability for condemnation damages by privately j I acquiring the property, here there was no acquisition by the public agency of any interest in the Scherer properties. Appellants argue that it is not neces- sary to an action in inverse condemnation for the public agency to actually acquire a possessory interest in the property. (Varjabedian v. City of Madera (1977) 20 Ca1.3d 285 [142 Ca1.Rptr. 429, 572 P.2d 43]; Sutfin v. State of California (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 50 167 Ca1.Rptr. 665); Baker v. Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985) 39 Cal.3d 862 [218 Cal.Rptr. 293, 705 P.2d 866].) These cases are distinguishable, however. They involve damage to property, either physical damage through flooding or release of gasses, or nuisance damages caused by noise, smoke and vibrations from airplanes flying over the property. There are no such damages to the properties in this case caused by the public entity. Appellants claim that the demolition of the structures on all of the properties, which was funded by the Agency, evidences a possessory interest in the properties. We disagree. The properties were under the possession and control of Scherer and/or Cypress at all times, including the time development was commenced and structures # in the project area were demolished. The fact that funding for demolition was provided by the Agency does not create a triable issue of fact as to the 1 taking or possession of the properties. Y LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1009 7] 71 Ca1.AppAth 998; 84 Ca1.Rptr.2d 19 [Feb. 1999] " Finally, the fact that the Agency had the authority to condemn property in the redevelopment area and indeed used its condemning authority to acquire n other parcels in the Gateway Project site for conveyance to Cypress does not r give rise to a triable issue regarding the Agency's eminent domain liability zll as to the Scherer parcels. The adoption of a redevelopment plan which f includes the power to condemn falls " `several leagues short of a firm declaration of an intention to condemn [real] property."' (Cambria Spring Co. v. City of Pico Rivera (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1080, 1097 [217 Cal.Rptr. 772].) The power to condemn, in and of itself, does not constitute proximate cause where there are intervening factors. (Pacific, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at p. 12.) Here Scherer, the owner of the properties, terminated the tenancies on his properties pursuant to his joint venture agreement with Cypress to develop the Gateway Project and deliver his properties free of tenancies. This was "an intervening force or factor" sufficient to negate inverse con- demnation liability on the part of the Agency. (Ibid.) Appellants contend that the result in this case is unfair since the Agency avoids liability for compensation under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1263.510 and 1263.205 as to some parcels in an integrated redevelopment project while paying compensation as to others. As we observed in Lanning, it may appear to be an arbitrary result that a tenant whose property is condemned is entitled to compensation under eminent domain law and another tenant who is simply evicted by the landlord has no right to such compensation. However, "the Legislature has ordained the payment of com- pensation in [the first] case[]" and not in the second. (Lanning, supra, 181 { Cal.App.3d at p. 359.) As the California Redevelopment Association argues {[ in its amicus curiae brief in this case, if appellants' argument were accepted, 14 a redevelopment agency, which provides a variety of assistance to private projects in a multitude of circumstances, would be open to eminent domain liability in every case that involves a private landlord legally terminating a ! tenant's occupancy. And as the court stated in Hecton v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 653, 658-659 [130 Cal.Rptr. 230], "[t]he economic ramifications of [a public project] are complex and un- bounded. Unless losses caused by the [project] fall within the constitutional jt meaning of a taking or damage, it is for the Legislature to draw the balance between individual property rights and social needs. (HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court [(1975)] 15 Cal.3d 508, 520-523 [125 Cal.Rptr. 365, 542 P.2d 237].)" f It is possible, as appellants suggest, that if the Agency had not agreed to provide assistance, Cypress and Scherer could not have gone forward with the Gateway Project and appellants might not have been evicted when they were. That is not the direct cause and effect contemplated by the eminent 1010 LANGER v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 71 Cal.AppAth 998; 84 Cal.Rpu.2d 19 [Feb. 1999] ,i i domain statutes, however. A public agency is not liable in inverse condem- nation unless the alleged damage arises directly from agency acquisition of the property in question or threat of acquisition. (See Redevelopment Agency v. Tobriner (1984) 153 Ca1.App.3d 367, 376-377 [200 Cal.Rptr. 364]; Community Redevelopment Agency v. Abrams (1975) 15 Cal.3d 813 [126 Ca1.Rptr. 473, 543 P.2d 905, 81 A.L.R.3d 174].) The Legislature clearly limited compensation under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1263.205 and 1263.510 to instances where the public agency has "taken" the property or an interest therein. Here appellants' alleged losses are a consequence of the termination of their month-to-month tenancies by their landlord. The undis- puted facts in this case show no taking by the Agency and no substantial equivalent thereof. Consequently appellants are not entitled to compensation under constitutional principles or under statutory eminent domain law. j 4 ! DISPOSITION - The judgment is affirmed. Wunderlich, J., and Mihara, J., concurred. 1 1 1 �I [ Y RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CASE NO. 5.0827 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 259) AN APPLICATION BY LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A PROPOSED INTEGRATED, SINGLE-PHASED SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OFA 57,342 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET,A 14,884 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE WITH DRIVE-THROUGH PHARMACY, TWO QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANT PADS CONSISTING OF 3,589 AND 2,465 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY, AND VARIOUS RETAIL SHOP SPACE CONSISTING OF26,220 SQUARE FEET AND THE SUBDIVISION OF THE 9.9 GROSS ACRE/8.29 NET ACRE SITE INTO NINE (9) PARCELS, RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.13 ACRES TO 2.82 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND SUNRISE WAY, C-1 ZONE, SECTION 14. WHEREAS, Lundin Development Company (the "Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, Case No. 5.0827 (Preliminary Planned Development District No. 259) and pursuant to Section 9.60 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 for the development of an integrated, single-phased neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of a 57,342 square foot Ralph's Supermarket, a 14,884 square foot drug store with drive- through pharmacy, two quick service restaurants with drive-through lanes (a 3,589 square foot Carl's Jr. and a 2,465 square foot speculative pad restaurant), various retail shop space of approximately 26,220 square feet and the subdivision of the 9.9 gross acre site (8.29 net acres after dedication) into nine parcels ranging in size from 0.13 acres to 2.82 acres located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, C-1 Zone, Section 14, and; WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Applicant's application for Preliminary Planned Development 259 (PD 259)and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 were given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2000, and continued to June 14, 2000, July 5, 2000 and August 9, 2000, a public hearing on the application for PD 259 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS,pursuantto Government Code Section 66412.3,the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 29638, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources;the approval of the proposed Subdivision represents the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its public hearing on August 9, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project 3-2 (2 abstentions) to the City Council subject to the conditions contained in Resolution No. 4705 ; and /440 WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider Applicant's application for Preliminary Planned Development 259 (PD 259) and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 were given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2000 and continued to September 6, 2000, a public hearing on the application for PD 259 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its public hearing on September 6, 2000, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for consideration of the City Council at their September 20, 2000 meeting; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2000, the Resolution of Denial was considered by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the City Council has considered the effect of the proposed Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 29638, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources;the approval of the proposed Subdivision represents the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the proposed project (PD 259 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638), is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project and the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the initial study, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds as follows: The final Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA procedures contained in the City's CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission has previously reviewed and considered and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that it adequately discusses the significant environmental effects of the proposed project, which includes mitigation measures for traffic and circulation such as, the payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund (TUMF) fees upon issuance of building permits, infrastructure improvements along the project frontage (Ramon Road and Sunrise Way), mitigation measures for land use and planning and noise such as, limitations on the hours of large truck deliveries for the supermarket and the installation of six or eight-foot tall walls along appropriate portions of shared property lines with adjacent residential development, mitigation measures for water such as raising building pads one-foot above natural grade, mitigation measures for air quality, both during construction and associated long-term impacts and that, on the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review /4#6 % process, there is no substantial evidence that there will be any significant adverse environmental effects as a result of this project. The City Council further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. In addition, based upon.the initial record, the City Council finds that the existing structures on the property do not constitute an historic resource as defined Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance,the City Council finds that: a. The proposed Planned Development District is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. The proposed Planned Development District would allow for a neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of a 57,342 square foot Ralph's Supermarket, a 14,884 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy, two quick service restaurants with drive-through lanes (a 3,589 square foot Carl's Jr. and a 2,465 square foot speculative pad restaurant), and various retail shop space of approximately 26,220 square feet. The application, as proposed, is permitted pursuant to Section 9403.00 (Planned Development District), which requires consideration and approval of a Preliminary Planned Development application by the Planning Commission and City Council. The subject property is designated as "NCC" (Neighborhood Convenience Center) on the City's General Plan Land Use Map and "C-1"(Central Retail Business Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map. The site has frontage along Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, both of which are designated as scenic corridors in the City's General Plan. The General Plan serves as a long-term guideline for the development of the community and is required for each city in California, pursuant to the California Government Code. The Neighborhood Convenience Center General Plan designation is primarily intended to provide for an opportunity for convenience commercial uses to be oriented directly to the residential neighborhoods they need by means of a planned commercial complex, serve as an integrated element of the neighborhood and to promote a harmonious relationship between convenience services and the residential environment through compatibility of site design and architectural treatment of structures. Commercial/retail shopping centers that serve both residents and visitors is specified as a recommended land use pursuant to the Neighborhood Convenience Center designation in the General Plan, provided these centers can create a harmonious relationship with surrounding residential development as specified above. Pursuant to the Shopping Centers Subsection of the City's General Plan, shopping centers are to be developed as a unit, in an orderly fashion, with an organized arrangement of stores, parking and service, at such time and to such size as is warranted by population and supportable by available purchasing power. The proposed project includes two primary buildings, one (supermarket) in the westernmost portion of the property and one (drug store) near the intersection of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way. Additionally, the project contemplates the development of two additional Shops buildings (one along the north property line and the other attached to the south side of the supermarket) and three additional pad buildings, primarily located adjacent to the two project street frontages adjacent to vehicular ingress/egress points. With the proposed /& A3 building organization as described above, the resulting vehicular circulation pattern found on the proposed site plan is not orderly, as a series of dead ends throughout the project would be created, an awkward circulation pattern for large delivery vehicles and a non-desirable pedestrian circulation pattern for patrons who would walk to this neighborhood convenience center would be created. Additionally, the proposed building density, size and organization of the proposed site plan leads to a parking space deficiency in relation to that required per the City's Zoning Code. Furthermore, no trend toward a significant population increase or a change in purchasing power has been noted to justify a substantial need for the proposed shopping center redevelopment of a size twice that of the existing shopping center on the property. Pursuant to the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan, all Major Thoroughfares (including Ramon Road and Sunrise Way) are designated Scenic Corridors, where the highest level of design quality is expected for all new development within the community. These corridors have been established because of their physical orientation relative to the San Jacinto Mountains or other important natural features, the design precedent that has been established and/or their importance as a vehicular "link" in the City's transportation network. With the scenic corridor designation, special design features, such as upgraded landscaping, a high quality building design, and appropriate ratio of building area to site area and upgrades to the pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities are required. The physical design of existing buildings and sites along scenic corridors throughout the community predominately and consistently suggest that of a high quality visual environment, through the development of buildings with architectural individuality and uniqueness, upgraded on-site landscaping along public streets and interior to each property, attractively landscaped median islands, a recognition of the importance of pedestrian friendliness to, from and within neighborhood convenience centers and an appropriate balance of building area to site development area. The proposed project is designed in a Mediterranean architectural character typical many shopping centers found throughout the Southern California region and beyond. The project does not possess a high degree of architectural individuality and uniqueness, as is typically found along Major Thoroughfares in the community, or required of new development proposals within the community, and is therefore contrary to on-site development strategies specified in the General Plan. At their August 9, 2000 public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project on a 3-2 vote (2 abstentions). The Planning Commission was split on the proposed use and design at this important intersection of the City. Several design modifications to the buildings and site plan were recommended by the Planning Commission at the August 9, 2000 public hearing, as well as previous Planning Commission public hearings on June 14, 2000 and July 5, 2000. These design modifications were intended to enhance the development and make the design more consistent with those typically found along major thoroughfares (i.e. introducing a strong pedestrian component, reducing building area and mass, removing a proposed refueling station from the proposed use mix, incorporating more substantial streetside landscape setbacks along Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, providing raised, landscaped median islands on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, etc.). The "no" votes, although a minority, recommended denial primarily based upon the proposed ratio of building area to site area, recommending a reduction in building coverage on the property, 14AY the proposed vehicular circulation pattern, the need for further refinement of the pedestrian circulation element and the proposed architectural scheme. In addition, the eastern one-half of the site is designated Neighborhood Commercial and the western one-half of the site is designated Residential High pursuant to the Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan. The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial designation is to allow for neighborhood convenience commercial uses that serve the daily needs of local residents in a complex or center that is primarily accessed by automobile. The purpose of the High Density Residential is to encourage the development of residential uses of 21 to 30 dwelling units per acre and/or hotels in a private and exclusive setting. As proposed, the neighborhood shopping center is inconsistent with the Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan in that commercial uses (i.e. neighborhood shopping center in this case) is not listed within the permitted uses within the Residential High land use category specified for the western half of the site. b. The said use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is not in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zones in which the proposed use is to be located. The proposed Preliminary Planned Development District application for a single- phased, neighborhood convenience center, consisting of a 57,342 square foot Ralph's Supermarket, a 14,884 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy,two quick service restaurants with drive-through lanes (a 3,589 square foot Carl's Jr. and a 2,465 square foot speculative pad restaurant), and various retail shop space of approximately 26,220 square feet would provide retail services geared toward both residents and tourists of the community, consistent with the objectives of the Neighborhood Convenience Center component of the General Plan and the zone in which the site is located (i.e. the site is zoned "C-1", Central Retail Business Zone). However, within existing shopping centers throughout the City (including the existing shopping center on the property) are vacant spaces of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed uses that are zoned to permit or conditionally permit the proposed uses. One of the goals of the City is to promote first and foremost the continued utilization and rehabilitation of existing properties as viable economic sites instead of encouraging new development of vacant properties that may cause the premature vacancy and decay of existing developed properties. Furthermore, as noted earlier, no trend toward a significant population increase or a change in purchasing power has been noted to justify a substantial need for the proposed shopping center redevelopment of a size twice that of the existing shopping center on the property. With ample vacant retail space throughout the City, the development of the project in the manner proposed would be detrimental to existing uses or the future uses specifically permitted in the zones in which,the proposed use is to be located. C. The design or improvements of the proposed planned development are not consistent with the General Plan (i.e. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development contemplated by the proposed planned development). As stated earlier, pursuant to the Shopping Centers Subsection of the City's General Plan, shopping centers are to be developed as a unit, in an orderly /44 dow fashion, with an organized arrangement of stores, parking and service, at such time and to such size as is warranted by population and supportable by available purchasing power. The proposed project includes two primary buildings, one (supermarket) in the westernmost portion of the property and one (drug store) near the intersection of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way. Additionally, the project contemplates the development of two additional Shops buildings (one along the north property line and the other attached to the south side of the supermarket) and three additional pad buildings, primarily located adjacent to the two project street frontages adjacent to vehicular ingress/egress points. With the proposed building organization and density of number of buildings as described above, the resulting vehicular circulation pattern found on the proposed site plan is not orderly, as a series of dead ends throughout the project would be created, an awkward circulation pattern for large delivery vehicles and a non-desirable pedestrian circulation pattern for patrons who would walk to this neighborhood convenience center would be created. Additionally, the proposed building density, size and organization of the proposed site plan leads to a parking space deficiency in relation to that required per the City's Zoning Code. As stated earlier, pursuant to the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan, all Major Thoroughfares (including Ramon Road and Sunrise Way) are designated Scenic Corridors, where the highest level of design quality is expected for all new development within the community. These corridors have been established because of their physical orientation relative to the San Jacinto Mountains or other important natural features, the design precedent that has been established and/or their importance as a vehicular "link" in the City's transportation network. With the scenic corridor designation, special design features, such as upgraded landscaping, a high quality building design, and appropriate ratio of building area to site area and upgrades to the pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities are required. It � The physical design of existing buildings and sites along scenic corridors throughout the community predominately and consistently suggest that of a high quality visual environment, through the development of buildings with architectural individuality and uniqueness, upgraded on-site landscaping along public streets and interior to each property, attractively landscaped median islands, a recognition of the importance of pedestrian friendliness to, from and within neighborhood convenience centers and an appropriate balance of building area to site development area. The proposed project is designed in a Mediterranean architectural character typical many shopping centers found throughout the Southern California region and beyond. The project does not possess a high degree of architectural individuality and uniqueness, as is typically found along Major Thoroughfares in the community or required of new development proposals within the community, and is therefore contrary to on-site development strategies specified in the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing,the City Council hereby denies without prejudice Case No. 5.0827 (Planned Development District No. 259). ADOPTED this day of 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA City Clerk City Manager REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: /447 My name is John Harrell, I live at 325 W.Overlook Road and I am the Chair of the HSPB. I am here to clear up a misconception. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council have stated in public that the HSPB does not consider the Alpha Beta Building to be historically significant because it had not sent a recommendation to the City Council for designation as a Class I Site. This is not true. We have stated in the public record that we consider the site to be of historic significance - in a report approved at our meeting on May 9 and forwarded to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Alpha Beta Building - this is the historic name for the building more commonly called `the Ralph's' - has been placed on the agenda for the October 10 meeting, when a public hearing will be held to consider it as a Class I Site. At the HSPB meeting on 11 April, the Planning staff presented the development plan for the parcels at the corner of Ramon and Sunrise, which included the demolition of the Alpha Beta Building. In response to the concern that we were being asked to make comments on the historic building being affected so late in the review process, the Planning Director stated that "the Board can do fact finding and then report to the [Planning] Commission." A subcommittee of the HSPB was formed and that subcommittee submitted a report for the Boards approval at the May 9 meeting. The approval was unanimous and the HSPB then voted to present the report to the Planning Commission. This was done at their meeting on May 24. HSPB assumes that this report was forwarded to the City Council as it is part of the public record. The May meeting of the HSPB was also the public hearing for Fire Station #1, a significant public building by Albert Frey, which was recommended for designation and forwarded to City Council for approval. Thank you for supporting that recommendation. The application for this designation had been pending for quite some time and the board was hesitant to forward another Frey Building to the council at virtually the same time. We assumed that the report that was prepared and presented to the Planning Commission would be considered more carefully than it has been, when the historic significance of this building is considered. Instead it appears that only the absence of the recommendation for designation as a Class I site by the HSPB has been considered. At the HSPB meeting in May, there was more public comment given in favor of preserving the Alpha/Beta Building than for the Fire Station. This comment was repeated, indeed expanded, at the Planning Commission hearing. The importance of this piece of Frey's work has been emphasized repeatedly in these comments. The public should be allowed to address this issue in the forum of a public discussion of the historic significance, not a review of a proposal that assumes the demolition of the very building being discussed. 4 urge the City Council. to delay thk icsnP until has had aV oppertjffiity to copcidP,r the building at the public- hearing it, Getebe J--� And, on a less formal level, we apologize for the timing, that we did not move to consider designation earlier. We actually intended to fascilitate the process. It appears we did just the opposite. j""w;�' s�rY:aSr^4ap4yxl�urYx _-.s �ug ar= +' Sweawwr +.r,nft..+ k EP. ��"M�Mhd4flfiWnnaWWWY14Kdiw" '. - ��'1P.� � ,.p..:yil�dll} ' 'WMW�IYx+x�+•^aw✓ykKa�alm+uhar.a.w.':.x:y �' ` - - ,: '.�x y MFUEYyJYAWWWMwVhwJu+rs,+w..w. a.i....... .yam y F T JYl kwpl{wwuW.�Wix4iWI:MlWWYiwo I a, .. � � - L'�.�" ivy+Mww•.o.alw:.�:....a.--,.�..«, . . .. a.. r _ � Imo.. f��j HY#mF r*aowzww'.wyi ,.. 'IhWui.� � almP�w.0 �„ . �•.. r' 4 I x'J+f 1�AiVI""V Wu i . ^Yf+M ,L '_ fY �� I n •r p..{� .WA'bJY.YY A ,i.k: n r}t 1• H r t r.1 14 w r ka,drl w1 � M ?v!V IIr hy0. MMM µd YT���-m..V..e"'MhF lYwst4+.W,M°iwct4i. .. . .. Al ,' SY,F�'t � l•, P avw*mmrm wm�' ,t3A•IYieM.� ..,.. � �i'^'siK' { ,(��Y i Vfyl r�{ 'Nh'Wrl1•niFpxY�r{e�'r11xrv++.. i v� >7�t MaW IIF} i� � tL � �m »..wng4+Yhwef�Wy,.<la. �+{xy. b;,-,." mw�n»,«a•., ",YM.ea kc'�'FIS f ; tiyhiaX§Abu2✓�emw -.c ot..welRA�{I�IYm' V � !k.,.N+�wyl�•�MMr wrwar•.,wx. ��},.,+. wxm,� i I t 1. v 'W N'bwi6�'�°A"YS�'M'�1tMvwy..a.+,r;¢.a+•,o. .... �. .� ,aSlWmkiW''ky' � ..� 1 ewkV[+.�fl'�btlti4vidAlry++��us,� rzwy�:yWurtixsak I �� xn' wK —m fl,. '',ti+rvre4'wwY +dMt h ^M w m�' wo+w.,.., ... ...,.. ,o• Y{„+ '.t r _ ww a _ ^"i itu Al1 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filin-SY% (2015.5.C.C.P) n Nc.5403 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Case No. 5.0827 (PD 259), - Tentative Parcel Map No. 29633 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Northwest Development Company Northwest corner Ramon Road County of Riverside LL and srmdse way NOTICE IS HiJ0.EBV Sunrise GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, Callfor- - - ugust fll 2000f he Plaaunny,-omits-n "`acy( eet-_. -- - — August 9, at 1 The m. Jigu lq Cumulationb meet- 3nqq beams at t 30 p.m. SpChla hearings begin at 20 p.m. h the Canyo Chambers S Cityring Hall, The E pose of Canyon ng i Palm Springs The purpose of the heanng is el anent Di pro- and T Preliminary cry Planned Development the rict de- and Tentative Parcel Map applications for the de- velopment of an integrated shopping center con- 14,88�I of e efoot square foot supermarket, a jurarm square foot drug store with restaurant pharmacy, two qquick-service restaw'ant pads I am a Citizen of the United States and a resilient of consisting of 3,5f39 and 2,465 square feet, re- ,,pechvriy and various retail shop space consist- the Countyaforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen ing of 26,220 square feet, on approximately 9 9 g "gross acres(8 29 net acres)of land located at the years,and not a party to or interested in the northwest corner of Raman Road and Sunrise Way, C-1 zone, Section 14.Tile proposed Tenta- above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a 'rve Parcel Map contemplates the subdivision of the 9 9 acre gross area Into 9 lots ranging is size printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING tram 0.22 acres to 2,82 acres The project is pro- COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, Tosed to be completely developed In one phase he existing shopping center development on the printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, easternmost 5 acres of the site Is proposed to be P Premoved and replaced with new commercial de- County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been velopment In conjunction with this proposal. adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the - Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of n California under the date of March 24,1988.Case ` Number 191236;that the notice,of which the y, annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller than non pariei,has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any - supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: July 19th IY PV VALM SPCIIGS__ An Environmental Assessment/ImLal Study has All in the year 2000 been prepared and will be reviewed by the Plan- ning Commission at the meeting.A draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Due to the I certify(Or'declare)under penalty Of perjury that the projected'increase in the amount of automobile traffic on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way and the foregoing is true and correct. immediate area of the pprojIect site, a traffic study 19th has been prepared, wh I. recommends various traffic control measures on Ramon Road and u Sunrise Way to mltiqate the potential increase in Dated at.aim Springs,California this--------_---clay traffic associated with the site development Add[- July tronal items discussed in the Environmental As- sessment include, but are not limited to, Land Of---------___— -Y ^—,2000 Use, Public Services,Norse and Cultural is boom me Members of the public may view this docu- // merit in the De artment of Planning and Building, > j � S rings, Hall, 3d sub Tahqurt2 Canyon comments to alm the 5pnngs, and submit written iommehe e the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the hearing described in thisnotice 'p'ignat71r0 If any individual orr group p be limited the only those e court, issues rased may be hearing to only those issues raised at the public heanng described In this notice or in written correspondence. or pri- or to, the Plammeq e given at hearing. An lested opportunity be given a[said hearing for all interested carries to be heard Questions regard- ing this case may directed Steve Hayes, Department of Planning and Building, (760) 23- 8245 PLANNING COMMISSION /smog las R Building Director of Planning and Building .pi . .Iuly 1q 9n00 -IJ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING c3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) 1, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Riverside, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action or proceeding; that my business address is 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California;that on the 19th day of July,2000, 1 served the within (NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING)on PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.5.0827(PD 259), Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638 Lundin Development Company, to consider proposed Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Parcel Map applications for the development of an integrated shopping center consisting of a 57,342 square foot supermarket, a 14,884 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy, two quick-service restaurant pads consisting of 3,589 and 2,465 square feet, respectively, and various retail shop space consisting of 26,220 square feet, on approximately 9.9 gross acres (8.29 net acres) of land located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, C-1 zone, section 14 on persons contained in Exhibit"A"attached hereto in said action or proceeding by depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a mailbox, sub-post office,substation or mail chute,or other like facility, regularly maintained by the Government of the United States in the City of Palm Springs, California, addressed to the list of persons or firms indicated on the report received from the title company dated July 18, 2000 and certified by the City's Planning Technician, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Notices (10) (along with stamped envelopes) were mailed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Palm Springs Field Office, PO Box 2245, Palm Springs CA 92263, which they will in turn send. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. AA Judith A. N hols Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 19th day of July, 2000. RrVRRSrDF QdUNTY�PERTV OWN ,RS CERTIFICATION I, RODGER HARP CERTIFY THAT ON J T�r�o _ THE ATTACHED PROPERTY OWNERS LIST WAS PREPARED BY CONTINENTAL LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY, PURSUANT TO APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FURNISHED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SAID LIST IS A COMPLETE AND TRUE COMPILATION OF THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ALL //�� OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A ` w FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES. OWNERSHIP INFORMATION IS BASED UPON THE LATEST EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT ROLLS. I FUTHER CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION FILED IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INFORMATION MAY BE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OR DENIAL OF THE APPL CATION. le( �gq NAME: RODGER HARP TITLE/REGISTRATION: SPECIAL PROJECTS ADDRESS: 1845 BUSINESS CENTER DR. SUITE 200 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408 TELEPHONE ( 8 AM TO 5 PM) : 909-381-2399 M I_ T LXr> � �JI I li 502-200-001 502-460-001 502-460-002 Boys Club Of Palm Sprin Charles H Thomas Susan T Odell 450 S Sunrise Way PO Box 9077 1783 E Ramon Rd 2 Palm Springs CA 92262 Palm Springs CA 92263 Palm Springs CA 92264 502-460-003 502-460-004 502-460-005 Charles D Leviton Edgar E & Betty Hamer Estelle Singer 1789 E Ramon Rd 3 12501 Foster Rd 1752 E Camino Parocela Palm Springs CA 92264 Los Alamitos CA 90720 Palm Springs CA 92264 502-460-006 502-460-007 502-460-008 Howard Johns Jack W Atwell Matthew M Good PO Box 4941 1748 E Camino Parocela 1742 E Camino Parocela Palm Springs CA 92263 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 502-460-009 502-460-010 502-460-011 Matthew Tage Inez M Pullen Cecelia M Spellman PO Box 9271 12600 Kirby Smith Rd 1740 E Camino Parocela Marina Del Rey CA 90295 Orlando FL 32832 Palm Springs CA 92264 502-460-012 502-460-013 502-460-014 Sharon L Marchick Paul J Rooney First Nationwide Mortga 1738 E Camino Parocela 511 First St 212 PO Box 601520 ' Palm Springs CA 92264 Encinitas CA 92024 San Diego CA 92160 502-460-015 502-460-016 502-460-017 Karen E Powell Jefferson Hills Marion R & Mary Shipe 1728 E Camino Parocela 1726 E Camino Parocela 1722 E Camino Parocela Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 502-460-018 502-460-019 502-460-020 Lewis T Gleen Greg & Annette Kiper Brenda L Scott 1720 E Camino Parocela 3822 242nd Ave SE 2880 E San Angelo Rd Palm Springs CA 92264 Issaquah WA 98029 Palm Springs CA 92262 502-460-021 502-460-022 502-460-023 Richard G & Bell Kief Valdez Murray Paul M Stoddard 1712 E Camino Parocela 2420 NW 59th St 12759 Foothill Blvd N C Palm Springs CA 92264 Miami FL 33142 Rancho Cucamonga 91739 502-460-024 502-460-025 502-460-026 William W Lovett Ralph Holland Emil J Helman 810 E State St 568 S Sunrise Way 9602 Orange Ave Geneva IL 60134 Palm Springs CA 92264 Anaheim CA 92804 502-460-027 502-460-028 502-460-029 Kathryn W Donovan Virginia Cunningham Scott & Erin Newcom PO Box 797 11582 Otsego St 16824 Carlyle Hall Rd N Santa Maria CA 93456 North Hollywood C 91601 Seattle WA 98177 502-460-030 502-460-031 502-460-032 Stephen Leograndis Norman B Phares Gloria R Agee 14851 W Sunset Blvd 526 S Sunrise Way 31 15523 Vista Vicente Dr Pacific Palisades 90272 Palm Springs CA 92264 Ramona CA 92065 502-460-033 502-460-034 502-460-035 Carlos C Garcia William L Bowen Gregory R Siverly 20934 Hackney St 506 S Sunrise Way 5811 N Drumheller St Canoga Park CA 91304 Palm Springs CA 92264 Spokane WA 99205 502-460-036 502-460-037 502-460-038 Fernando Ramirez Norman Freedberg Deanna M Lawrence 1223 E Grovecenter St 226 N Palm Canyon Dr 9663 Tierra Grande St 3 West Covina CA 91790 Palm Springs CA 92262 San Diego CA 92126 502-460-039 502-460-040 502-460-041 Marjorie D Baker Alfred K Orsatti Daniel C Pierce 1751 E Ramon Rd 8348 Jason Ave 1761 E Ramon Rd Palm Springs CA 92264 West Hills CA 91304 Palm Springs CA 92264 502-460-042 502-460-043 502-460-044 Shaun G Lether Joan E Cheatham Andrea Robles PO Box 273 41995 Boardwalk 1771 E Ramon Rd Morongo Valley CA 92256 Canoga Park CA 91304 Alhambra CA 91803 502-460-045 508-110-007 508-110-008 Susan T Odell Kurt Bochner Blp -Desert 522 S Sepulveda Blvd 11 771 S Williams Rd 16400 Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CA 90049 Palm Springs CA 92264 Huntington Beach 92649 5ce,---9--{0 - o c"7 508-110-040 508-110-041 508-240-006 Desert Water Agency Riverside County Flood Tabor Loggins Associate PO Box 1710 PO Box 1033 1485 Spruce St P Palm Springs CA 92263 Riverside CA 92502 Riverside CA 92507 508-240-007 508-240-008 Riverside n y Flood PO Box 033 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr G Ri side CA 92502 Palm Springs CA 92264 *** 53 Printed *** 508 110 012 508 110 032 508 110 0 3 Donald Hunt&Donald Hunt Barbara Hamilton &Shaw Barbara Aka U 508 15200 Mansel Ave 3262 Laurice Ave Un o n qC 5 Lawndale, CA 90260 Altadena, CA 91001 , CA 508 110 042 t� 508 110 052 508 115 001 Usa 508 No AD, "I Wolfgang&Alice Morgenstern Usa 508 Unknown 07-13-79 /� Morgenstern U»lrnown 07-13-79 S CA �` O�� 12273 Vista Panorama , CA Santa Ana, CA 92705 D 0� -- Co 0 7-33 508 115 002 508 115 003 508 115 004 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa 508 13-79 S Unknown 07-13-79 S ,known 07-13-79 S , CA CA�Q� � �(7J— I�� CA 7 - 18(P 508 115 005 508 115 006 509 115 007 Usa 508 Usa Bia Usa 508 n now, 07-13-79 S uak4nawrrD8=U�9`/S nc iown 07-13-79 S CA C)O I - LPD-7 8_7 cAOOq - tom - i88 C6)0 5 - Lc) 7— ! 8q 508 115 008 508 115 009 508 115 010 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa Bias-- N NAME or NUMBER Uaknawn 0/-13-79 Uel own Oaf 8-05-97 5 ,CA ,CA , CA 9 �c o7- f q I a-- 508 115 Ol 1 508 115 012 508 115 013 Usa Bi Usa 508 Usa 508 Unknown 09-28-98 S U own 07-13-79 S Uak wn 07-13-79 S CA013 CC�0 - LP07 - /94 O�`� 508 115 014 508 115 015 508 115 016 Usa Bia Usa 508 Usa 508 ,own 07-11-97 S U own 07-13-79 Ur own 07-13-79 S CA CA CA L'1U' cl'-(on Cb`i -CAD 7 19 7 0()9 — 508 115 017 508 115 018 508 115 019 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa Bia U ,own 07-13-79 S7 own 07-13-79 S STREET NAME or NUMBER CA C�09 -(DC)-l'- I C 9 CA p f7--o'2D0 CA 0 1 '(O() Oti 508 115 020 508 115 021 508 115 022 Usa 508 Usa Bia Usa own 07-23-92 5 Unl6iowrr 04-29-98 UnGown 07-13-79 S CA CA CA 508 115 023 508 115 024 508 115 025 Usa 50 Usa 508 Usa SOS ,own 07-13-79 S own 07-13-79 Lpaimown 07-13-79 $ CA Qom _ (o01 - ao6 CA I CA C)09 (00-) C�cP-- r ' 508 115 026 508 115 027 508 115 028 Usa 5 Usa Usa 5 nown 07-13-79 S n sown 07-13-79 S U. nown 07-13-79 S CA DD CA 6f— Loo7 —'PD 1 CA Db6y —(n07-;1C) 00 508 115 029 508 115 030 508 115 031 Usa Bia Usa 508 Usa 508 Un _ Ti 10-07-97 S N RE6 ST ET NAME or NUMBER wn 07-13-79 S ,CA 09— ✓rvb-7 CA Ocq— 0 7 CA 508 115 032 508 115 033 508 115 034 Usa 508 Usa Bit Usa 508 Un n 07-13-79 S nown 05-06-98 S Un wkcS n 07-13-79 S A A Uo9 CA Un`l - (o0-7 7 508 115 035 508 115 036 508 115 037 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa 508 U 7-13-79 S Un n 07-13-79 S U n 07-13-79 S , q , AD0q _ (np7 - �i8 CA b0 6907 -�lP7 CA boa ce) 6-7 -;-on 508 115 038 508 115 039 508 115 040 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa 508 Unk, n 07-13-79 S n 0p7-13-79 S U 13-79 S A C)09— �L1 '�'�3I CA CA od I '—�07 0o (1, 508 115 041 508 115 042 508 115 043 Usa 508 Usa 50 Usa 508 U wn 07-13-79 S �own 07-13-79 S U n 07-13-79 S CA CA CA oo� �o7-teas 601 508 115 044 508 115 045 508 115 046 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa 508 oLfrl n wn 07-13-79 S I1 own wn/0�7-13-79 S U wn/0;7-13-79 S CA OD5 '- &D / —3�7 CA C OO I 508 115 047 508 115 048 508 115 049 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa 508 Unk 07-13-79 S U wn 01-06-1999 Un n 01-06-1999 ADo g - (oU 3 a CA CA 508 115 050 508 115 051 508 115 052 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa 508 wU�own 07-13-79 7 n 07-13-79 S �7 ' CA �C> �- ;233 CA CA OM o09--(n07 508 115 053 508 115 054 508 115 055 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa Bia Un n 07-13-79 S own 07-13-79 S U wn 04-30-98 S CA �I (!d�— 3f( CA CA wq-(DO.7-,D37 ()n q�(��07 -�38 508 115 056 508 115 057 508 115 058 Usa 508 Usa 508 Usa own 07-13-79 S U own 07-13-79 S U Mnow 07-13-79 S GADoI -K-7 G(:6q - Lco7-a�Eo G0o9—c�o� -� ( 508 115 059 508 231 006 508 232 001 Usa 508 Ramon Park Assoc Ltd Karl Zappa&Geraldine Zappa Un wn 07-13-79 S PO Box 811097 64888 Burke Ct A Chicago, IL 60681 Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 L f�v t- F3 508 232 002 508 240 004 Francine Dickson Tabor Loggias Assoc 78585 Avenue 41 1485 Spruce St#P Indio, CA 92201 Riverside,CA 92507 009 605 903 009 607 183 009 607 184 Springs Sundown Palm Ray&Ada Pivo Ronnie Lambert Sweeney 18321 Ventura Blvd#800 16226 Elisa PI 509 Playa Tarzana,CA 91356 Encino,CA 91436 Newport Beach, CA 92660 009 607 185 009 607 186 009 607 187 William Thomas Mead Alan Strang Corrine Bauer 6 Del Italia 5 Windmill Close 1360 Tiffany Cir N Irvine, CA 92614 Horsham W Sossex En, CA Palm Springs,CA 92262 009 607 188 009 607 189 009 607 190 American Red Cross;World Missionary Alireza Niksefat&Linda Laplante Richard See 1362 Tiffany Cir N 500 S Fem Canyon Dr 1366 Tiffany Cir N Palm Springs,CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 009 607 191 009 607 192 009 607 193 Ted & Rita Basch Marjorie Ruthmff Cynthia Ainsworth &Carolee Houser 6370 Drexel Ave 1432 Tiffany Cir N 1932 Pierce St Los Angeles, CA 90048 Palm Springs,CA 92262 San Francisco,CA 94115 009 607 194 009 607 195 009 607 196 Samuel Richard Rivkin George J Schafer Lois Mclean 2815 Nichols Canyon Rd 13004-102 Ave 1452 Tiffany Cir N Los Angeles,CA 90046 EDMONTON AB Palm Springs, CA 92262 CANADA 009 607 197 009 607 198 009 607 199 Joel Sorkin &Marilyn Sorkin Gary Wilson&Gayle Wilson Horst Roeder 6922 W 85Th St 1456 Tiffany Cir N 21 Newcastle Ln Westchester, CA 90045 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 009 607 200 009 607 201 009 607 202 Raymond Dennis&Miriam Anita Rust Dale Maguire Frank Coronado Jr. 20152 Midland Ln 304 Tiffany Cir E Norma Flare Coronado Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Palm Springs,CA 92262 9474 Olive St Temple City,CA 91780 009 607 203 009 607 204 009 607 205 Robert&Maureen Walwick Dan Kalin&Jill Eileen Quindt Denise Campbell&Jean Bemarducci 423 Crouch St 332 Tiffany Cir E 37 Charles Ter Oceanside, CA 92054 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Waldwick,NJ 07463 009 607 206 009 607 207 009 607 208 Stuart& Simone Isen Robert Geissler Jack&Irene March-Davison 13010 Evanston St 1477 Tiffany Cir S Karen Moriarty Los Angeles, CA 90049 Palm Springs,CA 92262 101 Old Creek Rd Palos Park,IL 60464 009 607 209 009 607 210 009 607 211 Walter&Lona Jackson Sandra Evans&Ann Pelgorsch Patricia Hawley 1473 Tiffany Cir S 267 Warren St 15102 Riverside Or Palm Springs, CA 92262 Brooklyn,NY 11201 Apple Valley,CA 92307 009 607 212 009 607 213 009 607 214 J Cutler Lewis&Stacy Lewis Anna Reeves George Sheridan&Mary Sheridan 2220 Fairview Ave E#E 2810 Las Gallinas Ave PO Box 1360 Seattle, WA 98102 San Rafael,CA 94903 Palm Springs,CA 92263 009 607 216 009 607 217 009 607 218 Neal Krzyzaniak&Kathleen Krzyzania Frank&Barbara Feher Sidney Kassler&Gloria Kassler 1377 Tiffany Cir S Helen Stokes 1373 Tiffany Cir S Palm Springs, CA 92262 1375 Tiffany Cir S Palm Springs,CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 009 607 219 009 607 220 009 607 221 Reber&Jeanne Bernice Soman Melvin&Bertha Karlin Donald Mcclaskey&Mildred McClask 1371 Tiffany Cir S 28302 Alava 11 Main Ave Palm Springs,CA 92262 Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Tillamook, OR 97141 009 607 222 009 607 223 009 607 224 Pearl Mond Alex&Betty Zar James Webster& Suzanne Webster 1520 Camden Ave 1331 Tiffany Cir S 4060 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Los Angeles, CA 90025 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Bellevue,WA 98008 009 607 225 009 607 226 009 607 227 Warren Westling&Jeannette Westling Reginald&Sarah Belding Henry Resnick&Bess Resnick 2344 Pinecrest Dr 6251 Farinella Dr 10611 Lindamere Dr Altadena,CA 91001 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Los Angeles,CA 90077 009 607 228 009 607 229 009 607 230 Robert&Vicki Beech Phillip &Darlene Smith Sos Metals Inc 110 Monmra Way 35790 Meadow Ridge Rd 5103 Paramount Blvd Novato,CA 94949 Temecula, CA 92592 Pico Rivera,CA 90660 009 607 231 009 607 232 009 607 233 Asher Tropp&Eluned Hefin-Tropp Thomas Fee John Glessner&Helen Glessner 1376 Tiffany Cir S PO Box 3374 707 Orange Ave#3G Palm Springs, CA 92262 Crestline,CA 92325 Coronado,CA 92118 009 607 234 009 607 235 009 607 236 Madelyne Sue Katz Theodore John&Barbara Joan Simon Ann Bonnette-Smith &Ernest Smith 1367 Tiffany Cir N 218 Basinside Way 1363 Tiffany Cir N Palm Springs, CA 92262 Alameda,CA 94502 Palm Springs,CA 92262 009 607 237 009 607 238 009 607 239 Elaine Berke William&M Wilma Healey Wayne&Sylvia Hilton 17009 Cotter PI 1327 Tiffany Cir N 9600 Highridge Dr Encino,CA 91436 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 009 607 240, 009 607 241 009 607 243 Fern Naxon Carl Lamarca&Carl Lamarca H Kassinger Dev Co 6933 N Kedzie Ave 1321 Tiffany Cir N 777 E Tahquitz Mccallum Way Chicago, IL 60645 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Case No. 5,0827 (PD 259), Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638 Lundin Development Company Northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of August 9, 2000. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. (public hearings begin at 2:00 p.m.) in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider proposed Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Parcel Map applications forthe development of an integrated shopping center consisting of a 57,342 square foot supermarket, a 14,884 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy, two quick-service restaurant pads consisting of 3,589 and 2,465 square feet, respectively, and various retail shop space consisting of 26, 220 square feet, on approximately 9.9 gross acres(8.29 net acres) of land located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, C-1 zone, Section 14. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map contemplates the subdivision of the 9.9 acre gross area into 9 lots ranging in size from 0.22 acres to 2.82 acres. The project is proposed to be completely developed in one phase. The existing shopping center development on the easternmost 5 acres of the site is proposed to be removed and replaced with new commercial development in conjunction with this proposal. An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study has been prepared and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the meeting. A draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Due to the projected increase in the amount of automobile traffic on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way and in the immediate area of the project site, a traffic study has been prepared,which recommends various traffic control measures on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way to mitigate the potential increase in traffic associated with site development. Additional items discussed in the Environmental Assessment include, but are not limited to, Land Use, Public Services, Noise and Cultural Resources. Members of the public may view this document in the Department of Planning and Building, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,the hearing described in this notice. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the Planning Commission hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested parties to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Steve Hayes, Department of Planning and Building, (760) 323-8245, PLANNING COMMISSION AOUGLASR. E,/As Director of Planning and Building Publish: July 14, 2000 Mail: July 19, 2000 VICINITY 11AP 0 w 7-AIIOU17-Z CANYON WAY PPOJffcT a - LOCATION PAtION I:OAD --- SUNNY DUNES DAP57-0 CONTROL G NNEL I1E50Ul'-E � AVENUE DARISTo CONTROL i i�G7ANNEL PAtIONPOAO �a CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. 5,0829CYDZ59> DESCRIPTION 7-PM 29658 DEVELOPMENT OP ANPlPE605ACE)PLANNED APPLICANT LUND�N DEVE�opr�ENT �OCAT- �AT TWE NOROTIAMT5T°GOP\NEP OF GOl7PANY RAMON RD,ff 5UNRI5E WAY, G-/ZONE, 5ECTlON 14. PROOF OF PUBLICATION This IS space ear•bounty Clerks Filing Stamp _ (2015.5.C.C.P) No 5253 STATE/)1•' CALIFORNIA CITY OF PALM CITY C UNCILLINGS __ - :.d327-(PiJ County'of R1Verslde Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638 Lundm Development Company Northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Ilia City of halm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 19,200D The. City Council meoling begins at 700 pp.m in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E Tahgull Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider pro- posed Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Parcel Map applications for the de- velopment of an integrated shopping center can- I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of sistmdI of a 5-1342 square foot supermarket, a 14,62i1 square foot drug store with drive-through the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen pharmany, two rock-service restaurant pads years,and not a party to or interested in the consisting 90 of omi, sqquare feet, on approximate- years, located 9 g roes acres 8 29 net acres of land located above-entitled matter.i am the principal clerk of a se Whe northwest, one1eSect on is lThe and r poa d printer of the, DESERT SUN PUBLISHLNG Tentative Parcel Map contemplates the subdim- sion of the 9.9 acre gross area into 9 lots ranging COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, in size from 0.22 acres to 2 32 acres.The project is proposed to be completely developed in one printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, phase.The axis ling shopping center development on the easternmost 5 acres of the site is pro- County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been posed to be removed and replaced with new commercial development in conjunction with this adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the proposal. Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of Caiifmuia under the date of March 24,1958,Case � Number 191236;that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller than non pariel,has been published in each regular h—' and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: June 30th - - All in the year2000 . -" " r ` -_ An Environmental Asseosment/Initial Study has been prepared and will he reviewed by the CityCouncil at the rneehng A draft Native Declara- I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the tion of Environmental Impact has been prepared foregoing is true and correct. for the subject proposal. Due to the protected ni crease in the amount of automobile tto c on Ra- 5th mon Road and Sunrise Way and the immediate area of the project site, a traffic study has been Dated at Palm Springs,California this-----day, prepared, which recommends various traffic can- measures on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way duly ( to mitigate the potential increase in orange asseci- of------------___ ���� also with the .de development. Additional items discussed in the Environmental Assessment in- clude, but not limited to, Land Use, Public Serac- / es, Noise and Cultural Resources Members of ,r. the public may mew this document in the Deppart- U ment of Planning and Building, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahqura Canyon Way, Palm 5ppnngs, and submit written comments to the City Council at, or prior Signature tq the hearing described in this notice. If any in San or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those Issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at,or pri- or to, the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested parties to be heard Questions regard- ing this case may be directed to Steve No a. Department of Planning and Building, (760)323- R245 PATRICIA A. S DER(t City Clervc PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space far County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) LIP 21.0 �D EPVED 00 No.as10 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION County of Riverside case No 5.0827G(PD 259) Tentative Parcel Map No.�29638 h�;w'e.1 r�o �O R anion¢ o __atl and Sunrise Way NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, Colter- no, will hold a public hearing at it's meeting of April 26, 2000 which begc1ins at 1:30 p.m Public Hearings beggin at 2.00 pm) in the Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs The purpose of the hearng is to consider pro- posed Preliminary Planned Development District 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of and Tentative Parcel Map applications for the de- velopment of an integrated shopping center con- the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen cotanq of a 57,541 square foot supermarket, a 14,883 square foot drug store with drive-through years,and not a party to or interested in the pharmacy, two qnick-service restaurant pads above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk ofa consisting of 3,589 and 3,000 square feet, re- spectively, and various retail shop space consist- printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING ing of 24,071 square feet, an approximately 9 9 grass acres(8 29 net acres)of land located at the COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, northwest comer of Ramon Road and Sunrise tinted and published In the CI Of Palm Springs, Way, C-1 zone, Section 14.The proposed Tenla- p p city p gs trve Parcel Map contemplates the subdivision of Countyof Riverside,and which newspaper has been the 9.9 acre gross area mto 9 lots rangingg m size from 0.22 acres to 2.82 acres The projec[is pro- adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the osed to be completely developed in one phase The existinq shopping center development in con- Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of junction with this proposal. California under the date of March 24,1988.Case — Number 191236;that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller r" than non pariel,has been published in each regular - r and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit 1 April All in the year 2000 =P_°^f�s_saa�ucs I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study has been prepared and will be reviewed by the Com- foregoing is true and correct. mission at the meeting.A draft Mitigated Negative 6th Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Due to the Dated at Palm Springs,California this day juad�c and Ramons Road an amount nrisef Way and de April the immediate area of the protect site, a traffice study has been prepared, wl on recommends of ,2000 various traffic control measures on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way to mitigate the potential in- crease in traffic associated with site development. Members of the public may view this document in !'-y' ) '✓V'�X/:_.r�9� the Department of Plannmq and Building, City Hall, 3200 East Tahcutz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments to the Signature Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearing described in this notice If anyindimdual or group challenges the action incourt, issues raised may be limited to only those issues at the public hearing described in this no- tice or in written correspondence at or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard.Questions regard- ing this case may be directed to Steve Hayes, Department of Planning and Build mg, (760)P3- 8245 PLANNING COMMISSION /a/Steven Hayes,for _ DOUGLAS R EVANS Director of Planning and Building PI A. ij B '100 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) I, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Riverside, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action or proceeding; that my business address is 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California;that on the 1st day of May, 2000, 1 served the within (NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING)on PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.5.0827(PD 259), Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638 to consider proposed Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Parcel Map applications for the development of an integrated shopping center consisting of a 57,541 square foot supermarket, a 14,883 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy, two quick-service restaurant pads consisting of 3,589 and 3,000 square feet, respectively, and various retail shop space consisting of 24,071 square feet, on approximately 9.9 gross acres (8.29 net acres) of land located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, C-1 zone, section 14 on persons contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto in said action or proceeding by depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a mailbox,sub-post office,substation or mail chute, or other like facility, regularly maintained by the Government of the United States in the City of Palm Springs, California, addressed to the list of persons orfirms indicated on the report received from the title company dated January 4,2000 and certified by the City's Planning Technician, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Notices (10) (along with stamped envelopes) were mailed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Palm Springs Field Office, PO Box 2245, Palm Springs CA 92263, which they will in turn send. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Jud A. Nichols Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 1st day of May, 2000. t CHICAGO TITLE y PC 1�opdr ��Nr �av_�x/ Cercl�e< 560 EAST HOSPITALITY LANE, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 (909) 884-0448 /�((JL .�Ui(/�. - p ES'Pi� Nt dL) Date: JAN. 4 , 2000 Enclosed you will find the radius requested by you on Assessor's Parcel No. SEE ATTACHED MAP This radius has been prepared as a courtesy using the most current assessor's tax rolls and equalized plat maps available to us, as per the county requirements. i,Thile the information herein provided is believed to be correct, this company assumes no liability for any loss occuring by the reason of reliance thereof. By: Customer Service � CEodDR JAN - b 2000 J ®091s easel slagel ssaippy ®A213A Vud 502-200-001 502-460-001 502 -460-002 BOYS CLUB OF PALM SPRIN KLEIN, JOEL A GARCIA, CARLOS C 450 S SUNRISE WAY 524 CALLE ARAGON C 20934 HACKNEY ST PALM SPRINGS 92262-7641 LAGUNA HILLS 92653-3872 CANOGA PARK C 91304-2746 502 -460-003 502-460-004 502-460-005 LEVITON, CHARLES D & PAT HAMER, EDGAR E & BETTY A SINGER, ESTELLE 1789 E RAMON RD 3 12501 FOSTER RD 1752 E CAMINO PAROCELA PALM SPRINGS 92264-7949 LOS ALAMITOS 90720-4736 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 502-460-006 502-460-007 502-460-008 JOHNS, HOWARD ATWELL, JACK W GOOD, MATTHEW M PO BOX 4941 1748 E CAMINO PAROCELA 1742 E CAMINO PAROCELA PALM SPRINGS 92263-4941 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 502-460-009 502-460-010 502-460-011 TAGE,MATTHEW PULLEN, INEZ M SPELLMAN, CECELIA M PO BOX 9271 12600 KIRBY SMITH RD 1740 E CAMINO PAROCELA MARINA DEL RE 90295-1671 ORLANDO FL 32832-6121 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 502-460-012 502-460-013 502-460-014 MARCHICK, SHARON L ROONEY, PAUL J & PATRICI FIRST NATIONWIDE MORTGA 1738 E CAMINO PAROCELA 511 FIRST ST 212 PO BOX 601520 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 ENCINITAS CA 92024-3533 SAN DIEGO CA 92160-1520 502-460-015 502-460-016 502-460-017 POWELL, KAREN E & VERONI FULLER, JERRY SHIPE,MARION R & MARY V 1728 E CAMINO PAROCELA 34122 CALLE LA PRIMAVER 1722 E CAMINO PAROCELA PALM SPRINGS 92264-8233 DANA POINT CA 92629-2677 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8233 502-460-018 502-460-019 502-460-020 PRIMA, LUANNE F PADHYE,ATUL & VIDYA SCOTT, BRENDA L 1720 E CAMINO PAROCELA 1506 CALLE DE ORO 2880 E SAN ANGELO RD PALM SPRINGS 92264-8233 THOUSAND OAKS 91360-7007 PALM SPRINGS 92262-3806 502-460-021 502-460-022 502-460-023 KIEF, RICHARD G & BELL Y MURRAY,VALDEZ STODDARD, PAUL M JR 1712 E CAMINO PAROCELA 2420 NW 59TH ST 12759 FOOTHILL BLVD N C PALM SPRINGS 92264-8233 MIAMI FL 33142-2335 RANCHO CUCAMO 91739 502-460-024 502-460-025 502-460-026 LOVETT,WILLIAM W JR & A HOLLAND,RALPH HELMAN, EMIL J & VELASQU 810 E STATE ST 568 S SUNRISE WAY 9602 ORANGE AVE GENEVA IL 60134-2409 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7852 ANAHEIM CA 92804-3440 502-460-027 502-460-028 502-460-029 DONOVAN, KATHRYN W CUNNINGHAM,VIRGINIA NEWCOM, SCOTT & ERIN PO BOX 797 11582 OTSEGO ST 16824 CARLYLE HALL RD N SANTA MARIA C 93456-0797 NORTH HOLLYWO 91601-3625 SEATTLE WA 98177-3616 po9is ao}aaeldwal es fl W,s;aagS paal q;oows t pO9L5 aasq slopl sswppV @AU3AV Qp 502-460-030 502-460-031 502-460-032 LEOGRANDIS, STEPHEN & FL PHARES,NORMAN B AGEE, GLORIA R 14851 W SUNSET BLVD 526 S SUNRISE WAY 31 15523 VISTA VICENTE DR PACIFIC PALIS 90272-3715 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7852 RAMONA CA 92065-4318 502-460-033 )oy 3 502-460-034 502-460-035 GARCIA, CARLOS C BOWEN,WILLIAM L STERN, GRACE S 20934 HACKNEY ST 506 S SUNRISE WAY 566 S FERN CANYON DR CANOGA PARK C 91304-2746 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7852 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7313 502-460-036 502-460-037 502-460-038 RAMIREZ, FERNANDO & MELI FREEDBERG,NORMAN LAWRENCE,DEANNA M 1223 E GROVECENTER ST 226 N PALM CANYON DR 9663 TIERRA GRANDE ST 3 WEST COVINA C 91790-1339 PALM SPRINGS 92262-5510 SAN DIEGO CA 92126-4571 502-460-039 502-460-040 502-460-041 BAKER,MARJORIE D ORSATTI ,ALFRED K & PATR PIERCE,DANIEL C & BEATR 1751 E RAMON RD 8348 JASON AVE 1761 E RAMON RD PALM SPRINGS 92264-7949 WEST HILLS CA 91304-3108 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7949 502-460-042 502-460-043 502-460-044 LETHER, SHAUN G GARCIA, CARL ROBLES,ANDREA PO BOX 273 20934 Q EY ST 1771 E RAMON RD MORONGO VALLE 92256-0273 C A PARK C 91304-2746 ALHAMBRA CA 91803-3080 502-460-045 508-110-012 508-110-032 COMMON, LOT HUNT TRUST VISTA MIRAGE INTERVAL 0 522 S SEPULVEDA BLVD 11 15200 MANSEL AVE 5117 MARBURN AVE LOS ANGELES C 90049-3538 LAWNDALE CA 90260-2918 LOS ANGELES C 90043-2143 508-110-033 508-110-052 508-115-001 PALM, SPRINGS S MORGENSTERN TRUST PIVO, RAY B & ADA H 18321 VENTURA BLVD 800 12273 VISTA PANORAMA 16226 ELISA PL TARZANA CA 91356-4250 SANTA ANA CA 92705-1387 ENCINO CA 91436-3320 508-115-002 508-115-003 508-115-005 SWEENEY, RONNIE L MEAD,WILLIAM T BAUER, CORRINE H 509 PLAYA 6 DEL ITALIA 1360 TIFFANY CIR N NEWPORT BEACH 92660-3532 IRVINE CA 92614-5355 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7782 508-115-006 508-115-007 508-115-008 AMERICAN RED CROSS NIKSEFAT,ALIREZA T SEE, RICHARD D 550 W C ST 1300 500 S FERN CANYON DR 901 E TAHQUITZ SAN DIEGO CA 92101-8582 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7313 LEMON GROVE C 91945-2039 508-115-O'09 508-115-010 508-115-011 BASCH, TED & RITA RUTHRUFF, MARJORIE AINSWORTH, CYNTHIA 6370 DREXEL AVE 1432 TIFFANY CIR N 1932 PIERCE ST LOS ANGELES C 90048-4704 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7782 SAN FRANCISCO 94115-2622 0091S aol a;eldwaa ash W,s;aays Raj-y;oows p091s easel slagel ssaippV ®AUHAV `„� 508-115-012 508-115-014 508-115-015 V RIVKIN, SAMUEL R MCLEAN, LOIS R SORKIN, JOEL E & MARILYN 2815 NICHOLS CANYON RD PO BOX 2008 6922 W 85TH ST LOS ANGELES C 90046-1308 PALM SPRINGS 92263 LOS ANGELES C 90045-2603 508-115-016 508-115-017 508-115-018 WILSON, GARY R & GAYLE E ROEDER, HORST J RUSTAD, RAYMOND D & MIRI 1456 TIFFANY CIR N 21 NEWCASTLE LN 20152 MIDLAND LN PALM SPRINGS 92262-7782 LAGUNA NIGUEL 92677-9328 HUNTINGTON BE 92646-4917 508-115-019 508-115-020 508-115-021 lvAGUIRE, DALE F CORONADO, FRANK JR & NOR WALWICK, ROBERT S & MAUR 304 TIFFANY CIR E 9474 OLIVE ST 423 CROUCH ST PALM SPRINGS 92262-7788 TEMPLE CITY C 91780-3130 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-4411 508-115-022 508-115-023 508-115-024 KALIN, PHYLLIS J & DAN B CAMPBELL,DENISE ISEN, STUART & SIMONE 332 TIFFANY CIR E 37 CHARLES TER 13010 EVANSTON ST PALM SPRINGS 92262-7788 WALDWICK NJ 07463-2002 LOS ANGELES C 90049-3608 508-115-025 508-115-026 508-115-027 GEISSLER, ROBERT MARCH, DAVISON J & IRENE JACKSON,WALTER E & LONA 901 TAHQUITZ 12 CRAZY HORSE CT 1473 TIFFANY CIR S PALM SPRINGS 92262-2754 PALM COAST FL 32137-9009 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7707 508-115-028 508-115-029 508-115-030 EVANS, SANDRA S HAWLEY, PATRICIA N LEWIS, J C & STACY 267 WARREN ST 15102 RIVERSIDE DR 2220 FAIRVIEW AVE E 13ROOKLYN NY 11201-6411 APPLE VALLEY 92307-4831 SEATTLE WA 98102-3413 508-115-031 508-115-032 508-115-033 GORDON, DONNA Y SHERIDAN, GEORGE T & MAR KRZYZANIAK,NEAL & KATHL 2810 LAS GALLINAS AVE PO BOX 1360 1377 TIFFANY CIR S SAN RAFAEL CA 94903 -1429 PALM SPRINGS 92263-1360 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 508-115-034 508-115-035 508-115-036 FEHER, FRANK F & BARBARA KASSLER, SIDNEY S & GLOR SOMAN, ROBERT & JEANNE T 1375 TIFFANY CIR S 1373 TIFFANY CIR S 1371 TIFFANY CIR S PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 508-115-037 508-115-038 508-115-039 KARLIN, MELVIN E & BERTH MCCLASKEY, DONALD W & MI MUND, PEARL 28302 ALAVA 11 MAIN AVE 1520 CAMDEN AVE MISSION VIEJO 92692-1625 TILLAMOOK OR 97141-2315 LOS ANGELES C 90025-3463 508-115-0+40 508-115-041 508-115-042 ZAR,ALEX & BETTY WEBSTER, JAMES E & SUZAN WESTLING,WARREN J & JEA 1331 TIFFANY CIR S 4060 W LAKE SAMMAMISH P 2344 PINECREST DR PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 BELLEVUE WA 98008-5938 ALTADENA CA 91001-2125 p091s AN a;eldwaj asg Wls1334s paaA 410ows f p09L5 aasel slagel ssaippy @AU3AV C� 508-115-043 508-115-044 508-115-045 BELDING, REGINALD R & SA RESNICK,HENRY H & BESS BEECH, ROBERT C & VICKI 6251 FARINELLA DR 10611 LINDAMERE DR 110 MONTURA WAY HUNTINGTON BE 92647-4200 LOS ANGELES C 90077-1903 NOVATO CA 94949-5445 508-115-046 508-115-047 508-115-048 SMITH, PHILLIP A & DARLE SOS METALS INC TROPP,ASHER & ELUNED H 35790 MEADOW RIDGE RD 5103 PARAMOUNT BLVD 27852 VIA SARASATE TEMECULA CA 92592-7817 PICO RIVERA C 90660-2512 MISSION VIEJO 92692-2139 508-115-049 508-115-050 508-115-051 ROBINSON,DOUGLAS W & DE GLESSNER, JOHN W & HELEN KATZ,MADELYNE S 1845 CANYON WAY 707 ORANGE AVE N G3 1367 TIFFANY CIR N POMONA CA 91768-1412 CORONADO CA 92118-2249 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7783 508-115-052 508-115-053 508-115-054 SIMON, THEODORE J & BARB SMITH, BONNETTE & ERNEST BERKE, ELAINE M 218 BASINSIDE WAY 1450 W COLORADO BLVD 20 17009 COTTER PL ALAMEDA CA 94502-6410 PASADENA CA 91105-1467 ENCINO CA 91436-3829 508 -115-055 508-115-056 508-115-057 HEALEY, WILLIAM J & M W HILTON,WAYNE & SYLVIA NAXON, FERN 28938 PASEO PICASSO 9600 HIGHRIDGE DR 6933 N KEDZIE AVE MISSION VIEJO 92692-5901 BEVERLY HILLS 90210-1511 CHICAGO IL 60645-2896 508-115-058 508-115-059 508-231-006 LAMARCA, CARL R H KASSINGER DEV CO RAMON PARK ASSOC LTD 1321 TIFFANY CIR N 777 TAHQUITZ MCCALLUM PO BOX 811097 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7783 PALM SPRINGS 92262 CHICAGO IL 60681-1097 508-232-001 508-232-002 508-240-004 ) OOlp ZAPPA, KARL J & GERALDIN DICKSON, FRANCINE R TABOR LOGGINS ASSOC 64888 BURKE CT 78585 AVENUE 41 1485 SPRUCE ST P DESERT HOT SP 92240-1453 INDIO CA 92201-1131 RIVERSIDE CA 92507-2445 508-240-006 508-240-007 508-240-008 TABOR LOGGI SSOCIATE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD 1485 SP E ST P PO BOX 1033 1555 S PALM CANYON DR G RIY-T,nIDE CA 92507-2445 RIVERSIDE CA 92502-1033 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8303 5D8-115-60 *** 114 Printed *** c��� eb rD ( ' r d m; I I Gto�u f((vrsk-o-m I.l��t rzd �i h5d m,1J @091 S jo;owidwaa asn W,s;a84S paaA 410O W S NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Case No. 5.0827 (PD 259), Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638 Lundin Development Company Northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of May 24, 2000. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. (public hearings begin at 2:00 p.m.) in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider proposed Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Parcel Map applications for the development of an integrated shopping center consisting of a 57,541 square foot supermarket, a 14,883 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy, two quick-service restaurant pads consisting of3,589 and 3,000 square feet,respectively,and various retail shop space consisting of 24,071 square feet,on approximately 9.9 gross acres (8.29 net acres) of land located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, C-1 zone, Section 14. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map contemplates the subdivision of the 9.9 acre gross area into 9 lots ranging in size from 0.22 acres to 2.82 acres. The project is proposed to be completely developed in one phase. The existing shopping center development on the eastermnost 5 acres of the site is proposed to be removed and replaced with new commercial development in conjunction with this proposal. An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study has been prepared and will be reviewed by the Commission at the meeting. A draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Due to the projected increase in the amount of automobile traffic on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way and in the immediate area of the project site, a traffic study has been prepared, which recommends various traffic control measures on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way to mitigate the potential increase in traffic associated with site development. Members of the public may view this document in the Department of Planning and Building, City Hall, 3200 F. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the hearing described in this notice. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the Planning Commission hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested parties to be heard. Questions regarding this case maybe directed to Steve Hayes,Department of Planning and Building,(760)323- 9245. PLANNING COMMISSION T)/ a g/la&l vaiF x Director of Planning and Building Publish and Mail: May 3, 2000 VICINITY rlAP TAYIOUITZ CANYON WAY a PeOJEGT � � LOGftTION PAI10N ow-1 POND SUNNY DUNES DARl5r0 s G 1l NNEL riEsoulry� AVENUE \� DltRlSrO I I \ GONI 1 �-�-C,YI/INNIN! 1. PPOJ)ffGT 5/r f j CITY OF PALM SPRINGS j CASE NO. 5,0829 (PDZ59) DESCRIPTION rPh1 Z%58 DEVELOP/MENr OF ANINFE60 ATEED D NNED A P P L I C A N T LUNDIN DEVELOPIIENT 5110PPING CENTER ON 9.9 6P055 ACPES COMPANY LOCATED IT TI1E NOI.T-Mtf5r COPNEP OF PAMON PD,8 SUNPlSE WAY, C-1 ZONE, 5EC7-lON 14. Ir PROOF OF PUBLICATION This Is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) pi z.'g C,o9 �l t�cC.s=}IiEL) � — STATE OF CALIFORNIA INon7a6 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION County of Riverside MEi Case No,5.0327(PO 259) Tente Hve Parcel Map No. 29638 LLmGrr Development Company and 5 rrs ay NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the , Cente- Cammission of Ilse tic e Palm Springs,meeting rf ma, w4, held a Public hearing at c meeting o1 May 24, 21.3 Tte Plannlnq Cmings bron meeting begins at t�0 p m.(public bearings hegm at 200 p m.) m the Council Chambers at Hn Hall, 3200 e Pali Canyon Way, Palm Springs. "the per ai of the hearing is to consider pre- posed Prelim mart' Planned Development Essurst do- 1 am a citizen of the United States and a residentand Tentative car integrated Map aspcoping rot the on- of valopm of of7, 41squr shopping Center con- the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen e4 88q of a e foot rug store foot su permarkot, a 14,883 square fool drug store with restaurant ears,and no pharmacy. f '9 yyin and 3,00 restaurant pads y t a party to Or interested In The specti tiny of 3,589 and 3,000 square feet, r consist- above-entitled matter,I am the spec Gvely, and vat Iles let, shop space tely 9.- prinClpal clerk of a mg of 24,07t �quere feat, on approximately 9.9 printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING gross acres(a 29 net acres)of land located at the f.,GVH� northwest coiner of Ramon Rest l and Sunrise ANY a newspaper of general circulation, way, C-t zone, Section 14.The proposed Tona- printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, true Parcels yi ass area into 9 the subdivision or the 9 9 acres toss area m[e 9 loll ran i in o sue County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been from 0.22 to � 82 -ores The project is proposed to be completely developed in are phase the existing shopping center development on the adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the easter nmost s Saes of the site Is proposed to be Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of removed and replaced with new commercial do- Califml»a under the date of March 24,1988.Case velopmont in conjunction with this proposal. _ Number 191236;that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller than non pariel,has been published In each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any -- supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: I— May 3rd --'` I All in the year 2000 rr rr,_ti n r nl i �- I certify or An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study has y( declare)under,penalty of perjury that the been prepared and will be reviewed by the Com- foregoing is true and Correct, mission at the meeting.A draft Negative Declare- ' rich of Environmental Impact has been prepared 3rd for the subject proposal Due to the projected in- DaC¢d at Palm S crease in this amount of automobile traffic on tla- pri➢gs,California this------day men Road and Sunrse Way and the immediate May � area of till- project She, a traffic study has been prepared, which recommends various traffic con- of--------- ,2000 trot me2cums oa Real Road and Sunrise Way to m the potential increase in traffic assoei- ated with site development Mombers of file pub- lic maayy vie view this document m the Department of e Planning and B al mg, City Hall,d sot E t written Canyon Way, Palm Spnngr:, and submit wrrttcn -----------------_..�__�_ comments to the Planning Commission at, or Jar- Signature or to, the hearing descn6ed In this notice. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those I saues raised at the public hearing deseubed in this notice or In written aerrespondence at,ar or- or to, the hlannmg Caroni hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all Intorestad parties to be heard Questions reguml- ng this case may be directed to Steve Nayos, Deppartment of Planning and Budd r ng, (760)'23- 8245 PLANNING COMMISSION /a/Steve Flares for Douglas R Evers Dlreotor of planning and Build la (I PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filin_Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) i v. `_Y,lt 1' iJ No 4788 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION STATE QP CALIFORNIA MEETING Case No.Map N (29 259) 33 Tentative Pavel Map No.Company County of Riverside Lundm Development Company _ Northwei corner Ramon Road . - - aria Sunrisese.WayNOTICE - - ------ — --- Commis L5 HEREBY theCity GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm t its m, tor- ma, will24, hold a Ise Pla heanng at its meeting of Mays 21 30.The public Commission ah 2 00 begins at 1 30 ornCouncil (public hearings begin 1, 2 00 pp f in the CouncA Chambers at City Hall, 3200 "fahquaz Canyon Way, Palm Springs The purpose of the hearing rs to consider pro- posed Plehrmnmy Planned Development District' and Tentative Parcel Map appllcations for the de- velopment of an integrated shopping Centel con- ', I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of sr-tin of a 57,6/�l square foot supermarket, a 14,883 square font drug store with drive-through the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen pharmacy, two qquick-service restaurant pads, consisting of 3,589 and 3,000 square feet, re- years,and not a party to or interested in the spectively, and various retail shop space consist- ing of 24,071 Square feel, on approximately 9.9 above-entitled matter.I am the principal cleric of a gross acres(6 29 net acres)of[and located at the northwest corner of Rarnon Road and Sunrise printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING way, C-1 zone, Section 14.The proposed Tenta- COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation t"'a Pacal Mal' contemplates the subdivision or the e 9 acres gross area into 0 lots ranging ill size p p Springs,printed and published in the city of Palm S rin s hem 0 22 to 2 62 cares The project is proposed i m be completely developed III one phase The County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been existing shopping center development on the easternmost 5 acres of the site rs proposed to be adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the removed and replaced with new .ommero..I de- Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of velopment in Canjunclron with this proposal California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case Number 191236; that the notice,of which the —annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller than non panel,has been published N each regular i and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: _ May 3rd --------_----_--- L �IIh --�- ------- _L� ---I tl?PLLI HIM<-s A91 in the year 2000 An Envvonmental Assessmem/ISndral Study has I certify(or declare)under,penalty of perjury that the been prepared and vigil be reviewed by the com- nrsson at the meetin A draft Negg g ahve Deakm- foregoin is true and correct. 'ion of Environmental Impart has hcan prepared for the subject proposal Ous to the prm o)ected m- 3rd craese In the amount of auternobtle tra,re art Ra- mon Road and Sunrise Way and the Immediate Dated at Palm Springs,California this-------dy area of the project site, a traffic study has been /� prepared, which ecomntends various traffic con- May trol measures an Dollar, Road and Sunrise Way to mitigate the potential more... a lraffro assocr- Of----------------___,._______ 2000 ated with site development Members of the pub-lie may view this document Ill the Department of Planning and Bu.Iin in ., a d sul E t wi,ten ./• Canni gWay, P.Im%pangs, and sub mitwritten comments to the Planning Commission at, or fill- - __________�__,._�___ or to, the hearing described in this notice It any rndividuel or group challenges the lichen in Signature court, issues raised may be limited to only those .sues raised at the public hearing desenbed In this notice a in Winton correspondencepo- or to, the Planning Commission hearingAn opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested parties to be head Orations regard- ing Ili Is case may be duetted to Steve Hayys, " Department of Planning and Bwldmg, (780)323- 6245 PLANNING COMMISSION /a/Steve Hayes A, Douglas R. Erns Dilectoi of Planning and Bardmg PUB May .3, 2000 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) I, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Riverside, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action or proceeding; that my business address is 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California;that on the 7th day of April, 20001 served the within (NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING)on PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO.5.0827(PD259) Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638 to consider proposed Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Parcel Map applications for the development of an integrated shopping center consisting of a 57,541 square foot supermarket, a 14,883 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy, two quick-service restaurant pads consisting of 3,589 and 3,000 square feet, respectively, and various retail shop space consisting of 24,071 square feet, on approximately 9.9 acre gross area (8.29 net acres) of land located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, C-1 zone, section 14 on persons contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto in said action or proceeding by depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a mailbox,sub-post office,substation or mail chute,or other like facility, regularly maintained by the Government of the United States in the City of Palm Springs, California, addressed to the list of persons or firms indicated on the report received from the title company dated January 4, 2000 and certified by the City's Planning Technician, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Notices (20) (along with stamped envelopes) were mailed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Palm Springs Field Office, PO Box 2245, Palm Springs CA 92263, which they will in turn send. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Judith . Nichols Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 7th day of .April, 2000. CHICAGO TITLE 560 EAST HOSPITALITY LANE, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 (909) 884-0448 /I/r-/("— ,S'Ui(lF.�Se. �j q k t d t) Date: SAN. 4, 2000 Enclosed you will find the radius requested by you on Assessor's Parcel No. SEE ATTACHED MAP This radius has been prepared as a courtesy using the most current assessor's tax rolls and equalized plat maps available to us, as per the county requirements. While the information herein provided is believed to be correct, this company assumes no liability for any loss occuring by the reason of reliance thereof. By: i d�1�( J'J 1v Customer Service p E C E 0 � l AN - b 2000 I ps An pijhin ri!\110101j i 00915 aasel slagel ssaippv oAU3A%f ud 502-200-001 502-460-001 502-460-002 BOYS CLUB OF PALM SPRIN KLEIN, JOEL A GARCIA, CARLOS C 450 S SUNRISE WAY 524 CALLE ARAGON C 20934 HACKNEY ST PALM SPRINGS 92262-7641 LAGUNA HILLS 92653-3872 CANOGA PARK C 91304-2746 502-460-003 502-460-004 502 -460-005 LEVITON, CHARLES D & PAT HAMER, EDGAR E & BETTY A SINGER, ESTELLE 1789 E RAMON RD 3 12501 FOSTER RD 1752 E CAMINO PAROCELA PALM SPRINGS 92264-7949 LOS ALAMITOS 90720-4736 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 502-460-006 502-460-007 502-460-008 JOHNS,HOWARD ATWELL, JACK W GOOD, MATTHEW M PO BOX 4941 1748 E CAMINO PAROCELA 1742 E CAMINO PAROCELA PALM SPRINGS 92263-4941 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 502-460-009 502-460-010 502-460-011 TAGE, MATTHEW PULLEN, INEZ M SPELLMAN, CECELIA M PO BOX 9271 12600 KIRBY SMITH RD 1740 E CAMINO PAROCELA MARINA DEL RE 90295-1671 ORLANDO FL 32832-6121 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 502-460-012 502-460-013 502-460-014 MARCHICK, SHARON L ROONEY, PAUL J & PATRICI FIRST NATIONWIDE MORTGA 1738 E CAMINO PAROCELA 511 FIRST ST 212 PO BOX 601520 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8230 ENCINITAS CA 92024-3533 SAN DIEGO CA 92160-1520 502-460-015 502 -460-016 502-460-017 POWELL, KAREN E & VERONI FULLER, JERRY SHIPE,MARION R & MARY V 1728 E CAMINO PAROCELA 34122 CALLE LA PRIMAVER 1722 E CAMINO PAROCELA PALM SPRINGS 92264-8233 DANA POINT CA 92629-2677 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8233 502 -460-018 502-460-019 502-460-020 PRIMA, LUANNE F PADHYE,ATUL & VIDYA SCOTT, BRENDA L 1720 E CAMINO PAROCELA 1506 CALLE DE ORO 2880 E SAN ANGELO RD PALM SPRINGS 92264-8233 THOUSAND OAKS 91360-7007 PALM SPRINGS 92262-3806 502-460-021 502-460-022 502-460-023 KIEF, RICHARD G & BELL Y MURRAY,VALDEZ STODDARD, PAUL M JR 1712 E CAMINO PAROCELA 2420 NW 59TH ST 12759 FOOTHILL BLVD N C PALM SPRINGS 92264-8233 MIAMI FL 33142-2335 RANCHO CUCAMO 91739 502-460-024 502-460-025 502-460-026 LOVETT, WILLIAM W JR & A HOLLAND, RALPH HELMAN, EMIL J & VELASQU 810 E STATE ST 568 S SUNRISE WAY 9602 ORANGE AVE GENEVA IL 60134-2409 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7852 ANAHEIM CA 92804-3440 502-460-0t27 502-460-028 502-460-029 DONOVAN, KATHRYN W CUNNINGHAM,VIRGINIA NEWCOM, SCOTT & ERIN PO BOX 797 11582 OTSEGO ST 16824 CARLYLE HALL RD N SANTA MARIA C 93456-0797 NORTH HOLLYWO 91601-3625 SEATTLE WA 98177-3616 0091S lol aleldwa;ash Wls}aagc P094 q;oowc p091s jasel slagei ssaippV ®AU3AV �U 502-460-030 502-460-031 502-460-032 LEOGRANDIS, STEPHEN & FL PHARES,NORMAN B AGEE,GLORIA R 14851 W SUNSET BLVD 526 S SUNRISE WAY 31 15523 VISTA VICENTE DR PACIFIC PALIS 90272-3715 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7852 RAMONA CA 92065-4318 502-460-0333bg5 502-460-034 502-460-035 GARCIA, CARLOS C BOWEN,WILLIAM L STERN, GRACE S 20934 HACKNEY ST 506 S SUNRISE WAY 566 S FERN CANYON DR CANOGA PARK C 91304-2746 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7852 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7313 502-460-036 502-460-037 502-460-038 RAMIREZ, FERNANDO & MELI FREEDBERG,NORMAN LAWRENCE, DEANNA M 1223 E GROVECENTER ST 226 N PALM CANYON DR 9663 TIERRA GRANDE ST 3 WEST COVINA C 91790-1339 PALM SPRINGS 92262-5510 SAN DIEGO CA 92126-4571 502-460-039 502-460-040 502-460-041 BAKER,MARJORIE D ORSATTI ,ALFRED K & PATR PIERCE,DANIEL C & BEATR 1751 E RAMON RD 8348 JASON AVE 1761 E RAMON RD PALM SPRINGS 92264-7949 WEST HILLS CA 91304-3108 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7949 502-460-042 502-460-043 502-460-044 LETHER, SHAUN G GARCIA, CARL ROBLES,ANDREA PO BOX 273 20934 EY ST 1771 E RAMON RD MORONGO VALLE 92256-0273 CAI�iO A PARK C 91304-2746 ALHAMBRA CA 91803-3080 502-460-045 508-110-012 508-110-032 COMMON, LOT HUNT TRUST VISTA MIRAGE INTERVAL O 522 S SEPULVEDA BLVD 11 15200 MANSEL AVE 5117 MARBURN AVE LOS ANGELES C 90049-3538 LAWNDALE CA 90260-2918 LOS ANGELES C 90043-2143 508-110-033 508-110-052 508-115-001 PALM, SPRINGS S MORGENSTERN TRUST PIVO,RAY B & ADA H 18321 VENTURA BLVD 800 12273 VISTA PANORAMA 16226 ELISA PL TARZANA CA 91356-4250 SANTA ANA CA 92705-1387 ENCINO CA 91436-3320 508-115-002 508-115-003 508-115-005 SWEENEY, RONNIE L MEAD,WILLIAM T BAUER, CORRINE H 509 PLAYA 6 DEL ITALIA 1360 TIFFANY CIR N NEWPORT BEACH 92660-3532 IRVINE CA 92614-5355 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7782 508-115-006 508-115-007 508-115-008 AMERICAN RED CROSS NIKSEFAT,ALIREZA T SEE,RICHARD D 550 W C ST 1300 500 S FERN CANYON DR 901 E TAHQUITZ SAN DIEGO CA 92101-8582 PALM SPRINGS 92264-7313 LEMON GROVE C 91945-2039 508-115-Oti9 508-115-010 508-115-011 BASCH, TED & RITA RUTHRUFF,MARJORIE ATNSWORTH, CYNTHIA 6370 DREXEL AVE 1432 TIFFANY CIR N 1932 PIERCE ST LOS ANGELES C 90048-4704 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7782 SAN FRANCISCO 94115-2622 n09is aoj aleldwaa ash W,s;aags paaj y;oows p09ts easel slagel ssaippy @AUBAV Q� 508-115-012 508-115-014 508-115-015 RIVKIN, SAMUEL R MCLEAN, LOIS R SORKIN, JOEL E & MARILYN 2815 NICHOLS CANYON RD PO BOX 2008 6922 W 85TH ST LOS ANGELES C 90046-1308 PALM SPRINGS 92263 LOS ANGELES C 90045-2603 508-115-016 508-115-017 508-115-018 WILSON, GARY R & GAYLE E ROEDER, HORST J RUSTAD, RAYMOND D & MIRI 1456 TIFFANY CIR N 21 NEWCASTLE LN 20152 MIDLAND LN PALM SPRINGS 92262-7782 LAGUNA NIGUEL 92677-9328 HUNTINGTON BE 92646-4917 508-115-019 508-115-020 508-115-021 MAGUIRE, DALE F CORONADO, FRANK JR & NOR WALWICK, ROBERT S & MAUR 304 TIFFANY CIR E 9474 OLIVE ST 423 CROUCH ST PALM SPRINGS 92262-7788 TEMPLE CITY C 91780-3130 OCEANSIDE CA 92054-4411 508-115-022 508-115-023 508-115-024 KALIN, PHYLLIS J & DAN B CAMPBELL,DENISE ISEN, STUART & SIMONE 332 TIFFANY CIR E 37 CHARLES TER 13010 EVANSTON ST PALM SPRINGS 92262-7788 WALDWICK NJ 07463-2002 LOS ANGELES C 90049-3608 508-115-025 508-115-026 508-115-027 GEISSLER, ROBERT MARCH,DAVISON J & IRENE JACKSON,WALTER E & LONA 901 TAHQUITZ 12 CRAZY HORSE CT 1473 TIFFANY CIR S PALM SPRINGS 92262-2754 PALM COAST FL 32137-9009 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7707 508- 115-028 508-115-029 508-115-030 EVANS , SANDRA S HAWLEY, PATRICIA N LEWIS, J C & STACY 267 WARREN ST 15102 RIVERSIDE DR 2220 FAIRVIEW AVE E BROOKLYN NY 11201-6411 APPLE VALLEY 92307-4831 SEATTLE WA 98102-3413 508-115-031 508-115-032 508-115-033 GORDON, DONNA Y SHERIDAN, GEORGE T & MAR KRZYZANIAK,NEAL & KATHL 2810 LAS GALLINAS AVE PO BOX 1360 1377 TIFFANY CIR S SAN RAFAEL CA 94903-1429 PALM SPRINGS 92263-1360 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 508-115-034 508-115-035 508-115-036 FEHER, FRANK F & BAR13APA KASSLER, SIDNEY S & GLOR SOMAN, ROBERT & JEANNE T 1375 TIFFANY CIR S 1373 TIFFANY CIR S 1371 TIFFANY CIR S PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 508-115-037 508-115-038 508-115-039 KARLIN, MELVIN E & BERTH MCCLASKEY,DONALD W & MI MUND, PEARL 28302 ALAVA 11 MAIN AVE 1520 CAMDEN AVE MISSION VIEJO 92692-1625 TILLAMOOK OR 97141-2315 LOS ANGELES C 90025-3463 508 -115-040 508-115-041 508-115-042 ZAR, ALEX & BETTY WEBSTER, JAMES E & SUZAN WESTLING, WARREN J & JEA 1331 TIFFANY CIR S 4060 W LAKE SAMMAMISH P 2344 PINECREST DR PALM SPRINGS 92262-7799 BELLEVUE WA 98008-5938 ALTADENA CA 91001-2125 po9Ts aoi aaeldwaa ash v saaNs paaj Wows p091s jasel slagel ssaippV @AU3AV `u 508-115-043 508-115-044 508-115-045 BELDING, REGINALD R & SA RESNICK,HENRY H & BESS BEECH, ROBERT C & VICKI 6251 FARINELLA DR 10611 LINDAMERE DR 110 MONTURA WAY HUNTINGTON BE 92647-4200 LOS ANGELES C 90077-1903 NOVATO CA 94949-5445 508-115-046 508-115-047 508-115-048 SMITH, PHILLIP A & DARLE SOS METALS INC TROPP,ASHER & ELUNED H 35790 MEADOW RIDGE RD 5103 PARAMOUNT BLVD 27852 VIA SARASATE TEMECULA CA 92592-7817 PICO RIVERA C 90660-2512 MISSION VIEJO 92692-2139 508-115-049 508-115-050 508-115-051 ROBINSON, DOUGLAS W & DE GLESSNER, JOHN W & HELEN KATZ,MADELYNE S 1845 CANYON WAY 707 ORANGE AVE N G3 1367 TIFFANY CIR N POMONA CA 91768-1412 CORONADO CA 92118-2249 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7783 508-115-052 508-115-053 508-115-054 SIMON, THEODORE J & BARB SMITH,BONNETTE & ERNEST BERKE, ELAINE M 218 BASINSIDE WAY 1450 W COLORADO BLVD 20 17009 COTTER PL ALAMEDA CA 94502-6410 PASADENA CA 91105-1467 ENCINO CA 91436-3829 508-115-055 508-115-056 508-115-057 HEALEY,WILLIAM J & M W HILTON,WAYNE & SYLVIA NAXON, FERN 28938 PASEO PICASSO 9600 HIGHRIDGE DR 6933 N KEDZIE AVE MISSION VIEJO 92692-5901 BEVERLY HILLS 90210-1511 CHICAGO IL 60645-2896 508-115-058 508-115-059 508-231-006 LAMARCA, CARL R H KASSINGER DEV CO RAMON PARK ASSOC LTD 1321 TIFFANY CIR N 777 TAHQUITZ MCCALLUM PO BOX 811097 PALM SPRINGS 92262-7783 PALM SPRINGS 92262 CHICAGO IL 60681-1097 508-232-001 508-232-002 508-240-004 ; 00(p ZAPPA, KARL J & GERALDIN DICKSON, FRANCINE R TABOR LOGGINS ASSOC 64888 BURKE CT 78585 AVENUE 41 1485 SPRUCE ST P DESERT HOT SP 92240-1453 INDIO CA 92201-1131 RIVERSIDE CA 92507-2445 508-240-006 508-240-007 508-240-008 TABOR LOGGI SSOCIATE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD 1485 SP E ST P PO BOX 1033 1555 S PALM CANYON DR G RIY,ZnIDE CA 92507-2445 RIVERSIDE CA 92502-1033 PALM SPRINGS 92264-8303 S OB-US—66� *** 114 Printed (2.kj 34 p09ts ao;aleldwa3 asg wls;aa4s P893 y;oows NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Case No. 5.0827 (PD 259) Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638 Lundin Development Company Northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of April 26, 2000. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. (public hearings begin at 2:00 p.m.) in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider proposed Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Parcel Map applications for the development of an integrated shopping center consisting of a 57,541 square foot supermarket, a 14,883 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy, two quick-service restaurant pads consisting of3,589 and 3,000 square feet,respectively,and various retail shop space consisting of 24,071 square feet,on approximately 9.9 gross acres(8.29 net acres) of land located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way,C-I zone, Section 14. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map contemplates the subdivision of the 9.9 acre gross area into 9 lots ranging in size from 0.22 acres to 2.82 acres. The project is proposed to be completely developed in one phase. The existing shopping center development on the easternmost 5 acres of the site is proposed to be removed and replaced with new commercial development in conjunction with this proposal. An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study has been prepared and will be reviewed by the Commission at the meeting. A draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Due to the projected increase in the amount of automobile traffic on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way and in the immediate area of the project site, a traffic study has been prepared, which recommends various traffic control measures on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way to mitigate the potential increase in traffic associated with site development. Members of the public may view this document in the Department of Planning and Building, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the hearing described in this notice. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the Planning Commission hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested parties to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Steve Hayes,Department of Planning and Building,(760)323- 8245. PLANNING COMMISSION Douglas R. E ans Director of Planning and Building Publish: April 6, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CASE NO. 5.0827 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 259) AN APPLICATION BY LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A PROPOSED INTEGRATED, SINGLE-PHASED SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OFA 57,342 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET, A 14,884 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE WITH DRIVE-THROUGH PHARMACY, TWO QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANT PADS CONSISTING OF 3,589 AND 2,465 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY, AND VARIOUS RETAIL SHOP SPACE CONSISTING OF26,220 SQUARE FEET AND THE SUBDIVISION OF THE 9.9 GROSS ACRE/8.29 NET ACRE SITE INTO NINE (9) PARCELS, RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.13 ACRES TO 2.82 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND SUNRISE WAY, C-1 ZONE, SECTION 14. WHEREAS, Lundin Development Company (the "Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, Case No. 5.0827 (Preliminary Planned Development District No. 259) and pursuant to Section 9.60 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 for the development of an integrated, single-phased neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of a 57,342 square foot Ralph's Supermarket, a 14,884 square foot drug store with drive- through pharmacy, two quick service restaurants with drive-through lanes (a 3,589 square foot Carl's Jr. and a 2,465 square foot speculative pad restaurant), various retail shop space of approximately 26,220 square feet and the subdivision of the 9.9 gross acre site (8.29 net acres after dedication) into nine parcels ranging in size from 0.13 acres to 2.82 acres located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, C-1 Zone, Section 14, and; WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Applicant's application for Preliminary Planned Development 259 (PD 259) and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 were given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2000, and continued to June 14, 2000, July 5, 2000 and August 9, 2000, a public hearing on the application for PD 259 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, pursuantto Government Code Section 66412.3,the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 29638, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources;the approval of the proposed Subdivision represents the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its public hearing on August 9, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project 3-2 (2 abstentions)to the City Council subject to the conditions contained in Resolution No. 4705 ; and A0. ,6• L !4 1ko WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider Applicant's application for Preliminary Planned Development 259 (PD 259) and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 were given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2000 and continued to September 6, 2000, a public hearing on the application for PD 259 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its public hearing on September 6, 2000, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial without Prejudice for consideration of the City Council at their September 20, 2000 meeting; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2000, the Resolution of Denial without Prejudice was considered by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the City Council has considered the effect of the proposed Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 29638, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources;the approval of the proposed Subdivision represents the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the proposed project (PD 259 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638), is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and an Initial Study has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project and the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the initial study, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds as follows: The Initial Study has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA procedures contained in the City's CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission has previously reviewed and considered and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and finds that it adequately discusses the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project, which includes mitigation measures for traffic and circulation such as,the payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund (TUMF) fees upon issuance of building permits, infrastructure improvements along the project frontage (Ramon Road and Sunrise Way), mitigation measures for land use and planning and noise such as, limitations on the hours of large truck deliveries for the supermarket and the installation of six or eight-foot tall walls along appropriate portions of shared property lines with adjacent residential development, mitigation measures for water such as raising building pads one-foot above natural grade, mitigation measures for air quality, both during construction and associated long-term impacts and historic preservation and that, on the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process, there is no substantial evidence that there will be any significant adverse environmental effects as a result of this project. However, pursuant to Section 15270 of CEQA, the City Council finds that CEQA does not apply to projects which are denied and that no further environmental action is required for projects which are denied. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance,the City Council finds that: a. The proposed Planned Development District is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. However, the proposed site plan and architecture is not adequate as described below. The proposed Planned Development District would allow for a neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of a 57,342 square foot Ralph's Supermarket, a 14,884 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy, two quick service restaurants with drive-through lanes (a 3,589 square foot Carl's Jr. and a 2,465 square foot speculative pad restaurant), and various retail shop space of approximately 26,220 square feet. The application, as proposed, is permitted pursuant to Section 9403.00 (Planned Development District), which requires consideration and approval of a Preliminary Planned Development application by the Planning Commission and City Council. The subject property is designated as "NCC" (Neighborhood Convenience Center) on the City's General Plan Land Use Map and "C-1"(Central Retail Business Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map. The site has frontage along Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, both of which are designated as scenic corridors in the City's General Plan. The General Plan serves as a long-term guideline for the development of the community and is required for each city in California, pursuant to the California Government Code. The Neighborhood Convenience Center General Plan designation is primarily intended to provide for an opportunity for convenience commercial uses to be oriented directly to the residential neighborhoods they need by means of a planned commercial complex, serve as an integrated element of the neighborhood and to promote a harmonious relationship between convenience services and the residential environment through compatibility of site design and architectural treatment of structures. Commercial/retail shopping centers that serve both residents and visitors is specified as a recommended land use pursuant to the Neighborhood Convenience Center designation in the General Plan, provided these centers can create a harmonious relationship with surrounding residential development as specified above. The City Council finds that the proposed land uses and redevelopment of the subject site are consistent with the General Plan. Pursuant to the Shopping Centers Subsection of the City's General Plan, shopping centers are to be developed as a unit, in an orderly fashion, with an organized arrangement of stores, parking and service, at such time and to such size as is warranted by population and supportable by available purchasing power. The proposed project includes two primary buildings, one (supermarket) in the westernmost portion of the property and one (drug store) near the intersection of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way. Additionally, the project contemplates the development of two additional Shops buildings (one along the north property line and the other attached to the south side of the supermarket) and three additional pad buildings, primarily located adjacent to the two project street frontages adjacent to vehicular ingress/egress points. The proposed building density, size and organization of the proposed site plan leads to a parking space deficiency in relation to that required per the City's Zoning Code, with minimal parking in areas that would directly benefit and serve many future retailers, such as those within the Shops 2 building and Retail Pad A. Additionally,with the proposed building density and resulting building organization as described above, a non-desirable pedestrian circulation pattern for patrons who would walk to this neighborhood convenience center would be created, as the primary paths of pedestrian travel would require the crossing of many drive aisles to reach any on-site destination, all of which is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan. Within the Neighborhood Convenience Center General Plan Land Use designation, site plan design which encourages the use of neighborhood centers by pedestrians of the immediate neighborhoods (i.e. a pedestrian "friendly" design) is strongly recommended, as these Neighborhood Centers provide services to a significant number of residents and tourists and tend to be located close to medium or high density population bases. Also, the vehicular circulation pattern found on the proposed site plan is not orderly, as one-way drive aisles would restrict and complicate vehicular movements throughout the main field of parking east of the supermarket and a series of dead ends would be derived throughout the project, which would lead to an awkward circulation pattern for large delivery vehicles. Finally, the building orientation and organization causes visibility of many loading, storage and trash areas, especially the drug store facility, as the main loading area and rear elevations of the building faces the primary field of parking for the supermarket. Pursuant to the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan, all Major Thoroughfares (including Ramon Road and Sunrise Way) are designated Scenic Corridors, where the highest level of design quality is expected for all new development within the community. These corridors have been established because of their physical orientation relative to the San Jacinto Mountains or other important natural features, the design precedent that has been established and/or their importance as a vehicular "link" in the City's transportation network. With the scenic corridor designation, special design features, such as upgraded landscaping, a high quality building design, and appropriate ratio of building area to site area and upgrades to the pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities are required. The physical design of existing buildings and sites along scenic corridors throughout the community predominately and consistently suggest that of a high quality visual environment, through the development of buildings with architectural individuality and uniqueness, upgraded on-site landscaping along public streets and interior to each property, attractively landscaped median islands, a recognition of the importance of pedestrian friendliness to, from and within neighborhood convenience centers and an appropriate balance of building area to site development area. The proposed project is designed in a Mediterranean architectural character typical many shopping centers found throughout the Southern California region and beyond. The project does not possess a high degree of architectural individuality and uniqueness, as is typically found along Major Thoroughfares in the community, or required of new development proposals within the community, and is therefore contrary to on-site development strategies specified in the General Plan. b. The said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zones in which the proposed use is to be located. The proposed Preliminary Planned Development District application for a single- phased, neighborhood convenience center, consisting of a 57,342 square foot Ralph's Supermarket, a 14,884 square foot drug store with drive-through pharmacy,two quick service restaurants with drive-through lanes (a 3,589 square foot Carl's Jr. and a 2,465 square foot speculative pad restaurant), and various retail shop space of approximately 26,220 square feet would provide retail services geared toward both residents and tourists of the community, consistent with the objectives of the Neighborhood Convenience Center component of the General Plan and the zone in which the site is located (i.e. the site is zoned "C-1 Central Retail Business Zone). Although the use is necessary and desirable for reasons stated in Section 2a above, the site and architectural design of the proposed neighborhood shopping center is not in harmony with the various applicable site design and building design elements or objectives of the General Plan. C. The design or improvements of the proposed planned development are not consistent with the General Plan (i.e.The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development contemplated by the proposed planned development and the overall project design is not consistent with community design standards). As stated earlier, pursuant to the Shopping Centers Subsection of the City's General Plan, shopping centers are to be developed as a unit, in an orderly fashion, with an organized arrangement of stores, parking and service, at such time and to such size as is warranted by population and supportable by available purchasing power. The proposed project includes two primary buildings, one (supermarket) in the westernmost portion of the property and one (drug store) near the intersection of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way. Additionally, the project contemplates the development of two additional Shops buildings (one along the north property line and the other attached to the south side of the supermarket) and three additional pad buildings, primarily located adjacent to the two project street frontages adjacent to vehicular ingress/egress points. The proposed building density, size and organization of the proposed site plan leads to a parking space deficiency in relation to that required per the City's Zoning Code, with minimal parking in areas that would directly benefit and serve many future retailers, such as those within the Shops 2 building and Retail Pad A. Additionally,with the proposed building density and resulting building organization as described above, a non-desirable pedestrian circulation pattern for patrons who would walk to this neighborhood convenience center would be created, as the primary paths of pedestrian travel would require the crossing of many drive aisles to reach any on-site destination, all of which is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan. Within the Neighborhood Convenience Center General Plan Land Use designation, site plan design which encourages the use of neighborhood centers by pedestrians of the immediate neighborhoods (i.e. a pedestrian "friendly" design) is strongly recommended, as these Neighborhood Centers provide services to a significant number of residents and tourists and tend to be located close to medium or high density population bases. Also, the vehicular circulation pattern found on the proposed site plan is not orderly, as one-way drive aisles would restrict and complicate vehicular movements throughout the main field of parking east of the supermarket and a series of dead ends would be derived throughout the project, which would lead to an awkward circulation pattern for large delivery vehicles. Finally, the building orientation and organization would augment the on-site visibility of many loading, storage and trash areas, especially the drug store facility, as the main loading area and rear elevations of the building faces the primary field of parking for the supermarket. The physical design of existing buildings and sites along scenic corridors throughout the community predominately and consistently suggest that of a high quality visual environment, through the development of buildings with architectural individuality and uniqueness, upgraded on-site landscaping along public streets and interior to each property, attractively landscaped median islands, a recognition of the importance of pedestrian friendliness to, from and within neighborhood convenience centers and an appropriate balance of building area to site development area. The proposed project is designed in a Mediterranean architectural character typical many shopping centers found throughout the Southern California region and beyond. The project does not possess a high degree of architectural individuality and uniqueness, as is typically found along Major Thoroughfares in the community or required of new development proposals within the community, and is therefore contrary to on-site development strategies specified in the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, the City Council does not consider preservation of the existing buildings on the property in the desirable or in the best interest of the continued development of the community, believes the rehabilitation and expansion of this center is needed but believes that the site design is inadequate and the architectural elevations insufficient. The City Council is willing to reconsider its action if the project is redesigned to address the concerns raised herein, including the density of development, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, trash areas, architectural creativity, orientation of buildings to each other, massing and similar issues, and, based upon the foregoing, hereby denies without prejudice Case No. 5.0827 (Planned Development District No. 259). ADOPTED this day of 12000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA City Clerk City Manager REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: