Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 85-2 Palma Village Speciific Plan e PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN Adopted June 13, 1985 Prepared by: Department of Environmental Services Ramon A. Diaz Philip Drell Tonya Monroe Palma Village Specific Plan Advisory Committee City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 �.d LAND USE ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The area defined by the La Palma Village Specific Plan was the first major residential subdivision in the Palm Desert area. When the tract was laid out in 1935 it was designed as a small, low density single family residential village surrounded by desert and date palms. Over the past 50 years the desert and date palms have given way to the College of the Desert, the Palm Desert Town Center, the Civic Center, and the Cultural Center. Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive (formerly Greenleaf Road) have grown from quiet county roads to major regional arterials. While the overall growth and development of Palm Desert has significantly impacted La Palma Village, existing land use patterns and policies have remained essentially unchanged. The task of the Citizen Advisory Committee was to reexamine these existing land use patterns and policies identifying areas where present policies have succeeded in - promoting desirable development, areas where minor adjustments or incentives are required, and areas where external impacts require significant policy revisions. Prior to formulating their recommendations, the committee set up generalized policy criteria for evaluating the appropriatness of existing and proposed land uses in the La Palma Village area. POLICY CRITERIA Land use regulations shall encourage developments which: I. Are compatible with existing and future adjacent uses. II. Address the needs of the Palm Desert community. III. Are economically feasible in the foreseeable future. LAND USE ELEMENT I. COMPATIBILITY The most critical area of land use policy involves the boundaries between potentially conflicting uses. Some uses are inherently incompatible and therefore can never coexist, while others can be made compatible by design regulations. It is important that any resolution to land use conflicts account for the basic requirements of both uses so that both sides of the use boundary can develop satisfactorily. If the solution favors one use to the detriment of another, the results are often vacant abandoned properties. II. NEEDS Land use policies should not only control use conflicts, but should also encourage specific, desired uses. Senior housing, affordable housing, creation of attractive streetscapes, are examples of specific positive development features which should be encouraged through land use controls. III. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY Regardless of how compatible or desirable a use may be it will never be built if it does not generate a profit. Existing uses which are unprofitable will not be maintained properly. When land use controls attempt to maintain unrealistic uses; vacant, deteriorated, and abandoned properties result which will lower overall neighborhood quality. GENERAL POLICY I CITY'S ROLE The city shall take a proactive role in promoting compatible high quality infill private development and public works consistent with the area policy criteria. -2- LAND USE ELEMENT In examining La Palma Village, the committee paid special attention to areas with a high percentage of vacant or deteriorated properties. While vacant land is expected in a new subdivision, it is often symtomatic of a land use problem in a 50 year old subdivision. This is especially true when properties remain vacant while surrounding areas experience tremendous growth and economic development. The predominance of vacant lots and poorly maintained properties discourage new investment, rehabilitation, and new construction which leads to further decline. Wherever possible, the adjustment of land use controls and other incentives should be utilized to break this cycle. GENERAL POLICY II COMMERCIAL ZONE DEPTH Multifamily and Commercial zones should be of sufficient depth to allow efficient site planning and the creation of adequate buffer areas adjacent to single family zones. DISCUSSION Narrow strips of commercial and multifamily zones adjacent to single family zones are poorly suited for quality development and negatively impact adjacent properties. It is important to designate zones which are appropriate to the scale and quality of development we wish to promote. GENERAL POLICY III TRAFFIC Whenever possible, general through traffic should be directed away from local residential streets. -3- LAND USE ELEMENT DISCUSSION Often the inadvertent result of traffic and road improvements is the encouragement of non-local traffic through residential areas. Where this has occurred, circulation redesign should attempt to discourage this non-local traffic. GENERAL POLICY IV ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS For new development to effectively serve as a stimulus for overall neighborhood improvement, it must be of sufficient high quality to change both neighborhood and city wide attitudes about the area's future. New projects must therefore meet the same high architectural and site planning standards being applied to new projects elsewhere in the city. GENERAL POLICY V LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES To prevent legal non-conforming residential properties from becoming blighted, a process shall be created to allow presently non-conforming residential properties to obtain conforming status through architectural and site rehabilitation. DISCUSSION The adoption of the city's zoning map of 1975 resulted in extensive down zoning of multi- family property developed under the county. This change created a number of legal non- conforming duplexes and apartments. Under the city's non-conforming ordinance, these units may remain as they presently exist, but they cannot be replaced if they are destroyed or substantially damaged. This non-replacement feature discourages lenders from financing the sale or rehabilitation of these units. This often results in low levels of building maintenance leading to generalized deterioration. -4- LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL POLICY VI BUILDING HEIGHT Building heights shall be regulated to preserve the area's overall low profile character. Appropriately sited limited height two story development shall be permitted within the R- 2 and R-3 zones to maximize open space, off street parking, and site planning efficiency. Two story development standards shall be reduced from the present 30 foot limit to 22 feet for flat roofed buildings, 24 feet for pitched roofs, and 25 feet for office professional buildings. Height shall be measured from finished grade. DISCUSSION The plan area presently contains R-2 and R-3 zones which allow two story structures to a maximum height of 30 feet. While two story developments contribute to both the livability and economic feasibility of multi-family projects, improperly sited two story buildings can block views and destroy privacy of adjacent properties. The existing 30 foot allowable height far exceeds that which is necessary for good architecture. Height regulations should be designed to protect views and privacy while allowing the planning flexibility afforded by two story construction. GENERAL POLICY VII SURPLUS CITY LAND The city shall either landscape, suitably develop, or sell vacant surplus city land within the Palma Village area. DISCUSSION The city presently owns vacant residential lots and portions of lots originally acquired for road widening. These areas are often used for illegal dumping and generally detract from -5- Aw LAND USE ELEMENT the value of adjacent properties. Wherever residential properties back onto arterial streets or major thoroughfares, the city shall initiate a parkway landscaping perimeter decorative wall program. This is especially necessary on the south side of Fred Waring west of Monterey Avenue and East of Portola Drive. SPECIFIC AREA ISSUES, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTABLE PROGRAMS AREA 1 Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. ISSUES With the development of the civic center, cultural center, town center, and street improvements and extension to Interstate 10, Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue are becoming major regional arterials. The existing pattern of low and medium density single family development is incompatible with the projected traffic volumes and emerging character of these important streets. POLICIES 1. New Development on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue should reflect as to scale and overall quality the public improvements represented by the civic center, college, and cultural center and should be compatible both with the high traffic volume arterial highway and the adjacent residential land uses. 2. Use zones fronting on these streets shall have sufficient depth to allow substantial projects while creating a landscaped buffer for adjacent single family uses. 3. Incentives shall be provided for lot consolidation to facilitate larger projects and minimize access points to Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. Whenever feasible the redevelopment agency shall assist in this effort. -6- LAND USE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 1. Where subdivision patterns permit, a special zone, minimum 200 feet in depth, would be created allowing either Office Professional or High Density zoning depending upon compatibility. The Office Professional designation would be applied to the south side of Fred Waring Drive between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo and along the east side of Monterey Avenue between Fred Waring and Catalina, R-3 2,500 would be applied on the south side of Fred Waring Drive between San Pablo Avenue and Portola Avenue and on the west side of Monterey north of Fred Waring Drive. The Scenic Preservation Overlay will be removed allowing two story construction adjacent to Fred Waring with a 24 foot height limit. The zones will require a minimum 20,000 square foot area and will require a 20 foot landscaped project setback adjacent to any single family residential district. This requirement will create a 20'-32' wide landscaped green belt adjacent to residential uses. There will.be no access allowed from these projects to local streets. 2. Where subdivision pattern precludes attainment of the 200 foot lot depth, the existing Office Professional zoning will apply. This area would include the west side of Monterey Avenue between the Town Center and Fred Waring Drive and the north side of Fred Waring between Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven. 3. On the north side of Fred Waring between Portola Avenue and San Pascual Drive, a modified multi-family zone overlay would be created which would allow High Density Residential use with a 22 foot height maximum and 30 foot rear building setback to compensate for the lack of green belt buffer. 4. Whenever feasible projects shall be required to execute mutual access agreements creating shared parking and rear circulation, minimizing the need for multiple curb cuts on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. 5. Surplus city land remaining after road widening of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive shall be landscaped by the city. Additional landscaping shall be required wherever Office Professional use abut these areas. -7- LAND USE ELEMENT AREA 2 Monterey Avenue, south from theMcAllister property to Highway I II east to Las Palmas Avenue. ISSUES The Monterey/Highway III intersection has become the primary commercial focus of the city. High quality commercial development has occurred along each leg except this northeast block. A major effort should be made to encourage development in this area comparable in quality to Palm to Pines and the Town Center. The interior residential area, if adequately buffered from the commercial activity, can continue to offer a safe and very convenient residential environment. Presently the signal at San Gorgonio Way and Monterey Avenue has encouraged through traffic on San Gorgonio threatening the areas residential character. POLICIES 1. Commercial zoning in this area shall be expanded to allow for substantial commercial projects with adequate off-street parking. 2. The interior residential area shall be preserved and protected from the adverse impacts from commercial development by the creation of green belts and traffic circulation improvements discouraging non-resident through traffic. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Expand C-1 zoning to a depth of two lots with assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. 2. Convert the second row of lots to a common use (President's Plaza type), parking area which will be separated from the residential area by a wall and 30 foot wide landscaped green belt. -8- LAND USE ELEMENT 3. Create a parking improvement assessment district which will finance acquisition construction and maintenance of the parking lot. 4. Study methods to slow traffic and reduce volumes on San Gorgonio Way. 5. With the exception of the lots involved in the commercial expansion green belt project, zoning shall remain consistent with existing land uses. The three circles shall remain R-1; Royal Palms R-2 (5); Las Palmas and Las Flores, R-3. AREA 3 Santa Rosa Way to Guadalupe Avenue between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. ISSUES This area contains a mixture of single family homes, duplexes, and small apartments. All the multifamily units were built prior to incorporation. The existing R-2 (7) zone allows only one unit per 7,000 square foot lot. Since few lots exceed 7,200 square feet, the area has developed as a single family neighborhood since 1973. With the creation of a substantial Santa Rosa green belt (see Area 1 policies) this area will be protected from the high intensity uses to the north and should continue to provide a safe, moderate income housing. POLICIES This area should be encouraged to continue developing as a moderate priced single family neighborhood. IMPLEMENTATION The R-2 (7) zone shall remain. -9- ,ryf LAND USE ELEMENT AREA 4 Monterey Avenue west to Fairhaven Drive. ISSUES If adequately buffered from traffic impacts, this area can continue to provide safe moderately priced single family housing. POLICY Preserve and enhance the areas single family character. IMPLEMENTATION None required. AREA 5 Alessandro Drive. ISSUES Alessandro Drive marks the transition between Highway III commercial and adjacent residential uses. The street is presently dominated by vacant lots on the north and commercial rear yards on the south. The north side is zoned R-3 (4) to a depth of 80 feet to 140 feet and is limited to one story due to the adjacent R-1. The generally unattractive streetscape created by the commercial rear yards and the height restriction has discouraged multifamily development in the R-3 (4). POLICIES 1. Land use controls and incentives shall be used to encourage high quality office professional and multi-family residential development on the north side of Alessandro. -10- LAND USE ELEMENT 2. Frontage Road Commercial uses should be encouraged to remodel their rear yards creating a more attractive streetscape. IMPLEMENTATION 1. The north side shall be rezoned to R-3 2,500 to an average depth of 200 feet depending upon subdivision patterns. Two story construction shall be excluded within 100 feet of the R-1 zone. 2. In conjunction with the formation of a parking assessment district, Highway 111 owners would be encouraged to remodel their rear elevations. Expansion into rear yards would be permitted as part of an in-lieu fee program financing the purchase and construction of parking lots on the north side of Alessandro. AREA 6 San Pascual and Catalina. ISSUES This area contains a diverse mix of residential types ranging from half acre lots to 18 per acre apartments. The city has constructed a senior center on 1.65 acres at the northwest corner of San Pascual and Catalina. The area east of San Pascual is substantially developed. The western area is 50 percent vacant. Overall quality of maintenance is inconsistent throughout. POLICIES 1. Preserve the single family zone east of San Pascual. 2. Encourage construction of senior housing surrounding the senior center. 3. West of San Pascual, make zoning consistent with the multi-family character of existing development. -11- LAND USE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 1. Rezone blocks fronting on San Pablo to north to Fred Waring Drive and east to San Raphael R-3. Rezone block north of Catalina east of San Raphael R-2. 2. Create a Senior Housing Overlay allowing higher density, reduced dwelling sizes and parking requirements for senior housing projects. The overlay shall be applied within walking distance of the senior center. Northeast corner of Catalina Way and San Pascual Avenue shall be restricted to one story by the Scenic Preservation Overlay. AREA 7 Portola Avenue to Deep Canyon Road. This area contains a broad range of housing types and quality from the up scale Portola del Sol to some severely deteriorated single family units. There are no inherent land use conflicts which prevent the development and enhancement of this area as a quality affordable single family neighborhood. POLICY Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of this area as a moderate priced single family neighborhood. IMPLEMENTATION Maintain present R-1 status. AREAS 8 and 9 McAllister and Jeffrey Properties. ISSUES These two parcels represent the last large pieces of unsubdivided acreage in the study area. Due to the convenient close-in location of the sites both property owners are -12- LAND USE ELEMENT interested in the development of senior housing. Since senior housing represents a lower intensity of development in terms of household size, noise and traffic impacts higher densities might be accommodated on these large sites if properly designed. POLICY Allow submission of proposals for compatible planned senior housing on these parcels. IMPLEMENTATION Apply senior housing overlay to the existing R-1 and PR-5 zoning for these parcels. -13- *w LAND USE ELEMENT -14- CIRCULATION ELEMENT The plan area is adequately served by public roads. The principal circulation issue has been the intrusion of non-local traffic through residential neighborhoods. As more high intensity development occurs in the surrounding area the impact of non-local traffic will increase. Discussions have centered around the possible closure of two streets: San Gorgonio Way at Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive at Parkview Avenue. San Gorgonio receives a great deal of non-local through traffic associated with the Town Center and from the neighborhoods to the north. At this time San Gorgonio residents are strongly divided as to whether the elimination of through traffic is worth the resulting inconvenience. Fairhaven Drive, presently linking Park View Drive and Fred Waring Drive could become a short cut to the Town Center for residents of One Quail Place and proposed developments in Rancho Mirage. In this case, the neighborhood seems fairly unanimous in its desire to see Fairhaven Drive closed at Park View Drive. It is also inportant that when closures occur, adequate right-of-way is acquired to construct complete cul-de-sac improvements. Where this has not been done, dead end lot property owners end up with their driveway being used as public turnarounds. POLICY: 1. Whenever it is consistent with public safety, sound circulation planning and the wishes of the effected neighborhood; local residential streets should be closed or otherwise modified to discourage non-local through traffic. IMPLEMENTATION: 1. Fairhaven Drive will be cul-de-saced before Parkview Drive. San Gorgonio shall stay open pending a study to determine neighborhood preferences and alternatives to reduce traffic speeds and volumes. -15- CIRCULATION ELEMENT 2. All dead end streets in the study area shall be adequately signed and the cul-de- saced with full improvements. -16- PUBLIC FACILITIES The quality and variety of a neighborhood's public facilities can have a significant impact on the safety, convenience and quality of life of its habitants. The public facilities to be discussed in this element include roads, street lights and sewers. I. ROAD ISSUES: The dominating public facility within the study area is the road system. With a few exceptions, it is without curb or gutters and is six to eight feet narrower than ultimate design width. Isolated areas suffer flood damage during summer thunderstorms due to improper street drainage. These storms also cause damage to the pavement edges. In addition to creating a more attractive streetscape, a well designed curb and gutter system will significantly reduce drainage problems and solve the problems of crumbling asphalt edges. The area is also without street lights. POLICY: 1. The city shall actively encourage and facilitate the creation of curb and gutter districts. 2. Safety low intensity street lighting shall be provided at intersections of collector streets, major thoroughfares and arterials. IMPLEMENTATION: 1. The city shall circulate assessment district petitions to all property owners and will assist interested residents in the collection of required signatures. 2. Property owners whose household income falls below the HUD "lower" 80% of median level may elect to defer their curb and gutter assessments until sale of their property. -17- PUBLIC FACILITIES 3. Lighting and landscaping district shall be formed to finance the construction and maintenance of intersection street lighting in the study area. H. SEWER ISSUES: With a few exceptions, the plan area is without sewers. As the individual systems age and increased development occurs, maintenance may become a problem in some areas. POLICY: A long range goal shall be the extension of sewer lines throughout the study area. IMPLEMENTATION: Conduct a feasibility study to determine the costs and timing of an area wide sewer project. -18- PARKS AND OPEN SPACES PARK ISSUES: In the Recreation Element of the Palm Desert General Plan, neighborhood parks are to be provided with service areas of between Ya and Y2 mile. The plan area presently does not contain any neighborhood parks. Most of the plan area is beyond the desired Yz mile radius of the Community Park and the planned San Pablo Park. In addition, access to these parks may involve the crossing of two four lane highways. Small neighborhood parks can provide a wide range of recreational experiences for all ages and serve as a meeting place and focus for neighborhood identity. POLICY: Provide each of the three major blocks in the plan area with a small neighborhood park which shall include a tot lot, basketball or volleyball court, and general landscaped area. IMPLEMENTATION: Potential sites shall be studied for possible acquisition. An advisory committee shall be formed in each block to work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to determine park design. OPEN SPACE ISSUES: The city presently owns potential lots fronting on Fred Waring Drive west of Monterey and the east side on Monterey Avenue south of Fred Waring. If properly landscaped, these areas can provide a visual buffer for the adjacent residential areas. In addition, the Land Use Element proposes creation of green belts on the north side of Santa Rosa Way and north of the Highway 111 commercial area between Monterey and Las Palmas. -19- PARKS AND OPEN SPACES POLICY: Whenever adjacent property owners cannot be induced to maintain and landscape these parkway areas, the city shall provide landscaping. IMPLEMENTATION: Plans shall be prepared and monies budgeted for the installation of landscaping in these areas. -20- t ECONOMIC AND HOUSING ELEMENTS The plan area comprises the city's largest stock of lower and moderate priced ownership housing. Median ownership costs were 25% lower in the 1980 census than in the city as a whole. Rental costs are only slightly lower than the city median. Of the areas approximately 1,500 dwelling units, 388 (25%) are actual multi-family apartments with the balance being single family homes. Fifty percent (50010) of the total dwelling units are renter occupied indicating a large percentage of single family detached rentals. In 1980, the area median income was $17,015 compared to $19,647 for the whole city and $22,100 for the San Bernardino/Riverside County area. This places over one half of the plan area households below the HUD lower income threshold and 70% below the moderate level. Being the oldest subdivision in Palm Desert, the area contains the oldest public infrastructure and private housing stock. In a recent survey conducted by the city's code enforcement division, the area's overall condition and level of maintenance was significantly below the city-wide average. The specific plan land use element discusses proposed land use changes providing for multi-family development on Fred Waring Drive, San Pablo Avenue, and Alessandro Drive. Senior housing will be encouraged in the vicinity of the senior center at Catalina Way and San Pascual Avenue and on two large sites off of Monterey Avenue and Deep Canyon Road. Developments in these areas will be required to address lower and moderate income housing needs. It is hoped that these land use changes will stimulate high quality new construction which will in turn encourage increased investments and maintenance of existing housing. To augment this effort, the General Plan Housing Element has proposed the use of Redevelopment Agency housing funds in this area to provide below market rate financing for rehabilitation and purchase of housing by lower and moderate income households. -21- P ECONOMIC AND HOUSING ELEMENTS POLICY: 1. The city shall encourage new infill multi-family and senior housing in appropriate areas through use of the Affordable High Density and Senior Housing Overlays. 2. Existing single family and multi-family neighborhoods shall be enhanced by use of Redevelopment Agency housing funds to encourage rehabilitation and owner residency, increasing housing quality and opportunities for lower and moderate income households. IMPLEMENTATION: 1. Apply R-3 2,500 and Senior Housing Overlays to areas indicated in the Palm Village Land Use Element. 2. Solicitate from financial institutions proposals for the operation of a compensating balance low interest loan program to aide in the rehabilitation and purchase of housing in the plan area by lower and moderate income households. -22- J j/lI_ � Imo— OV On wOf NOJ 33 IL — rl <1Ntl5 m 14 cn C \ y > l Li a r W� • 1 Ar- � t 3�N tliOltlOd 4 14 71, 13 m� .1.� — I m 11 I � c 1 + � U 3nr s = I — 3Ntl 1 w od � a a _ - - Oil 6Mr rt FV 1 t1. - i 3n1 3NN3AV �• 1°3 " _• ti• 1 V• ''i�¢ III 1 , ♦ —� n-y il-L Z• t jC W-�• ..t -{._ T._ _ __— z• -J '1 � Pi MDR r NOTICE OF DETERMINATION "10 Negative Declaration TO: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St., Room 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92502 FROM: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the public resources code. Project Title/Common Name: Palma Village Specific Plan r Date of Project Approval: June 13, 1985 State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted): Contact Person: Philip Drell Project Location: Area bounded by Fred Waring Drive, Highway 111, Deep Canyon Road and Monterey Avenue. Project Description: Specific plan recommending land use policies and programs for older city neighborhoods. This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project ( ) will, (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An environmental impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the environmental impact report may be examined at the above city hall address. A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures (X) were, ( ) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for this project. ss Signatur Title J k i a sl Date Received for Filing Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope. y . .. . CASE NO. EiTD'IRON1IEiTT�L, SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY E.YVIR01'810TAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST r NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. UIV IRON.1611TAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets ) . - Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? • b. Disruptions, displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction; covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? V/ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? ✓ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 0 2, Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a_. Changes . i n currents , 'or the course or 1 direction of water* movements? "` . b. Changes in-abso-rpt- on rates , drainage Patterns, or the rate and" amoUint of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration Of-the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change .in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants (including trees , shrubs , grass , and crops )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? , c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 5. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any *unique, rare , or endangered species of animals? GJ c. Introduction of new species of animals Into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habit2t? + Z.� ,. 41 3. Yes Mabe No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? 7. EneraY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the-development of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of Upset, - - Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of. , hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides ,' ail , -chemicals , or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9. E-onomic Loss. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in •i:he value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and impro,,ements exposed to geologic hazards / beyond accepted .community risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to -the point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? li. Land Use. Will .the proposal result in the as tte—r tion of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Open Soace. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the :amount of designated open space? 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn or the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human Population of the City? b. Change in the population distribution by aye , income, religion, racial , or ethnic i group, occuaational class , household type? .� ' K I • 1 4. Yes Maybe No 14. Employment. Will the proposal result in additional new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a ' demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? f d. Alterations to present pattern's of circulation or mcvement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists , or pedestrians? 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following a rod c a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? f. Other governmental services? ,� , c 10 Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a r need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: r a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? ✓ f. Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ' a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 1/ b. A change in the level of community health care provided? 21. Social Services . Will the proposal result in an increased den-and for provision of general social services? / 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: 1 a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? . c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? ' 23. Lioht and Glare. Will the proposal produce • ne:v t ght or g are? J 24. Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal 1,( resu t in an a teratlon of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? ,wry' 6. Y_ Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findings of SioniN canca: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental .goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) _ I C. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) c� d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? c� Initial Study Prepared By: low ve EXPLANATION OF RESPONSES TO INITIAL STUDY FOR PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN GENERAL COMMENT: The Palma Village Specific Plan involves a highly urbanized area in the center of the City of Palm Desert. It is surrounded and intersected by high volume major highways. The principal recommendations of the plan involve land use revisions designed to encourage uses which are compatible with these traffic corridors while creating a buffer for interior residential areas. 1. EARTH: There are no unstable geologic structures in the area. The topography is quite flat and will not require extensive grading. Proposed street and drainage improvements will decrease erosion. 2. AIR: The proposed residential and commercial uses will not result in the creation of objectionable odor or the deterioration of air quality. 3. WATER: Development must conform to city's drainage and flood control ordinances. 4: PLANT LIFE: The area has already been graded as part of past development. No rare or endangered plant species are present. 5. ANIMAL LIFE: Existing urbanization has displaced most native wildlife. There are no rare or endangered animals present. 6. NATURAL RESOURCES: Plan recommendations are designed to encourage infill development which results in the most efficient use of land resources. The proposed uses will not consume unusual amounts of other resources. 7. ENERGY: Proposed residential and commercial uses developed in accordance with the state building code energy conservation requirements will insure minimum energy consumption. 8. RISK OF UPSET: The proposed uses do not involve hazardous substances. 9. ECONOMIC LOSS: Compliance with the city's development regulations insure that projects will not result in economic loss to adjacent existing development. 10. NOISE: The proposed land uses and design restrictions are designed to promote compatible uses adjacent to existing high noise generators and provide a buffer for lower intensity residential uses. 11. LAND USE: The plan proposes significant changes in land uses in response to impacts of increased land use intensity which has occurred in adjacent areas and to encourage housing for lower and moderate income and elderly households. Design requirements provide for buffer areas when possible land use conflicts occur. INITIAL STUDY CONTINUED 12. OPEN SPACE: The plan proposes to increase the area of designated open spaces. 13. POPULATION: The plan allows a higher ultimate population through increased residential densities. This is appropriate since the area is centrally located to schools, transportation, public and commercial facilities. 14. EMPLOYMENT: The plan proposes some expansion of commercial land uses. This will result in increased employment. 15. HOUSING: The plan proposes incentives for increased production of housing affordable for all segments of the Palm Desert community, including lower income households and senior citizens. These include both ownership and rental housing. The plan also proposes programs to aide in the rehabilitation of existing housing. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The plan encourages commercial and multi-family development adjacent to existing four lane high traffic corridors. Highway access from these developments will be consolidated to reduce potential conflicts. There will be no increased access to residential areas. Additional off-street parking will be provided as part of any new development. Circulation improvements are proposed to discourage existing non- local traffic in residential neighborhoods. 17. PUBLIC SERVICES: The types of infill development proposed in the plan do not significantly increase police or fire protection costs since these areas are already being fully serviced. Possible school impacts shall be mitigated by the city's $628 per unit school impact f ee. Additional park development is being proposed to serve the plan area. Extensive road and drainage improvements are proposed. 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE: While the plan proposed increased expenditures for parks and road improvements, these costs will be offset by increased tax imcrement revenues generated by new development. 19. UTILITIES: The area is presently served with adequate public utilities to accommodate the proposed land uses. The plan proposed upgrading sewer and storm drainage facilities. 20. HUMAN HEALTH: There will be no increased health hazards or effects on health care facilities associated with the plan. 21. SOCIAL SERVICES: The encouragement of senior citizen housing may generate the need for additional senior programs. A regional senior center is located within the area. 22. AESTHETICS: The city's design review process will insure that all new construction meets the highest architectural standards. Programs encouraging housing rehabilitation will upgrade general neighborhood appearance. -2- voi INITIAL STUDY CONTINUED 23. LIGHTING AND GLARE: The proposal to install street lights at major intersections will provide light in these areas. Lights will be designed to concentrate light on roadways. 24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: The proposed will not effect any historical or archeologic sites. -3- PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN Walt Next matter under public hearings is consideration of the Palma Village Specific Plan and associated negative declara- tion of environmental impact . This is a public hearing. I declare the public hearing open and ask for the report of the City Manager. Bruce Yps, Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, Mr. Diaz and his staff will brief you. I believe they could probably give you a summary briefing and respond to questions since they went through quite a bit of detail in the Study Session - your choice . Phil D. Before I begin, I would like to bring attention to some of the citizens, residents, property owners in the Palma Village area who spent a great deal of time and effort on this plan. They were part of the Palma Village Specific Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. They met fairly religiously on a weekly basis through November , December , January and on and off since then. They are Ella Manor, Frank Vassivo , Tim Palmer , John Hancock, Michael Criste, Franz Tirrie, Rheo Lawman , Verona Stewart, Rick Holden, Jim Sattley , Joyce McAllister , Del Gagnon, Randy Lunsford. Again, they dealt in a very thorough manner area by area to try to resolve some of these issues. For those who are interested and have not yet picked one up, the current draft of the Plan is available sitting on that wall right there. If you turn the page to page 14 , there is a map showing the Plan area and proposed land uses to follow along with the various discussions. To begin with , the Plan was initiated because of a desire to stimulate some improvements in this particular area which represents the oldest subdivision in the City. And the Committee first established what they believed to be the basic criteria which would determine the basic recommendations of the Plan . Those criteria were : - That all new uses be compatible with existing and future uses; That the Plan address the needs of the Palm Desert community; and That the land uses allowed would be economically feasible in the foreseeable future. Basically, the Plan recommendations are designed to promote new, high quality development in long-vacant areas, unutilized areas, and to preserve and enhance existing single family zones. They also established a number of general policies to, again, guide the Plan, which would apply to the whole area, and those were: 1 . That the City would take a more proactive role in the promotion of public improvements in promoting high quality infill private development and public works consistent with the policy criteria. 2 . General Policy II dealt with that commercial and multi- family zones be of sufficient depth to allow efficient site planning and the creation of buffer areas adjacent to single family zones. 3. Policy III was to discourage nonlocal through traffic in local neighborhoods. 4 . Policy IV was to basically reaffirm the City ' s overall architectural review process so that all new development in this area will receive the same high standards of architectural review and concern for senior preservation as all development does throughout the City. -1- 5. General Policy V has to do with legal nonconforming residential uses, which presently are, under our present ordinance, subject to elimination under certain circum- stances; and this policy recommends that a policy be developed to allow these uses to achieve full conforming status if they achieve a specified standard of architectural and site planning. 6, General Policy VI deals with building height , in that the Plan and the Committee felt that in certain areas two story development was advantageous. They felt that additional controls on height , which do not presently exist , could be instituted to adequately deal with and mitigate the impacts of this increased incidence of two story height . Basically, it recommended the reduction from the present 30 foot height limit for a two story building to 22 feet for flat roofed and 24 feet for pitched roofs and 25 feet for professional offices . 7. Policy VII was to address all the City owned surplus land in the area which is now vacant , and it basically directs the City to either landscape, develop , or dispose of in a satisfactory manner for development all those vacant lands so they don' t detract from the landscape. And those are the general policies. I will then go through the recommendation for the Plan area by area, and it will probably help as I describe them to refer to that map on page 14 . Area 1 includes Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. The recommended land uses in that area are as follows: On Fred . Waring between Monterey and San Pablo, the present low density, essentially single family designation is being recommended to be changed to a professional office. The goal of this particular change and many of the changes in this area are to generate new development of comparable quality and scale as developments which are occurring on the north side of Fred Waring; namely, the Cultural Center and the Civic Center; that these uses promoted and allowed on the south side be of that same comparable quality in this area. Because of the special impacting occasionally being generated by the Cultural Center , professional offices are being recommended. The depth of this zone will extend two lots backing onto Santa Rosa. To mitigate the impact of this increased intensity of use on Fred Waring , it is recommended that a 30 foot greenbelt be established on the north side of Santa Rosa and that only parking and the creation of common uses parking lots be allowed on those lots that presently back onto Santa Rosa. In the block between, on Fred Waring, San Pablo and Portola, in that a great number of -multifamily uses already are in existence on the lots presently fronting onto Santa Rosa in that area , we are recommending a continuation of that use but a rezoning to high density residential with a senior housing overlay which I will discuss somewhat later. On to Monterey. We are recommending continuation of professional office uses beginning where the Board of Realtors is north to Fred Waring and maintenance of the high density residential on Fred Waring north of Fred Waring to Parkview with the creation of a similar greenbelt buffer backing onto Acacia. On the east side of Fred Waring we are recommending; that the professional office zone extend and continue down to Catalina with, again , maintenance of a greenbelt behind and basically stopping there at Catalina. The second area is the area continuing on Monterey down to Highway 111 and around the corner going east on Highway 111 to San Pablo. (to make sure I cover everything) The most substantial proposal in this zone is the expansion of the -2- current commercial use on Highway 111 back one lot into what is now single family. Right now there is a single family zone , I mean there is a commercial zone , an alley and then residential lots back on to the alley. We are proposing to maximize the Highway frontage on Highway 111 so that it does not become consumed by parking as would be the case and as it is being proposed right now by various property owners that the commercial zone be expanded into the first row lots that are presently backing on the alley and that area being utilized as a common access usage parking area similar to Presidents Plaza and creation of a, greenbelt north of that adjacent to the residential uses. Access to this parking area would be from the corner of San Gorgonio and Monterey, San Marcos , and through what is now the alley which would become a bio-access to the parking area. The second recommendation is to study ways to reduce traffic through the San Gorgonio neighborhood which is presently being generated by the Palm Desert Town Center. Considerable debate on this in the Committee and in the hearings, it was clearly recognized that a serious problem exists; how to deal with it was left unresolved.' Area number 3 - Santa Rosa to Guadalupe between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo. This area is presently essentially is development R-1 although its official designation is R-2(7) . The functioning of the R-2( 7) in this particular zone because of the subdivision pattern is as R-1 . We are recommending that it remain, that that pattern be preserved and low density residential remain . Area 4 - Monterey Avenue west to Fairhaven . In this area, again, in terms of the interior , aside from those impacts and changes specifically described on Monterey , the present single family low density usage should be preserved. Area 5 - Alessandro , basically from San Pablo all the way to Deep Canyon. We are proposing the expansion of the present depth of what is now a multifamily medium density zone with professional offices a conditional use permit which is now one lot deep. We are proposing that it be expanded to two lots deep with the function of the second lot to be a lower intensity, lower height , buffer between the two uses. Area 6 - San Pascual and Catalina. This is the area roughly around the Seniors Center. In the neighborhoods east of San Pascual which are already predominantly built out with single family, we are proposing preservation of the present single family. Number two would be to encourage construction of senior housing surrounding the Seniors Center , and we are proposing the establishment of a senior housing overlay of which a proposed draft is included in the back of the Plan , which will provide standards for specifically designed senior housing. West of San Pascual where we already have a mix of basically vacant land and older multifamily, we are proposing that it be zoned, all of the land be zoned multifamily to be consistent with the existing development and to encourage higher quality multifamily in the area. One specific thing I should point out : In the parcels directly east of the Seniors Center on Catalina , we are proposing that in that this area abuts single family to the south, that although we are proposing the senior overlay and what now is a medium density R-2 zone, that the SP (Senior Preservation Overlay) or an equivalent restriction be placed limiting development on this site to one story since it is across the street from established single family , single story homes. -3- Area 7, which is the single family, predominantly single family condominium development east of Portola, we are recommending that it remain essentially at its current status. Areas 8 and 9 are the two remaining vacant large parcels : 8 being the ten-acre piece east of Monterey directly adjacent to the Town Center; and Area 9 is approximately a 30-acre piece off of Deep Canyon. What is recommended there is that the current base zone of low density residen- tial remain but the proposed senior housing overlay also be applied to allow proposals for senior housing to be pursued on these sites pursuant to the standards of senior housing overlays. We have already received an application and the Planning Commission has reviewed at a continued public hearing the proposal on Monterey. All these uses would then be , whatever is approved on the proposed land use map , would then all be subject to change of zone process which could be handled in a number of different ways. In the past , in many cases we have waited until the property owner has requested a change of zone . That has gotten us into some trouble on some parcels. We are recommending as far as this plan that wherever possible the City initiate in a comprehensive way the changes of zones unless for some reason a property owner , where you have a transition occurring, would prefer as a timing issue not to have a change of zone occur immediately . But as a general rule we would like to see and be coming back through individual series of hearings 'the actual zone changes or the actual detailed fine line of where these lines are going to draw would be established, and again those would be in subsequent hearings , as would be the hearings concerning the recommended zoning ordinance amendments would also be the subject of individual hearings where, again , the fine details of the language of and the specifications for the proposed height amendments and the senior overlay amendments and the like would be dealt with. The other issues of land use where, again there will be other complicating issues I am sure. In addition to the land use recommendations , the Plan makes recommendations concerning (continued on page 15) circulation, and we ' ll go through ' those. And again this deals with the intrusion of nonlocal through traffic into what are neighborhood streets . The two most important examples and the oral communication which occurred before this hearing was, I guess, referenced to another one which was not emphasized in the hearings before , are San Gorgonio and Fairhaven Drive. Fairhaven Drive at the previous hearings , in the opinion of the residents who testified from that area at that hearing and based upon testimony we received during hearings on a project in that area became clear that it was their desire to see Fairhaven closed at Parkview, that it was being used as a shortcut avoiding the Monterey intersections. It was determined that since the area does have numerous other ingress and egresses exits that the closing of Fairhaven at that point would not create an access problem for the residents or emergency vehicles. The second area discussed in circulation was San Gorgonio which is experiencing radically increased traffic as a result of the opening of the Town Center , the placement of the exit and a signal adjacent. There was less consensus of opinion of what should be done . Everyone agreed something should be done , and the Plan recommends basically that a study be conducted to investigate ways to discourage that traffic. It is my understanding that the Public Works Department is conducting traffic counts in that general area including San Gorgonio and we will be able to know more and be able to decide on that later. -4- Another issue involves the streets that were dead ended by the City in that apparently full cul-de-sacs have not been established there. Those property owners on the ends their properties become in fact the cul-de-sacs , and they would like to see those dead ends established as full cul-de-sacs so people don' t use their front yards to turn around in . And then, of course, those streets that are cul-de-sacs should be signed much more clearly to indicate that they qre dead ends and then they don' t have so much traffic coming down and having to turn around. Public facilities - the most immediate needs in terms of public facilities expressed in the hearings and by the Committee was the City' s active participation in the establishment of more curb and gutter districts. In the past , the City had a fairly passive role providing resources but they felt that the City should more actively encourage the first step in that process already been taken when we send out all the notices for all these things we ' ve been sending out petitions to every property owner. So where you have a lot of renters at least the property owners have all gotten the petition once, and we have been slowly getting a response. Second item would be to increase the level of street lighting at more prominent intersections within the area. One that came to mind immediately was San Pascual and Catalina around the Seniors Center and there were others which would have to be closely identified. In terms of implementation, it was recommended that by way of becoming more active, the City should, where for one reason or another the number of petitions are not received, then generally initiate the process, that the City should investigate why, if it ' s a matter that they don ' t want curbs or gutters or is this a matter of whether the assessments themselves are a hardship. And then where they are a hardship we should develop programs to relieve that hardship through possibly a program to defer those assessments to sale of property for qualifying property owners . Another issue as far as public facilities would be sewers . Many of the older sewer systems, individual septic tank systems, are beginning to fail in the area, and although the area is totally ringed by sewer systems, very few of those go into the area, and it is the recommendation that we do a feasibility study to investigate the timing and the cost of extending sewers throughout the area. Next area is Parks and Open Space. The recreation element of the General Plan calls for the existence of neighborhood parks within a quarter mile to half mile service area. Presently this neighborhood does not contain any neighborhood park facilities and probably most of the area is considerably beyond the half mile or quarter mile service radius of the Community Park over at the Middle School and the proposed San Pablo Park. And so the recommendation is to investigate provision of one small neighborhood park in each one of the blocks. The Committee identified on a tentative basis three what they thought were possible sites in each block. The siting of parks is fairly controversial ; if you have kids , they like parks, you love to live next to it . If you don ' t , then it ' s not as desirable. Again , to implement this recom- mendation would require more specific investigation of the costs and the neighborhood acceptance and desire for these facilities. It also calls for the City , in referring to the surplus lands owned, partial streets on Fred Waring and Monterey and San Pablo. And if it is determined that these lots are undevelopable for housing or some other constructed -5- use and that the adjacent property owners are unwilling to accept them and landscape them, the City should landscape them and incorporate them into the parkway system. This also includes parkways, for example , east of Portola on the south side where you have houses backing up , where we cannot expect those property owners to landscape that parkway behind themselves on Portola, that those areas shall also be slated for landscape and parkway installation. Wherever possible, where new development is being generated, we can put that parkway maintenance, installation maintenance , onto the new development . And in these places where we do not foreses new development , because of either the existence of past development or just because of the sale of land, these parkways should be developed by the City . Last item is the Economics and Housing Elements, and this section basically reiterates the goals and objectives of the land use policies and in terms of the construction of senior housing and multifamily housing from low and moderate income households in the area. And the establishment of low interest loan programs or other forms of financial incentives to promote the rehabiliation and the improvement of existing housing in the area. And this is basically pursuant to the programs recommended in the housing element . And that concludes my presentation . Thank you. Walt Thank you , Mr. Drell . It has been a long presentation. We are pleased that you stayed with us all through it . The results of this is the actions of the Committee that is in the neighborhood that assisted staff in trying to come up with a way to have a plan for this area that is acceptable to everyone. This is a public hearing and I will start off by asking for testimony from anyone who is in favor of this plan. I will, therefore , take testimony from anyone who is in opposition to this plan . My name is ROMEO PULURI , 72-850 Tamarisk, and I live in the south end. However, the north side , it ' s true , is one of the oldest sections of the City, and although there is some nice housing and some nice commercial buildings , the majority of that area is sort of dilapidated. And in view of all the affordable housing that the Council in the past has seen necessary to approve in the north of Palm Desert , my greatest fear , being that I am a property owner in the north side, is that some of the tenants may leave those dilapidated homes on the north side, or at least some of them, and move to those new ones. Therefore , I have a tremendous fear that it may end up being a very low, low rent district because the owners of the property will not be able to afford keeping up with the new construction that they can place on the north side. I hate to say this, but that area has been in a way kind of neglected, in a manner of speaking , including when I was in office in a manner of speaking because most of the output was for the south side of Palm Desert . And I feel it is time to approve this comprehensive plan although I believe that no changes of zoning should take place at this time because you may sort of. stop the plan and make some of the property too expensive for some people to buy and develop. I feel that the City should be the leader and buy the property as it comes up for sale , as I think the report has stated in it . I feel that staff has done a good work and also the members of the Committee. I do realize that there are some problems with certain areas, but they can be dealt with as they come up. However , the entire Plan I feel is good and I feel that the Council should approve it immediately. Thank you. -6- Walt Thank you. I might point out that the staff will be available and we are available tonight if there are any questions that you have. Woman May I speak? Walt J think that would be wonderful . VERONA STEWART, 44-476 San Rafael . I live on one of those streets, unpaved, 50% vacant. I think that it would be worthwhile if only to get the streets paved and to get rid of some of the vacant lots and the trash and the overgrown weeds and the beer bottles and things like that . I do live there, have lived there for over seven years. There has been no new development in the area until the past year, and now I see that there is , it looks like there are people , contractors, moving in to make further developments, possibly because of this new plan that we have been working on. So although we can' t satisfy everybody and there are some people that aren' t going to be able to go along with the plan , I think the majority of the property owners who live there would be in favor of it. Thank you. Walt Thank you, ma' am. My name is STANLEY SOPHER, 44-695 San Antonio Circle. I am in favor of this plan, wholeheartedly in favor of it . However, I would like to see San Gorgonio stopped there at Monterey and some kind of a signal implanted there at 111 and San Clemente so the people can, I think this is one of their main problems for not closing this street . I was instru- mental in getting a petition up to close , San Gorgonio and this was the main beef as such. If we close San Gorgonio , how are we going to get around the shopping center. One thing is, if we do put a signal turn light at San Clemente and Highway 111 , they can get across the street . This is one of the opposition beefs, and they can come out on 111 and go around. This would cut off all of the , or a majority of the traffic that through traffic in there that so many people are complaining of. Now they are using it as a regular highway, 45 and 50 miles an hour going through there, and I imagine you have had people, you say they are counting the cars going through there, how about the speeds . They can tell you and give you a good report on that if they have been alert in this matter. Another point that I would like to speak on is the senior housing there . I understand they are putting in an inn or a hotel for senior citizens. This is not a hospital or a nursing home or what have you where you, as probably most of you have gone into the elderly nursing homes and seen the people wiping their mouths, these elderly people that cannot get around and do for themselves . This is not that type of a thing I understand. You have to have at least a few dollars to get in to this type of a hotel or motel and I think that it would be an asset to our area there. I would be living just adjacent to this plan there , this development , if it is allowed to go in and up to this point it has just been one large eyesore and causing nothing but a lot of dirt and people dumping their trash and so forth there. I think this , if you would consider that , I think this would be a very good plan for the City of Palm Desert . A large improvement. Thank you very much. Walt Thank you, sir. And we are conducting traffic surveys to determine what we can do with the traffic. I think you were next , Charlie. One more. Good evening, Mr. Snyder and ladies and gentlemen of the Council . I am HELEN BREEDING. My husband and I own lots 42 , 43 , and 44 which is the corner of Fairhaven and Fred -7- Waring Drive. We have owned these for 25 years and they were, originally when we bought them, two were R-2 and one was R-1. And when the County widened Fred Waring Drive they told us that we would not have any problem changing the third lot to R-2. Now, when Palm Desert took over the City and Fred Waring Drive, unbeknown to us they changed them to R-1 without notifying us. I believe this is a very prestigious corner and if you come off of Highway ill down Fred Waring Drive, you have a big sign stating that this is going to be a hotel and hopefully retail shopping. You proceed a little further and you come to the Quail apartments and the two churches. On our corner there is nothing except one house a little bit to the east of us and another house to the east of us clear to Monterey. I cannot see this particular corner, which is three lots, going for single family dwelling. I can ' t imagine anyone buying the lots to put a single family home there that ' s just going to be sitting out there all by itself. Just to the east of our lots is going to be a greenbelt . Now if this is going to be single family and there no doubt will be children , they will be using that as a playground, and I don' t think Fred Waring Drive with the traffic is conducive to this . And I would be very happy if you could see it to change this not from R-1 or R-2 which they originally were but I think a professional building on the corner which would service all the tenants in the (wail Run apartment building would be far more advantageous and using the property to the best of its use. Thank you kindly . Walt Thank you. We ' ll look into that and ask. . . Phil D. The plan recommends at the present time , based upon some preliminary discussion with Mrs. Breeding, we are recommending R-2 there, a medium density. We probably have no objection to the corner lot being, or the corner two lots, being redesignated potentially for professional office. Walt Fine. You will discuss that with Mrs . Breeding? Mrs . B May I just add that I think all three lots should become one lot because that would, I can ' t see that working at all . It would be too small to even build a house on it , a third one. Thank you. Walt Thank you. We' ll take action on that , Tors . Breeding. I 'm BILL ROSSWORN, 41-530 Woodhaven Drive in Palm Desert , and I am a property owner on San Pablo and Catalina and Santa Rosa and I am also a real estate developer and I think you folks have done a good job on this planned development . I wanted to commend you. Thank you. Walt Thank you. Charlie. CHARLIE MILLER, Little Bend Trail , Palm Desert . Council , Mayor, the only concern I have , I think this is a beautiful thing that staff has come up with and I am for it 100%. What worries me, I face the Highway, I ' ll be on a corner lot back from Monterey, and this new parking that is going to go behind , they are going to do away with the alley, which I think is fine , I ' m for all of this. But what worries me is that here is an expense going to come in here on who is going to buy the lots for this public parking behind our property on the other side of the alley. I understand there are some people in Beverly Hills that own one lot and I own the other one, and I am kind of concerned whether I ' m going to be reimbursed or what is going to happen there . And another thing was the sewers. There are no sewers down in there at all and I think that this should be kind of a number one priority there to run the sewers down through there before we get everything in place and have to tear it all up again . And I thank you and I think it is a wonderful thing you are doing for the north side. -8- Walt Thank you. Anyone else who would care to testify? Another Planning Commissioner. My name is GEORGE KRYDER. I live on Sonora Drive in Palm Desert . I would like to comment on that specific area that this young lady over here discussed. I don' t know whether she lives there, but I do , and I don' t quite agree with her conclusion that we should, nor do I agree with the plan which 'calls for the rezoning of these areas. It seems to me that this zoning area is isolated, it is inserted into an existing residential area, and while I would certainly have no ,,objection to some kind of higher density use on the corner , I hate to see that zoning go into the area and up to Sonora. If there were some adjacent zoning, if there were additional reasons for it , I would concur. But there isn' t any such thing. In short , there is no reason for it . It is inconsis- tent and it ' s really not in keeping with the general policy that you set forth yourself which I will reread quickly . To the effect that multifamily and commercial zones should be sufficient to allow efficient site planning and creation of adequate buffer zones adjacent to single family zones . That is not being done here. This area as it approaches Sonora there are homes there now which I presume would have to be destroyed. Am I correct on that? Well, then you are rezoning areas where there are existing homes . There is a single story duplex. But at any rate , it is a single family area. The general policy in the discussion says that narrow strips of commercial and multifamily 4ones adjacent to single family zones are poorly suited to quality development and negatively impact adjacent properties and I think that is the case here. And it goes on to say that it is important to designate zones which are appropriate to the scale and quality of the development we wish to promote . On that basis alone, I think you are abrogating the promise that ,you make in the general policy by changing and inserting into that primarily totally residential area an unwanted use . I would just go further on one other area that was brought up and that would be the sewer system which you may recall I have talked about a couple of times before Planning Commission and the Council. It seems to me that the curbs and gutters are nice. I think the age of the area and the fact that . it is almost entirely cesspool , old cesspool, which are in need of replacement , I think the sewer matter is much more important than the curbs and gutters from my standpoint and the standpoint of a lot of other people who live in the area. Thank you. Walt Thank you Mr. Kryder. And I believe these matters will be taken into consideration. And as you know any change would have to go through a change of zone. What we are talking about is a plan for an area. Yes , sir. I 'm JACK DAYTON, I live at 74-280 Alessandro, Palm Desert Village here in #6 . Mr. Mayor and Council people . I 'm not really going to say whether I am for or against . I think overall you' ve done a good job in Palm Desert , an excellent job compared to most cities . There are a few things and trends that I see that may wind up like Los Angeles , and I hope you never get there. Like Ventura Blvd. You ' ve been reading about that and hearing about that over the news where a guy told them 10 years ago that if they didn ' t stop the building they wouldn' t be able to move. And they have gotten to that point now. So with the rearrangement of some of the increased density that I see here in the Plan , that is one thing that I am concerned about . In fact , on Alessandro we now have the Protection Services unit there which , when they started they didn ' t require that much parking space. Now the people like to park on the north side of Alessandro -9- in the residential spaces for the people that come to visit or need to live there and they work across the street . I don' t really think that ' s quite fair. In fact , one of my tenants told one of the guys that he would come down and park in front of his house in Coachella if he didn ' t stop parking in front- of his place, and it worked. And another thing is when I first came down here 13 years ago from L. A. all I heard was the south side. The north side is nothing, the south side is where all the money is and that is where all the buildings are and that is where everybody should buy . And that as far as I am concerned Highway 111 has been the Mason/Dixon line in this town. It has been that way ever since I ' ve been down here and probably many , many years before. And when this town was laid out and sold in lots nobody gived a damn about flood control because they didn ' t put a divider down through the center of the town where they could get the water from the north to the south, from the south to the north and get it out of town . And of course with this new assessment district. which is going in for curbs and gutters on the south side, all that is really going to wind up doing is throw more water down the streets into the north side when you have a heavy rain. That is one reason we have the flood problem today even though the dyke has been built . We get a rain like we did in 176 , I question whether that will be completely safe or not . And as far as parking, we need somewhere in that araa where those lots should become a parking lot , where the City buys them and provides a parking lot or what I don' t know. But I think you should consider it . And as far as rezoning the R-3 back two lots, well the guy on the second lot right now is better off than he would be than the guy on the third lot if he made his R-1 next to the two front lots being R-3 cause you' re going to have a lot more density and a lot more traffic and a lot more noise and he' s going to have to put up with it and you can' t put enough of a buffer in there to kill it . So, frankly, I don' t think you should put the second lot where it isn' t available, cause a vacant lot I don' t see a problem in talking to somebody in that respect . But where you go and take an R-1 home like Mr. Arce' s on the corner of Santa Anita, second house down , one next to me, he ' s got a lovely home in there. And that would mean his lot would go R-3. That ' s not going to do him and people like him any good. In fact , it ' s going to hurt them in the long run. Thank you. Walt Thank you, sir , for your observations. All of these matters will , of course, be looked into and the purpose of the Committee action was to indeed look at this area. It is the City' s responsibility to participate and help and try to plan and to work with the people who own this land and who live in this land to do what they want . And that was the reason for the Committee meetings . And that was the reason for getting everyone together to look at the problem, try to come up with the best solutions possible that would make the most people happy. That is the reason that the City took the forefront to move into and to assist and to have the meetings and to try to get everybody' s input and create a plan that would do what we hoped would be the most advantageous to everyone. There will be individual items , the staff will be willing to meet with you, will discuss every item that you may feel that needs discussion . You merely need to call and make an appointment and we' ll be happy to go over those items with you. We feel that we have created a plan which has to have tremendous amount of good things in it or it wouldn' t have gotten this far. We will try to correct to the extent possible any of the bad -10- things that are in it . Does anyone else care to have any statements relative to it before I dose the public hearing? Yes, sir. My name is KIGER BARTON. I live at 44-519 San Anselmo, and I think the Planning Commission and the people who worked on the Committee should be commended. I know they put in a lot of work and they' ve got some good ideas here . There are a few things that I think should be thought about , and one of them is the high density. This is a mistake I have seen a lot of cities make. They pour in a lot of high density right in their downtown area and then they come along and they' ve created a lot of crime and this and that in problems and they come along a few years later , and I ' ve seen them spend millions of dollars trying to correct that mistake. And high density, it lowers the standard of living any place it ' s put in. The higher the density, the lower the standard of living and the more crime you' re likely to have. So , to me, high density is not an improvement . Another thought I have is on these neighborhood parks. These sound really great , but you have to maintain these parks and I wonder who' s going to police them or supervise them 24 hours a day. That could be a headache to the City and perhaps the immediate neighbors. And another thing, I think we should have a limit on the number of people that can live in a structure. I know of a place or two not far from us that sometimes there are 30 or 40 people living like in a three or four bedroom structure. And it ' s very chaotic for the immediate neighborhood. It is a danger to them and so on . I don' t know, maybe the City does have a limit , but if they don' t I certainly think they should. Thank you very much. Walt Thank you, sir. Anyone else who would care to testify before the closing of this meeting , this hearing? If not , I will close. . . I 'm sorry, I didn ' t see you, sir. I 'm TERRAN ELAM. I live over on 74-035 Goleta Street , down on the west end, and the high density right there I believe the traffic problems are already going to affect an already high traffic congested area. There is a vacant lot on the northwest corner there off of Fred Waring and Portola that will probably never be built as an R-1 because of the stop light and the traffic going through there. And we also own an adjoining lot right next to it that basically is losing value because of the traffic. And it can' t be built as an R-1. Both sides of Goleta at the end there , yeah. That ' s what I 'm talking about , yeah. It might be better R-2 or something you can build on , I don ' t know for sure. Thank you. Walt Thank you. May I point out to you that all of the remarks made here tonight are on tape and we will have the staff look into everything that has been brought up here tonight . And we will attempt to adjudicate them and find ways to notify people as to what our actions have been. Anybody else who would care to testify? Mrs. Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, I would just like to ask one Breeding question. When I was meeting, I think it was the first part of April, I think it was mentioned that it was the desire that Fred Waring Drive be similar to Tahquitz-McCallum in Palm Springs. I can see that street in the future . I know I won' t be there. It is a very beautiful street , but I can' t see it with a little single family home here and a -11- building across the street. as large as the apartments that were just built and a church. You take right , slightly behind where Von' s used to be, there' s a little three or four unit , but the side of it is along Tahquitz-McCallum and it just ruins the whole look of Tahquitz-McCallum becuase it was allowed to be put in there many, many years ago when they didn ' t have zoning. And it should be torn ,down and a beautiful office building be put there . And I do think that Fred Waring Drive is not a street where single housing or even R-2 housing. Thank you. Walt Thank you, Mrs. Breeding. Anyone else? Any questions by the Council? Roy I have one question for Mr. Drell . In the very northwest corner you have a pink designation on your colored map and there doesn' t seem to be any designation of a usage change on my page. Phil D. There is no change. That pink is medium density , 5 to 10 units per acre. That is what the current zoning is. That is what the Council approved a project at . It ,is approxi- mately 7 units per acre is what that Ward project approval was, so that is consistent with the current zoning and the current project . In reference to Mrs. Breeding, I 'm somewhat remiss. At the Planning Commission, her property was dual designated Professional Office/Medium Density, and I did not change it . It is changed on the map in the staff report ; it is not changed on that map. But , her property is, she owns, I believe, three lots that the two small ones that are parcel lots at the corner and then the one lot south, in that the rest of the property was either vacant or the only remaining unit is a duplex. On those lots the effect of the medium density would be to allow more duplexes like the unit that is currently there. The question is whether the office professional should extend all the way and that is the question. In the Planning Commission map the entire area was dual designated medium density/professional office . Walt Thank you. Any other questions by the Council? Jean I don' t have any questions, but I do have a comment . I am very concerned about the high density residential that is on Monterey adjacent to the single families behind it in the one little office professional there. Then all that high density and we are going to all the expense of getting Monterey to be one of our main corridors into the City. I don' t really feel that coming in that you should come in and pass a high density there and then go to office professional with the Cultural Center on the other side. I think it ' s a misuse of that piece of property right there . I think the whole corridor coming into the City all along that way would be far better served keeping it beautiful as an office professional landscaping and the building rather than moving all that traffic onto the Highway there and our corridor entrance. I 'm sure everybody knows I don' t like high density anyway. All along Fred Waring, I 'm not cracked up about all that either, but that one at Monterey really disturbs me . Walt Thank you. We' ll have the staff get on that one . Any discussion? Phyllis I wanted to question Jean. Which high density? You mean the existing apartments? Walt Let staff investigate it. Any further questions by the Council? If not , I shall close the public hearing and ask your approval or disapproval of the Plan and direct staff to begin implementation of the recommendations . -12- Roy I think we need to discuss various aspects of this overall . My reaction is that the Committee and the Planning Commission and the staff have done a lot of hard work in trying to identify ways to upgrade this. I have two overall concerns . One deals with the quite extensive development of two story units throughout , particularly in the high density areas and in some of the office professional areas. And the second, the overall concept of the high density residential throughout and what along San Pablo and along Fred Waring in addition to the two areas that Councilmember Benson mentioned. I think that we need to be aware of the impact this will have on the entire neighborhood, those two things , the two story and the high density, extensive use of high density. It will have a major impact and forever and irreversibly change the character of that entire north side and I think we need to be fully aware of that before we implement something without the careful study. I know it ' s had careful study, but I think we need to look at it from the impact that it will have . I 'm also not sure why some of the senior overlay units have to be multiple story. I think by changing some of the sizes of the units and carport requirements and so forth that you could have more of lower density garden type developments in some of the larger areas that we are talking about such as the large blocks. Some of those are LDR(SO) but I guess my main concern is the two story and high density. Phyllis I first want to publicly thank the people who participated in this horrendous job, because it is , and the meetings and the discussions aren' t easy and I think the staff certainly has done a fine job. I don' t find too much fault with any of their recommendations. I think that we are talking about an overall plan, just like you do a general plan, that can necessarily change as change dictates and this can happen as we grow and develop. I 'm really not as concerned about the two story with the height modifications that were recommended, lowering the maximum height limits , because by doing this, as the staff explained , this allows for a lot more open space than putting one story units and covering a greater percentage of the ground. I think that ' s one of the things that we' re all concerned about . We ' re concerned more rather than whether it ' s two story , we' re concerned to see what the overall height is, and when you can put two stories in what is only two feet more than our one story height limit , why that really doesn ' t make sense . So I 'm not concerned there. As far as the senior overlay is concerned, I think that ' s where we have a definite obligation is to produce some housing for our senior citizens in an area where their activity center is and that they can participate in and be able to walk to it and to enjoy it , and certainly I think we ' re all aware that we have many, many seniors living here on fixed incomes who need to have housing that they can afford, and I think the only way we can give them that unless the City wants to be generous and subsidize and do things like that , that we do have to allow for some increased densities , but I think those have to be carefully chosen as to where the locations are and what the benefits are to the people who will be occupying; them. But generally overall I think that they' ve done a fantastic job and I ' ve owned property in the area for many, many years and I would join with everybody else . I 'm tired of being a second class citizen and I think it ' s time that we upgraded the entire area and provided the incentives for people who want to improve their property by encouraging new building and as long as it remains the way it is , people will not come into the area and will not build there. And it is certainly -13- no encouragement to spend money on the front yards and on the what is laughlingly called the street in the area that I own - I know most of it has broken away and there are great gutters where the water has run down and washed the sand away. But I think that this is the step in the right direction and I think that within the next five years we' ll ,see a real marked difference in the look of the area and certainly in the property values there. Walt Mr. Kelly. Dick Well, I think that everyone has done a terrific job, and I realize that there are certain aspects that we might not all agree with and there are some that concern me also , but I think as a general plan, it is an excellent plan. And I think the opportunity for senior citizen development around our seniors center is very good. I think the office professional will help uplift the area and I think it ' s a good plan. Walt Thank you. Jean? Jean No, I ' ve said what I have to say. I certainly agree , too , that the seniors need their housing, and those areas in the central area I have no fault with. It ' s the peripheral areas that I 'm concerned about . , Walt We can' t hear you. Please talk into the mike . Jean I said it ' s the perpheral areas that I am concerned about and the high density along the outside of these areas. The inside I think will take care of itself . Those are zoned , I think, very well to upgrade the neighborhood. But I am concerned about spilling all the traffic onto the main thoroughfares with high density units and the second story. Roy I think maybe I gave the impression I wasn ' t for the senior overlay. I think it ' s a good idea, but I think seniors of all people deserve in their latter years to live on the ground floor and not have to climb stairs to their units, and I think we could put or include an SP zone over this area and it would be to the advantage of seniors rather than a detriment. Phyllis We could give them an elevator. Roy That ' s expensive. Phil D. The senior overlay draft requires elevators for all second story units and all units be handicapped accessible . Walt As you can see , ladies and gentlemen , nothing is easy. We do, indeed, have some serious considerations. I don ' t think any of us could argue that most of us come out here to live to get away from high density and crowding and that sort of thing. I can frankly tell you that ' s the reason I 'm here . I don' t want it , but I don ' t want to see an area go downhill either. I want to find a way that we can improve our City , improve the area in which you live, and do it in the best manner possible. I don ' t think any plan that we could put together would meet the approval of everybody . They ' ll all have some problems. I have joined Councilman Wilson and Councilman Benson in our fight to retain our open spaces and -14- less density. And I will continue to do that . I think I have to face the fact that this area needs some help . That was the reason to ask all of you to get together with us and plan how to do it , and it ' s not a plan that is total . We' ll be working on it . We' ve taped everything. Our staff is available to discuss with you individual problems. I think together we can put it together. I think we can .make this something that we' ll be proud of. It will take us awhile , but this is the first step . And I think it ' s a plan; it ' s better than we' ve had before, and I would like to suggest that we go ahead with the plan and modify it as we go to make it like as near possible that all of us want . If there is no further discussion, I ' ll close the public hearing. Roy Go ahead and close the public hearing. I ' d like to continue to discuss it. Walt I hereby close the public hearing. Roy Let' s take a look at our little map here. From San Carlos, middle of the plan running along San Pablo to San Carlos at one point to San Rafael the rest of the point . All of that up to Santa Rosa and then all the way to Portola is designated high density residential which according to this map is 18 dwelling units per acre. Now we have a lot of apartment units in there, but it ' s nowhere near 18 units to the acre . Conceptualize what this will look like, One Quail place is, what , 21 units to the acre, Phil? Phil D. 22 Roy We' re talking basically a density not quite the magnitude of One Quail Place running this entire area. That ' s a lot of traffic, that ' s a lot of housing, that ' s a lot of congestion . It ' s going to impact all the other LDR, the lower density residential units, throughout that area. And likewise as Councilman Benson pointed out earlier, up across from College of the Desert all along there along Arcadia right adjacent to Arcadia which is a nice large subdivision , large lots, nice neighborhood. You' re putting potential 18 units to the acre density right up against that residential. And I have serious reservations about most of the HDR in this plan . Phil D. Do you want me to respond to that? I can a little bit . The first area. . . Walt . . . . put you on the spot. Phil D. No, it ' s alright . The Committee' s feeling on why that area on San Pablo and Fred Waring were designated high density residential. What we have presently there now is, as you said, vacant lots and apartments . Apartments range from about 12 units to the acre up to 18 units per acre. And there are two story apartments there. Presently all the lots that now front on Santa Rosa are zoned R-2 . The present zoning allows two stories there. The situation we have now which we felt was a little bit unusual , is we have a one story requirement right on Fred Waring; backed up by a two story , or a present zone which allows two stories right behind them. Generally you have situations the other way around. You use a higher intensity use on a major street to buffer low intensit uses on the interior , and the present situation we have it reversed, and the proposals for the high density residential -15- will , one/bring the zoning more consistent with what current development is and provide the same privileges in terms of height to the people on Fred Waring as the people on Santa Rosa enjoy. The same, I guess, rationale existed down San Pablo. Presently , if you look at the 'bottom area where you have San Carlos , that is presently zoned R-3 and it is developed with apartments. And it is zoned R-3 up San Rafael about three-quarters of the way, here we have another situation where we have higher density zoning on ;'the inside and then on San Pablo where we have the medium density multifamily. Again , an unusual situation where the people who are really experiencing the impact have a lower density regulation as opposed to the inside. So in view of the overall existing trend of development , the Committee felt it was not sonable to expect the developers of the vacant proper o develop lower densities when the existing development all around them is higher densities. And consistent with the goal - of trying to stimulate development of these vacant lots with high quality projects , that was the source of those recommendations. On the high density on Monterey, again although it was omitted somewhat from the map, in the most north high density zone there would be a similar greenbelt concept on the east side of Acacia. What that greenbelt concept is is that the beginning of any project in terms of a perimeter wall would be at the existing 20 foot setback line for a single family home. Therefore, that 20 foot front yard plus the, in that case, approximately 10 foot parkway , would become and would have to be maintained by any future development as a 30 foot greenbelt . The goal , the site planning on these both projects would be that only one story uses would be permitted on those zones on those lots that right now would be backing onto Acacia. And the two story development would occur on Monterey. So the one story, two story , single family process would be preserved with the addition of the continuously landscaped 30 foot greenbelt on Acacia. And that would also occur on the southernly process. So wherever it was possible that buffer zone,,,would attempt to be created, it was not created on the San Pablo to Portola since the adjoining development was multifamily and it was felt there was no need to buffer multifamily adjacent to multifamily. Walt Thank you. Phyllis I ' d like to comment on Roy ' s concerns about the high density zoning along San Pablo and San Rafael , because I can site a living example of what density can do and not do for you. I owned a lot on San Rafael that was zoned for 13 , and this was before the City became incorporated and under the County zoning, 13 units were allowed on that lot , which was about a half acre site, and we were unable to obtain financing because in order to build the building with 13 units we could not get rents to justify the money to borrow the money to build the building. Therefore , we sold the lot for �- $4 , 000 loss� I wish I had it today. But density is the only way we can ever provide affordable housing. And as long as it is in the least objectionable areas, and this area is certainly a mixture, we ' d have to say , of zoning and -16- will , one, bring the zoning more consistent with what current development is and provide the same privileges in terms of height to the people on Fred Waring as the people on Santa Rosa enjoy. The same, I guess , rationale existed down San Pablo. Presently, if you look at the bottom area where you have San Carlos, that is presently zoned R-3 and it is developed with apartments. And it is zoned R-3 up San Rafael about three-quarters of the way, here we have another situation where we have higher density zoning on the inside and then on San Pablo where we have the medium density multifamily. Again , an unusual situation where the people who are really experiencing the impact have a lower density regulation as opposed to the inside. So in view of the overall existing trend of development, the Committee felt it was not reasonable to expect the developers of the vacant properties to develop lower densities when the existing development all around them is higher densities. And consistent with the goal of trying to stimulate development of these vacant lots with high quality projects, that was the source of those recommendations. On the high density on Monterey, again although it was omitted somewhat from the map, ,in the most north high density zone there would be a similar greenbelt concept on the east side of Acacia. What that greenbelt concept is is that the beginning of any project in terms of a perimeter wall would be at the existing 20 foot setback line for a single family home. Therefore , that 20 foot front yard plus the, in that case, approximately 10 foot parkway, would become and would have to be maintained by any future development as a 30 foot greenbelt. The goal , the site planning on these both projects would be that only one story uses would be permitted on those zones on those lots that right now would be backing onto Acacia. And the two story development would occur on Monterey. So the one story, two story, single family process would be preserved with the addition of the continuously landscaped 30 foot greenbelt on Acacia. And that would also occur on the southernly process. So wherever it was possible that buffer zone would attempt to be created, it was not created on the San Pablo to Portola since the adjoining development was multifamily and it was felt there was no need to buffer multifamily adjacent to multifamily. Walt Thank you. Phyllis I ' d like to comment on Roy' s concerns about the high density zoning along San Pablo and San Rafael , because I can site a living example of what density can do and not do for you. I owned a lot on San Rafael that was zoned for 13 , and this was before the City became incorporated and under the County zoning. 13 units were allowed on that lot , which was about a half acre site , and we were unable to obtain financing because in order to build the building with 13 units we could not get rents to justify the money to borrow the money to build the building. Therefore , we sold the lot for a $4, 000 loss ; I wish I had it today . But density is the only way we can ever provide affordable housing. And as long as it is in the least objectionable areas, and this area is certainly a mixture, we ' d have to say, of zoning and -16- of types of uses and of conditions. And I think to encourage some attractive looking apartment buildings is what we really need in the area. I don ' t think anybody can object to the look of Quail Place. I think it ' s added a great deal of attractiveness to the community. Walt Any other comments? If not , I have closed the public hearing. We have received comments. What is the pleasure of the Council? Phyllis I would like to move that we waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 85-49 approving the General Plan Amendment 85-2, the Palma Village Specific Plan , and direct staff to begin implementation of Plan recommendations . Walt I have a motion; do I have a second? Dick Second. Walt It has been moved and seconded that Resolution No . 85-49 be approved and that staff be directed to begin implementation of the Plan recommendations . Would you please indicate your position by voting. Sheila The motion carries by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Wilson and Benson voting NO. Ray Mr. Mayor, as a point of clarification for future hearings, the Plan is labeled General Plan Amendment 2 , and as you know, the City is limited to four General Plan amendments a year. This is for labeling purposes only and does not constitute one of our General Plan amendments . And this has been discussed and concurred with by the City Attorney. I just wanted to state this for the record. Walt Thank you. Thank all of you for your courtesy and your participation in our efforts tonight. We appreciate it very much. -17- r CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council REQUEST: Consideration of the Palma Village Specific Plan and associated negative declaration of environmental impact. APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT CASE NO: GPA 85-2 DATE: June 13, 1985 CONTENTS: A. Staff recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft specific plan. D. Draft Resolution No. E. Planning commission minutes involving case. F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1038. G. Correspondence. H. Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. , approving GPA 85-2 Palma Village Specific Plan and direct staff to begin implementation of plan recommendations. B. DISCUSSION: The attached specific plan is the result of five months of discussions by the Palma Village Citizens Advisory Committee, two neighborhood public meetings, and two public hearings before the planning commission. At the May 7 public hearing the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the plan. In an effort to respond to changes in the surrounding area and stimulate new investment, the plan makes the following recommendations: 1. Land use changes are proposed to stimulate high quality development on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. In some cases this will involve rezoning from residential to office professional or from low density residential to higher density multifamily. 2. Increase depth of north Highway III commercial zone between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo Avenue, creating a President's Plaza type common usage parking area in the rear. 3. Create a senior citizen overlay zone promoting senior housing in the area. 4. Increase depth of the multifamily/office professional zone on Alessandro Drive. 5. Preserve and enhance existing single family neighborhoods through programs for curb and gutter and other public improvements and financial incentives to promote rehabilitation and owner residency. Overall traffic in the area is proposed to be reduced by discouraging non-local through traffic. r Prepared by" -- Reviewed by /tm RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Case No. GPA 85-2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th day of June, 1985, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval of the Palma Village Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, said housing element has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89," in that the director of environmental services has determined that the housing element will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and agruments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1. The proposed land use policies and programs more effectively implement the goals of the Palm Desert General Plan and better promote healthy community development and the general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council; 2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby approved; 3. That the Palma Village Specific Plan GPA 85-2 is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, held on this day of , 1985, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER H. SNYDER, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California Am MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 79 1985 C. Continued Case No. ZOA 85-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Chapter 25, Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance) by adding a new code section which would prohibit construction, development or use in commercial or industrial zones in hillside areas. Mr. Sawa explained that the amendment was a result of the past election and that the resolution before the commission had been prepared with the recommendations from the city attorney. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. There being none, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1037, recommending to city council adoption of ZOA 85-1. Carried 4-0. A. Continued Case No. GPA 85-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation concerning the proposed Palma Village Specific Plan and associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which sets forth future land use policies in the area generally described as between Highway I I I and Fred Waring Drive, Deep Canyon Road and Monterey Avenue, Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive and Rancho Road Circle. Mr. Drell summarized letters that had been received. He named the members of the Palma Village Citizens' Advisory Group and thanked them for their hard work. The commission endorsed their thanks. Mr. Drell outlined the changes that were a result from input by the citizens at the ` last planning commission meeting. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked for testimony. MR. KIGER BARTON, 44-519 San Anselmo, expressed concern with there not being a large enough demand for senior housing and asked what would happen if a senior project did not succeed. Mr. Drell replied that these projects are not normally converted into any other type of housing because of the cost involved in conversion. Chairman Crites noted that if the project was reverted, it would have to comply with standards as if it was a new project just being built. MR. FRANZ TIRRE, member of the Palma Village committee, stated that whatever senior housing is developed will be superior and felt that it would benefit the city. He indicated that this area was excellent for senior housing because of the senior center, and commended the planning staff. MRS. GEORGIA BARTON, 44-519 San Anselmo, asked for clarification of reversion to R-1. Mr. Drell replied that the developer has the option of using R-1 or Senior Overlay. He explained that it would be very difficult to convert once a senior project. MRS. KATHLEEN KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo, spoke concerning the two story construction on Alessandro. She indicated that with the land fill for drainage purposes, that makes two story developments seem like three " story. She felt that the day care center on Alessandro Drive must be six to eight feet higher. Mr. Cablay of the department of public works responded that the new grading ordinance allows a maximum of three feet of fill. -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 79 1985 MR. CHARLIE MILLER, Highway 111, asked for and received clarification regarding property use to the north of the frontage road. MS. KATHY QUIRK, 73-755 Catalina, asked for clarification on age restriction if a development is sold. Mr. Drell indicated that the same restrictions would apply to all subsequent owners as part of the development agreement. ; 4 MR. DON LENNON, representing Dr. Lyons, asked if the same parking and - �. behind Highway III applied to Monterey. business requirements on the lots Mr. Drell concurred and indicated that this applied up to San Gorgonio. MR. TOM STARR, 267 Via Las Palmas in Palm Springs, stated that he was proposing the Monterey Retirement Inn and that extensive surveys are being done to try to make sure that these projects succeed. MS. VEE STEWART, 4476 San Rafael, a member of the Palma Village Citizens' Group, indicated that there was also a concern for road improvements, intersection lights, and eventually the installation of sewers. MR. ART MOSS, 54 San Sebastian in Rancho Mirage, asked about the acquisition of surplus land mentioned in the amendment. Mr. Drell indicated that it did not matter who owned them, just that they be landscaped and maintained. Commissioner Wood suggested that he contact the city manager. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. A TEN MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:45 P.M. After discussion the following items were amended: • i ITEM 1: Parcel at southwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Park View Drive to High Density Residential. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Item 1 amendment. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Erwood voted against because R-1 residents would be next to the proposed high density housing.) ITEM 2: Height requirements in regard to Senior Housing Overlay have a maximum height of 26 feet. Carried 4-0. ITEM 3: Height be measured from finished grade. Commission discussed reducing 30 feet to 22 and 24 for pitched roofs. Carried 4-0. i . ,ITEM 4: Extend legal status of non-conforming uses which meet and maintain a specified standard of architectural and overall site development quality. Carried 4-0. { ITEM 5: Add a statement that low intensity lighting be utilized for intersections. Qarried 4-0. ITEM 6: Parking statement requiring only .75 spaces for senior housing overlay at present time and remainder to be bonded and converted as necessary. -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 711985 ITEM 7: That high density residential zoning on Fred Waring remain R-3 2,500, which would permit 18 units. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the statement of Declaration of Environmental Impact and findings. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1038, recommending approval of GPA 85-2 to city council as amended. Carried 4-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 9:30 P.M. D. Case No. GPA 85-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a negative declaration of environmental impact and general plan amendment to change the land use designation from core area commercial and related uses to medium density residential (5-7 dwelling units per acre) for 12.5 acres of land bounded by the Palm Valley Storm Channel, El Paseo, Painters Path, and Highway Ill. Mr. Sawa outlined the request. He stated that if the planning commission and city council change the general plan amendment it will remain as it is. Staff recommended approval and adoption of the findings and resolution. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. DON PATTON, 1706 Sandpiper, expressed thanks from the residents of Sandpiper. Mr. Sawa noted that a letter of objection had been received from Ahmanson. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1039, recommending approval of GPA 85-3 to city council. Carried 4-0. E. Case No. CUP 16-78 AMENDMENT #1 - CEDAR CREEK, Applicant Request for expansion of existing restaurant (Cedar Creek Inn) by 1594 square feet located at the southwest corner of San Pablo and El Paseo. Mr. Joy outlined the salient points from the staff report. He explained that the main problem would be parking during the lunch hours. Staff felt adequate parking was available and recommended approval. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. SANDY BAUM, 45-800 Deep Canyon, spoke in favor of the expansion and stated that on the last two Saturdays he had waited an hour and a half hour to be seated. MR. LYMAN MARTIN, 173 Sandpiper Circle, 'indicated that from his parking survey the parking lot for Lucky's was in demand for only 68% and could be used to provide parking for Cedar Creek. -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 1985 Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Erwood, to approve the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to suspend the agenda. Carried 3-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to consider _ Item C as the first public hearing item. Carried 3-0. „ C. Continued Case No. ZOA 85-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Chapter 25, Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance) by adding a new code section which would prohibit construction, development or use in commercial or industrial zones in hillside areas that are an average 10% or greater in slope. Chairman Crites explained that the matter would be continued to receive a definition of explanation regarding the wording in the proposition and that a meeting would be held between staff and the city attorney. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to continue ZOA 85-1 to the meeting of April 16, 1985. Carried 3-0. A. Case No. GPA 85-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation concerning the proposed , Palma Village Specific Plan and associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which sets forth future land use policies in the area generally described as between Highway I II and Fred Waring Drive, Deep Canyon Road and Monterey Avenue, Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive and Rancho Road Circle. Mr. Drell gave a video presentation which showed the area that would be affected by the proposed amendment. Mr. Michael Crist, chairman of the Palma Village Specific Plan committee explained the philosophy of the committee regarding the needs of the area. Mr. Drell indicated that he would take one area at a time and, if permissible,. public,testi►nony would be taken for each section as it was discussed. AREA l: Fred Waring Drive from Portola to Monterey noth and south on Monterey to Guadalupe and up to Fairview. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. HAROLD DOIDGE, 73-141 Fred Waring; MR. JAY WALLEN, owner of six units on Fred Waring; MR. JAMES SHAVER, 73-041 Guadalupe; expressed concern regarding the future of present homeowners, buffers for existing and future developments, completion of landscaping and cul-de-sacs the streets that would be effected, and leaving the zoning as it is on the east side of Monterey Avenue from Fred Waring south to Highway 111. AREA 2: Monterey Avenue, south of the McAllister property to Highway III east to Las Palmas Avenue. -2- 40W MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 1985 MR. BRUCE KIGNAL, San Antonio Circle; MR. STEVE TISLEY, San Gorgonio and San Clemente; LYNN VASQUEZ, 73-305 San Gorgonio Way; MS. DONNA MADSON, 73-341 San Benito; MR. ROGER REISCHER, 74-629 Arroyo Way, Indian Wells; MS. BARBARA TORRES, northwest corner of San Gorgonio and San Clemente; MR. ROLAND SWEAT, 73-535 Pinyon Street; expressed concern regarding traffic, noise, in favor of closing San Gorgonio or gating with walk thru traffic, alley traffic and frontage road access, suggested the installation of signals or speed bumps, and the time line involved. MR. CHARLIE MILLER, Little Bend Trail, spoke against the closure of San Gorgonio. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:48 P.M. AREA 3: Santa Rosa Way to Guadalupe Avenue between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. MS. GEORGIA BARTON, 44-519 San Anselmo; MR. JAMES SHAVER, 73-041 Guadalupe; expressed concern over the park formula, vacant city owned lots as dumping grounds, and supported the curb and gutter program. AREA 4: Monterey Avenue west to Fairhaven Drive. MS. BRADY, owner of a corner lot; MR. ZACK NICKELSON, 73-645 Fred Waring; suggested having this area zoned for offices and spoke in concern regarding preserving desert environment. Mr. Drell indicated that he would mention the office zoning to the committee. AREA 5: Alessandro Drive. MS. SUSAN MOSS, 44-832 San Juan; MR. LEWIS, 44-831 San Juan; MR. ROBERT DEMPSEY, 74-704 Peppertree; MRS. AGUILAR, 74-103 El Cortez; MS. KATHLEEN KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo; MR. JOHN CONKEVICH, 74-160 Highway III; expressed concern regarding density, traffic, flooding problems, green belts for this area, feasibility study for sewers, two story- line of sight, frontage roads, and spoke in favor of office professional. AREA 6: San Pascual and Catalina. MRS. ELLISBROOKS, Ramon Lane; MS. KATHY COOK 73-755 Catalina Way; MR. BOB MANNING, 73-445 San Carlos; MS. DEE STEWART, 74-447 San Rafael; MR. RALPH SANTOPIETRO, San Pablo and Santa Rosa; MRS. RICHARDSON, 73-625 Santa Rosa Way apartment owners; and MR. JOE RENO, 73-932 Missan, discussed park land and land next to the civic center, expressed concern about senior zoning and leaving the area R-1, high density, guarantees against two story, line of sight assurance, and some spoke in favor of building up the vacant lots, supporting high density, seniors, and improving the area. AREA 7: Portola Avenue to Deep Canyon Road. MR. ROGER BAILEY, 74-034 San Moreno; MS. PAT REED, 44-239 Portofino Court; MS. WILLIAMS, 44-595 San O'Nofrey; MR. JOE WILLIAMS, 44-595 San O'Nofrey; and MR. KIGER BARTON, 44-519 San Anselmo, discussed + flood problems, interest by developers into senior housing, property values, spoke against three story, and high density, and spoke in favor ,of office professional zoning. AREA 8 and 9: McAllister and Jeffrey Properties. + MR. JOHN MANDIC, 73-415 Royale Palm Drive; and MS. ROSE HELBING, spoke against senior housing and apartments, and discussed guarantees against senior housings converting to apartments if senior housing isn't sold. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to continue GPA 85-2 to May 7, 1985. Carried 3-0. -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 29 1985 A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 10:40 P.M. B. Case No. PP 85-3 - DESERT CITIES BAPTIST CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and precise plan of design to allow j construction and operation of a church facility (and use of temporary modular structure for church services) on five gross acres in the PR-5 zone (planned residential, maximum five dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Portola Avenue, approximately 700 feet north of Country Club Drive. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points from the staff report and recommended approval. ' Commissioner Erwood asked for clarification regarding the construction of the six foot wall. Mr. Diaz indicated that the wall would be constructed with phase I along the easterly property line as a condition of approval. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address j the commission. MR. AL BRAUN, 51-730 Avenida Juarez in La Quinta, pastor of the church, indicated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSTION to the proposal. Seeing no one, Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1034, approving PP 85-3, subject to conditions. Carried 3-0. D. Continued Case No. ZOA 84-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 25.68, concerning the regulation of signs. Mr. Diaz indicated that two concerns were expressed at the joint city council/planning commission tour: internally illuminated signs and height of ground mounted signs. Mr. Diaz felt that the present ordinance section regarding illuminated signs remain. Mr. Diaz outlined the regulations regarding ground mounted signs and indicated that he felt no change should be made to the code at this time. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this item. MR. JIM ENGLE, 46-120 Calhoun, Indio, of Imperial Sign Company spoke in favor of the present ordinance. MR. JERRY BOON, Golden State Sign Systems, also agreed with present regulations. ' MR. ROBERT GEORGE, indicated that the commission might wish to change the code to allow for special circumstances. Mr. Diaz indicated that Mr. George was referring to additional signage for the Town Center along Highway 111. Mr. George concurred. Mr. Diaz explained that -4- i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1038 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. CASE NO: GPA 85-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of April hold a duly noticed public hearing and a continued public hearing on May 7th to consider a recommendation of approval to the City Council of the Palma Village Specific Plan and negative declaration of environmental impact which sets forth future land use policies in the area generally described as the area between Highway III and Fred Waring Drive, Deep Canyon Road and Monterey Ave- nue, Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive and Rancho Road Circle. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at 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 a recommendation of approval. 1. The proposed land uses and policies promote a more logical and compatible pattern of development than existing designations. 2. The proposed policies are designed to provide vacant properties with compatible economically viable uses while protecting existing development from present and future negative impacts. 3. The proposed land uses and policies will increase the overall level of urban services within the area, promote upgrading of both public and private developments and promote the general health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in these cases; 2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby recommended for approval. 3. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of the Palma Village Specific Plan as amended, GPA 85-2. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of May, 1985, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, ERWOOD, WOOD & CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: RICHARDS ABSTAIN: NONE G a- 4, BUFWO'CRITES, Chairman ATTEST: �7 RAMON A. DIAZ, S cr y /dig t 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code). Case No: GPA 85-2 Common Project Name: Palma Village Specific Plan Applicant/Project Sponsor: CITY OF PALM DESERT, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Project Description/Location: Specific plan for area generally bounded by Highway 111, Fred Waring Drive, Monterey Avenue, and Deep Canyon Road. The director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE Director of Environmental Services RAD/trn A April 22 , 1985 `^ ; APR 2 5 1985 Mr . Raymond Diaz , Planning Director ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES City of Palm Desert OF PAS DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260 Re : La Palma Plan Zone Change Dear Mr . Diaz : As you may recall at the recent Planning Commission meeting held on April 2nd, Mrs . Claire Ellis-Brooks and I raised some very serious objections to the zoning change proposed for the vacant property both to the east and west of the existing Senior Citizens Center and particularly that th hichthree acre parcel east of the Center on Catalina Way , directly across the street from my R-2 zoning with a "Senior Overlay" to R-3 density allowing for two-story dwellings in accordance with existing City Ordinances governing multiple housing for older citizens conjured in our minds the potential for an unsightly low class development which would down-grade rather than up- grade our existing neighborhood . On April 15th, Mr . Franz Tirre , who has an interest in the property , met with us to discuss our concerns and to show us site-plans and elevations for a senior housing development which he and hpartners partwould thesubmit Palmashould Planthe R-3 Senior Overlay be approved as We believe it to be an acceptable plan , for several reasons : 1 . It is single story . Regardless of how outstanding a two story building might be designed , it would obstruct our view and add a more "Commercial" feeling to the neighborhood . Mr . Tirre stated that he did not agree with our fears concerning two story buildings , but he would ask the committee developing the La Palma Plan to restrict this property zone change to single story building only . 2 . The architecture and site plan designed by Architect Mr . Al Cook reflect a high quality residential project that should enhance the area, particularly over the rather unsightly vacant property presently used as an auxiliary mini-dump site . r t 3 . The "Senior Overlay" would require at least one resident / owner to be over 55 years of age ; if the unit is sold by its prior owner , the age restriction would be passed on . Mr . Tirre was of the opinion that a project designed and originally sold out to persons over 55 years of age would not attract nor fit the needs of younger home buyers . However , we would still want the project Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions as well as City restrictions to limit resales and/or rentals to persons over 55 years of age . In summary , we would accept the proposed zone change for this property on Catalina Way and San Pasqual provided : development is single story ; Architecture and planning is equal to or as excellent as the plan shown by Mr . Tirre and its owners ; the floor plan remains as Mr . Tirre has shown us , that is , studio units with one bath and units with one bedroom and one bath ; and occupants will fit the age restrictions of 55 or older . We also believe that the main goal of the La Palma Committee -- to provide zoning which will allow for high quality development of existing property in our neighborhood -- is superior to having undeveloped land remain vacant . Should the La Palma Plan be adopted , we want to emphasize that we should be adequately notified when development plans are being submitted and processed pertinent to the existing vacant properties . Many of us believe we were not properly not at the time hearings were held on the approval of the existing Senior Center . Sincerely , Kathy lu-irk 73-755 Catalina Way Palm Desert , CA 92260 Claire Ellis-Brooks Nww` 'war+ JAMEs P. ANDERSON,C.L.U. 74-075 EL PASEO, SUITE B2, PALM DESERT, CA 92261 (714) 346-1015 April 11, 1985 Phil Drell, Planner C�jON� City of Palm Desert yo,��Fiy �YS T� 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 a�<�OSFI�Ln Re: Land Use Element Palma Village Specific Plan Legal Non-Conforming Uses 73-625 Santa Rosa Way Dear Mr. Drell: I am the mortgagee on an older 20 unit apartment complex in your redevelopment area. I understand this complex cannot be rebuilt should it be destroyed by more then 50%. For the following reasons this property is affected by this ordinance: 1. Financing and therefore sellability may be a problem. 2. Since the property is five separate buildings, if one of the buildings were to be destroyed, the property would lose its aesthetics and look very choppy. For these reasons, any owner of this property would have no incentive but to let it become a slum and financially it would be difficult to justify anything else. PLEASE ADDRESS THE NON-REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE AND ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING USES AND GIVE THEM CONFORMING STATUS. L ly, awes P. Anderson Caroly A. Anderson JPA/ca GENERAL AGENT TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Date: April 12, 1985 Desert Planning Commission "`� �' ?•�. ;�1 To: Pam g From: Doug and Kathleen Kopp APR 1 6 1, Re: Palma Village Specific Plan #5 and #7 ENVIRONMENTAL sE�;v;r.ES CITY OF PALM DESERT Briefly - 1) Against encroachment into R-1 zones, especially if that en- croachment is to be high density affordable housing! 2) Adamant in opposition to two story construction and/or other heights above what would normally be considered one story! 3) Understand needs of the area, but consider parking lots and single story O/P use more complimentary to R-1 zones. 4) Consider linear parks a better way to give area a "face lift" and at same time encourage development. 5) Maintain that high density, high rise construction will be a nuisance and very offensive to single family residents. QUESTION : Would you buy an R-1 house or lot next to AHDPR/HDR zoning? Kathleen and Doug Kopp A -il 3, 1985 Woe Ramon A. Diaz 1` \ Dirctor of Environmental Services Palm Desert City Staff 5 ; . Re: Land Use Elem"t1RG N,'�r.r.ITAL ERVICES Palma Village Sppica,:� „ RT Legal Non-Conforming Uses 73-625 Santa Rosa Way Dear Mr. Diaz : My husband and I own an older 20 unit apartment complex built under the county multifamily designation. I was in City Hall several weeks ago to discuss the curb and gutter proposal and found out from Phil Drell some alarming news : that if we had more than 50% destruction of the complex (from fire , earthquake , flood, or whatever) that we would not be permitted to rebuild 20 units. I find this alarming for several reasons: 1 . ) We have invested considerable money into upgrading and maintaining the units. As an example , new roofs on 5 buildings, replastering the pool , replacing the front rock parking lot with asphalt. We employ a professional gardener, manager and pool service. 2 . ) We pay a large amount of property tax on these units. 3. ) We pay large insurance premiums for fire , earth- quake and flood coverage . Please tell me how I will be able to get financing on this project without some "replacement clause" in the new land use element. Please tell me why we should continue to invest large sums of money, if we cannot sell it down the road - and who will buy it? It is one situation if we wanted to bulldoze the buildings and start over with the current zoning of R-2 , which would allow 10 units on this site. However, there are 20 units on this property and we should be able to replace them if disaster occurs. Without incentive for future profit, why bother with maintenance and upgrading? PLEASE ADDRESS THE NON-REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE AND ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING USES AND GIVE THEM CONFORMING STATUS. ' Very truly yours , MaryG�k�Stoltzman P.O. Box 2096 Palm Desert, CA 92261 619-340-4331 APN 627-102-012-7 I �1'!�E{.�Q�L tom• (J�'l f j �".�/i eY� low 231 Village Boulevard P.O. Box 6973 Incline Village, Nevada 89450 (702)831-3466 7bEC)V t Y s S,t� cT� E 6 w �lc �Jril 2 l�B5 Bv\�g��[i(�r�L S�xV|CE3 ^ C\rY OF PAUJ SESERT Ralph Dietz 73031 Fred ^2ring Drive P�qlm Oosert/ California P-il : Uus;3rt Plznnino Co:vnission Pplu D�2scrt Civic Center Pzlx/ Dasert, CLli�lnrnia 92260 Onntlnmen � I live in ;-,!id o�n my homa at 73C81 Fred daring Drive otneowiao knoan as Lot 7 MB 027/036 Palma Village Unit 12. I also own I he lot next door to my home o'kheruise kno,-.jn as Lot 8 MB 027/36 �slx/a 3illag,j Unit lZ . I am not odla to attand your meeting of this evenfing and so I ui5h to stal.e th�t I am in Favor of my property being rezoned as lix/ited commercial or oFfioe . Ploase record my vote FOR this rezoning of my properties and th -, pro;/erties b:2tue2n Mlon'terey and San Pablo. Eino�rely. . ^ � ` ' . ` ' ' ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES C- PALM DESERT aA. a �4l�SNL �1ZuEu> ft, `W +�r+ ,March 19, 1985 City o6 Patm Des eAt 73-510 Fxed (Vaning Dx.ive PaPm Dewt, CA. 92260 Attn: Mr. Phi tip Dne,P.,2, A6.siztant P.QanneA Genteemen: The cwftent plan to change aU of the R-1 (R-2) to CommeAci.aZ/066.ice zoning on the East side o6 Monterey Ave. , South o6 Fxed WaAi.ng D)tive, dou not, .in my opinion, do anything to eithet enhance on protect my neighborhood. Some o6 .the questionsthat come immediateey to mind are: 1. How is the parlu:ng going to be handfed on a .s.ingZe .dot with ont y acces.6 onto .the side s;ULee ,6? 2. Axe .they going to attow paAlung on Monterey? 3. Woutdn't .this .increase vehicte tta6jic onto out neighborhood streets? 4. What con6.ideration a being given to the pxopexty owneA that has a i% 6tox y o J 6.ice bu.i td.ing on hi,s 4 ide ya,%d to the West, thus Mocking out any chance o6 the utheticatty beauti6ut mountain panorama that we do enjoy? 5. What happened to a t o 4 the past to k and ptanning o6 widening Monterey with such wording a6 "winding a.idewatks, b.icycte paths, .2and,s coped .tawn s, tAees, and a six-loot 6tumpsto ne wade aeo ng the f-ength o6 Monterey" thus pxotecti.ng our neighborhood 6Aom txa66.ic noise and keeping out unwanted boot tAa66ic? 6. Was it not the pwcpos e o6 the city buying the coiner .dots to widen Monterey so as to pxov.ide a Zand6caped bu66ex to the nei.ghboxhood xathe/% .than to compete with the ex.vsti.ng pxopexty owners by bx.ing.ing .in a CommeAciae Zoning bac tion? 7. (Vas n't the city s uppo,6 ed to use paAt o6 these coxnex f-ots to pro vide the butt o6 the cut-de-sacs on Guadaeupe and the other East/(Vest streets North to Fxed Waxing Dx.ive? 8. (!ghat ever happened to .the cut-de-sac ptan? I centain.ey agree that a wotkabte p.ean shoutd be adopted box the betterment ob our area, keeping .in mind the p&nnexs o5 the pa6t, present and 6utuAe. James D. Shaver 9 Gtoni.a BeckeA Shaver Propehty owneAso6: 73031, 73041 9 73051 Guadaeupe (Since 1964) PaQm Des ext, CA. a `' 4 '� - SII7 o3autfj ill as3trttl,ogsti#s 921 P Angeles, dwaard= 3DII14 cele}4 m (213) SZS-3973 CL Cirl OF PAL%I DESERT t%crr GGt C vralL Bit vi/c.T� `7 id L lot /107 /S 'kw-f,Fj /�4/ e 4ax(Q April 22 , 1985 APR 2 5 1985 Mr . Raymond Diaz , Planning Director ENV'RONMENT4L City of Palm Desert CETV OF p SERVICES 73-510 Fred Waring Drive 4LM DESERT Palm Desert , CA 92260 Re : La Palma Plan Zone Change Dear Mr . Diaz : As you may recall at the recent Planning Commission meeting held on April 2nd , Mrs . Claire Ellis-Brooks and I raised some very serious objections to the zoning change proposed for the vacant property both to the east and west of the existing Senior Citizens Center and particularly that three acre parcel east of the Center on Catalina Way , which is directly across the street from my home . R-2 zoning with a "Senior Overlay" to R-3 density allowing for two-story dwellings in accordance with existing City Ordinances governing multiple housing for older citizens conjured in our minds the potential for an unsightly low class development which would down-grade rather than up- grade our existing neighborhood . On April 15th, Mr . Franz Tirre , who has an interest in the property, met with us to discuss our concerns and to show us site-plans and elevations for a senior housing development which he and his partners would submit should the R-3 Senior Overlay be approved as part of the La Palma Plan . We believe it to be an acceptable plan, for several reasons : 1 . It is single story . Regardless of how outstanding a two story building might be designed , it would obstruct our view and add a more "Commercial" feeling to the neighborhood . Mr . Tirre stated that he did not agree with our fears concerning two story buildings , but he would ask the committee developing the La Palma Plan to restrict this property zone change to single story building only . 2 . The architecture and site plan designed by Architect Mr . Al Cook reflect a high quality residential project that should enhance the area, particularly over the rather unsightly vacant property presently used as an auxiliary mini-dump site . PROOF OF PUBLIC '1'ION This space Is for the Cady CLtLPrk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Riverside .. I am a citizen of the United States and a CITY OF PALM DESERT resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Publication of or interested in the above-entitled matter. I CASE N0 . GPA 85-2 am the principal clerk of the printer of the .......................................................... DESERT POST ........................................... ...... . . ... .......................... .......... ..............................................:..... a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published . B1-weekly................. in the City of ...PALIP..P.e$t'XX............. . County of Riverside, and which news. paper has been adjudged a newspaper "T of general circulation by the .Superiors Court of the County of Riverside, State of �° California, under the date of,JA/,5,,,, 19 .64.,83658 Case Number ................; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire A issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, t to-wit: ........ J.2.?................................... . all in the year 19..8.5. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. P'n1m Desert Dated at,,.,,,,,,,,, California,this..�n .clay of...,Mar.1985,. j� �'p . ..... ....... ...........gn t ...... .. Sign ure Free cooler of this blank form may be secured from: CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC. Legal Advertising Clearing House 120 West Second St., Los Angeles,Calif. 90012 Telephone: 1213) 625.2541 vitas*request GENERAL Proof of Publication when*rd*rino this form. JAMES P. ANDERSON, 74-075 EL PASEo, SUITE B2, PALM DESERT, CA 92261 (714) 346-1015 April 11, 1985 Phil Drell, Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ez Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Land Use Element Palma Village Specific Plan T L egal Non-Conforming Uses 73-625 Santa Rosa Way Dear Mr. Drell: I am the mortgagee on an older 20 unit apartment complex in your redevelopment area. I understand this complex cannot be rebuilt should it be destroyed by more then 50%. For the following reasons this property is affected by this ordinance: I. Financing and therefore sellability may be a problem. 2• Since the property is five separate buildings, if one of the buildings were to be destroyed, the property would lose its aesthetics and look very choppy. For these reasons, any owner of this have no incentive but to let it become a slumpandyfinana it would be difficult financially justify anything else. PLEASE ADDRESS THE NON-REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE AND ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING USES AND STATUS. GIVE THEM CONFORMING cerely, aames P. Anderson Caro" A. Anderson JPA/ca GENERAL AGENT TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY e Date: April 12, 1985 To: Palm Desert Planning Commission From: Doug and Kathleen Kopp Re: Palma Village Specific Plan #5 and #7 ENVIPONMIENT ) CITY F i'ti[_M ESI . Briefly - 1) Against encroach nt into R-1 zones, especially if that en- croachment is to be high density affordable housing! 2) Adamant in oppositiog to two story construction and/or other heights above what would normally be considered one story! 3) Understand needs off!he area, but consider parking lots and single story O/P use more complimentary to R-1 zones. 4) Consider linear parks a better way to give area a "face lift" and at same time encourage development. 5) Maintain that high density, high rise construction will be a nuisance and very offensive to single family residents. QUESTION : Would you buy an R-1 house or lot next to AHDPR/HDR zoning? Kathleen and Doug Kopp `uril 3 , 1985 114W Ramon A. Diaz Dirctor of Environmental Services Palm Desert City Staff Re: Land UseERVICES Elem Palma Village 1jpp1c&i r:,PXA&T Legal Non-Conforming Uses 73-625 Santa Rosa Way Dear Mr. Diaz : My husband and I own an older 20 unit apartment complex built under the county multifamily designation. I was in City Hall several weeks ago to discuss the curb and gutter proposal and found out from Phil Drell some alarming news: that if we had more than 50% destruction of the complex (from fire, earthquake, flood, or whatever) that we would not be permitted to rebuild 20 units. I find this alarming for several reasons: 1 . ) We have invested considerable money into upgrading and maintaining the units . As an example , new roofs on 5 buildings, replastering the pool , replacing the front rock parking lot with asphalt. We employ a professional gardener, manager and pool service. 2 . ) We pay a large amount of property tax on these units. 3. ) We pay large insurance premiums for fire, earth- quake and flood coverage . Please tell me how I will be able to get financing on this project without some "replacement clause" in the new land use element. Please tell me why we should continue to invest large sums of money, if we cannot sell it down the road - and who will buy it? It is one situation if we wanted to bulldoze the buildings and start over with the current zoning of R-2 , which would allow 10 units on this site. However, there are 20 units on this property and we should be able to replace them if disaster occurs. Without incentive for future profit , why bother with maintenance and upgrading? PLEASE ADDRESS THE NON-REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE AND ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING USES AND GIVE THEM CONFORMING STATUS. Very truly yours, ?*K: ltzman P.O. Box 2096 Palm Desert, CA 92261 619-340-4331 APN 627-102-012-7 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code). Case No: GPA 85-2 Common Project Name: Palma Village Specific Plan Applicant/Project Sponsor: CITY OF PALM DESERT, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Project Description/Location: Specific plan for area generally bounded by Highway 111, Fred Waring Drive, Monterey Avenue, and Deep Canyon Road. The director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be foun� attached. RAMON A. DIAZ TE .Director of Environmental Services RAD/tm OF 'F/'dAI,'I '-!S'E� 0 i e t 7. Drive Dusert, i f L,I, is 9 2 2 6j f; er ho PL 73GRi FrEd Jar.-Lmoj Oriv ,, CiWerwise L L 7 FM 02VA135 kinim Village pAt 12 w, Owl ul m. to i y as Lu'L 0 Pb [1)7/36 jKlano [Alit N . m; � ti a ,,our NIHI tinc A so t p t h 7 t i P, 'I"a v o r Cif fily prcipc.rLy Lieimq rezom-?d uFF_ice . ITIy v Uj '-3 r E"7 o ri i rl q y r,-jr i r L d.E,,3 i r-I LI aud F;dm f-�Ejhlo. Z 'if,Ni i A L S I vi C S D H 5 Y 0 F PALM, ;'--)iE'--E R I RHIph OWN 73081 Fred Wring Drive FOW OeserL, Wifurnia 9220 t CiviL r) n J (-j t 1 ill 'rid own my PL 73O81 Fred Uriv,-, u. tme i e q-L j-I t as Lot 8 [117/36 4Q�Hv NAVY limit 12 . rjF?c? Ling of everixing i,irld so I ?V[�-, of my prupF�rty L-,,:,in(_.l rezoned 11:y vnti,:? FOR UAs f.iy G$f�� ®:ff 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 (D TELEPHONE�(619)=46-0671 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Director of Environmental Services DATE: November 8, 1984 RE: Palma Village Specific Plan Citizens Advisory Committee The following list of names are volunteers -for the specific' -plain committee. They represent a good crossection of both residents, property owners and business owners. Ella Manor Rheo Lawman 73-260 Highway 111 73-816 De Anza Way 346-5214 346-6038 Business owner Resident Frank Vassivo (L) Verona Stewart 73-130 Catalina 44-476 San Raphael 346-4431 568-2982 Resident Resident Tim Palmer Rick Holden 44-900 San Clemente 44-615 Santa Margarita 346-4671 340-1981 Resident Resident John Hancock Jim Sattley 74-082 Catalina Way 74-050 San Marino Circle 340-2035 Resident Resident Michael Criste ID Joyce McAllister 73-058 San Nicholas 71-301 Sahara Road 325-7264 - work Rancho Mirage, CA Resident 346-8602 - Resident Franz Tirrie Del Gagnon 46-333 Burroweed 73-612 Highway 111 568-5808 wk. 568-2989 hm 346-1101 Property owner Business owner 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. GPA 85-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to take testimony and make recommendations concerning the proposed Palma Village Specific Plan and associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which sets forth future land use policies in the area generally described as between Highway Ill and Fred Waring Drive, Deep Canyon Road and Monterey Avenue, Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive and Rancho Road Circles. I � - - - -- COLLEGE OF THE DESERT wpzwe. DZ. 1(11((I(-IIJI'I i „r —a i E 9 LL - -� NO. III— 0mlll!"'11114 STATE HIGHWAY- —III A S E.0 - a — til A BI2mm b' fir {(mot / - I P�d_ 1 MOUNTAIN DRIVE CTT I'TCTT .,1/Tq MAYA . ^7t � 1 of _ - _ I } �_!!_ � 1.1.1 ? o t z . SAID public hearing will be held on April 2, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber in the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary March 22, 1985 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE Case No. GPA 85-2 Palma Village Specific Plan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider approval of the Palma Village Specific Plan and a negative declaration of environmental impact relating to land use policies for the area generally bounded by Fred Waring Drive on the north, Highway 111 on the south, Deep Canyon Road on the east, Fairhaven Drive on the west including Carmel and Buena Circles. • COLLEGE OF - - - - -, THE DESERT �< F?.ei? WPrR1N� D�. I --- EL _ + W RECIFIC I - . 1 a NO. III— STATE IGHWAY- 1 J _. � — 'H -III iillll It _I' lily —1 ! Il 0 IL �ASEO 7 IU /fir f+ L �p�to mm 9amm,� � 6�iJ L I I � L7 m �. -T - %0 m L�1 x M UHT41NJ IV '* "4HAA A 'r� _i _ 1.a- - I�rl -1 1-.. l.•1 A.: L � � i z Ell SAID public hearing will be held on June 13, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber in the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk PUBLISH: Desert Post City of Palm Desert, California May 31, 1985 9 City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Palm Village Specific Plan Changes I. DISCUSSION: The comments and suggestions received at the April 2, 1985 public hearing were reviewed by the Palma Village Committee and the following additions and modifications are recommended: A. Four additional general policy statements were included. These policies in some cases replace specific policies discussed in the area descriptions. 1. Policy IV: Architectural Standards Reafirms the high level of design quality new projects must meet. 2. Policy V: Legal Nonconforming Uses Extends legal nonconforming upgrading program to the entire plan area. 3. Policy VI: Building Height An area wide policy dealing with two story structures. 4. Policy VII - Surplus City Lands Creates policies for development or disposal of vacant city lands. B. AHDPR Zones References throughout the plan to the affordable high density zones have been replaced with normal R-3 multi-family zones. The committee felt that this area already contains a high percentage of "affordable housing" and although it should be encouraged, it should not be a mandatory feature of the zoning. C. Allesandro Area 5 Allesandro Drive has been dual designated office professional/multi-family. It was suggested at the April 2 hearing that the multi-family be removed. After a great deal of discussion the committe decided to retain the OP/R-3 designation. The plan already designates extensive area to exclusive OP uses. In these areas few other viable options exist. Overuse of the OP designation will dilute the demand and delay the buildout of the proposed Fred Waring/Monterey area. Since R-3 development already exists on Allesandro, additional compatible multi-family projects can be developed with office professional as market demands dictate. D. Three changes to the land use map were proposed. 1. The northeast corner of Catalina Way and San Pascual Avenue will be designated scenic preservation to restrict development to one story. 2. The triangle between San Jacinto Avenue and Portola Avenue will be designated Medium Density 10 du/acre. 3. The senior overlay shall be extended to the high density areas of Area 6. II. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution recommending to City Council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and the Palma Village Specific Plan as amended. Prepared by/, � Reviewed and Approved by ` - /dlg err ` LAND USE ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The area defined by the La Palma Village Specific Plan was the first major residential subdivision in the Palm Desert area. When the tract was laid out in 1935 it was designed as a small, low density single family residential village surrounded by desert and date palms. Over the past 50 years the desert and date palms have given way to the College of the Desert, the Palm Desert Town Center, the Civic Center, and the Cultural Center. Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive (formerly Greenleaf Road) have grown from quiet county roads to major regional arterials. While the overall growth and development of Palm Desert has significantly impacted La Palma Village, existing land use patterns and policies have remained essentially unchanged. The task of the Citizen Advisory Committee was to reexamine these existing land use patterns and policies identifying areas where present policies have succeeded in promoting desirable development, areas where minor adjustments or incentives are required, and areas where external impacts require significant policy revisions. Prior to formulating their recommendations, the committee set up generalized policy criteria for evaluating the appropriatness of existing and proposed land uses in the La Palma Village area. POLICY CRITERIA Land use regulations shall encourage developments which: I. Are compatible with existing and future adjacent uses. II. Address the needs of the Palm Desert community. III. Are economically feasible in the foreseeable future. LAND USE ELEMENT I. COMPATIBILITY The most critical area of land use policy involves the boundaries between potentially conflicting uses. Some uses are inherently incompatible and therefore can never coexist, while others can be made compatible by design regulations. It is important that any resolution to land use conflicts account for the basic requirements of both uses so that both sides of the use boundary can develop satisfactorily. If the solution favors one use to the detriment of another, the results are often vacant abandoned properties. II. NEEDS Land use policies should not only control use conflicts, but should also encourage specific, desired uses. Senior housing, affordable housing, creation of attractive streetscapes, are examples of specific positive development features which should be encouraged through land use controls. III. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY Regardless of how compatible or desirable a use may be it will never be built if it does not generate a profit. Existing uses which are unprofitable will not be maintained properly. When land use controls attempt to maintain unrealistic uses; vacant, deteriorated, and abandoned properties result which will lower overall neighborhood quality. GENERAL POLICY I CITY'S ROLE The city shall take a proactive role in promoting compatible high quality infill private development and public works consistent with the area policy criteria. -2- LAND USE ELEMENT In examining La Palma Village, the committee paid special attention to areas with a high percentage of vacant or deteriorated properties. While vacant land is expected in a new subdivision, it is often symtomatic of a land use problem in a 50 year old subdivision. This is especially true when properties remain vacant while surrounding areas experience tremendous growth and economic development. The predominance of vacant lots and poorly maintained properties discourage new investment, rehabilitation, and new construction which leads to further decline. Wherever possible, the adjustment of land use controls and other incentives should be utilized to break this cycle. GENERAL POLICY II COMMERCIAL ZONE DEPTH Multifamily and Commercial zones should be of sufficient depth to allow efficient site planning and the creation of adequate buffer areas adjacent to single family zones. DISCUSSION Narrow strips of commercial and multifamily zones adjacent to single family zones are poorly suited for quality development and negatively impact adjacent properties. It is important to designate zones which are appropriate to the scale and quality of development we wish to promote. GENERAL POLICY III TRAFFIC Whenever possible, general through traffic should be directed away from local residential streets. -3- LAND USE ELEMENT DISCUSSION Often the inadvertent result of traffic and road improvements is the encouragement of non-local traffic through residential areas. Where this has occurred, circulation redesign should attempt to discourage this non-local traffic. GENERAL POLICY IV ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS For new development to effectively serve as a stimulus for overall neighborhood improvement, it must be of sufficient high quality to change both neighborhood and city wide attitudes about the area's future. New projects must therefore meet the same high architectural and site planning standards being applied to new projects elsewhere in the city. GENERAL POLICY V LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES To prevent legal non-conforming residential properties from becoming blighted, a process shall be created to allow presently non-conforming residential properties to obtain conforming status through architectural and site rehabilitation. DISCUSSION The adoption of the city's zoning map of 1975 resulted in extensive down zoning of multi- family property developed under the county. This change created a number of legal non- conforming duplexes and apartments. Under the city's non-conforming ordinance, these units may remain as they presently exist, but they cannot be replaced if they are destroyed or substantially damaged. This non-replacement feature discourages lenders from financing the sale or rehabilitation of these units. This often results in low levels of building maintenance leading to generalized deterioration. -4- LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL POLICY VI BUILDING HEIGHT Building heights shall be regulated to preserve the area's overall low profile character. Appropriately sited limited height two story development shall be permitted within the R- 2 and R-3 zones to maximize open space, off street parking, and site planning efficiency. Two story development standards shall be reduced from the present 30 foot limit to 22 feet for flat roofed buildings, 24 feet for pitched roofs, and 25 feet for office professional buildings. DISCUSSION The plan area presently contains R-2 and R-3 zones which allow two story structures to a maximum height of 30 feet. While two story developments contribute to both the livability and economic feasibility of multi-family projects, improperly sited two story buildings can block views and destroy privacy of adjacent properties. The existing 30 foot allowable height far exceeds that which is necessary for good architecture. Height regulations should be designed to protect views and privacy while allowing the planning flexibility afforded by two story construction. GENERAL POLICY VII SURPLUS CITY LAND The city shall either landscape, suitably develop, or sell vacant surplus city land within the Palma Village area. DISCUSSION The city presently owns vacant residential lots and portions of lots originally acquired for road widening. These areas are often used for illegal dumping and generally detract from -5- LAND USE ELEMENT the value of adjacent properties. Wherever residential properties back onto arterial streets or major thoroughfares, the city shall initiate a parkway landscaping perimeter decorative wall program. This is especially necessary on the south side of Fred Waring west of Monterey Avenue and East of Portola Drive. SPECIFIC AREA ISSUES, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTABLE PROGRAMS AREA 1 Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. ISSUES With the development of the civic center, cultural center, town center, and street improvements and extension to Interstate 10, Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue are becoming major regional arterials. The existing pattern of low and medium density single family development is incompatible with the projected traffic volumes and emerging character of these important streets. POLICIES 1. New Development on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue should reflect as to scale and overall quality the public improvements represented by the civic center, college, and cultural center and should be compatible both with the high traffic volume arterial highway and the adjacent residential land uses. 2. Use zones fronting on these streets shall have sufficient depth to allow substantial projects while creating a landscaped buffer for adjacent single family uses. 3. Incentives shall be provided for lot consolidation to facilitate larger projects and minimize access points to Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. Whenever feasible the redevelopment agency shall assist in this effort. -6- ,%W LAND USE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 1. Where subdivision patterns permit, a special zone, minimum 200 feet in depth, would be created allowing either Office Professional or High Density zoning depending upon compatibility. The Office Professional designation would be applied to the south side of Fred Waring Drive between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo and along the east side of Monterey Avenue between Fred Waring and Catalina, R-3 2,500 would be applied on the south side of Fred Waring Drive between San Pablo Avenue and Portola Avenue and on the west side of Monterey north of Fred Waring Drive. The Scenic Preservation Overlay will be removed allowing two story construction adjacent to Fred Waring with a 24 foot height limit. The zones will require a minimum 20,000 square foot area and will require a 20 foot landscaped project setback adjacent to any single family residential district. This requirement will create a 20'-32' wide landscaped green belt adjacent to residential uses. There will be no access allowed from these projects to local streets. 2. Where subdivision pattern precludes attainment of the 200 foot lot depth, the existing Office Professional zoning will apply. This area would include the west side of Monterey Avenue between the Town Center and Fred Waring Drive and the north side of Fred Waring between Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven. 3. On the north side of Fred Waring between Portola Avenue and San Pascual Drive, a modified multi-family zone overlay would be created which would allow High Density Residential use with a 22 foot height maximum and 30 foot rear building setback to compensate for the lack of green belt buffer. 4. Whenever feasible projects shall be required to execute mutual access agreements creating shared parking and rear circulation, minimizing the need for multiple curb cuts on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. 5. Surplus city land remaining after road widening of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive shall be landscaped by the city. Additional landscaping shall be required wherever Office Professional use abut these areas. -7- LAND USE ELEMENT AREA 2 Monterey Avenue, south from the McAllister property to Highway I I I east to Las Palmas Avenue. ISSUES The Monterey/Highway II I intersection has become the primary commercial focus of the city. High quality commercial development has occurred along each leg except this northeast block. A major effort should be made to encourage development in this area comparable in quality to Palm to Pines and the Town Center. The interior residential area, if adequately buffered from the commercial activity, can continue to offer a safe and very convenient residential environment. Presently the signal at San Gorgonio Way and Monterey Avenue has encouraged through traffic on San Gorgonio threatening the areas residential character. POLICIES 1. Commercial zoning in this area shall be expanded to allow for substantial commercial projects with adequate off-street parking. 2. The interior residential area shall be preserved and protected from the adverse impacts from commercial development by the creation of green belts and traffic circulation improvements discouraging non-resident through traffic. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Expand C-1 zoning to a depth of two lots with assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. 2. Convert the second row of lots to a common use (President's Plaza type), parking area which will be separated from the residential area by a wall and 30 foot wide landscaped green belt. -8- LAND USE ELEMENT 3. Create a parking improvement assessment district which will finance acquisition construction and maintenance of the parking lot. 4. Study methods to slow traffic and reduce volumes on San Gorgonio Way. 5. With the exception of the lots involved in the commercial expansion green belt project, zoning shall remain consistent with existing land uses. The three circles shall remain R-1; Royal Palms R-2 (5); Las Palmas and Las Flores, R-3. AREA 3 Santa Rosa Way to Guadalupe Avenue between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. ISSUES This area contains a mixture of single family homes, duplexes, and small apartments. All the multifamily units were built prior to incorporation. The existing R-2 (7) zone allows only one unit per 7,000 square foot lot. Since few lots exceed 7,200 square feet, the area has developed as a single family neighborhood since 1973. With the creation of a substantial Santa Rosa green belt (see Area 1 policies) this area will be protected from the high intensity uses to the north and should continue to provide a safe, moderate income housing. POLICIES This area should be encouraged to continue developing as a moderate priced single family neighborhood. IMPLEMENTATION The R-2 (7) zone shall remain. -9- LAND USE ELEMENT AREA 4 Monterey Avenue west to Fairhaven Drive. ISSUES If adequately buffered from traffic impacts, this area can continue to provide safe moderately priced single family housing. POLICY Preserve and enhance the areas single family character. IMPLEMENTATION None required. AREA S Alessandro Drive. ISSUES Alessandro Drive marks the transition between Highway III commercial and adjacent residential uses. The street is presently dominated by vacant lots on the north and commercial rear yards on the south. The north side is zoned R-3 (4) to a depth of 80 feet to 140 feet and is limited to one story due to the adjacent R-1. The generally unattractive streetscape created by the commercial rear yards and the height restriction has discouraged multifamily development in the R-3 (4). POLICIES 1. Land use controls and incentives shall be used to encourage high quality office professional and multi-family residential development on the north side of Alessandro. -10- LAND USE ELEMENT 2. Frontage Road Commercial uses should be encouraged to remodel their rear yards creating a more attractive streetscape. IMPLEMENTATION 1. The north side shall be rezoned to R-3 2,500 to an average depth of 200 feet depending upon subdivision patterns. Two story construction shall be excluded within 100 feet of the R-1 zone. 2. In conjunction with the formation of a parking assessment district, Highway 111 owners would be encouraged to remodel their rear elevations. Expansion into rear yards would be permitted as part of an in-lieu fee program financing the purchase and construction of parking lots on the north side of Alessandro. AREA 6 San Pascual and Catalina. ISSUES This area contains a diverse mix of residential types ranging from half acre lots to 18 per acre apartments. The city has constructed a senior center on 1.65 acres at the northwest corner of San Pascual and Catalina. The area east of San Pascual is substantially developed. The western area is 50 percent vacant. Overall quality of maintenance is inconsistent throughout. POLICIES 1. Preserve the single family zone east of San Pascual. 2. Encourage construction of senior housing surrounding the senior center. 3. West of San Pascual, make zoning consistent with the multi-family character of existing development. -11- LAND USE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 1. Rezone blocks fronting on San Pablo to north to Fred Waring Drive and east to San Raphael R-3. Rezone block north of Catalina east of San Raphael R-2. 2. Create a Senior Housing Overlay allowing higher density, reduced dwelling sizes and parking requirements for senior housing projects. The overlay shall be applied within walking distance of the senior center. Northeast corner of Catalina Way and San Pascual Avenue shall be restricted to one story by the Scenic Preservation Overlay. AREA 7 Portola Avenue to Deep Canyon Road. This area contains a broad range of housing types and quality from the up scale Portola del Sol to some severely deteriorated single family units. There are no inherent land use conflicts which prevent the development and enhancement of this area as a quality affordable single family neighborhood. POLICY Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of this area as a moderate priced single family neighborhood. IMPLEMENTATION Maintain present R-1 status. AREAS g and 9 McAllister and Jeffrey Properties. ISSUES These two parcels represent the last large pieces of unsubdivided acreage in the study area. Due to the convenient close-in location of the sites both property owners are -12- LAND USE ELEMENT interested in the development of senior housing. Since senior housing represents a lower intensity of development in terms of household size, noise and traffic impacts higher densities might be accommodated on these large sites if properly designed. POLICY Allow submission of proposals for compatible planned senior housing on these parcels. IMPLEMENTATION Apply senior housing overlay to the existing R-1 and PR-5 zoning for these parcels. -13- I L7 Haw 14 EI r ?d�4�•D T..} WIT o •� f m�•m R"E t. ♦f 4c4CIA^ OR J — •— E Cr r.q r,rca AVENUE �,/l/J�� I, •1 I G �CASTE� f+ f:00 AVE A r D S :0l AVE G 8 C t A O z t7 V1 1 �r I .� AN..E NO A C v N s, IEOv ISrJ A F z NE : M II . Pb = LS AVE r l 1 la A R P to tl s e WLo , va U r r14 L ; mII s f M Ia m I t t v T_ _ _ � I ♦tom ._ F�IANA E m l I CT 1 P l� - naN �r� ®o IRtt ��• T to — � Y - y-• I 1 - . . E ♦v PORTOLA V U A ut fi l �7 CABRt J ` AV AV _ Y Y m CI r lIl t � o _ l N D - r \ PEE•,E - pc 1%�..- /�,r ro 5W 4 m : t tof BUTTONWJOD OA f P FLd = EpE I 1 1 1..1A ANI it OEE CANYON lr; CIRCULATION ELEMENT The plan area is adequately served by public roads. The principal circulation issue has been the intrusion of non-local traffic through residential neighborhoods. As more high intensity development occurs in the surrounding area the impact of non-local traffic will increase. Discussions have centered around the possible closure of two streets: San Gorgonio Way at Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive at Parkview Avenue. San Gorgonio receives a great deal of non-local through traffic associated with the Town Center and from the neighborhoods to the north. At this time San Gorgonio residents are strongly divided as to whether the elimination of through traffic is worth the resulting inconvenience. Fairhaven Drive, presently linking Park View Drive and Fred Waring Drive could become a short cut to the Town Center for residents of One Quail Place and proposed developments in Rancho Mirage. In this case, the neighborhood seems fairly unanimous in its desire to see Fairhaven Drive closed at Park View Drive. It is also inportant that when closures occur, adequate right-of-way is acquired to construct complete cul-de-sac improvements. Where this has not been done, dead end lot property owners end up with their driveway being used as public turnarounds. POLICY: 1. Whenever it is consistent with public safety, sound circulation planning and the wishes of the effected neighborhood; local residential streets should be closed or otherwise modified to discourage non-local through traffic. IMPLEMENTATION: 1. Fairhaven Drive will be cul-de-saced before Parkview Drive. San Gorgonio shall stay open pending a study to determine neighborhood preferences and alternatives to reduce traffic speeds and volumes. -15- low CIRCULATION ELEMENT 2. All dead end streets in the study area shall be adequately signed and the cul-de- saced with full improvements. -16- PUBLIC FACILITIES The quality and variety of a neighborhood's public facilities can have a significant impact on the safety, convenience and quality of life of its habitants. The public facilities to be discussed in this element include roads, street lights and sewers. I. ROAD ISSUES: The dominating public facility within the study area is the road system. With a few exceptions, it is without curb or gutters and is six to eight feet narrower than ultimate design width. Isolated areas suffer flood damage during summer thunderstorms due to improper street drainage. These storms also cause damage to the pavement edges. In addition to creating a more attractive streetscape, a well designed curb and gutter system will significantly reduce drainage problems and solve the problems of crumbling asphalt edges. The area is also without street lights. POLICY: 1. The city shall actively encourage and facilitate the creation of curb and gutter districts. 2. Safety street lighting shall be provided at intersections of collector streets, major thoroughfares and arterials. IMPLEMENTATION: 1. The city shall circulate assessment district petitions to all property owners and will assist interested residents in the collection of required signatures. 2. Property owners whose household income falls below the HUD "lower" 80% of median level may elect to defer their curb and gutter assessments until sale of their property. -17- PUBLIC FACILITIES 3. Lighting and landscaping district shall be formed to finance the construction and maintenance of intersection street lighting in the study area. II. SEWER ISSUES: With a few exceptions, the plan area is without sewers. As the individual systems age and increased development occurs, maintenance may become a problem in some areas. POLICY: A long range goal shall be the extension of sewer lines throughout the study area. IMPLEMENTATION: Conduct a feasibility study to determine the costs and timing of an area wide sewer project. -18- 'M01 PARKS AND OPEN SPACES PARK ISSUES: In the Recreation Element of the Palm Desert General Plan, neighborhood parks are to be provided with service areas of between %, and y2 mile. The plan area presently does not contain any neighborhood parks. Most of the plan area is beyond the desired yz mile radius of the Community Park and the planned San Pablo Park. In addition, access to these parks may involve the crossing of two four lane highways. Small neighborhood parks can provide a wide range of recreational experiences for all ages and serve as a meeting place and focus for neighborhood identity. POLICY: Provide each of the three major blocks in the plan area with a small neighborhood park which shall include a tot lot, basketball or volleyball court, and general landscaped area. IMPLEMENTATION: Potential sites shall be studied for possible acquisition. An advisory committee shall be formed in each block to work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to determine park design. OPEN SPACE ISSUES: The city presently owns potential lots fronting on Fred Waring Drive west of Monterey and the east side on Monterey Avenue south of Fred Waring. If properly landscaped, these areas can provide a visual buffer for the adjacent residential areas. In addition, the Land Use Element proposes creation of green belts on the north side of Santa Rosa Way and north of the Highway 111 commercial area between Monterey and Las Palmas. -19- PARKS AND OPEN SPACES POLICY: Whenever adjacent property owners cannot be induced to maintain and landscape these parkway areas, the city shall provide landscaping. IMPLEMENTATION: Plans shall be prepared and monies budgeted for the installation of landscaping in these areas. -20- Density Bonus Alternatives Continued project was continued pending a traffic study. There was concern over traffic impacts on Joshua Road which can be used as a short cut between Parkview Drive and the Las Palmas Shopping Center. Residents on streets off of Joshua would like to see Joshua cul-de-saced to prevent its use by apartment residents on Parkview Drive. 4. Indian Wells: The City of Indian Wells has not implemented any of the low/moderate requests of state housing law. 5. La Quinta: La Quinta has received no requests for the bonus program. Density bonuses are a part of the housing element. 6. Indio: Indio has large parcels already designated for high density. There is concern about an additional 25% density in these areas. They are considering down zoning in anticipation of more requests. A small bonus reguest has been granted and a second larger application is soon to be filed. RAMON A DIAZ DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Am MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1985 MR. CHARLIE MILLER, Highway 111, asked for and received clarification regarding property use to the north of the frontage road. MS. KATHY QUIRK, 73-755 Catalina, asked for clarification on age restriction if a development is sold. Mr. Drell indicated that the same restrictions would apply to all subsequent owners as part of the development agreement. MR. DON LENNON, representing Dr. Lyons, asked if the same parking and business requirements on the lots behind Highway III applied to Monterey. Mr. Drell concurred and indicated that this applied up to San Gorgonio. MR. TOM STARR, 267 Via Las Palmas in Palm Springs, stated that he was proposing the Monterey Retirement Inn and that extensive surveys are being done to try to make sure that these projects succeed. MS. VEE STEWART, 4476 San Rafael, a member of the Palma Village Citizens' Group, indicated that there was also a concern for road improvements, intersection lights, and eventually the installation of sewers. MR. ART MOSS, 54 San Sebastian in Rancho Mirage, asked about the acquisition of surplus land mentioned in the amendment. Mr. Drell indicated that it did not matter who owned them, just that they be landscaped and maintained. Commissioner Wood suggested that he contact the city manager. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. A TEN MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:45 P.M. After discussion the following items were amended: ITEM 1: Parcel at southwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Park View Drive to High Density Residential. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Item 1 amendment. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Erwood voted against because R-1 residents would be next to the proposed high density housing.) ITEM 2: Height requirements in regard to Senior Housing Overlay have a maximum height of 26 feet. Carried 4-0. ITEM 3: Height be measured from finished grade. Commission discussed reducing 30 feet to 22 and 24 for pitched roofs. Carried 4-0. ITEM 4: Extend legal status of non-conforming uses which meet and maintain a specified standard of architectural and overall site development quality. Carried 4-0. ITEM 5: Add a statement that low intensity lighting be utilized for intersections. Carried 4-0. ITEM 6: Parking statement requiring only .75 spaces for senior housing overlay at present time and remainder to be bonded and converted as necessary. -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1985 ITEM 7: That high density residential zoning on Fred Waring remain R-3 2,500, which would permit 18 units. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the statement of Declaration of Environmental Impact and findings. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1038, recommending approval of GPA 85-2 to city council as amended. Carried 4-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 9:30 P.M. D. Case No. GPA 85-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a negative declaration of environmental impact and general plan amendment to change the land use designation from core area commercial and related uses to medium density residential (5-7 dwelling units per acre) for 12.5 acres of land bounded by the Palm Valley Storm Channel, E1 Paseo, Painters Path, and Highway 111. Mr. Sawa outlined the request. He stated that if the planning commission and city council change the general plan amendment it will remain as it is. Staff recommended approval and adoption of the findings and resolution. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. DON PATTON, 1706 Sandpiper, expressed thanks from the residents of Sandpiper. Mr. Sawa noted that a letter of objection had been received from Ahmanson. Chairman Crites closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1039, recommending approval of GPA 85-3 to city council. Carried 4-0. E. Case No. CUP 16-78 AMENDMENT #1 - CEDAR CREEK, Applicant Request for expansion of existing restaurant (Cedar Creek Inn) by 1594 square feet located at the southwest corner of San Pablo and El Paseo. Mr. Joy outlined the salient points from the staff report. He explained that the main problem would be parking during the lunch hours. Staff felt adequate parking was available and recommended approval. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony. MR. SANDY BAUM, 45-800 Deep Canyon, spoke in favor of the expansion and stated that on the last two Saturdays he had waited an hour and a half hour to be seated. MR. LYMAN MARTIN, 173 Sandpiper Circle, indicated that from his parking survey the parking lot for Lucky's was in demand for only 68% and could be used to provide parking for Cedar Creek. -5- Palm desert, ca. 73-940 dpasco 92260 (619) 346-9198 0 0 nn 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL 'Sr"WICESS CM Of PALM DESERT 7- 4vi'l 1(,4, L/ r palof desert, ea. 73-940 er paseo 92260 (619) 346-9198 .�--�-z,�.,...� z� ;.-.�' .� �� �-�y�..�-ice ✓�.-t= - �-��-�-�-- { ) ew act LZ A-� LC� `� N�-C �✓�� �, � Lam;vC�",/ 4 , c � V pales desert, ca. 73-940 el pasea 92260 (619) 346-9198 21C L i ,7 : `-e Match 19, 1985 City o 6 Pafm Dus etc t 73-510 Fted WaA ing Drive Patm Dmetct, CA. 92260 Attn: Mt. Phi tip Dutt, A66iztant Ptannex Gent2emen: The cuttent plan to change aU of the R-1 (R-2) to Commetci,atlObJice zoning on the Fast side of MonteAey Ave., South ob Fted Waning Dxive, doers not, in my opinion, do anything to eithet enhance of protect my neighborhood. Some of the que6tionsthat come immed.iatety to mind ate: 1. How is the patluno going to be handfed on a singte tot with only acce,66 onto the side stteet6? 2. Ate they going to attow patcFiing on Montettey? 3. Woutdn't th.it .ine ea6e veh.icee tAa6J.ic onto out neighborhood 6tteet�s? 4. What con6.ideration iz being given to .the pupenty owner that has a 1% 6tory oJJice buitding on his side yattd to the West, thus btocking out any chance of the e6theti.catty beautiJui mountain panorama that we do enjoy? 5. What happened to ati o J the p"t to k and ptann.ing o J widening Montetey with 6 uch wording a6 "winding z idewatu, bic ycie path6, tand6coped tawn6, tteus, and a six-boot stump6tone watt atong the .length of Montetey" thus protecting out neighborhood btom ttta.Jb.ic noise and keeping out unwanted boot tttaJJ.ic? 6. Wa6 it not the putpo s e o J the city buying the cornett .dots to widen Montetey 6o as to provide a tandscaped buJber to the neighborhood tathet than to compete with the existing ptopetcty owners by bning-ing .in a Commerciat Zoning Jac Lion? 7. War,n't the city 6uppo6 ed to use patrt o 6 thus e cotneA tot6 to ptov.ide the buck of the cut-de-6ac5 on Guadaeupe and the other Fa6t/Wat ztAeet6 North to Fted Waning Drive? 8. (!chat ever happened to .the cut-de-6ac plan? I cettainty agree that a wotkabte ptan shoutd be adopted Jot the betterment of out attea, keeping in mind the pea.nneu of the pa6t, present and Jutute. James D. Shaven. 8 Gtonia Becket Shaven Ptopehty ownensoJ: 73031, 73041 8 73051 Guadalupe (Since 1964) Palm Desent, CA. &Z2A 7J0&0 r DOUO A KATHLEEN KOPP /++ ROLF- C Vl,i 01 10IrN AL SUt VICES CITY OF PALM DESLRI j ro ID 77z- -�° v..�-� f 44-870 CABRILLO AVENUE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260.TELEPHONE(714)346-6457 -Ta *mop, sett 4 June 1985 ✓e- To: Palm Desert City Council From: Doug and Kathleen Kopp Re: La Palma Village Plan - Area #5 The primary purpose of this communication is to go on record in our opposition to the above mentioned plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Per the city's notice dated 3-22--85 (court action) we want to register our objection, should we find it necessary to go to court to stop any projects that would directly affect our home and property. We are basically against this encroachment (zone change) into our R-1 neighborhood but to do so with high density, low income, two story construction is adding insult to injury. We find any proposal of two story construction north of Alessandro unacceptable and incom- patible with the private, single family homes in this area. Main Points 1. Heights 2. Line of sight - loss of views 3. Loss of property value The building on the corner of Cabrillo and Alessandro exemplifies our concern about what can happen. �,a Respectfully, NOW 4w,r 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 March 5, 1985 Dear Palm Villages Property Owner: Over the last four months a committee of residents, property owners and business owners from the Palma Village area of Palm Desert have been discussing ways to improve their neighborhoods. On March 19th you are invited to a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Palm Desert Council Chamber to discuss and comment on the committee's land use policy recommendations. These recommendations will become part of a Specific Plan which will determine future land use policies in the areas between Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive, Deep Canyon Road and Monterey Avenue, Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive and the Rancho Road Circles. (see attached map) This plan may result in significant changes to current policies in response to impacts of new developments in adjacent areas. If you are an owner of rental property you may wish to inform your tenants of this meeting. If you or your representative cannot attend, information about the plan can be obtained by calling 346-0611 extension 487. The Specific Plan Committee placed a high priority on the completion of curbs and gutters throughout the area. For those properties which are not already part of an existing curb and gutter district, a petition has been provided for you to sign if you wish to participate in a future curb and gutter program. You only need to sign the petition yourself, providing the necessary property description, and return it to the city. If you have any questions please call. I am looking forward to seeing you on March 19th. Sincerely, Philip Drell Assistant Planner /dlg 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 March 5, 1985 Dear Palm Villages Property Owner: Over the last four months a committee of residents, property owners and business owners from the Palma Village area of Palm Desert have been discussing ways to improve their neighborhoods. On March 21st you are invited to a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Palm Desert Council Chamber to discuss and comment on the committee's land use policy recommendations. These recommendations will become part of a Specific Plan which will determine future land use policies in the areas between Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive, Deep Canyon Road and Monterey Avenue, Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive and the Rancho Road Circles. (see attached map) This plan may result in significant changes to current policies in response to impacts of new developments in adjacent areas. If you are an owner of rental property you may wish to inform your tenants of this meeting. If you or your representative cannot attend, information about the plan can be obtained by calling 346-0611 extension 487. The Specific Plan Committee placed a high priority on the completion of curbs and gutters throughout the area. For those properties which are not already part of an existing curb and gutter district, a petition has been provided for you to sign if you wish to participate in a future curb and gutter program. You only need to sign the petition yourself, providing the necessary property description, and return it to the city. If you have any questions please call. I am looking forward to seeing you on March 21st. Sincerely, Philip Drell Assistant Planner /dlg 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Director of Environmental Services DATE: November 8, 1984 RE: Palma Village Specific Plan Citizens Advisory Committee The following list of names are volunteers for the specific plan committee. They represent a good crossection of both residents, property owners and business owners. Ella Manor Rheo Lawman 73-260 Highway 111 73-816 De Anza Way 346-5214 346-6038 Business owner Resident Frank Vassivo Verona Stewart 73-130 Catalina 44-476 San Raphael 346-4431 568-2982 Resident Resident Tim Palmer Rick Holden 44-900 San Clemente 44-615 Santa Margarita 346-4671 340-1981 Resident Resident John Hancock Jim Sattley 74-082 Catalina Way 74-050 San Marino Circle 340-2035 Resident Resident Michael Criste Joyce McAllister 73-058 San Nicholas 71-301 Sahara Road 325-7264 - work Rancho Mirage, CA Resident 346-8602 - Resident 7ranz Tirrie Del Gagnon 6-333 Burroweed 73-612 Highway 111 58-5808 wk. 568-2989 hm 346-1101 -operty owner Business owner