HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-19 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALM DESERT
REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2020 – 6:00 P.M.
ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Any person wishing to discuss any item not appearing on the agenda may address
the Planning Commission via the Zoom session at this point by giving his/her name
and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three (3)
minutes unless the Planning Commission authorizes additional time. Because the
Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the
Agenda, members will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond
or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning
Commission meeting.
Options for Public Participation:
• Public comment may be received by email or voicemail from the time the
agenda is posted up until one (1) hour prior to the posted time of meeting
convening (5:00 p.m.). Emails will be distributed for the record prior to the
meeting. If the sender so requests, the email will be read into the record during
the virtual meeting. Emails shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes.
Email: planning@cityofpalmdesert.org
In consideration of the current Coronavirus/COVID-19 Pandemic and
pursuant to California Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders, Planning
Commissioners may participate via teleconference.
AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 19, 2020
2
• Voicemails will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at or near the time
they are received. If the sender requests, they may also be saved and played
at the appropriate point in the live meeting. Voicemails shall be limited to a
maximum of three (3) minutes.
Voicemail: (760) 776-6409
• Via Zoom/teleconference: Webinar ID 898 6970 1684 or by phone dial 1 (669)
219-2599. A password will be required to join the Zoom meeting, please email
moreilly@cityofpalmdesert.org to request the password prior to meeting
convening (until 5:00 p.m.).
Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the
agenda, including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in
the office of the Department of Community Development and are available for
public inspection on the City’s website: cityofpalmdesert.org.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE
ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE
NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION
AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII, CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE
AGENDA.
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 2020.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Action:
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application
for a lot line adjustment at 131 Navtem Place (APNs 771-310-002 and 771-280-
065). Case No. PMW 19-0006 (Steven J. Van, Corona, California, Applicant).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 19-0006.
Action:
C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a one-year time extension for
Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit 16-394 for The Sands multi-family housing
development on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue.
Case No. PP/CUP 16-394 (MSA Consulting, Inc., Rancho Mirage, California,
Applicant).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension, until April 26, 2021.
Action:
AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 19, 2020
3
D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a one-year time extension for
Tentative Tract Map 36342 for the subdivision of 22+ acres into 96 units consisting
of 84 cluster units, 64 attached units, 48 single-family homes, and a private
recreation facility development located on the northwest corner of University Park
Drive and College Drive. Case No. TPM 36342 (WSI Mojave Investments, LLC,
c/o: Mike Byer, Irvine, California, Applicant).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension, until May 21, 2021.
Action:
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
None
IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only
those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless the Planning
Commission authorizes additional time.
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a request for revisions to
building pad elevations for approved Tentative Tract Map 37506 for the subdivision
of approximately 174+ acres of vacant land located south of Gerald Ford Drive, east
of Portola Avenue, and west of Cook Street. Case No. TTM 37056 Amendment
No. 1 (University Park Investors, LLC, Pleasanton, California, Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
2774, approving Case No. TTM 37056 Amendment No. 1 for revisions to
the building pad elevations.
Action:
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a request by West Coast
Cannabis Club to amend Condition of Approval No. 5 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2742, limiting retail business hours to 5:00 p.m. for the cannabis
retail component of their operations located at 42-650 Melanie Place. Case No.
CUP 17-0018 Amendment No. 1 (West Coast Cannabis Club, Cathedral City,
California, Applicant).
AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 19, 2020
4
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
2775, approving Case No. CUP 17-0018 Amendment No. 1 to amend
Condition of Approval No. 5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2742.
Action:
C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to
subdivide a 1.12-acre commercial lot into two parcels at 41-651 Corporate Way,
and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. TPM 37883 (The Altum Group, Inc., Palm Desert,
California, Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
2776, approving Case No. TPM 37883, subject to the conditions of
approval; and adopt a Notice of Exemption.
Action:
XI. MISCELLANEOUS
None
XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
B. PARKS & RECREATION
XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not
less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 15th day of May 2020.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2020 – 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ron Gregory called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner Joseph Pradetto
Commissioner John Greenwood
Commissioner Nancy DeLuna
Vice-Chair Lindsay Holt
Chair Ron Gregory
Also Present:
Craig Hayes, Assistant City Attorney
Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development
Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
Jessica Gonzales, Senior Management Analyst
Christina Canales, Engineering Assistant
Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
Monica O’Reilly, Management Specialist II
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice-Chair Lindsay Holt led the Pledge of Allegiance.
IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
None
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 2020
2
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 3, 2019.
Rec: Approve as presented.
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a
lot line adjustment at 125 Suuwat Way (APNs 771-260-044 and 771-280-068). Case
No. PMW 19-0004 (Evergreen Capital Trust, Sumner, Washington, Applicant).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 19-0004.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Pradetto, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and
a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented
(AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None;
ABSTAINED: Holt).
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. SELECTION of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, nominate and appoint Vice-Chair
Holt to Chair. The motion was seconded by Commission Greenwood and carried by a 5-0
vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT:
None).
Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, nominate and appoint
Commissioner Greenwood to Vice-Chair. The motion was seconded by Commission Pradetto
and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES:
None; ABSENT: None).
B. SELECTION of Commission Liaisons for Art in Public Places and Parks and
Recreation Commissions.
Commissioner Gregory moved to, by Minute Motion, reappoint Chair Holt to the Art in
Public Places Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried
by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None;
ABSENT: None).
Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, reappoint Vice-Chair Greenwood
to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The motion was seconded by Commission Gregory
and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES:
None; ABSENT: None).
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 2020
3
IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a recommendation to the City
Council for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Palm Desert Municipal Code
Section 25.32.030 “Accessory Dwelling Units,” Section 25.10.030, Section 25.18.040,
and Section 25.99.020 to comply with recently enacted State legislation pertaining to
accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Case No. ZOA 20-0001
(City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Commissioner Nancy DeLuna recused herself from Public Hearing Items A and B. The
Zoning Ordinance Amendments could affect her employer, who is a multi-family housing
developer.
Assistant Planner Nick Melloni presented the staff report (staff report(s) are available at
www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He noted that staff posted a public hearing notice in The
Desert Sun, and did not receive any comments. He recommended approval of the
resolution.
In terms of the architectural review process, Vice-Chair John Greenwood asked how the
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legislation affects lot coverage and setbacks in comparison
to primary residences.
Mr. Melloni stated that State legislation prohibits cities from imposing a minimum lot
standard. Apart from that, the City can apply all other applicable development standards.
Except in the case where an ADU is detached less than 800 total square feet, has a
maximum height of 16 feet, and a minimum of a four-foot setback from the side and rear
of the property.
Vice-Chair Greenwood clarified if an owner has an ADU under the 800 square-foot
requirement, the owner can be within four feet of the property line.
Mr. Melloni replied that is correct. He mentioned that staff added design guidelines to
address an ADU that is less than 800 square feet and the minimum four-foot setback.
Commissioner Gregory inquired if the setback would influence future development in the
City. For example, if a developer wishes to build multiple residential units, would the
developer be able to go for the four-foot setback instead of the City’s greater setback in
anticipation of building an ADU.
In general, Mr. Melloni replied no. He explained that any new development would need to
conform to the established minimum setback standards. If the developer is proposing an
ADU along with a single-family home, the developer has that option as long as they are
in conformance with the State.
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 2020
4
If someone wishes to build an ADU on a lot with an existing home and understands the
City’s requirement that the architecture must match the existing home and the ADU cannot
exceed the existing architecture, Commissioner Gregory asked if the City would have the
same prerogative concerning code enforcement or building inspections.
Mr. Melloni replied yes.
Vice-Chair Greenwood inquired where other cities in the Coachella Valley are, concerning
conform ance with State requirements.
Mr. Melloni responded that during his research and looking for what other cities in the
Coachella Valley have done, he did not see other jurisdictions adopt the new ADU laws.
He pointed out that all cities in the State of California are subject to State laws.
Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Melloni to walk the Planning Commission through the
first bullet point on page two of the staff report.
Mr. Melloni communicated that a one-bedroom or a studio could have a maximum area
of 850 square feet. For a multi-bedroom, the maximum area is 1,000 square feet.
Commissioner Gregory asked what would happen if someone wanted to build a larger
ADU on a large lot.
Based on the ordinance, Mr. Melloni stated that the developer is not allowed to build a
large ADU; however, the developer would be subject to other development standards.
Commissioner Gregory commented that it seems like a great opportunity for people to
game the system. He wondered about loopholes that the new provisions are creating and
how the City would deal with someone taking advantage of the State laws.
Mr. Melloni stated that with an approval of an ADU, the City requires the applicant to
record a declaration of restrictive covenants, which states what is within the ADU.
Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell added that Commissioner Gregory is
right to wonder what kind of loopholes the new laws may create. However, the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) is an attempt to preserve control of what the City may have
with design and architecture. He believed many cities are burying their heads in the sand
or dealing with the new laws in a similar way as Palm Desert. He stated that the approach
the governor is taking does not fit all cities.
Chair Holt clarified that State law allows for one ADU and one junior accessory dwelling
unit (JADU), not two ADUs.
Mr. Melloni replied that is correct.
Chair Holt asked if the ordinance would require property owners to meet the minimum or
maximum lot coverage restrictions, and they would only be able to build up to what would
be allowed on the property.
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 2020
5
Mr. Melloni replied that is correct.
Chair Holt clarified that there is no requirement for parking for JADUs, but there is a
parking requirement for the ADUs unless it is within a half-mile walking distance of public
transit.
Mr. Melloni replied that is correct.
Chair Holt inquired if sprinklers are required for new construction.
Mr. Melloni replied yes.
Chair Holt pointed out a grammatical error under Item F, 1B in the Planning Commission
Resolution. Delete “is” after the word dwelling.
Commissioner Gregory also pointed out that the wording on page two under Item G of the
Planning Commission Resolution needed to be changed. He referred to Item B of the
Landscape Requirements. He asked if Item B was the City’s recommendation.
Mr. Melloni responded that legal counsel provided the landscape requirement.
If the setback is four feet, Commissioner Joseph Pradetto inquired if the landscaping
would have to be crammed within the four-foot setback and between the neighbors.
Mr. Stendell responded that a four-foot setback is an appropriate landscape area for some
landscaping. He said staff could review landscaping on an as-needed basis. He noted
that the landscape requirement is a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning
Commission could request to have staff look at the landscape requirements and have the
requirements augmented prior to presenting the ZOA to the Council.
Commissioner Pradetto understood and summarized that the State is struggling on how
to deal with homelessness and affordability of housing, which is the impetus for these new
State laws and the idea to create new housing stock. He stated that the new laws
invalidate the City’s current ordinance on ADUs. Therefore, now until the City Council
approves the ZOA, the City is under the jurisdiction of the State’s law, which is almost
completely unregulated in terms of design standards—aside from health and safety
concerns. He asked if that is correct so far.
Mr. Melloni replied yes.
Commissioner Pradetto continued that City staff has determined something needs to be
in place, and there is a model ordinance from Best Best & Krieger (BBK). He asked how
the proposed ordinance amendment differs from the model ordinance, and how staff
incorporated their concerns into the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Melloni responded that one concern was height. He explained that in the R-1 (Single-
Family Residential) zone has a maximum height of 15 feet. However, the State law
maximum height requirement is 16 feet. He said staff implemented design standards that
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 2020
6
assist with Section 8. Additionally, staff addressed the concern with ADUs and JADUs in
the HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) zone.
Commissioner Pradetto asked if staff had any other concerns related to the ordinance.
Mr. Melloni replied no.
Commissioner Pradetto believed that in terms of loopholes, the governor is saying the
City’s loopholes are his solution. He said from the State’s perspective, they are not
loopholes it is their intent. Looking at the ordinance as a whole, he liked the architectural
requirements and dealing with health and safety. He believed there would be some
adjusting throughout the State; however, Palm Desert may not need to rush to build
ADUs/JADUs like in other areas. He commented that Palm Desert could learn from other
cities’ mistakes over time.
Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or
OPPOSING this matter.
With further testimony offered, Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed.
Vice-Chair Greenwood stated that Commissioner Pradetto’s comments were accurate.
Vice-Chair Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2771, recommending approval of Case No. ZOA 20-0004 to the
City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by a 4-0 vote
(AYES: Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: DeLuna).
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to adopt resolutions recommending approval to
the City Council to amend the Palm Desert Municipal Code and replace Section
25.28.030 “Medium/High-Density Housing Overlay District” in its entirety with a new
“Housing Overlay District,” and apply said overlay district to parcels identified in the
City’s Housing Element and parcels owned by the Housing Authority. Case No. ZOA
19-0004 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Principal Planner Eric Ceja outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended
approval to the City Council. He offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Gregory commented that in the past couple of years, staff presented
housing projects to the Planning Commission. He asked if a project like The Sands would
be more likely to move forward with the Housing Overlay District (HOD).
Mr. Ceja responded that The Sands is not a good example. He said that The Sands
property has an affordable housing component for the past 30 years. He pointed out that
a better example is Parcel G. It is a project that the Planning Commission has
recommended approval to the City Council; however, City staff were not able to take it to
the Council because staff is still negotiating the affordable housing component for that
site. If the City Council approves the ZOA, he stated the City would apply the HOD to
Parcel G.
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 2020
7
Mr. Stendell added that this request came from a Councilmember. The
Councilmember felt that the City was being consistent in being inconsistent with
negotiating affordable units. Therefore, the intent was to create something that would
be fair, have an incentive base, and help speed up the development of affordable
units.
Vice-Chair Greenwood inquired if there is any support from utility companies to assist
with fees to develop a low-income housing project.
Mr. Ceja replied no. However, utility companies have other programs in place. For
example, Southern California Edison can cap utility rates or help with utility
improvements on properties. He stated that school districts do not waive fees for
affordable housing projects. He mentioned that the highest fee developers have to pay
in the Coachella Valley is the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, which the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) established and manages.
CVAG created an exception for affordable housing projects.
Mr. Stendell mentioned that the Housing Division was incorporated into the
Community Development Department in July 2019, and introduced Senior
Management Analyst Jessica Gonzales.
For new construction, Ms. Gonzales noted that utility companies are establishing new
programs that would facilitate some options for affordable housing projects.
Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or
OPPOSING this matter.
With no testimony offered, Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Gregory moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 2772 and 2773, recommending approval of Case No. ZOA 19-
0004 to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried
by a 4-0 vote (AYES: Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT:
DeLuna).
XI. MISCELLANEOUS
None
XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
None
B. PARKS & RECREATION
Vice-Chair Greenwood reported that there was an election of officers, and the
Commission discussed a community service award program.
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 2020
8
XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
Commissioner Pradetto asked if the Planning Commission staff reports are available on
the City’s website.
Mr. Stendell replied yes.
Commissioner Pradetto requested an email with the link to the agenda when it is
complete.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Holt adjourned the meeting at 6:54
p.m.
LINDSAY HOLT, CHAIR
ATTEST:
RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY
MONICA O’REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: RYAN STENDELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
From: CHRISTINA CANALES, ENGINEERING ASSISTANT
Date: May 4, 2020
Subject: PARCEL MAP WAIVER NO. 19-0006
The above-referenced parcel map waiver has been reviewed by the Engineering
Division of the Public Works Department and found to be technically correct. Please
schedule for Planning Commission action as soon as possible.
PMW 19-0006: Applicant/Representative:
Steven J. Van
7930 Summer Day Drive
Corona, CA 92883
Property Owner:
Winchester Properties, LLC
Robb Henderson
879 Gladiola Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
----------------------------------------
Christina Canales
Engineering Assistant
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2020
PREPARED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
REQUEST: Consideration of a request to approve a one-year time extension for Precise
Plan and Conditional Use Permit 16-394 for The Sands multi-family housing
development on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola
Avenue.
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension for Precise Plan/Conditional
Use Permit (PP/CUP) 16-394, until April 26, 2021.
Property Description
On April 26, 2018, the City Council approved a density bonus for The Sands, a multi-family
housing development on a vacant 17+ acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East
and east of Portola Avenue. The project consists of approximately 388 apartments, clubhouse
and recreational amenities, and a mix of two-, and three-story buildings. Per the City’s Municipal
Code, development entitlements are valid for a period of two (2) years, and the Planning
Commission can grant extensions of entitlements in one-year increments.
Time Extension
Building plans have been submitted to the City for permitting of the project site; however, in mid-
2019, the original developer, New Cities Investments, filed for bankruptcy. Since then, the lender
for the project, Century Housing, and the project representative, MSA Consulting, have made
formal requests for a one-year time extension from the Planning Commission. Since the filing for
bankruptcy, several affordable housing developers have expressed interest in developing the
project. Because this is a significant project that provides affordable living units in proximity to
schools and job centers, staff is recommending a one-year time extension as allowed by Palm
Desert Municipal Code. If approved, the project approvals will remain in effect until April 26, 2021.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER
N/A
Robert W. Hargreaves
City Attorney
Ryan Stendell
Ryan Stendell
Dir. of Community Development
N/A
Janet Moore
Director of Finance
N/A
Andy Firestine
Assistant City Manager
City Manager, Lauri Aylaian: N/A
APPLICANT: MSA Consulting, Inc.
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
ATTACHMENT: 1. Letter of Time Extension Request
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2020
PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Approval of a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 36342 for
the subdivision of 22+ acres into 196 units consisting of 84 cluster units,
64 attached units, 48 single-family homes, and a private recreation facility
development located on the northwest corner of University Park Drive and
College Drive.
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map (TTM)
36342, until May 21, 2021.
Property Description
On May 3, 2011, the Planning Commission approved Precise Plan 06-05 and TTM 36342 for
196 units consisting of 84 cluster units, 64 attached units, 48 single-family homes, and a private
recreation area. The site has been rough graded; sewer and water lines have been installed.
On August 7, 2013, the Planning Commission ratified an extension granted by AB 116 for
tentative tract and parcel maps approved after January 1, 2000, and unexpired as of July 11,
2013. AB 116 extended TT 36342 until May 3, 2017. Since 2017, the applicant has received
three additional one-year time extensions.
In 2014, the current applicant’s company purchased the property and the entitlements. The
applicant has been in discussion to sell the property to a developer.
University Neighborhood Specific Plan
On January 7, 2017, the City Council approved the University Neighborhood Specific Plan
(UNSP), consisting of approximately 400 acres. The UNSP supersedes the former 2006
University Park Master Plan. The applicant’s property and TTM 36342 falls within the
Neighborhood Medium (NM) Zone. The NM zone is to provide a lively neighborhood
environment, within the range of attached single-family housing and intermixed with single-
family detached housing. The NM zone also discourages large private yards since there are
parks throughout the UNSP. The NM zone also encourages non-gated private developments
and homes facing along streets.
May 19, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. TTM 36342 Time Extension No. 4
Page 2 of 2
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\5-19-20\TTM 36342 Time Extension\PC Staff Report Time Extension 4.docx
The applicant has not changed the original project density or product type, but has made minor
modifications to better comply with the UNSP. The minor modifications are allowed per the
Subdivision Map Act and do not require additional public hearings. The following modifications
have been made in an effort to gain compliance with the UNSP:
• Non-gated community.
• Re-oriented the single-family lots along University Park Drive to be front facing.
• Removal of the perimeter block wall along University Park Drive.
• Relocation of the park area to the front on University Park Drive.
Time Extension
The applicant is discussing selling the property to a developer, and this one-year extension will
allow them to continue to negotiate. Generally, as conditioned, the map conforms to the goals
and policies of the General Plan. The applicant has also modified the existing map to comply
with the vision and goals of the UNSP. Staff is recommending a one-year time extension as
allowed by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.20.140 “Extensions of Time” and the
Subdivision Map Act. If approved, the map will rem ain in effect until May 21, 2021.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER
N/A
Robert W. Hargreaves
City Attorney
Ryan Stendell
Ryan Stendell
Dir. of Community Development
N/A
Janet Moore
Director of Finance
N/A
Andy Firestine
Assistant City Manager
City Manager, Lauri Aylaian: N/A
APPLICANT: Mike Byer, Vice President
WSI Mojave Investments, LLC
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Time Extension Request
2. Tentative Tract Map 36342
175
175
176176177177178178179179180180
180
180
180180
180181
18
1 182182183183184
18418518 5
18
5
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185186186187
187188188189189190190190190
190190
190190
190
190
190190
190
190
190190190
190191
191
192192
193193
194
194 195
195195
195
195195195195195
195
195
195
195
19 5
196
196
197 197198199199200
200200200200200
200200
200
200
200
200
200
200
201201202 202203
203
203204
204 204205205205205205
205
205205205 205
205205
205 3:13:1
3:1
3:13:1205205205
205
2052052:12:12:12:12:12:12:12:12:12:12:1206206 206207207207207208
208208209209209210210210210210
210210
210
210
210
210
210
210
211
210
210
205
207
215
211215
215
214
213
212
210
210210211
211
211
212
212212212213
213 213214214
215
215215
215215215 21521521521
5215 215215215216
216217
217217218
218218219
219219220
220
220 220220
2
2
0
220
220
220
220
220 220220
2202252
2
5
225
225
225
225 2252
3
0
230
230
230
230 2302
3
5235
235
235
235 235240
240
240
240
245
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT LINE
LOT NUMBER
LOT NUMBER
LOT NUMBER
CONDO UNIT NUMBER
CONDO LOT NUMBER
PI
2%
CLR=300'
BEGIN/END VERTICAL CURVE
POINT OF INTERSECTION
CENTERLINE RADIUS
STREET GRADE
LEGEND
FSFINISHED SURFACE
GBGRADE BREAK
TENTATIVE MAP BOUNDARY
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
EXISTING SEWER LINE
A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
RCE 63285, EXPIRES 6-30-18
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SEWER: CVWD
CABLE TV: TIME WARNER
STORM DRAIN: CITY OF PALM DESERT
CL
AC PAVEMENT
6'
BOC
R/W
6'
12'
24'
BOC
R/W
12'
VICINITY MAP
INDEX MAP
PORTOLA AVENTSPACIFIC AVESITE
FRANK SINATRA DR
GERALD FORD DRIVE
COOK STUNI
VERSI
TY PARK DRTECHNOLOGYDRIVEI
NTERSTATE 10PROPOSED SEWER LINE
PROPOSED WATER LINE
PROPOSED DIP WATER
TYPICAL SECTION
PROPOSED VCP SEWER
SECTION 66456.1 OF THE MAP ACT.
CL
AC PAVEMENT
6'
BOC
R/W
6'
12'
BOC
R/W
8"8"
PROPOSED DIP WATER
TYPICAL SECTION
PROPOSED VCP SEWER
20'
14'
32'
33.33'
25.33'
.67'.67'6'
CL
AC PAVEMENT
TYPICAL SECTION
78'
25'
6'
6' SW 8'
R/W
38'
CURB AND GUTTER
PROPOSED
AC PAVEMENT
25'
6'
8'
38'
CURB AND GUTTER
PROPOSED
TELEPHONE: VERIZON
EXISTING WATER LINE
TENTATIVE TRACT 32655
LOT 8
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
LOT 7
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
LOT 11
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
LOT 13
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
LOT 16
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
LOT 15
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF MARTEN L. ANDERSON.
6' SW
6'
6'
0
SCALE: 1" = 100'
200100100
GENERAL NOTES
ENGINEER/CONTACT PERSON
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
SHEET 1 OF 3
PARK
EXISTING
BASIN
RETENTION
EXISTING
BASIN
RETENTION
EXISTING
WELL SITE
CVWD
EXISTING
OWNER/APPLICANT/DEVELOPER
COLLEGE DRIVE
UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE
STREET "B"STREET "B"STREET "O"STREET "F"
STREET "F"STREET "C"ST. "G"ST. "E"
ST. "D"ST. "I"STREET "M"STREET "Q"STREET "P"ST. "H"ST. "J"ST. "K"ST. "L"ST. "N"ST. "A"NTSNTSNTS
6'8' PARKING
1%4" SDF.S. = +0.8'
F.S. = +1.0'2% MIN.NTS
1%
YARD DRAIN
4" SDRETAINING WALL
EXISTING
OF RETAINING WALL
F.S. = 0.3' BELOW TOP
F.S. = +0.4'
ELEV. = 0.0
BACK OF S/W (HIGH SIDE)
PAD = +0.50'
FF = +1.20'
F.S. = +0.5'BASIN
TO RETENTION
STORM DRAIN 2% MIN.GRATE = +0.4'
YARD DRAIN
PAD = +1.0'
FF = +1.7'
GRATE = 0.0
EMITTER
DRAINAGE 1%PLAN
SLOPE PER
PER PLAN
TOP OF CURB
PLAN
SLOPE PER 1%4" SDGRATE = +0.4'
YARD DRAIN
PAD = +1.0'
FF = +1.7'
PAD = +1.0'
FF = +1.7'
F.S. = +1.0'4" SDGRATE = +0.4'
YARD DRAIN
F.S. = +.70'F.S. = +.70'
1%1%2% MIN.2
% MI
N.
PER PLAN
TOP OF CURB
PLAN
SLOPE PER
SD
PAD = +0.6'
FF = +1.3'
PAD = +0.6'
FF = +1.3'
PAD = +0.6'
FF = +1.3'
F.S. = +0.6'F.S. = +0.6'F.S. = +0.6'
F.S. = +0.0'F.S. = +0.0'F.S. = +0.0'
PLAN
SLOPE PER
GRATE = +0.5' MAX (TYP)
YARD DRAIN
SDSD
EMITTER
DRAINAGE
12% MAX 12% MAX 12% MAX
1. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: R-M/R-HO,05/PP
2. EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT.
3. EXISTING SURROUNDING LAND USE: VACANT
9. THOMAS BROS. MAP: 2005 SAN BERNARDINO/RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, PAGE 839, F-1
10. UTILITY PURVEYORS: WATER: CVWD
13. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS UNDER
17. (FEMA FLOOD ZONE "C": AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING PER FIRM PANEL No. 060245-1625C.)
OR OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY EXCEPT AS NOTED ON MAP.
18. THERE ARE NO EXISTING OR PROPOSED DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, PAVED AREAS,
19. SLOPES TO BE PROTECTED FROM OVERFLOW DRAINAGE.
TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT.
20. PUBLIC UTILITY AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS OVER LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE GRANTED
16. ALL SLOPES ARE 2:1 EXCEPT WHERE NOTED ON PLANS.
AND IS NOT WITHIN A SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE.
12. THIS PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO LIQUEFACTION OR OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
68
FF=203.2PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION
PROPOSED LOT NUMBER
PROPOSED UNIT NUMBER UNIT 47
EMITTER
DRAINAGE
ROLL CURB (TYP)
PROPOSED
ROLL CURB (TYP)
PROPOSED
ROLL CURB (TYP)
PROPOSEDROLL CURB (TYP)
PROPOSED
N.T.S.
INTERIOR STREET PARKING ONE SIDE (STREETS B, C, M, O AND P)
N.T.S.
INTERIOR STREET "NO PARKING" (STREETS F AND Q)
CL
AC PAVEMENT
6'
BOC
R/W
6'
12'
24'
BOC
R/W
12'
PROPOSED DIP WATER
TYPICAL SECTION
PROPOSED VCP SEWER
25.33'
.67'.67'6'6'
ROLL CURB (TYP)
PROPOSED
ROLL CURB (TYP)
PROPOSED
TROUGH 44, OF MAPS RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 34626, AS SHOWN ON FILE IN BOOK 424 PAGES 40
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF PALM DESERT, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IS BASED ON PRIOR DEVELOPMENT ROUGH GRADING.
14. ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY IS CONTROLLED AND PREPARED BY RBF, INC AT 40 SCALE ACCURACY.
GRATE = 0.0
EMITTER
DRAINAGE
8'
8'
4'
4'
5'
5'
5'
5'
5'
5'
4. EXISTING ZONING:
GROSS: 21.36 AC
6. PROJECT ACREAGE:
11. SCHOOL DISTRICT: PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED.
15. THIS TENTATIVE MAP DOES NOT COVER THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDOWNER.
ATTN: STEVE LUDWIG
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
15 ENTERPRISE SUITE 250
HIGHPOINTE COMMUNITIES
GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
130
UNIT 7UNIT 6UNIT 5
515033
1
R/W
7. PROJECT DENSITY:
9.2 DU/AC GROSS
TOTAL
STREET LOTS:
OPEN SPACES:
AAOPEN SPACE LOT
P.U.E.
9.5'
P.U.E.
9.5'
P.U.E.
9.5'
P.U.E.
9.5'
CONDO LOT LINE 130
LOT Nos.
N.T.S.
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE
COLLEGE DRIVE AND
8. LOT SUMMARY:
CONDO LOTS/UNITS:
ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
IS FILED PURSUANT TO THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.
(LOTS 119-129) AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1350 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
21. THIS SUBDIVISION IS A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION (LOTS 1-118) AND A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
CONDOMINIUMS, OPEN SPACE
5. PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED,
TYPICAL CONDOMINIUM PLOTFAMILY ATTACHED PLOT
TYPICAL SINGLE
TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PLOT
LOTS 1 THRU 32
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED:
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED:ST. "R"2 3
AMMENITY
PARK
ST
ATO
F
O
AIIISEEDSS
O
ALE
N
I
EERECALIF RNICVLREGTRPROFEINGNNo. 63285
LLIEN
'O
LRAC DRA
HCIRExp. 6-30-18
RICHARD CARL O'NEILL DATE
N.T.S.
INTERIOR STREET "NO PARKING" (STREETS D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, N AND R)
17
6
PARKING: GARAGES = 394 SPACES PROVIDED
OPEN PARKING: 73 SPACES
AA-FF
A-Q
TOTAL LOTS= 147
49-11264
113-124 12/84
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS= 196
48 1-48
TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PLOT
LOTS 33 THRU 48
22. THE SITE WILL NOT BE GATED.
DATE BY REVISIONS
G:\16376\Civil\16376tm01.dgn PLOT DATE:JN 1637610-FEB-2017 c Rick Engineering Company2017IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
36342
UNIVERSITY PARK
AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
DATE PREPARED : JULY 1, 2011
REVISED: FEBRUARY 10, 2017
175
175
176177178179180
180
1801801
8
1
182183184185
185
185
185
185
185186187188189190190190190
190
190190
190
190190190191
192193194 195195195195195
195
195
195
196
197
198199200200200200200200
200
200
200
201202
203
203
204 205205205205205
205205
205205
2052:12:12:12:12:12:1206 207207208209210210210210210
211
215
214
213
212
210211
211
212
212212213
213
214215
215215
215215215
215215 215216217218219220220
220220
2202252
2
5
225
225230
230
230235
235
235
240
240
173.7174.2174.3174.9
175
175175.5175.5175.6175.7176176.3 176.4176.5
177177.4177.5177.6
178178.7
179179.4
180
180
180180180.4180.6
1
8
1
181.4
182183183.6
184185
185
185
185
185
185186187187.4
188188.5188.6
189189.6189.6189.8190
190190
190
190190190191
191.2
192192.7
193194195
195195
195
195
195
196
197
198199200200200
200
200
200
201202
203
204205205
205
2052:12:12:12:12:12:1206
207208209210210210210211
212213
214215215215215 215216217218219219.5220220
220
220
220.52252
2
5
225
225230
230
230235
235
235
240
240244.9 244.9245.5REMOVE EXISTING WALL
REMOVE EXISTING WALL
FENCE
EXISTING
REMOVE
PROTECT IN PLACE
EXISTING FENCE;
SHEET 2 OF 3
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'SEE SHEET 3NO.DELTA OR BRG.RADIUS LENGTH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N42°50'44"W
N45°54'29"W
N50°35'24"W
N51°35'10"W
D = 40°05'02"
D = 84°00'57"
D = 39°53'45"
N55°37'19"W
N57°38'25"W
N54°01'53"W
N49°49'30"W
N42°16'36"W
N36°22'38"W
N32°15'47"W
N28°47'07"W
N44°22'46"E
D = 34°34'42"
N45°37'17"W
N44°50'12"E
N45°09'48"W
N44°50'12"E
D = 55°15'10"
N72°46'26"W
N39°47'42"E
N37°43'23"E
N37°41'40"E
N36°37'32"E
19.50'
114.25'
19.50'
812.00'
562.00'
55.97'
99.38'
104.21'
309.49'
13.64'
167.53'
13.58'
77.65'
135.54'
98.17'
68.07'
147.73'
80.34'
102.47'
31.32'
544.18'
490.05'
501.07'
141.31'
150.00'
137.58'
541.96'
88.82'
56.73'
83.00'
81.86'
52.51'
BOUNDARY DATA TABLE
1 N42°24'19"W 16.05'
N.T.S.
TYPICAL SECTIOND
2
F.F.=207.9
F.F.=214.3
UNIT 22
07.0
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
UNIT 69
13.6
5'4'10.5
06.5 07.206.8
CL
SWALE2:12%
6'CL
SWALEACCESS TO UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE
UNITS 12-16 WITH FRONT DOOR *NOTE:
DATE BY REVISIONS
G:\16376\Civil\16376tm02.dgn PLOT DATE:JN 1637610-FEB-2017 c Rick Engineering Company2017IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
36342
UNIVERSITY PARK
AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
DATE PREPARED : JULY 1, 2011
REVISED: FEBRUARY 10, 2017
STREET "B"
NOT A PART
EXISTING RETENTION BASIN
NOT A PARTBVCEVC200' VC 93.32 PI
3.0%
2.24%
(189.90 TC)ll
.50%(191.09 TC)192.03 PI340' VCR=6
0
0.
0
0'
76'
38'
38'
24'24'14'
14'3.92%BVC(204.73 T
C)
(209.07 TC)215.56 PI420'
V
C
EVCl
(217.21 TC)
1.0%76'38'38'24'24'14'14'BVCEVCBVC350' VC, 173.16 PI
2.24%
(174.78 TC)
(175.42 TC)76'38'38'24'24'14'14'
l
(182.60 TC)
COLLEGE DRIVE
UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE
NOT A PART
CVWD WELL SITE
UNIT 49
21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16
17
18
19
UNIT 6UNIT 7
UNIT 8 UNIT 9UNIT 10 UNIT 11
UNIT 12UNIT 13UNIT 14UNIT 15UNIT 16
UNIT 17 UNIT 18
UNIT 19
UNIT 20
UNIT 21
UNIT 22
UNIT 23
UNIT 24UNIT 25
UNIT 26
UNIT 27UNIT 28
UNIT 29
UNIT 30UNIT 31UNIT 32UNIT 33
UNIT 34UNIT 35UNIT 36
UNIT 37UNIT 38UNIT 39
UNIT 40 UNIT 41 UNIT 42
UNIT 43UNIT 44UNIT 45
UNIT 46 UNIT 47 UNIT 48
UNIT 50 UNIT 51
UNIT 52 UNIT 53 UNIT 54
UNIT 55UNIT 56UNIT 57
UNIT 58 UNIT 59 UNIT 60
UNIT 61
UNIT 62
UNIT 63 UNIT 64
UNIT 65
UNIT 66 UNIT 67
UNIT 68
UNIT 69 UNIT 70
UNIT 71
UNIT 72 UNIT 73
UNIT 74
UNIT 75 UNIT 76
UNIT 77
UNIT 78
FF=203.0 FF=203.4 FF=203.6 FF=203.8 FF=204.0 FF=204.3 FF=204.7 FF=205.1 FF=205.5 FF=205.9 FF=206.3 FF=206.7 FF=207.1 FF=207.5
FF=207.9 FF=208.3
FF=208.5
FF=208.3
FF=208.0
FF=209.9
FF=209.9
FF=211.8
FF=211.8
FF=213.7
FF=213.7
FF=215.6
FF=215.6
FF=217.5
FF=217.5
FF=219.4 FF=219.3
FF=219.8 FF=219.7
FF=216.6 FF=216.7
FF=217.0
FF=217.1
FF=216.7 FF=216.6
FF=217.0FF=217.1 FF=217.0
FF=214.7
FF=214.3
FF=214.5FF=214.1
FF=214.2FF=213.8
FF=212.4
FF=212.2
FF=211.9
FF=212.0
FF=211.8
FF=211.5
FF=208.4
FF=209.1
FF=209.5FF=209.1
FF=208.7
FF=208.0FF=207.2
FF=207.9
FF=208.3
FF=206.8
FF=207.5
FF=207.9
FF=206.2
FF=206.9
FF=207.3
FF=205.8
FF=206.5
FF=206.9
FF=208.8FF=208.5FF=208.1
FF=209.2FF=208.9FF=208.5
FF=205.9 FF=206.3 FF=206.6
FF=205.5 FF=205.9 FF=206.2
FF=205.0 FF=205.3 FF=205.6FF=203.7FF=203.2FF=202.7
FF=204.5FF=204.1 FF=205.1
FF=204.5 FF=204.9 FF=205.5
FF=206.4 FF=206.8 FF=207.5
FF=206.8 FF=207.2 FF=207.9 TYP.24'TYP.24'TYP.24'TYP.24'TYP.24'TYP.
24'
TYP.
24'
TYP.
24'
TYP.
24'
TYP.
24'
32'
12'
12'
8'TYP.24'32'12'12'8'TYP.18'TYP.18'20'20'
LOT 8
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
TENTATIVE TRACT 32655
LOT 11
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
STREET "F"
STREET "E"
STREET "D"STREET "C"STREET "I"STREET "G"STREET "H"STREET "M"STREET "K"STREET "J"2.74%100' VC
207.21 PI
BVCEVC206.65 FS
206.40 FS
0.87%205.35 FS
1.85%
210.59 FS 212.82 FS 214.56 FS 216.31 FS
100' VC
217.63 PIBVC216.71 FS
217.28 FS
0.75%
218.74 FS216.04 FS
0.75%1%1%2%0.75%
216.04 FSST. "L"32'203.95 FS 204.30 FS 205.00 FS
206.05 FS
216.93 FS
217.44 HP
214.21 FS
212.33 FS210.10 FS
0.55%
0.7%
208.84 FS
208.44 FS
2%EVCB
V
C
209.05 PI50' VC
208.91 HP
3 %2%206.80 FS 2.10%2.10%206.58 FS206.72 FS
207.07 FS
204.18 FS
204.53 FS
204.04 FS1.3%1%0.87%
201.92 FS202.27 FS
0.87%
200.78 FS
PROPOSED SEWERLINE (TYP.)
PROPOSED WATERLINE (TYP.)
188.87 IE
EXISTING SEWER
189.12 IE
CONNECTION POINT
PROPOSED SEWER
BY OTHER
EXISTING SEWER
BY OTHER
EXISTING WATER
PROPOSED SEWERLINE (TYP.)
PROPOSED WATERLINE (TYP.)
1.5%0.75%0.75%1.5%1.5%1.5%
1.5%1.5%2%2%1.5%1.5%2%1.5%1.5%1%1.5%1.27%1.5%1%1.5%TYP.24'45'29'16'
45'
45'45'
32'14'
43'
44'119'115'101'96'103'123'123'119'49'
45'45'45'45'45'45'32'
45'6'39'
40'29'16'45'21'24'16'109'91'90'90'92'95'103'115'111'107'53'
15'99'18'
13'25'
46'45'45'45'45'45'
45'45'45'45'45'45'45'37'6'14'
4'
RETAINING WALL
EXISTING
RETAINING WALL
EXISTING
WALL (TYP.)
RETAINING
WALL (TYP.)
RETAINING
RETAINING WALL
EXISTING
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
192021222
3
24 25262728D2PE=202.3 PE=202.7 PE=202.9 PE=203.1 PE=203.3 PE=203.6 PE=204.0 PE=204.4 PE=204.8 PE=205.2 PE=205.6 PE=206.0 PE=206.4 PE=206.8
PE=207.2
PE=207.3
PE=207.6
PE=207.8
PE=207.6
PE=218.7 PE=218.6PE=215.9 PE=216.0PE=215.9PE=216.0
PE=216.4 PE=216.3 PE=216.3 PE=216.3
PE=216.4 PE=219.1 PE=219.0
PE=209.2
PE=209.2
PE=211.1
PE=211.1
PE=213.0
PE=213.0
PE=214.9
PE=214.9
PE=216.8
PE=216.8
RETAINING WALL (TYP.)
PE=207.7PE=207.3PE=206.5
PE=207.2 PE=208.0 PE=208.4
PE=208.8PE=208.4
PE=207.6
PE=206.1PE=205.5
PE=206.2 PE=206.8
PE=207.2
PE=206.6
PE=214.0
PE=213.8PE=213.4
PE=213.6
PE=213.5PE=213.1
PE=211.7PE=211.3
PE=211.5PE=211.1
PE=211.2PE=210.8
PE=205.8
PE=206.2
PE=204.1
PE=204.9PE=204.6PE=204.3
PE=205.5PE=205.2PE=204.8
PE=205.5 PE=205.9 PE=205.9
PE=208.1PE=207.8PE=207.4
PE=207.8 PE=208.2 PE=208.5
PE=202.0 PE=202.5 PE=203.0
PE=203.4 PE=203.8 PE=204.4
PE=203.8 PE=204.2 PE=204.8
PE=205.7 PE=206.1 PE=206.8
PE=206.1 PE=206.5 PE=207.2
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
AA
BB
UNIT 117
FF=216.9
FF=216.5
FF=216.7FF=216.3
FF=216.4FF=216.0
TYP.
24'
1.5%0.75%PE=216.2
PE=216.0PE=215.6
PE=215.8
PE=215.7PE=215.3
124
STREET "R"UNIT 118
UNIT 119 UNIT 114
UNIT 115
UNIT 116
214.57 FS215.06 FS
PARK AMENITY
114
115116
117118
119
120
121 122 123152'23'28'23'29'65'25'183'25'65'
9'68'30'10'74'35'88'
88'35'35'88'35'88'
88'35'35'88'
88'35'35'88'
88'14'48'57'
121'
34'23'111'25'111'23'34'154'34'148'28'16'3'22'
25'124'19'4'15'27'152'130'153'56'6'21'138'25'128'23'4'4'16'48'124'121'24'34'23'111'25'111'23'34'154'130'152'34'23'111'25'111'23'12'48'121'
122'47'68'111'25'111'23'34'156'34'23'111'25'111'23'66'47'129'13'18'25'83'57'21'2'74'38'12'23'111'25'111'23'33'29'89'
223'
62'3'20'11'265'
174'146'21'16'4'10'22'123'25'121'23'33'164'148'93'23'23'92'149'240'147'25'65'
90'23' 4' 126'33'23'23'13'111'111'25'
175
176177178179180180
180
180
181
182183184
1851 8 5185185
185
185
186187
188189190190
190190
190
190
190
190
191
192
193
194 195
195195
195
195
195
19 5
196
197199200200
200
200
200
200
201202203204
204205205205
205
205205 205 3:13:1
3:1
3:13:12052052:12:12:12:12:12:1206206207207208
208209209210210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
205
207
215
211215
210210211
212213214215215215215215
215215216217
217218
218219
219219220
2
2
0
220 220
220
220
220 220220
220
225
225 225230
230 230235
235 235240
240
245
174.3174.9175175.5175.5175.6
176176.4176.4176.7
177177.3177.4177.4177.5177.5177.5177.7178178.1178.3178.4178.4178.5178.5178.6178.7178.9179179.3179.5179.5179.6179.6179.6179.9180180
180
180 180.4180.4180.5180.5180.5180.5180.6181181.1181.1181.2181.2181.2181.2181.5181.6181.6181.7181.7182182.3182.5182.6182.6182.7182.7182.8
183183.4183.5184184.5
184.6184.6184.7184.7184.7184.8184.8185
1 8 5185185
185
185
185.1185.2185.4185.4186187187.5187.5187.7187.9188188.2188.2188.3189189.2189.4189.6
190190
190190
190
190
190
190
190.1190.1190.3
191
192
193 193.2193.3
194 194.5
195
195195
195
195
195
19 5
196 196.5
197197.6197.7197.8197.9198.2198.3198.3198.4198.4198.4198.5198.6198.8198.9199
199.1199.2199.4199.5
200200
200
200
200
200
200.5200.8
201202203
2043:13:1
3:1
3:13:12052052:12:12:12:12:12:1206207
208209210210211
212212.5
213214
214
214.5
215215216
217218219219219.5
220
220
220 220220
220
220.5
225
225 225230
230 230235
235 235236.7
240
240244.9245245.5REMOVE EXISTING WALL
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
REMOVE EXISTING WALL
SHEET 3 OF 3
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'SEE SHEET 2F.F.=215.7
BLDG. 72
15.014.9
16.5
14.5
16.2
2'IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
F.F.=213.0
F.F.=211.3
BLDG. 77
BLDG. 76
12.312.2
10.610.52.5'12.5
10.0 RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED F.F.=213.0
F.F.=214.7
BLDG. 89
BLDG. 76
CL
SWALECL
SWALE2:1
2' BENCH
2% MIN.
2%GROUND
PROPOSED
2% MIN.
NO.DELTA OR BRG.RADIUS LENGTH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N42°50'44"W
N45°54'29"W
N50°35'24"W
N51°35'10"W
D = 40°05'02"
D = 84°00'57"
D = 39°53'45"
N55°37'19"W
N57°38'25"W
N54°01'53"W
N49°49'30"W
N42°16'36"W
N36°22'38"W
N32°15'47"W
N28°47'07"W
N44°22'46"E
D = 34°34'42"
N45°37'17"W
N44°50'12"E
N45°09'48"W
N44°50'12"E
D = 55°15'10"
N72°46'26"W
N39°47'42"E
N37°43'23"E
N37°41'40"E
N36°37'32"E
19.50'
114.25'
19.50'
812.00'
562.00'
55.97'
99.38'
104.21'
309.49'
13.64'
167.53'
13.58'
77.65'
135.54'
98.17'
68.07'
147.73'
80.34'
102.47'
31.32'
544.18'
490.05'
501.07'
141.31'
150.00'
137.58'
541.96'
88.82'
56.73'
83.00'
81.86'
52.51'
BOUNDARY DATA TABLE
1 N42°24'19"W 16.05'
N.T.S.
TYPICAL SECTIONA
3 N.T.S.
TYPICAL SECTIONB
3 N.T.S.
TYPICAL SECTIONC
3
DOOR ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE
UNITS 3-7 AND 42-46 WITH FRONT *NOTE:
DATE BY REVISIONS
G:\16376\Civil\16376tm03.dgn PLOT DATE:JN 1637610-FEB-2017 c Rick Engineering Company2017IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
36342
UNIVERSITY PARK
AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
DATE PREPARED : JULY 1, 2011
REVISED: FEBRUARY 10, 2017
STREET "B"
NOT A PART
EXISTING PARK
NOT A PART
EXISTING RETENTION BASIN
NOT A PART
222.56 PI
410 VCBVC 220.39 LIP
l
(221.13 TC)
(220.06 TC)EVC1.91%
R=850'BVCE
V
C
3.20%
l(206.90 TC)
213.20 PI200' VC
BVC
EVC(220.38 TC)
E V C
1.0
%B V C
EVC
201.77 PI300' VC.18%
l
l(198.72 TC)197.57 PI
320' VCBVC3.41%BVCEVC1
8
3
.9
5
P
I2
0
0' VC
1.44%EVC1.44%
l
(177.56 TC)
COLLEGE DRIVE
UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
3132
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
444546
47
UNIT 2
UNIT 1
UNIT 3UNIT 4UNIT 5UNIT 6UNIT 7
UNIT 8 UNIT 9UNIT 11
UNIT 12
48
FF=208.3
FF=208.5
FF=208.3
FF=208.0
FF=207.7
FF=207.4
FF=207.1
FF=206.8 FF=206.6 FF=206.1FF=206.3 FF=205.8 FF=205.5 FF=205.3 FF=205.1
FF=205.3FF=205.7
FF=206.5
FF=207.6
FF=208.5
FF=209.6
FF=210.4
FF=211.4
FF=212.3
FF=213.3
FF=214.4
FF=214.6
FF=215.2
FF=215.6
FF=216.1FF=216.6
FF=215.2 FF=213.9
FF=214.3 FF=213.1
FF=214.3 FF=213.1
FF=212.6 FF=211.6
FF=212.6 FF=211.6
FF=210.9
FF=210.1
FF=210.9 FF=210.1
FF=209.2 FF=208.6
FF=209.2 FF=208.6
FF=207.5 FF=207.1
FF=207.5 FF=207.1
FF=207.9FF=209.0
FF=209.0
FF=207.9
FF=210.9 FF=209.6
FF=210.9 FF=209.6
FF=211.3FF=212.8
FF=212.8 FF=211.3
FF=214.7 FF=213.0
FF=214.7
FF=213.0
FF=216.6 FF=214.7
FF=216.6 FF=214.7
FF=217.5 FF=215.7
FF=217.3
FF=217.4
FF=209.9
FF=209.9
FF=210.1
FF=210.1
FF=211.8
FF=211.8 FF=212.0
FF=212.0
FF=213.9FF=213.7
FF=213.7 FF=213.9
FF=215.6
FF=215.6 FF=215.8
FF=215.8
FF=217.5 FF=217.7
FF=217.7FF=217.5
FF=219.3 FF=219.4
FF=219.7 FF=219.8
FF=219.4 FF=219.3
FF=219.8 FF=219.7
FF=216.7
FF=217.1 FF=219.7TYP.24'TYP.
24'TYP.24'TYP.18'TYP.18'TYP.18'TENTATIVE TRACT 32655
LOT 15
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
LOT 16
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
LOT 11
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
LOT 11
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
LOT 13
MB 211/63-75
PM 31730
STREET "F"STREET "A"STREET "P"STREET "P"STREET "Q"STREET "O"STREET "M"1%
100' VC
213.01 PI
BVCEVC2.18%2.18%214.88 FS
214.53 FS2.47%204.32 FS
203.97 FS
0.68%BVC100' VC
20
3
.21
P
I0.68%
205.80 FS
205.45 FS
2.71%2.74%0.68%
100' VC
207.21 PI
BVCEVC206.65 FS
216.31 FS
100' VC
217.63 PIBVC EVC216.71 FS
217.28 FS
0.5%BVCEVC100' VC
216.71 PI
216.88 FS
216.48 FS
4.25%1.87%220.97 FS
0.84%1%216.10 FS
0.75%1%1%0.75%2%ST. "N"218.74 FS 218.74 FS216.04 FS 8'12'12'EVC
32'214.53 FS
215.87 FS
216.93 FS
1%217.44 HP
PROPOSED SEWERLINE (TYP.)
PROPOSED WATERLINE (TYP.)
BY OTHER
EXISTING SEWER
BY OTHER
EXISTING WATER
87'55'41'45'48'30'55'17'17'13'13'101'120'109'93'45'44'
47'
51'
73'
34'30'45'45'94'45'94'45'45'93'45'45'93'45'45'93'45'45'92'45'45'92'45'45'91'45'92'9'22'34'26'
6'107'
82'
68'
91'78'6'32'96'79'22'9'
118'7
7'91'2
6'
36
'20'21'
26'14'
17'
27'50'
29'21'9'39'47'45'45'
44
'1'
45'
52'23'
29'16'45'108'108'109'110'111'108'105'103'45'45'17'45'
45'
45'45'
32'14'119'115'111'108'101'
53'96'16'30'
45'
45'
45'
44'
44'27'
4'
C
3 B3A3RETAINING WALL
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
EXISTING
8
9
10
11
12 13
14
15
161719
18
PE=207.0
PE=207.3
PE=207.6
PE=207.8
PE=207.6
PE=206.7 PE=206.4
PE=206.1
PE=204.6 PE=204.4PE=204.8PE=205.1PE=205.4
PE=205.9 PE=205.6
PE=204.6PE=205.0
PE=205.8
PE=206.9
PE=207.8
PE=208.9
PE=209.7
PE=210.7
PE=211.6
PE=212.6
PE=213.7
PE=213.9
PE=214.5
PE=214.9
PE=215.4PE=215.9
PE=216.6
PE=216.7
PE=218.6 PE=218.7PE=218.7 PE=218.6PE=216.0
PE=216.4 PE=219.1 PE=219.0 PE=219.0 PE=219.0 PE=219.1
PE=206.4
PE=206.4
PE=207.9PE=208.5
PE=206.8
PE=206.8
PE=207.9PE=208.5
PE=210.2 PE=209.4
PE=209.4
PE=210.2
PE=211.9 PE=210.9
PE=210.9PE=211.9
PE=213.6 PE=212.4
PE=212.4PE=213.6
PE=214.5 PE=213.2
RETAINING WALL (TYP.)
PE=207.2
PE=207.2
PE=208.3
PE=208.3
PE=210.2 PE=208.9
PE=210.2 PE=208.9
PE=212.1 PE=210.6
PE=210.6PE=212.1
PE=214.0 PE=212.3
PE=212.3
PE=214.0
PE=215.9 PE=214.0
PE=215.9 PE=214.0
PE=215.0PE=216.8
RETAINING WALL (TYP.)
RETAINING WALL (TYP.)
PE=209.4PE=209.2
PE=209.2 PE=209.4
PE=211.1 PE=211.3
PE=211.3PE=211.1
PE=213.0 PE=213.2
PE=213.2PE=213.0
PE=214.9 PE=215.1
PE=214.9 PE=215.1
PE=217.0PE=216.8
PE=216.8 PE=217.0
RETAINING WALL (TYP.)
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
58
5960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
8182
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
9293
94
95
96
97
98
100
101
102103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
57
CC
DD
EE
FF
FF=216.7
FF=216.4
PE=216.0
PE=215.7
UNIT 114
214.57 FS
87'27'5'
113
9923'38'46'25'65'25'4'57'48'14'88'44'35'35'88'35'88'35'35'88'
88'35'35'35'88'
88'35'35'88'35'88'35'88'9'7'56'16'
46'16'4'
68'30'10'35'74'35'88'
88'35'35'35'35'88'35'88'
88'35'35'35'88'35'88'35'35'88'35'88'14'48'57'14'48'57'44'88'35'88'35'35'88'35'88'35'88'35'88'35'35'88'35'35'88'35'88'35'35'88'14'27'40'29'
85'
88'
45'4'16'101'16'4'14'
88'40'35'88'35'35'88'35'88'35'88'35'35'88'35'88'35'35'88'35'35'35'88'35'88'
37'86'87'44'4'16'56'16'4'4'4'16'46'16'4'40'87'40'35'35'35'87'
87'35'35'87'35'35'87'
87'35'87'35'87'35'35'87'
87'
56'48'14'14'48'56'44'35'87'35'87'35'35'87'35'35'87'35'35'35'87'35'35'87'35'87'35'35'87'35'35'87'
87'8'32'153'56'48'124'93'147'234'20'12'45'83'23'28'65'
183'25'65'28'23'90'
57'14'48'23' 13'
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 19, 2020
SUBMITTED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
REQUEST: Consideration of a request for revisions to building pad elevations for
approved Tentative Tract Map 37506 for the subdivision of approximately
174+ acres of vacant land located south of Gerald Ford Drive, east of
Portola Avenue, and west of Cook Street.
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2774
approving the applicant’s request for revisions to the building pad elevations of the
approved Tentative Tract Map 37506 for the University Park project.
Background Analysis
A. Property Description:
The proposed project site covers over 174+ acres of vacant land bounded by Gerald Ford
Drive to the north, Portola Avenue to the west, Cook Street to the east, and vacant City-
owned land to the south. In 2006, the City Council approved plans to subdivide the area for
approximately 1,100 homes as part of the University Park Master Plan. A Community
Facilities District Bond (CFD) was also approved. The utilities (sewer and water), retaining
walls, street infrastructure (College Drive, Pacific Avenue, Technology Drive, and University
Park Drive), and park space (University Dog Park and University Park East) were
completed, within the project boundaries. However, due to the economic recession,
construction beyond infrastructure improvements were never completed, and the land has
remained undeveloped since. In 2018, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract
Map 37506 for the subdivision of the 174+ acre project.
B. Zoning and General Plan Designation:
Zoning: Planned Residential – 18 (PR-18)/UNSP
General Plan: Town Center Neighborhood
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
North: Planned Residential – 6/22 (PR – 6/22) Millennium Specific Plan
South: Planned Residential – 18 (PR-18)/UNSP
East: Planned Residential - 22 (PR-22)/Planned Commercial (PC-3) Vineyard
Apartments/University Commons
West: Planned Residential – 5 (PR – 5) Shepard Lane Neighborhood
May 19, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. TTM 37056 Amendment No. 1 - University Park
Page 2 of 3
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\5-19-20\TTM 37506\PC Staff Report (5.19.20).doc
Project Description
In 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2745, approving Tentative Tract Map
37506 and a Precise Plan to establish master design and architecture for the project area. The
project includes eight (8) distinct residential product types, over 1,000 residential units, public
parks, and private recreational amenities.
Per the City’s Municipal Code, approved Tentative Tract Maps require a new public hearing with
the Planning Commission if building pad elevations deviate more than six (6) inches from the map
approved by the Planning Commission. In this case, the applicant has made pad elevation
deviations to accommodate site drainage, existing grades, and utility infrastructure. Pad elevation
deviations are concentrated in the northwest corner of the project area, specifically at the
northwest intersection of College Drive and Pacific Avenue. At this location, the applicant has
revised pad elevations for 19 lots. Pad elevation changes range from minus six (6) inches to more
than one-and-a-half (1.5) feet.
Analysis
The revisions to the Tentative Tract Map pad elevations are non-substantive and staff
recommends approval of the revisions to the Planning Commission. The applicant has
maintained the total number of lots, open space, and architectural theme. In modifying the pad
elevations, the applicant is able to control for grade variations in the existing topography and
accommodate all utility infrastructure, and the subdivision still conforms to the University Park
Specific Plan (UNSP), which regulates land development in this portion of the City.
Conclusion
The proposed University Park project conforms to and meets the intent of, the UNSP. The
project provides a variety of housing product types, smaller block length, open space, and
connectivity. Architecture and landscape within the project conform to City design standards, and
building heights and massing comply with the standards of the UNSP. Staff supports this project,
and the modification to building pad elevations, as it complies with the UNSP.
Public Input
Public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
project and published in the Desert Sun on May 9, 2020. To date, the Community
Development Department has received no letters in opposition to or in favor of the proposed
project.
Environmental Review
In November 2016, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert adopted an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) in support of the General Plan update and University Neighborhood Specific Plan.
The EIR identified and studied specific environmental impacts associated with the build-out of the
UNSP project boundaries. No new environmental impacts are identified by this project, which
implements the UNSP. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR are incorporated into this
project.
May 19, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. TTM 37056 Amendment No. 1 - University Park
Page 3 of 3
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\5-19-20\TTM 37506\PC Staff Report (5.19.20).doc
Findings of Approval
Findings can be made in support of the project and in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code.
Findings in support of this project are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2744,
attached to this staff report.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER
N/A
Robert W. Hargreaves
City Attorney
Ryan Stendell
Ryan Stendell
Dir. of Community Development
N/A
Janet Moore
Director of Finance
N/A
Andy Firestine
Assistant City Manager
City Manager, Lauri Aylaian: N/A
VENDOR: University Park Investors, LLC
3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 180
Pleasanton, CA 94588
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2774
2. Public Hearing Notice
3. Tentative Tract Map 37506 Amendment No. 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2774
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 37506 FOR THE
SUBDIVISION OF 174+ ACRES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA BOUNDED
BY GERALD FORD DRIVE TO THE NORTH, PORTOLA AVENUE TO THE
WEST, COOK STREET TO THE EAST, AND CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
TO THE SOUTH
CASE NO: TTM 37506 AMENDMENT NO. 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 20th day of November 2018, adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2745 approving
Tentative Tract Map 37506 for the subdivision of 174+ acres within the University
Neighborhood Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of May 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
University Park Investors, LLC, for approval of revisions to building pad elevations for
Tentative Tract Map 37506; and
WHEREAS, the revisions to the building pad elevations for Tentative Tract Map
37506 are necessary to accommodate proper drainage and utility infrastructure, and do not
create any new environmental impacts to the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the University Park project implements the City’s University
Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP) by incorporating specific design guidelines related to
subdivision design standards, traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, open
space, and housing product variation; and
WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons exist to justify the approval of said
request:
1. The University Park project, as proposed, is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Palm Desert General Plan and the UNSP, including that the
project provides a variety of housing options, open space, pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity, and density in proximity to California State University San
Bernardino Palm Desert Campus (CSUSBPD).
2. The University Park project is compatible with adjacent properties and
surrounding uses, and development standards comply with the approved UNSP
for the project area.
3. The University Park project is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the
property is mostly vacant native desert land with roadway and utility
improvements, and a Specific Plan was adopted for the project site that identifies
this type of housing product variation, open space, and pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity, and the uses proposed along with the development pattern comply
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2774
2
with applicable City standards and standards approved as part of the Specific
Plan.
4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is not detrimental to the public health, safety
or general welfare, or be materially injurious to the surrounding properties or
improvements in the City of Palm Desert.
5. The project has complied with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) in that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared
for the UNSP and that implementation of the Specific Plan through a tentative
tract map requires an addendum to the EIR as no new environmental impacts
have been identified by the project proposal and all potentially significant
environmental impacts have been mitigated.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable
General Plan and specific plans.
In 2017, the City Council adopted an update to the General Plan, and
concurrently adopted the UNSP. Both plans identified the 400+ acres of vacant
land bounded by Gerald Ford Drive to the north, Portola Avenue to the west,
Cook Street to the east, and Frank Sinatra to the south, as a unique development
opportunity that can capitalize on synergies between a mixed housing
neighborhood with strong pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to CSUSBPD. As
proposed, the project provides eight (8) distinct housing product types, including
alley-loaded homes, apartments, attached townhomes, and detached single-
family homes, connected by open space, sidewalks, and trails. The subdivision of
the project areas proposes tree-lined public streets, open spaces, pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity, and roadways designed for lower vehicle speeds, and
implements and fulfills the goals of the UNSP.
The UNSP identified 2,700 dwelling units within the project area. The project site,
representing nearly half (½) of the UNSP project boundary, is subdivided to
accommodate 1,069 dwelling units. The density of the project is consistent with
the General Plan and UNSP.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
The design and improvements of the tract map have been reviewed by the
Planning Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Department for
consistency with the General Plan, UNSP, and emergency services. Lot sizes,
street and utility improvements, circulation patterns, and drainage improvements
meet all requirements of the General Plan and the UNSP. All perimeter streets
are in conformance, with the General Plan and modifications to the surrounding
roadways that will improve vehicle circulation in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2774
3
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
The 174+-acre site is suitable for the proposed development. Environmental,
cultural, traffic, and other special studies were prepared for the UNSP, and an
addendum to the EIR was prepared to address the specifics of the project. No
environmental issues were identified that would indicate that development in this
area would be unsuitable. In addition, existing residential and commercial
development in the vicinity have successfully constructed similar types of
development, and no obstacles to the development of those surrounding
subdivisions were experienced. Due to the proximity and similarity of the
proposed development, it is reasonable to conclude that the site is physically
suitable for it.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The project site is surrounded by planned residential and commercial
developments to the south, east, west, and north. As proposed, the site layout
and distribution of residential densities are consistent with surrounding
development and the UNSP.
5. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and unavoidable injury
to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
For purposes of the CEQA, an EIR was prepared and adopted by the City Council
as part of the General Plan Update and UNSP. In addition, an addendum to the
EIR has been prepared for the project to address project-specific impacts that
were not previously addressed by the EIR. The addendum to the EIR did not
identify any new impacts created by the proposed project. The design of the
project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat, since the surrounding area has been developed with similar densities
and limited wildlife is present at the site. Environmental studies performed at the
site did not identify any endangered or sensitive species. In addition, the project
will pay into the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation fund for the
development of raw land.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
The design and layout of the tract map are in compliance with all grading,
drainage, vehicle access, pedestrian, bicycle connectivity, and parking
requirements. The property will be developed in accordance with the Uniform
California Building Code. Grade changes and utility easements are
accommodated by the building and street layout and open space provided
throughout the project site. Pedestrian access is provided to adjoining land uses
via sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways, and the distributed open space
contributes to a healthy community and neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2774
4
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision.
The proposed project will utilize and enhance existing drainage and utility
distribution easements located within and adjacent to the project site.
Improvements related to drainage will be provided to ensure the project area
accommodates 100 percent of the 100-year storm. Surrounding perimeter City
streets are built-out to the General Plan designation, and the developer will make
modifications to surrounding streets to accommodate project access. Pedestrian
connections and open space are provided throughout the project area, and
enhanced pedestrian trails are provided within the project site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve TTM 37506 Amendment No.
1, subject to the conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 19th day of May 2020, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
LINDSAY HOLT, CHAIR
ATTEST:
RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2774
5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TTM 37506 AMENDMENT NO. 1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
1. The development of the property and all buildings, road network, and open space within
the project boundaries shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the
Department of Community Development, and as modified by the following conditions.
2. The applicant shall record Tentative Tract Map 37506 within two (2) years of project
approval. Multiple final maps may be recorded for this project.
3. All Conditions of Approval listed in Planning Commission Resolution 2745 remain valid.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. TTM 37506 AMENDMENT NO. 1
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO
CONSIDER A REQUEST BY UNIVERSITY PARK INVESTORS, LLC, TO ADJUST PAD
HEIGHTS AT THE 174+ ACRE SUBDIVISION (TTM 37506) LOCATED SOUTH OF GERALD
FORD DRIVE, EAST OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND WEST OF COOK STREET
The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has reviewed the project for consistency with the
adopted University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP) and the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) prepared for the project site, and finds that the request to adjust building pad heights is
categorically exempt under the general rule and that no further environmental analysis is required.
Project Location/Description:
Project Location: 174+ acres bounded by Gerald Ford Drive to the north, Portola Avenue to the
west, Cook Street to the east, and vacant City-owned property to the south.
APNs: 694-190-053, 694-200-013, 694-200-014, 694-190-079, 694-190-072, 694-190-070, 694-
190-037, 694-190-055, 694-190-031
Project Description: The applicant has submitted an amendment to the approved Tentative Tract
Map to adjust building pad heights at the subdivision. The project includes the development of
623 detached homes, 110 townhomes, 336 apartments, five (5) public parks, one (1) private
recreation facility, and a greenbelt along Pacific Drive, between College Drive, and Gerald Ford
Drive. In November 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2745 approving the
Tentative Tract Map. Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) requires a new public hearing when
there is a request to adjust the pad height more than six (6) inches to an approved map. In this
case, to accommodate proper drainage and grading of the site, pad heights have been adjusted
up to two feet and triggered the requirement for an additional public hearing.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
approving the proposed changes to the building pad heights, subject to the conditions.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on May 19,
2020, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City’s
emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the
Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and-
commissions/planning-commission-information-center.
Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from May 9, 2020, to May 19,
2020.
Public Review: The Tentative Tract Map is available for public review Monday through Friday
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the project planner, Mr. Eric Ceja. Please submit written
comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, the 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. All comments and any
questions should be directed to:
Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611
eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org
PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL,
May 9, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2020
PREPARED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
REQUEST: Consideration of a request by West Coast Cannabis Club to amend
Condition of Approval No. 5 of Planning Commission Resolution No.
2742, limiting retail business hours to 5:00 p.m. for the cannabis retail
component of their operations located at 42-650 Melanie Place.
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2775,
approving an amendment to Condition of Approval No. 5 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2742 and establish new operating hours for the
retail micro-business between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for the
West Coast Cannabis Club (WCCC) facility located at 42-650 Melanie Place.
Background Analysis
A. Property Description:
The project site is approximately 1.0 acres in size and is developed with a two-story,
28,500-square-foot industrial/office building that was constructed in the mid-1980s. The
site features vehicle access connections to Melanie Place near the northern portion and
the middle of the site. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site are controlled by rolling
gates and a six-foot-high block wall along the western perimeter. The applicant has been
operating out of the facility since 2019 and recently opened the retail component in
2020.
B. Zoning and General Plan Designation:
Zone: Service Industrial (SI)
General Plan: Employment
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: Service Industrial – Various light industrial uses
South: Service Industrial – Various light industrial uses
East: Public Institution – Coachella Valley Water District
West: Service Industrial – Various light industrial uses
May 19, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. CUP 17-0018 Amendment No. 1 – West Coast Cannabis Club
Page 2 of 4
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\5-19-20\CUP 17-0018 Amendment No. 1\PC Staff Report - Amd. 1.doc
Project Description
In 2018, W CCC received Planning Commission approval to operate a cannabis business at
42-650 Melanie Place. The approvals allowed for the operation of various cannabis
licensing types, including cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, and an allowance for a
retail micro-business license. In 2019, WCCC began operating out of the facility, and in
2020, WCCC began operations of the retail component of the facility. The retail use is
permitted under State and City cannabis regulations. Vehicle parking is provided within the
existing developed parking areas provided at the site.
WCCC has complied with several security features and improvements to the air handling
system to mitigate any odors. There is no on-site consumption of cannabis products at this
site. The business expects to employ six to 10 people on-site during each shift and have on-
site security personnel.
Analysis
A. Commercial Cannabis Businesses:
In October 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1329, establishing a
comprehensive set of regulations for commercial cannabis businesses. Those
regulations are in Section 25.34.120 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC).In
November 2018, the Planning Commission approved WCCC to operate out of the
facility and adopted a condition of approval limiting business hours of the retail portion of
the operation to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The limitation was primarily put in
place based on the retail operation being located in the Service Industrial zoning district
of the City, an area not populated with many retail uses.
The applicant has requested to amend this condition and allow the retail component to
stay open until 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. The applicant has cited that many
businesses in the area, but not all, close by 5:00 p.m., which does not allow customers
from the surrounding area to access the retail operation in a timely manner. The
applicant has also cited that no other operator in the City is subject to the same limited
hours, which puts this location at a competitive disadvantage.
The City’s cannabis regulations do not specifically limit business hours but do limit the
business location. Although the Service Industrial zoning district was identified for mainly
manufacturing, distribution, and cultivations uses; State and City regulations do allow for
micro-businesses, such as a limited retail component to operate in the zone. The
request by the applicant to remove the hour limitation is compatible with the intent of the
City’s cannabis regulations.
B. Land Use Compatibility:
The cannabis uses are compatible with the surrounding Service Industrial uses, which
also includes light manufacturing, distribution, wholesale, offices, and automotive repair.
Although many of the surrounding businesses cease operations by 5:00 p.m., many
May 19, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. CUP 17-0018 Amendment No. 1 – West Coast Cannabis Club
Page 3 of 4
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\5-19-20\CUP 17-0018 Amendment No. 1\PC Staff Report - Amd. 1.doc
uses remain open for retail and wholesale purposes. Increasing business hours at this
location will not affect the surrounding businesses.
C. Security:
WCCC has installed a number of security measures throughout the property to ensure
the safety of their employees, customers, and the surrounding businesses. A security
officer will be at the entrance to the building, and a third-party security company will
install cameras and a recording system, which will be monitored off-site.
As with all cannabis businesses in the City, safety has been a top priority. To date, none
of the City’s permitted cannabis businesses have had issues related to public safety.
Since all security measures are in place, and the business has been operating out of the
location since 2019, City staff does not believe that increasing business hours will create
any additional public safety concerns. Should security become an issue, the City can
reopen the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and work with the applicant to address any
ongoing issues.
Public Input
A public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
use and published in The Desert Sun on May 8, 2020. To date, the Community
Development Department has not received any correspondence in favor or in opposition to
the proposed use.
Conclusion
The applicant has gone through an extensive review process for compliance with the
adopted City and State cannabis regulations. Staff believes that the applicant has
demonstrated that their operation is successfully integrated with the surrounding businesses
and that existing security measures are sufficient to allow modification of the limited
business hours. Since the cannabis industry is new to Palm Desert, staff foresees heavy
oversight of the business. Should any issues arise, such a blatant disregard for nuisance
issues, the CUP can be revoked, and the business suspended from continued operations.
Environmental Review
For the purposes of the CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that
modification of operating hours is not a project under the CEQA.
May 19, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. CUP 17-0018 Amendment No. 1 – West Coast Cannabis Club
Page 4 of 4
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\5-19-20\CUP 17-0018 Amendment No. 1\PC Staff Report - Amd. 1.doc
Findings of Approval
Findings can be made in support of the project and in accordance with the City’s Municipal
Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2775, attached to this staff report.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER
N/A
Robert W. Hargreaves
City Attorney
Ryan Stendell
Ryan Stendell
Dir. of Community Development
N/A
Janet Moore
Director of Finance
N/A
Andy Firestine
Assistant City Manager
City Manager, Lauri Aylaian: N/A
APPLICANT: West Coast Cannabis Club
68828 Ramon Road, Suite A2
Cathedral City, CA 92234
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2775
2. Public Hearing Notice
3. Exhibit Provided by the Applicant
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2775
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CONDITION OF APPROVAL
NO. 5 OF PLANNING COMMISSION REOLSUTION 2742, REMOVING
BUSINESS HOUR LIMITATIONS FOR WEST COAST CANNABIS CLUB
FOR THE RETAIL OPERATION LOCATED AT 42-650 MELANIE PLACE;
AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CASE NO: CUP 17-0018 AMENDMENT NO. 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 20th day of November 2018, adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2742, approving
cannabis uses for West Coast Cannabis Club at the above-noted address; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Resolution 2742 Condition of Approval No. 5
limited retail hours at the facility to between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert adopted Ordinance No.
1329, allowing commercial cannabis businesses, including cannabis cultivation,
manufacturing, and micro-businesses within the City but did not adopt strict operating
hours; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to amend Conditional Use Permit
17-0018 to amend Condition of Approval No. 5 to remove the business hour limitation, and
to establish new hours of operations for the retail portion of the use to 9:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m.; and
WHEREAS, West Coast Cannabis Club has been operating out of the existing
facility since 2019, with no known security or odor complaints and is in good standing with
the City’s cannabis regulations; and
WHEREAS, the location of the cannabis manufacturing business is located in the
City’s Service Industrial (SI) zoning district and, meets the City’s separation and distance
requirements, is permitted subject to the approval of a CUP and Cannabis Regulatory
Permit; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the City’s 1000-
square-foot separation requirements from schools, daycares, and youth centers; and
WHEREAS, nuisance issues, including, but not limited to, odor and security, are
mitigated in accordance with the City’s cannabis regulations, and the project is conditioned
to respond to any issues immediately or be subject to revocation of said cannabis regulatory
permit; and
WHEREAS, the project complies with the goals and policies contained in the City’s
General Plan that promote a diverse, growing, and resilient local economy; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, Section
15367 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2775
2
Code Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Palm Desert’s (“City’s”) Local
CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, as the lead agency, the City has reviewed the proposed project and
determined that, as the business is located in an existing developed building and site, that
the project is exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 “existing facilities” of the CEQA and that
the Planning Commission can adopt a Notice of Exemption of environmental review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of May 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the
applicant to amend the existing condition and to expand retail operating hours from 9:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth
the basis for its decision on the proposed cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, distribution,
and delivery facility with a retail micro-business component; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this
Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence before it as a whole; and
WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning
Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said request:
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert hereby
finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive
findings of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. Compliance with the CEQA. As the approving authority for the project, the
Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
application and administrative record on file with the City and available for review at 73-510
Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. The Planning Commission finds that a Notice of
Exemption can be adopted in compliance with the CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000 et
seq. “CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. Findings on Conditional Use Permit. In approving this project, the
Planning Commission makes the following findings in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal
Code (PDMC) Section 25.72.050:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2775
3
1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the
objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
The purpose of the SI zoning district is to allow the development of traditional
business parks that allow for the manufacturing, distribution, research and
development, and service of products. The proposal to establish cannabis
cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and delivery facility with a retail micro-
business component at this location complies with the City’s goals and the
objectives of the zoning designation, and the City’s “Commercial Cannabis
Business and Personal Cultivation” and the “Commercial Cannabis Business
Regulatory Permit” ordinances by providing a detailed business plan, security
plan, odor control plan, neighborhood and community outreach plans, and
background check information. The conditional allowance of this use at this site
complies with the objectives and purpose of the SI zoning district and exceeds
the minimum separation requirements established in cannabis ordinances.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
Voters of the State of California did in November 2016, vote and approve
Proposition 64 – the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act
(AUMA), to allow the adult use of cannabis subject to local ordinances. The City
of Palm Desert, in response to the voter-approved law, established a committee
to evaluate cannabis business potential in the City and found that cannabis
businesses are compatible with other general industrial uses subject to
conditions to mitigate nuisances, such as odor and security. As designed, and as
conditioned, the establishment of a cannabis cultivation, manufacturing,
distribution, and delivery facility with a retail micro-business component at this
location will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, as the use
is designed to include on-site security personnel, video surveillance, a UV
filtration, negative air pressure, and charcoal air filters, to mitigate security and
odor nuisance concerns.
3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments.
The proposed use complies with the development and use standards of the SI
zoning district, and the requirements listed in the City’s comprehensive cannabis
regulation. No adjustments of variances are proposed for this use.
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the City’s General Plan.
The proposed cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and delivery with retail
micro-business for cannabis and cannabis-related products complies with goals
and objectives of the City’s General Plan, including Goals listed in Chapter 3 of
the Land Use and Community Character chapter, including Goals: 5.1, 5.3, 8.1,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2775
4
and Chapter 10 Goal 1.1. In providing cultivation, manufacturing, distribution and
delivery space for cannabis, the applicant is complying with the goals and
objectives of the City’s General Plan.
SECTION 4. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby approves the applied CUP
and Cannabis Regulatory Permit applications for the project.
SECTION 5. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the
record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City’s office at 73-
510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
SECTION 6. Notice of Exemption. The Planning Commission approves the Project
and directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and the State
Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of any Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 19th day of May 2020, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
LINDSAY HOLT, CHAIR
ATTEST:
RYAN STENDELL
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2775
5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. CUP 17-0018 AMENDMENT NO. 1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions.
2. The applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action
instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the
adoption of these project approvals for the retail use, or the project approvals
themselves, the applicant and City each shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to
elect whether or not to defend such action. The applicant, at its sole expense, shall
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City (including its agents, officers, and
employees) from any such action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City,
subject to applicant’s approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and
at the applicant’s sole expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it
shall promptly notify the applicant and cooperate in the defense. The applicant, upon
such notification, shall deposit sufficient funds in the judgment of City’s Finance Director
to cover the expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said
deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. If both Parties elect to defend,
the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending the said action and to
execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect the
information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under the applicable law. As
part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and the applicant shall coordinate
their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and
protect information. Applicant and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its
defense at any time. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of project
approvals without applicant’s consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld, conditioned, or delayed unless the applicant materially breaches this
indemnification requirement.
3. All Conditions of Approval listed in Planning Commission Resolution 2742 remain in
effect with the exception of Condition of Approval No. 5 which is modified as follows:
“A retail micro-business is allowed at this location. The retail operation shall not exceed
10 percent of the gross floor area of the cannabis facility and shall be open only
between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.”
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. CUP 17-0018 AMENDMENT No. 1
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO
CONSIDER A REQUEST BY WEST COAST CANNABIS CLUB TO AMEND CONDITION OF
APPROVAL NO. 5 OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2742 LIMITING RETAIL
BUSINESS HOURS TO 5:00 P.M. FOR THE CANNABIS RETAIL COMPONENT OF THEIR
OPERATIONS LOCATED AT 42-650 MELANIE PLACE
The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finds that the proposed project is exempt per
Section 15301, Class 1 “Existing Facilities” of the CEQA and that a Notice of Exemption can be
adopted as part of this project.
Project Location/ Description:
Project Location: 42-650 Melanie Place
Project Description: In November 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2742
approving Conditional Use Permit 17-0018 and Cannabis Regulatory Permit for West Coast
Cannabis Club to operate a 28,500-square-foot cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, distribution,
and delivery facility with a 1,600-square-foot retail component at 42-650 Melanie Place. In
approving the project, the Planning Commission adopted a Condition of Approval limiting retail
hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. West Coast Cannabis Club has been operating out of the facility
since 2019, and retail operations began in early 2020. West Coast Cannabis Club is requesting
that the Planning Commission consider rescinding the condition limiting retail hours due to
surrounding businesses in the immediate area operating past 5:00 p.m.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
approving the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to new conditions,
limiting retail hours between 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., seven days a week.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on May 19,
2020, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City’s
emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the
Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and-
commissions/planning-commission-information-center.
Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from May 9, 2020, to May 19,
2020.
Public Review: The Conditional Use Permit and Cannabis Regulatory Permit applications are
available for public review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the
project planner, Mr. Eric Ceja. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If
any group challenges the action in court, the 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. All comments and any questions should be directed to:
Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611
eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org
PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL,
May 9, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2020
PREPARED BY: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: Consideration to approve a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 1.12-acre
commercial lot into two parcels at 41-651 Corporate Way, and adopt a
Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2776
approving Tentative Parcel Map 37883, subject to the conditions of approval;
and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with CEQA.
Executive Summary
Approval of the staff recommendation will allow the applicant to subdivide the 1.12-acre
commercial lot into two parcels. The lot is presently developed with two office condominium
buildings. Each of the proposed lots will contain one of the existing buildings and pertinent site
improvements. No changes are proposed to the existing site development. The proposed
subdivision will not result in parking deficiencies or zoning non-conformities for either building.
Background
A. Property Description:
The project site is a 1.12-acre rectangular lot located at 41-651 Corporate Way. The
property’s primary access is taken from Corporate Way. The property is developed with
two buildings, each of which is subdivided into office condominiums on a common lot. The
northern building (Building 2) is occupied by Entravision Communications, a media
company. The common lot contains parking and landscaping improvements maintained
by the condominium owner’s association. There is a drive-aisle at the western end of the
property, providing direct access to the neighboring Hovley Soccer Park parking lot.
There is a reciprocal parking agreement in place between the property owners and the
City of Palm Desert. The agreement establishes an easement, which allows the property
to access parking at the Palm Desert Hovley Soccer Park. This agreement was
established in 2004 when Building 2 expanded its indoor office areas, establishing a need
for additional parking, which was not available on-site.
May 19, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. TPM 37883 – 41-651 Corporate Way
Page 2 of 4
B. Zoning and General Plan Designation:
Zone: SI – Service Industrial
General Plan: Employment
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: SI – Service Industrial/Office building
South: SI – Service Industrial/Office and light-industrial building
East: SI – Service Industrial/United States Post Office building
West: OS– Hovley Soccer Park/Light industrial park
Project Description
The project applicant, The Altum Group, is proposing to subdivide the property into two lots.
The area of each respective parcel is:
Parcel No. Area Features
Parcel 1 0.56-acres Existing two-story office building + 26
parking spaces
Parcel 2 0.56-acres Existing two-story office building + 37
parking spaces
Table 1: Parcel Description
The proposed subdivision will allow for separate ownership of the two existing buildings on
the site. The existing condominium plans will be dissolved. The new agreements will be
established between the two parcels to maintain access, usage of common utilities (existing
trash enclosure), and to ensure the maintenance of landscaping within existing plants, which
cross the new property lines. No construction is proposed under this subdivision. Existing
features, including access and parking lot design, will not be changed. The existing parking
agreement easement will remain, ensuring adequate parking for the existing conditions.
Analysis
The Planning Commission may approve or deny the proposed map based on findings
contained in Section 26.20.100 – Planning Commission Action, of Title 26 - Subdivisions of
the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC). The proposed subdivision complies with the Zoning
Ordinance, the General Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act. Infrastructure improvements,
including roads and utilities, have been installed and are available within Cook Street.
The project does not physically divide an existing community and does not conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. The proposed
subdivision complies with the minimum parcel development standards for the SI zone and is
compatible with neighboring parcels. The subdivision design maintains existing access for
each property to adjacent streets. The subdivision will not render the existing buildings non-
conforming to current SI development standards for building setback, coverage, or minimum
May 19, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. TPM 37883 – 41-651 Corporate Way
Page 3 of 4
landscaping area. Additionally, sufficient parking is available on either parcel for future land
uses to meet minimum parking requirements. The table below summarizes how the parcels
will impact the existing development’s conformance with relevant standards:
Standard SI Zone Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Conforms
Front Setback 20' 50' 50' Yes
Interior Side Setback 0' 0' min. 0' min. Yes
Rear Setback 0' '0 64' Yes
Floor Area Ratio 0.75 0.42 0.26 Yes
Minimum
Landscaping - - - Yes
Table 2: Conformance Determination
Public Input
Public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
project and published in The Desert Sun on May 9, 2020. To date, the Community
Development Department has received no letters in opposition to or in favor of the proposed
project.
Environmental Review
The Director of Community Development has determined that this project is Categorically
Exempt from CEQA review in accordance with Section 15315: Class 15 – Minor Land
Divisions of the CEQA Guidelines as the division is in conformance with the City’s General
Plan and zoning requirements, all utilities and services are available to the parcel, the parcel
was not involved in a larger subdivision in the previous two years, and the parcel does not
have a slope greater than 20 percent.
Findings of Approval
Findings can be made in support of the project and in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code.
Findings in support of this project are contained in the draft Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2776, attached to this staff report.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL
REVIEW
ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER
N/A
Robert W. Hargreaves
City Attorney
Ryan Stendell
Ryan Stendell
Dir. of Community Development
N/A
Janet Moore
Director of Finance
N/A
Andy Firestine
Assistant City Manager
City Manager, Lauri Aylaian: N/A
May 19, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. TPM 37883 – 41-651 Corporate Way
Page 4 of 4
APPLICANT: The Altum Group, Inc.
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219
Palm Desert, California 92260
ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2776
2. Public Hearing Notice
3. Notice of Exemption
4. Exhibits
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2776
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE A 1.12-ACRE COMMERCIAL LOT INTO TWO PARCELS AT 41-
651 CORPORATE WAY; AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA)
CASE NO: TPM 37883
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of May 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by The
Altum Group, Inc., for approval of the above-noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the CEQA” Resolution No. 2019-41, in that the
Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment and that the project is categorically exempt under Article 19,
Section 15315 – Minor Subdivisions (Class 15) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of said
request:
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL:
Findings must be made in order to support the proposed land division as required by Section
26.20.100, Planning Commission Action, of Title 26 Subdivisions, of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code.
1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, as
amended.
The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with the Employment Center
General Plan Land Use Designation. This designation allows office and light
industrial development, and the proposed subdivision meet all applicable
standards with regard to a minimum lot area. There is no specific plan for this
development.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
The site was previously developed to comply with City standards per the Service
Industrial Zoning (SI) designation. The design of the proposed subdivision will not
cause the existing site development to become non-conforming with applicable
development standards of the SI zoning designation. There is no specific plan for
this development.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2776
2
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
The lot has been previously developed with two existing office condominium
buildings. The existing site is adequate in size, topography, location, and other
factors to accommodate the proposed subdivision. Utilities, including water,
electrical, sewer, and gas are in place, and compatible with surrounding properties.
4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish, wildlife,
or their habitat.
The creation of an additional parcel will not cause substantial environmental damage
or injuries to fish or wildlife or their habitat since the site has previously been graded
and developed. The creation of a new parcel at this site does not create any
significant new physical impacts on the environment.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The proposal to create an additional parcel within will not create a physical
change to the existing site and will not cause public health problems. Each lot
will have access to a public street, and the existing development on each of
these lots conforms to all applicable development standards. The lots will not
create serious public health problems, as utilities are available to support the
site, use of the properties for office and light industrial is compatible with the
surrounding properties.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
The creation of a new parcel at this site will not impact any public easements
as part of the subdivision. No changes are proposed to the existing
conforming development.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar
access to the property.
The design of this subdivision and orientation of the lots will not impact solar access
to adjacent properties or the subject properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map 37883,
subject to conditions attached.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2776
3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on this 19th day of May 2020, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
LINDSAY HOLT, CHAIR
ATTEST:
RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2776
4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TPM 37883
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
1. The project site shall be subdivided and maintained in conformance with the approved
plans and exhibits on file with the City. Any variation from the approved plans must be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to building
permit issuance and may require review and approval by the Planning Commission
and/or City Council.
2. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Building & Safety Department
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Coachella Valley Water District
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the
Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
4. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City of Palm
Desert or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
against the City of Palm Desert or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside,
void, or annul, any approval of the City of Palm Desert, whether by its City Council,
Planning Commission, or other authorized board or officer of the City. The City of Palm
Desert shall promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and
the City of Palm Desert shall cooperate fully in the defense.
5. Tentative Parcel Map 37883 shall be recorded within two years from the date of final
approval unless an extension of time is granted otherwise said parcel map approval shall
become null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS:
Prior to the recordation of the parcel map:
6. The parcel map shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
7. Horizontal control requirements shall apply to this map, including state plane coordinates,
which shall conform to the City of Palm Desert specifications.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2776
5
8. The applicant shall submit for City review, any applicable dissolution documents, or
revised Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and reciprocal easements.
CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TPM 20-0002 (TPM 37883) NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.12-ACRE
COMMERCIAL LOT INTO TWO PARCELS AT 41651 CORPORATE WAY; AND ADOPTION
OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under CEQA,
has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA review in accordance with
Section 15315: Class 15 – Minor Land Divisions of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project Location/Description:
Project Location: 41651 Corporate Way (APN: 624-291-009)
Project Description: The Altum Group (“Applicant”) has submitted a Tentative Parcel Map
application (the “Project”) to subdivide a 1.12-acre commercial lot, containing an existing
commercial development, into two parcels. No changes to the existing site development are
proposed.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the Project, subject to the conditions.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on May 19,
2020, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City’s
emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the
Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and-
commissions/planning-commission-information-center.
Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from May 9, 2020, to May 19,
2020.
Public Review: The plans and related documents are available for public review Monday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the project planner, Mr. Nick Melloni. Please
submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any 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. All comments
and any questions should be directed to:
Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611, Extension 479
nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org
PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY
May 8, 2020 Palm Desert Planning Commission
Notice of Exemption FORM “B”
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO:
Office of Planning and Research
P. O. Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
FROM: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm
Desert, CA 92260
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
or
County Clerk
County of: Riverside
2724 Gateway Dr, Riverside,
CA 92507
1. Project Title: TPM 37883 / TPM 20-0002
2. Project Applicant: The Altum Group, Inc.
3. Project Location – Identify street address and
cross streets or attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’ topographical
map identified by quadrangle name):
41651 Corporate Way
4. (a) Project Location – City: Palm Desert (b) Project Location – County: Riverside
5. Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries
of Project:
The Altum Group (“Applicant”) has submitted a Tentative
Parcel Map application (the “Project”) to subdivide a 1.12-
acre commercial lot, containing an existing commercial
development, into two parcels. No changes to the existing
development are proposed.
6. Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Palm Desert
7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking the
project, including any person undertaking an
activity that receives financial assistance from the
Public Agency as part of the activity or the person
receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or
other entitlement of use from the Public Agency
as part of the activity:
The Altum Group
8. Exempt status: (check one)
(a) Ministerial project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(1); State CEQA Guidelines §
15268)
(b) Not a project.
(c) Emergency Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(4); State CEQA Guidelines §
15269(b),(c))
(d) Categorical Exemption.
State type and section number:
Class 15 “Minor Subdivisions ”; State CEQA Guidelines
§15315
(e) Declared Emergency. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(3); State CEQA Guidelines §
15269(a))
(f) Statutory Exemption.
State Code section number:
(g) Other. Explanation: General Rule – Section 15061(b)(3)
9. Reason why project was exempt: The project is in conformance with the City’s General Plan
and zoning requirements, all utilities and services are
available to the parcel, the parcel was not involved in a
Notice of Exemption FORM “B”
larger subdivision in the previous two years, and the parcel
does not have a slope greater than 20 percent.
10. Lead Agency Contact Person: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
Telephone: (760) 346-0611
11. If filed by applicant: Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form “A”) before filing.
12. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
13. Was a public hearing held by the lead agency to consider the exemption? Yes No
If yes, the date of the public hearing was: May 19, 2020
Signature:__________________________________ Date:_______________ Title:__________________________
Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Date Received for Filing:
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21100, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code.