HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 2020-17 SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 - MC Properties, LLC 03-12-2020CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE: March 12, 2020
PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Consideration for approval of a Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map
37234 to subdivide 32+ acres into four (4) planning areas east of Monterey
Avenue, south of Dick Kelly Drive, north of A Street, and west of Gateway
Drive; and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 2020-17, approving
a Specific Plan document, including the two (2) recommendations below,
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 37234; and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) of Environmental Impact.
1. Planning Area 4 shall require a minimum of 200 residential units per the
Housing Element. The developer of Planning Area 4 may take advantage
of the Housing Overlay District per Ordinance No. 1353 through a precise
plan application.
2. The Specific Plan shall not include any age -restricted housing.
Planning Commission
At its meeting of September 18, 2018, the Planning Commission heard the project request
and ultimately was in support of the overall project, including age restricted housing; however,
could not reach a consensus regarding staff's recommendation to require twenty percent
(20%) of the units on Planning Areas 3 and 4 for affordable housing. The Planning
Commission had a lengthy discussion on the Housing Element, the applicant's position, and
the staff recommendation. The Planning Commission understood staff's position and the
need for affordable housing, but was seemingly uncomfortable with imposing an affordable
housing requirement since the City does not have a formal affordable housing policy adopted
by the City Council. After several failed motions, the Planning Commission was undecided.
At the suggestion of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission approved a general
recommendation (no resolution) of what they believe the City Council should consider:
1. General support of facilitating affordable housing on this site.
2. That the Specific Plan allow for assisted living uses on Planning Area 3.
March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 2 of 8
Attached to this staff report are the Planning Commission meeting minutes dated September
18, 2018.
Executive Summary
Approval of the staff request will approve a Specific Plan, TPM 37234, and an MND. The Specific
Plan subdivides the 32-acre site into four (4) planning areas: two (2) commercial, one (1) flex,
and one (1) residential parcel. The City's Housing Element requires that the applicant construct
a minimum of 200 residential units within the project site. Since 2017, staff has required the
applicant to reserve twenty -percent (20%) of the 200 units within Planning Area 4 to be made
available at affordable rents. Staff also required the applicant to reserve twenty -percent (20%)
of all units within Planning Area 3 to be made available at affordable rents. The applicant
disagrees with staff on whether the City may impose an affordable housing requirement, since
the City does not have a formal adopted policy in place.
On February 27, 2020, the City Council approved a Housing Overlay District (HOD) to parcels
identified within the City's Housing Element. Parcel G is located within the applicant's proposed
Specific Plan. The HOD intends to incentivize the development of affordable housing units in
the City by providing optional development standards for housing developers that choose to
dedicate at least 20% of all housing units constructed at affordable rents. Staff is no longer
conditioning the project to provide affordable rents, and has added language within the Specific
Plan that a developer may take advantage of the HOD through a precise plan application.
Staff is still recommending not allowing age restricted housing, as it is not an appropriate land
use for the surrounding area.
Background
A. Property Location:
The property consists of two (2) parcels totaling 32+ acres of currently vacant land located in
the northern sphere of the City. The parcels are bounded by four streets: Monterey to the west,
Dick Kelly Drive (Dick Kelly) to the north, A Street to the south, and Gateway Drive (Gateway) to
the east.
B. General Plan and Zoning:
Zoning Designation(s):
• PC-2 - Planned District Commercial (21 acres)
• PR-22 -Planned Residential, 22 units per acre, and HOD (12 acres)
G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report March 12.docx
March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 3 of 8
General Plan Land Use Designation(s):
• R-R - Regional Retail (21 acres)
• T-CN -Town Center Neighborhood (12 acres)
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: PC-3 - Planned Regional Commercial (Desert Gateway shopping center)
South: PC-3 - Planned Regional Commercial (Lowe's Home Improvement)
PR-13 - Planned Residential (Enclave)
East: P - Public Institution (future school)
PR-22 - Planned Residential (vacant site)
West: City of Rancho Mirage
Proiect Description
The applicant has submitted a Specific Plan document (attached) that sets forth a land -use
plan and development standards that facilitate commercial, residential, hospitality uses, open
space, and mixed -use development within the project boundaries. It establishes a cohesive
development plan for four (4) planning areas that will be sold and developed by future owners
through a Precise Plan (PP) application that requires approval by the Planning Commission.
A. Specific Plan
The Specific Plan encompasses 32+ acres, which includes information related to the
existing conditions of the site, existing and proposed street circulation patterns,
designated land uses, development standards, and design criteria for the development of
the four (4) planning areas. The objective of a Specific Plan is to provide the City with
high -quality development that takes advantage of the synergies created by the residential
and commercial uses planned for the site. The planning areas within the specific plan are
as follows:
Planning Area 1 (PAU PA1 consists of 7.37 acres located at the northwest corner of
Monterey Avenue and Dick Kelly Drive. PA1 will remain zoned PC-2 and will be developed
as commercial shopping center(s) consisting of one- or two-story buildings, with the
exception of a hotel(s) and mixed -use developments.
All land uses will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance allowed per Chapter 25.16,
Commercial Uses, identified in Table 25.16-1. Without limiting the foregoing, allowed uses
and conditionally permitted uses shall include: drive -through restaurants, mixed -use
developments, car wash, hotel(s), convenience stores, automobile service stations
without regard to the required site location separation distances per Section 25.34.090,
commercial indoor recreation facilities and indoor amusement establishments. Ancillary
commercial uses, business support services, and personal services shall be allowed.
Residential units and/or professional office space shall be allowed on a second story.
GAP1annin9\Kevin Swartz\Word\Speafic Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report March 12.docx
C"
March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 4 of 8
Planninq Area 2 (PA2): PA2 consists of 7.37 acres located at the southwest corner of
Monterey Avenue and A Street. PA2 will remain zoned PC-2 and will be developed with the
same land uses and development standards as PA1.
Planning Area 3 (PA3): PA3 consists of six (6) acres located at the northeast corner of Dick
Kelly and Gateway Drives. PA3 is currently zoned PR-22 and will be designated for
alternative land uses such as residential, commercial and mixed -use developments. PA3
may be developed per the following standards:
• Attached or detached residential units for sale or for rent at densities from 10-22 units
per acre.
• As a mixed -use project.
• A commercial project.
• A larger residential project combined with Planning Area 4.
• PA3 will utilize the development standards identified in PA1, 2, and 4 based on the
project.
Planninq Area 4 (PA4): PA4 consists of 11.44 acres located at the southeast corner of
Gateway Drive and A Street. PA4 will remain zoned Planned Residential and allow up to
twenty-two (22) units per acre. Per the City's Housing Element, PA4 is required to create
a minimum of two hundred (200) attached for sale or for rent residential units. The
developer of PA4 will have the ability to utilize the HOD if they choose through a PP
application.
B. Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Parcel Map 37234 was prepared to subdivide the project site into four (4) unique
parcels. When each parcel is sold, the new buyer will submit for a PP application, which will
include site plan layout, architecture, landscaping, grading, parking, hydrology, open space,
walls, reciprocal access between the parcels, and overall internal circulation.
C. Circulation
The project area has immediate access to regional transportation links, including the 1-10
freeway, arterials and local roads that interconnect. Roads immediately adjacent to the
property are described within the Specific Plan.
Analysis
Below please find an analysis of all actions under review:
A. Specific Plan:
The current zoning designation for the properties are PC-2 and PR-22 (HOD over PA4),
and the same zoning will remain in place. Final site design, building design, architecture,
and orientation are yet to be proposed, and the applicant will need to submit a PP
application for staff and Planning Commission review prior to development.
G \Planning\Kevin SwartzVord\Speci is Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report March 12.docx
March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 5 of 8
The Specific Plan requires the development of an integrated and unified combination of
residential and commercial development. The residential component, which could include
a variety of housing types, will be within easy walking distance to the commercial
component. Although it is not possible to predict what types of businesses will locate in the
commercial component, the uses will include those that will be needed by project residents,
and when combined with the commercial businesses located in existing projects to the north
and south of the site, will provide residents with a broad range of service and shopping
opportunities.
The Specific Plan document has been prepared in accordance with State Government
Code Section 65450-65457, which sets standards for document content and provides
direction for adoption. The plan itself must be consistent with the City's General Plan and
must contain statements regarding the relationship of the Specific Plan to the City's
General Plan. Statements regarding consistency are provided in the Specific Plan (pages
30-40). Staff supports the Specific Plan document as a means of identifying desirable land
uses and development standards for this particular project. The Specific Plan establishes
a distinct project and provides a commitment of what will be built within the project
boundaries, commits development of the project to a unifying architectural theme, and
provides sufficient flexibility for changes to the project.
Housina Policv Subcommittee
On January 10, 2019, the City Council directed staff to form an ad -hoc 'Affordable
Housing Subcommittee" for the following:
• Review the City's affordable housing and planning policies.
• Review existing planning policies from around the State.
• Perform a comparative analysis of available affordable housing with other
Coachella Valley cities.
• Explore affordable housing policy options for the City of Palm Desert.
Throughout 2019, Community Development staff from the Planning and Housing Divisions
worked with Councilmembers Harnik and Kelly to perform the tasks mentioned above. On
February 27, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1353 applying the HOD to
parcels owned by the Housing Authority and properties, and identified in the City's Housing
Element. The applicant's parcels is one of the parcels identified within the Housing Element
(Letter G).
The HOD intends to incentivize the development of affordable housing units in the City by
providing optional development standards for housing developers that choose to
dedicate at least 20% of all housing units constructed at affordable rents. By utilizing the
HOD, housing developers are provided the following:
• Flexible development standards.
• Expedited application processing.
• Waiver of a Planning Commission public hearing.
• Density Bonuses in accordance with State Density Bonus provisions.
GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report March 12.docx
�5- A
March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 6 of 8
Reduced parking standards.
Potential waiver of City development impact fees.
The HOD does not require property owners or residential housing developers to utilize
the incentives provided in the overlay district. Rather, the HOD intends to encourage
voluntary participation by developers to create new affordable housing units.
Planning Area 4
The proposed density and development standards conform to the existing zoning designations.
Building heights are allowed up to three -stories and the PR zone allows for more imaginative
architectural design and will encourage an innovative and unique development. In accordance
with the Housing Element, and as part of the Specific Plan, a minimum of two hundred (200)
units will be provided. The developer will have the option to utilize the HOD through a PP
application.
Planning Area 3
PA3 will be designated for alternative land uses such as commercial, residential, and mixed -
use. If the site becomes commercial and/or mixed -use then PA3 will be subject to the
development standards outlined for PA1 and PA2. If the site is a residential project, then it will
be required to use the development standards identified within PA4.
The applicant and staff have discussed age -restricted senior housing (assisted living,
memory care, skilled nursing, and independent living). Staff believes that allowing any age -
restricted housing within PA3 is not consistent with the General Plan and is not compatible
with the surrounding land uses. Adjacent to the site will be a future school (K through 12),
and staff believes that a senior housing project is not a compatible land use to a school site
or to the job -rich commercial centers along Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. The
site is much better suited for workforce and family housing because the sites proximity to jobs
and schools. The General Plan encourages housing in close proximity to places of
employment. PA1 and PA2 will provide commercial uses where potential residents within PA3
could walk to work and/or school. The General Plan also discourages long single -building
construction, which senior housing developments are typically located within.
Staff is recommending that the Specific Plan not include any age -restricted housing based on
the information provided above and is reflected in the recommendation.
Planning Areas 1 and 2
Both PA1 and PA2 will remain zoned PC-2 and the parcel sizes are similar to other district
commercial developments within the City. This zoning district permits the greatest diversity of
commercial land uses and is ideal for commercial parcels in close proximity to residential
development. It is anticipated that they will develop to serve the existing and future residents in
the area. All land uses will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance allowed per Chapter 25.16,
Commercial Uses, identified in Table 25.16. Without limiting the foregoing, allowed and
conditionally permitted uses shall include drive -through restaurants, mixed -use developments,
G.\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report March 12.docx
March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 7 of 8
car wash, hotel(s), convenience stores, automobile service stations, commercial indoor
recreation facilities and indoor amusement establishments. Residential units and/or professional
office space shall be allowed on a second story. The land uses identified within the Specific Plan
are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan.
B. Building Heights and Development Standards
In general, the Specific Plan document follows the development standards established in the
PC-2 and PR-22 zoning districts. PA1, PA2, and potentially PA3 allows commercial buildings
that conform to the PC-2 zoning district, which allows a maximum building height of thirty-
five (35) feet. PA4 and potentially PA3 allow for residential developments that conform to the
PR-22 zoning district with a height limit of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. The Specific Plan
also allows for an additional ten (10) feet of height for architectural features. This standard
is consistent with the standards for architectural elements in the Municipal Code.
The Specific Plan establishes a maximum building height of sixty (60) feet for hotel and
mixed -use developments within the project boundaries. This height limit exceeds the
maximum building heights established in the PC-2 zone by fifteen (15) feet. Staff is
supportive of the height increase, only for hotel developments and mixed -use projects, as
existing hotels in the vicinity were approved at forty-two (42) feet (Hampton Inn), fifty-six (56)
feet (Fairfield Inn), and fifty (50) feet in height for the Millennium Specific Plan. In addition,
future developments at this site are sufficiently distant from existing residential development,
and impacts to surrounding views are limited.
C. Tentative Parcel Map 37234
The parcel map to subdivide the project site into individual parcels conforms to all City
standards and the Subdivision Map Act. All parcels have reciprocal parking and an access
easement to allow for vehicular and pedestrian movements within the project area. In
addition, all future development will be required to submit a PP application, which will
address site planning and internal circulation, and further define the responsibilities of all
property owners within the Specific Plan.
D. Findings of Approval:
Findings can be made in support of the project, and in accordance with the City's
Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in the City Council
Resolution attached to this staff report.
G:\PlanningUKevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report March 12.docx
--I ,A,
March 12, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 8 of 8
Environmental Review
For the purposes of the CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that
the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff
has prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The initial study and
MND are attached as part of this report and the filing of the MND has occurred in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL ASSISTANT
REVIEW CITY MANAGER
N/A N/A�
l � .
Robert W. Hargreaves Ryan Stendell Janet Moore And restine
City Attorney Director of Comm. Dev. Director ce Ass to -it City Manager
City Manager Lauri Aylaian— C—
APPLICANT: MC Properties, LLC
270 North El Camino Real, Suite F397
Encinitas, CA 92024
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2020-17
2. Specific Plan
3. TPM 37234
4. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated, September 18, 2018
5. Staff report and supporting documents from February 13, 2020
GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report March 12.docx
r�— A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SPECIFIC PLAN
AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 37234 TO SUBDIVIDE 32+ ACRES INTO
FOUR (4) PLANNING AREAS BOUNDED BY, EAST OF MONTEREY
AVENUE, SOUTH OF DICK KELLY DRIVE, NORTH OF A STREET AND
WEST OF GATEWAY DRIVE; AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA)
CASE NOS: SP 16-342 AND TPM 37234
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did an the 12th
day of March 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider. the request by MC
Properties, LLC, for approval of the above -noted with staff's recommendations outlined in
the staff report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 131h
day of February 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by MC
Properties, LLC, and continued the item; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23,d
day of January 2020, hold a duly noticed public. hearing to, consider the request by MC
Properties, LLC, and continued the item; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 18th day of September 2018, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
by MC Properties, LLC, for approval of the above -noted with staff's recommendations
outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission were undecided and did not adopt a
resolution for either approval or denial: and
WHEREAS; said applications have complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,"
Resolution No. 2015-75;: in that -the .Director of Community Development has determined
that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration can be adopted; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts and. reasons to exist to justify the approval of said request:
1. The MCP Specific Plan, as proposed is consistent with the goals and policies of
the Palm Desert General Plan, The developer of Planning Area 4 may provide
additional affordable housing units per the Housing Overlay District (HOD)
Ordinance No. 1353 if they choose. The Specific Plan will also provide local
employment centers in close proximity to residential land uses, and increase the
City's sales tax base.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17
2. The Specific Plan document has been prepared in accordance with State
Government Code Section 65450-65457, which sets standards for document
content and provides direction for adoption. The plan itself must be consistent with
the City's General Plan and must contain statements regarding the relationship of
the Specific Plan to the City's General Plan. Statements regarding consistency
are provided in the Specific Plan (pages 30-40). Staff supports the Specific Plan
document as a means of identifying desirable land uses and development
standards for this particular project. As proposed the Specific Plan establishes a
distinct project and provides a commitment of what will be built within the project
boundaries, commits development of the project to a unifying architectural theme,
and provides sufficient flexibility for changes to the project.
3. The MCP Specific Plan will provide land use compatibility within the boundaries
of the planning areas and with adjacent properties as the proposed uses and
development standards are similar to existing uses to the south, north, and east.
4. The MCP Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the
property has been designated for commercial, residential, and m!ke' d-use, and
that development will comply with `applicable. City standards and standards
approved as part of the Specific Plan.
5. That the proposed Tentative Parcel Map is not Aetrimental to the public health,
safety or general welfare, or be materiaily injurious to the surrounding properties
or improvements in the City of Palm Desert,
6. The project.: under' the Specific Plan complies with the goals and policies
contained,,' ,the City's General Plan that promote affordable housing, promote a
variety of; eighborhoo `; and promote a mix of housing choice for current and
future res its.
Findings for Approval:.
1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans.
The current zoning designation for the properties are Planned District Commercial
(PC-2) and Planned Residential, 22 units per acre (PR-22), and HOD, and the
same zoning .will remain in place. Final site design, building design, architecture,
and orientation are yet to be proposed, and the applicant will need to submit a
Precise Plan {PP} application for staff and Planning Commission review prior to
development. The Specific Plan identifies that future projects within Planning
Areas 3 and 4 could include a mix of housing densities inclusive of single-family
detached/attached homes and multi -family apartment/condominium units with
affordable housing components. General Plan Land Goal 3 Neighborhoods
proposes that "A variety of housing types, densities, designs and mix of uses and
services that support healthy and active lifestyles. Goal 3- 1 Complete
Neighborhoods contain a diversity of housing types-
K
`o-A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17
The Specific Plan's mix of high -density residential and commercial development
will allow for the development of a non -motorized neighborhood environment, by
promoting close proximity between home and potential jobs and shopping
opportunities. These uses will be within walking distance of the residential
neighborhood. The location of the Specific Plan on Monterey Avenue also allows
residents to have easy access to transit, which currently operates on that roadway.
In addition, the project site's location allows for easy connections to proposed
parks and schools located easterly of the site, The .design of the residential
component of the project will be governed by PP approvals, allowing the City to
implement the requirements of this policy through. design consultation and the
conditions of approval.
The diverse range of housing types within the project area complies with this goal
and the mix of densities is consistent with.. the City General Plan.
2. That the design or improvement of.the- proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans...
The design and improvements of the parcels and parcel maps have been
reviewed by the Planning Department, Fire -Department, and Public Works
Department for consistency with the General Plan and emergency services. All
existing perimeter streets and.:utility%:j ,.rovements, and circulation pattern are in
conformance with the Genei's 1 Darr a ' ,,.txrinar roadway dedication is needed to
complete existirtg;.streets. Jn ,3a1 f ` e' ct sfiTeets that serve the project and
Tentative Pardel' Map, 37234 j bereviewed under a Precise Plan (PP)
application.: for consistency and'., nformance with all City standards and are
consistent with the General Plan.
3. That the site is:; hysicallysuitable;for the type of development.
�tg ores ftained in the MCP Specific Plan is suitable for the
developmewf propo�s,d:.. Environmental, cultural, and other special studies were
prepared for lands within the project area. No environmental issues were
identified that would indicate that the development in this area would be
unsuitable. In addition, existing commercial and residential developments have
successfully constructed similar types of development in the immediate vicinity.
No obstacles to the development of surrounding subdivisions were experienced
and, due to the proximity and similarity of the proposed development, it's
reasonable to conclude that the site is physically suitable for it. The property is
suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
As proposed, the land uses are consistent with surrounding development. The
Specific Plan proposes commercial, hotel, and mixed -use developments within
the western portion of the project area at heights and intensities similar to
3
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17
existing commercial and hotel uses in the vicinity. The Specific Plan also
proposes single-family detachedlattached homes and mufti -family
apartmenticondominium units within the western portion of the project area,
which is consistent with surrounding land uses.
The proposed project densities are similar to existing mufti -family residential
development within the northern sphere of the City. The location of the higher
density residential uses (Planning Areas 3 and 4) is well suited as they are in
close proximity to a future school and existing and future employment
opportunities. The infrastructure, soils, and terrain serving the development will
adequately support these densities.
5. That the design of the subdivision and the prppQsed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably
injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. The design of
the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat since the surrounding area has been developed with similar
densities and limited wildlife. is present at the site. Environmental studies
performed at the site did not identify any endangered or sensitive species. In
addition, the project will pay into the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation fund for the development of raw land.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
The proposed land uses, when developed under a PP, will be in compliance with
all grading requirements and the properties will be developed in accordance with
the Uniform California Building Code. if any grade changes occur within the
Specific Plan, then they will be accommodated by the internal street layout and
open space provided throughout the subdivision. Pedestrian access will also be
provided to adjoining land uses and surrounding roadways, which decreases the
need for vehicular traffic between adjoining properties.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision.
The proposed project will be required to accommodate drainage retention basins
for each parcel once development occurs, which will be reviewed under a PP
application. improvements related to drainage will be provided to ensure the
project area accommodates 100% of the 100-year storm. Surrounding perimeter
City streets are built -out to the General Plan Designation Pedestrian connections
will also be provided throughout the project area.
ll
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17
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
City Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby recommend approval of SP 15-342 with staffs
recommendations and TPM 37234, subject to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTE❑ by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 12t" day of March 2020, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHEL
5
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions.
2. The applicant shall record Parcel Map 37234 within two (2) years of project approval.
Construction of improvements, in accordance with the approved Specific Plan, shall
commence within two (2) years from the date of approval unless a time extension is
granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein. shall be subject to the restrictions and
limitations set forth herein which are in addition to. the approved Specific Plan and all Palm
Desert Municipal ordinances and state and. federal statutes now in force, or which
hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance
from the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)...
Public Works Department If
Eire Departmenti�
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the
Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
5. A cultural resources inventory shall be completed by a qualified archeologist prior to
any development activities within the project area.
6. Should human remains be discovered during the construction of the proposed project,
the project coordinator will be subject to either the state law regarding the discovery
and disturbance of human remains or the Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance,
all destructive activity in the immediate vicinity shall halt and the County Coroner shall
be contacted pursuant'to State Health and Safety Code 7050.5. If the remains are
determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). The City and Developer will work with the designated ML❑ to
determine the final disposition of the remains.
7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
8, Each Planning Area shall be subject to all applicable fees at the time of issuance of
building permits for improvements within that Planning Area.
6
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17
9. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection between Planning Areas 1 and 2
and Planning Areas 3 and 4.
10. Prior to the development and construction of improvements within Planning Areas 1
thru 4, the property owner shall submit a PP application to the City's Community
Development Department. Precise Plan applications shall be submitted for the
development of a single Planning Area or multiple Planning Areas. The PP application
will require public hearings with the City's Planning Commission. All final landscape
plans will be submitted to the City's Community Development Department and the
CVWD for review and approval.
11. Planning Area 4 will be required to provide a minimum of 200 units per the Housing
Element. The developer may apply and utilize the Housing Overlay District per
Ordinance No. 1353.
12. The Specific Plan shall not include any age -restricted housing.
13. All Planning Areas shall develop in a manner consistent with the Development
Standards contained in the Specific Plan. All other development standards, not
addressed in the Specific Plan, shall comply with the Palm Desert Municipal Code
(PDMC).
14. The applicant shall pay into the City's Public Art Fee far Planning Area 1 or 2,
whichever is first to develop of the Specific Plan. It is recommended that this fee is
used for an onsite public art project within. Planning Area 1 or 2. The remaining
Planning Areas shall. pay into the City's Public Art Fee at the time a Building Permit is
issued for the development of said Planning Areas.
15. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with PDMC Section 24.15 for any
landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area.
16. All mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be
incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project.
17. Final Fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the developer submits a PP
application for each Planning Area by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
18. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when the developer submits a
PP application for each Planning Area.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,:
Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map:
19. The parcel map shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
20. Right-of-way, as may be necessary for the construction of required public
improvements, shall be provided on the parcel map.
VA
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17
21. Prior to City Councii approval of Parcel Map 37234, the applicant shall construct or
enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City
Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off -site improvements. Improvements
may include but are not limited to:
A. Twenty-five percent (25%) of a traffic signal installation at Monterey Avenue and
Street A or the pro-rata share of the signal based upon a traffic study. If the
traffic signal is constructed by the applicant for the City of Rancho Mirage then
the bond submitted to the City of Palm Desert shall be released by Council
action.
B. The relocation of power lines on Monterey Avenue to accommodate a future
deceleration lane.
C. The fair share cost, as determined by the tity, for the future traffic signal
modification at Monterey Avenue and Dick Kelly Drive.
D. The removal and replacement of an eight -foot (8') sidewalk on Monterey Avenue
to accommodate a future deceleration lane.
E. The installation of a deceleration lane on Monterey Avenue.
22. Subsequent conditions will be applied at the time each parcel is developed.
23. The construction of a left turn lame on Monterey Avenue may be approved at the
discretion of the City Engineer for .the City:, of Palm Desert and the City of Rancho
Mirage.
I�;r
MCP PALM DESERT
SPECIFIC PLAN
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
' CITY OF PALM DESERT — 73510 FRED WARING, PALM DESERT, CA 92260
Applicant:
MC PROPERTIES LLC, MacLeod -Couch Land Company LLC
C/O Applicant Consultant:
Chambers Development 11870
Pierce Street, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92505
805.889.9212
THE MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 4
A. Overview............................................................................................ 4
B. Purpose............................................................................................. 4
C. Project Boundary.............................................................................. 5
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS......................................................................... 5
A. Setting................................................................................................5
B. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations .......... 5
C. Circulation....................................................................................... 11
D. Utility Infrastructure........................................................................ 12
III. LAND USE REGULATIONS.................................................................. 17
A. Land Use Plan................................................................................. 17
B. Permitted Uses and Development Standards .............................. 21
C. General Development Standards ................................................... 23
IV. DESIGN GUIDELINES........................................................................... 24
A. Purpose........................................................................................... 24
B. Site Planning................................................................................... 24
C. Access & Circulation...................................................................... 25
D. Architectural Elements................................................................... 26
E. Landscaping....................................................................................27
F. Walls and Fences............................................................................ 27
G. Open Space..................................................................................... 27
H. Lighting............................................................................................28
I. Accessory Facilities....................................................................... 28
V. PHASING AND FINANCING................................................................. 29
VI. PROCEDURES......................................................................................29
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN ...................................... 30
-,". ti\
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Zoning Designations......................................................................17
Table 2 - MCP Palm Desert Land Use Allocation.........................................18
Table 3 - Planning Area 1 And 2 Development Standards .......................... 21
Table 4 - Planning Area 3 And 4 Development Standards .......................... 22
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit1 Vicinity Map.......................................................................................6
Exhibit 2 Existing Conditions Site Cross Sections........................................7
Exhibit 3 Existing City General Plan...............................................................8
Exhibit 4 Existing City Zoning.........................................................................9
Exhibit 5 Street Cross Sections....................................................................10
Exhibit 6 Existing Utilities..............................................................................16
Exhibit7 Land Use..........................................................................................19
Exhibit8 Zoning..............................................................................................20
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview
A Specific Plan is a document allowed under California law, which provides cities
and counties with a planning tool for master planning project sites. A Specific Plan,
when approved, becomes the zoning document for the project it covers. Specific
Plans must be consistent with the General Plan of the jurisdiction in which they
occur.
Specific Plans can be implemented by local jurisdictions in accordance with the
provisions of California Government Code Section 65450. The City of Palm Desert
is implementing this Specific Plan for the MCP Palm Desert project.
The MCP Palm Desert project consists of 32.2 acres of currently vacant land located
near the City's northern gateway at Interstate-10 (1-10 freeway). It is immediately
adjacent to the easternmost lane of Monterey Drive (Monterey), one (1) mile south
of the Monterey/1-10 interchange (Monterey/1-10). Due to its proximity to the Desert
Gateway and Marketplace retail centers, a nearby proposed elementary school and
existing and proposed residential, commercial and medical complexes, MCP Palm
Desert presents an opportunity to provide (i) a retail center directed at supporting
local residents, employees and visitors to the nearby regional shopping centers, (ii)
a significant high density (attached and/or detached, for sale and/or for rent)
residential community and, (iii) the potential for other non -competing,
complementary residential uses and/or mixed use projects.
B. Purpose
This Specific Plan sets forth a land use plan and long-range development
standards that facilitate commercial, residential, open space and mixed use
development within the project boundaries. It establishes a cohesive development
plan for multiple parcels, yet is flexible enough to be responsive to future economic
conditions.
The Specific Plan's land use plan complements existing and planned development
in the project vicinity and maximizes the use of existing utility infrastructure and
roadways.
The objectives of the Specific Plan include:
The development of high quality architecture, flexible, productive and well -
designed master planned project that takes advantage of the synergies
created by the residential and commercial uses planned for the site.
Creating a balance for the uses that provides the City with a range of
residential options for future residents; a variety of commercial uses that
serve not only the project residents, but the surrounding neighborhood and
the traveling public; expands the City's sales tax base; and creates
opportunities for a broad range of employment for residents of the project
site, the City and the region.
C. Project Boundary
The property is bounded by Dic
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Setting
k
The subject property is located on the central, low-lying valley floor near the
northerly Palm Desert city limits. It consists of vacant, generally flat desert land
with sandy soils and sparse vegetation. The southwestern 15± acres of the
property is the high point of the site, and slopes down in a northeasterly direction,
ranging from approximately 308 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the corner of A
Street and Monterey, to a low point of 260 feet above msl at the northeastern
corner of the property. Please see Exhibit 2, Existing Contours.
Immediately north of the site lies the NEC corner of the Desert Gateway regional
shopping center comprised of Walmart, Kohl's, Ashley furniture and numerous
drive -through and fast casual restaurants and "in -line" small to medium sized retail
tenants. To the east of the site lies undeveloped similarly sloping desert land; the
northern portion is zoned planned residential and the southern portion has been
acquired by the Palm Springs School District for a future school. As shown on
Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map to the southeast of the site lies the Enclave, a 320-unit
upscale apartment complex and to the south of the site lies Lowe's improvement
center of which the southwestern most portion (approximately 5 acres) remains
undeveloped. To the west of the site, across Monterey, lies undeveloped similarly
sloping desert land in the City of Rancho Mirage.
B. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations
The City's General Plan shows the 32-acre site as being within the University Park
Area with approximately 21 acres designated as Regional Retail (R-R) and
approximately 11 acres as Town Center Neighborhood (T-CN). Please see Exhibit
3, Existing General Plan Designations.
The City's Zoning Map designates the westernmost approximately 21 acres as
Planned Commercial (PC-2) and, by ordinance 1233, designates the remainder of
the site Planned Residential (PR-22). Please see Exhibit 4, Existing Zoning
Designations.
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
Dinah Shore Drive
R. ■ _ .l ■ ■
2i kaw
,.
r L`J
m■
C
[i1
7
ar
a
m
City of
Rancho Mirage o
Legend,
)/
r
i r@ 10
C)
SITE
A Street
■
■
Q Costco (DDentist
Rancho 76 Cinema (2) El Pollo Loco
O3 McDonald s @ Sam's Club
Home Depot Walmort
Storbucks Kohl's
Source: Riverside County Data from ArcGis
ID
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
www.msaconsul inginc-com N.T.S.
I
I
I
x
I
I
I •.
I
I
I
I
Dick Kelly Drive 1
I
i
� I
x_
a` City of a,
Palm Desert Q
3
`o
G a
Gerald Ford Drive
V Lowes Home Improvement
I) the Enclave Rental Condominiums
Q Marriotts Shadow Ridge
0 Future School Site
Exhibit Date: October 31. 2016
VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT 1
`
i
�CN
N
I
I
I
w I
I
} l
I
4
� I
I
0
x
l
I
I
f
I
I
f
1
_
v
i
1
I
LU
Q 1
I
� f
tc
w
1
J
}
I
I
I
� i
I
i
1
f
�
I
�
S S
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
i
( iVV �7F
I R&ACX0 NItif 23 b
m
I�
a'
I�
�m
C
0
I
I
� I
I I
�- 4 i 1
F-Tawh CentrNeig borho4 I 1
Re onal I 1
I
MaIIIGMAIL RETAIL
❑ick Kelly Drive
-j--_
I RE010 SAL fl$17ma.
I
I I
� I
I I
I
source. City r)f Palm Desert
0' Nib 400'
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
www.msaconsultinginc,com SCALE; 1"=400,
h
�L
-T_-_T_1
tH OER729
I �
I
i
1
I
r
_I
EXISTIN
TOME 611EHMEA
CIT'? OF
PA LVA DISER7
= — —T Ll�$[ — —
v
1
1
IPE.IJ�LI'� �la1�l�IV�7 �
1 f�J�Vf4�D41��7A0.
EXHIBIT 3
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
IJ J I
- — -- — ---- — — — —J I L- — J I I
I I I I I
l i i I i I II I I
Dick Kelly Drive
4
�-RIMCMC MAW,
U
0 PC-9 �.�..� P.O.D.
— A Street —
i l l l lfor-
T--
I
-
- P.C: W P.ff
`eg n
Planned Residential (PR-22) ! -
Planned Commercial (PC-2)
Source: City of Palm Desert Zoning r -xhJ t ebnl0 2 ,j� 2 f l $
--fxls�l �L�N NjGI
naoQ�
nnSACONSULTING, INC. F_ EXHIBIT 4
www.mmconsultingim,com SCALE: V - 400'
r. - cn W)
r
p
1
a
U
U
w
IL
W
L17
W
0
5
f
's
u
�
rrI
�
L�-
j
ti Lam',
�
_
e
3
U
f �
�
z�
s
x
Z
p
v � _
o U W
U LU
cn
m cn
�o
Of
L. �
LU
LU
cn
gt
2 O
z m
�
G
�z o
U
� `
�
u�j
C. Circulation
The project area has immediate access to regional transportation links, including the
1-10 freeway, arterials and local roads that interconnect with the broader roadway
system. Roads immediately adjacent to the property are described below. Please
see Exhibit 5 regarding the circulation elements listed below:
Monterev Avenue
Monterey is immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the property. In the
project area, it is designated as an "Arterial' in the General Plan, which will be built
out to a 150-foot right-of-way that includes six (6) travel lanes (three (3) in each
direction), a median, west and east turn lanes, parkway and utility corridor.
Monterey will be built -out when the City of Rancho Mirage completes construction
of the currently scheduled westernmost lane and parkway.
MCP Palm Desert may request a southbound left turn lane approximately mid -
block on Monterey provided (i) there is no conflict with an anticipated northbound
left turn lane into Rancho Mirage; (ii) a traffic study acceptable to the City
demonstrates that the queuing geometrics are sufficient, the line -of -sight is within a
reasonable level and the turn lane is safe and, (iii) Rancho Mirage approves the
request.
Dick Kellv Drive
Dick Kelly is immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the property. In the
project area, it is designated as a "Secondary" in the General Plan and is built -out.
Gatewav Drive
Gateway Drive is immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property. In
the project area, it is designated as a "Secondary" in the General Plan and is built -
out.
A Street
A Street is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the property. In the
project area, it is designated as a "Secondary" in the General Plan. It has been
approved and is built -out to "Collector" standards.
Public Transit
Sunline Transit Agency provides public bus service throughout the Coachella Valley.
The nearest bus route to the subject property is Line 20, which extends along
Monterey between the Monterey/1-10 interchange and includes two (2) bus stops
(one on each side of the road) on Monterey near its intersection with Dick Kelly,
approximately 200 feet south of the subject property. Sunline will determine
whether bus stops adjacent to the property are added based on ridership and
demand.
(�-1 - A
D. Utility Infrastructure
The Section 29 Assessment District ("AD 29") was formed by the City in 2007 for
the purpose of acquiring, constructing and installing water and sewer lines, storm
drainage facilities and street improvements in the vicinity of the project including,
but not limited to, those described below. AD 29 was funded following the City's
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the plans for the street
improvements and storm drainage facilities were approved by the City and the
plans for the water and sewer facilities were approved by CVWD and all of these
facilities were installed in 2007 — 2008. Please see Exhibit 6 regarding location of
water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. The City retains the right to change the size
and location of City owned facilities on the condition that existing level of service is
met or exceeded with respect to the Specific Plan properties.
Water
Domestic water is supplied to the project area by the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD), which serves much of the Coachella Valley. CVWD's primary
source of domestic water is groundwater extracted from the Whitewater River Sub -
basin. Efforts to conserve and supplement finite groundwater supplies include a
groundwater recharge program using imported Colorado River water, tertiary
(three -stage) treated wastewater for golf course and greenway irrigation, and
recycled water for agricultural and other purposes in the lower valley.
Domestic water lines are in place beneath roads adjacent to the project. Existing
water lines are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following:
• A Street - 12-inch water line from Monterey to Gateway
• Gateway Drive - 12-inch water line from A Street to Dick Kelly
• Dick Kelly Drive -12-inch waterline from Monterey to Gateway
• Monterey Avenue — 12-inch waterline from A Street to Dick Kelly
A Water Supply Assessment will be prepared when Precise Plans and/or Tentative
Tract Maps for the project are submitted to the City for review and approval. No
major expansions of the existing water distribution system are expected to be
required by the development.
Sewer
CVWD provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the project area.
Existing sewer lines in the project vicinity are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the
following:
• A Street - 8-inch sewer line from Lowe's east property line
(approximately 648' east of Monterey centerline) east of Monterey to
Gateway
• Gateway Drive - 8-inch sewer line from A Street to Dick Kelly
• Dick Kelly Drive - 88-inch sewer from a point 670' east of Monterey to
Gateway
Effluence from the project area is conveyed to CVWD's Wastewater Reclamation
Plant No.10 (WRP-10) on Cook Street in Palm Desert. It treats approximately 11
million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater and has a design capacity of 18 million
gallons per day. Approximately 60 percent of the effluence undergoes tertiary
treatment for the purpose of golf course and greenbelt irrigation, thereby reducing
the demand for groundwater resources.
New development facilitated by this Specific Plan will connect to the existing
network of sewer lines. Increased demand from the project is not expected to
require major infrastructure expansions or adversely affect CVWD's ability to serve
the area.
Stormwater Management
The subject property is located outside of any flood hazard areas, as shown on the
most recent (2008) Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is located in Zone X, which represents
areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual floodplain.
Reqional Drainaqe
CVWD is responsible for regional stormwater management in the project area.
Parcels immediately north of the subject property were once included in CVWD
easements for the proposed Mid -Valley Stormwater Project. However, the project
was retired in January 2012, and all easements were quitclaimed to the respective
owners. CVWD has indicated that there are no regional stormwater management
concerns for the subject property or its immediate vicinity. The property is not
included in a CVWD drainage plan.
Local Drainage
Rainfall tributary to the project will flow from buildings, across parking lots and
along internal streets to nearby catch basins. Catch basins will collect and convey
runoff via an onsite storm drain system. The onsite system will confluence at the
northeast corner of the project and connect to an existing storm drainpipe. The
existing pipe will convey flows to the large city -owned retention basin along the
railroad tracks. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Section
29 Assessment District (AD 29), which was formed in 2007 for the purpose of
acquiring, constructing and installing water and sewer lines, storm drainage
facilities and street improvements adjacent to and in the vicinity of the project. A
hydrology study was prepared for AD 29 in 2007 demonstrating that the offsite
stormwater infrastructure can contain flows from the project site during a 100-year
storm event. Therefore, individual projects proposed within the project planning area
will not be required to contain 100-year storm flows onsite as long as flows are
adequately directed to the existing offsite stormwater infrastructure. Implementation
of these and other requirements will assure that drainage and stormwater will not
create or contribute water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff.
A Water Quality Improvement Plan and hydrology studies will be required and
submitted to the City for review and approval when Precise Plans and/or Tentative
Tract Maps for the Specific Plan Property have been submitted to the City.
Existing storm drainage facilities are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following:
• A Street — 30-inch storm drainpipe from Lowe's east property line to
Gateway
• Gateway Drive — 36-inch storm drain pipe North of A Street to Dick Kelly
• Dick Kelly Drive — 54-inch through 66-inch storm drainpipe east of
Gateway
• Retention Basin — AD 29 acquired the retention basin; reshaped
retention basin; added slope protection and constructed pipe outlet
structure
Electricity
Electricity in the project area is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE).
SCE's power is primarily generated outside the Coachella Valley; however, wind -
generated power is purchased from local producers. A variety of rebates are
offered for the use of energy -efficient equipment and appliances, such as electric
heat pumps and water heaters. The project area is well served by electric power.
Overhead transmission lines and buried distribution lines are located along the east
side of Monterey. Underground lines provide electricity to existing development
north of Dick Kelly. Existing transmission lines on Monterey will not be
undergrounded due to their size. Buried distribution lines necessary to serve the
project exist underground on the north side of Dick Kelly to Gateway and stubs
exist in Dick Kelly intended for future development.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is typically used for domestic hot water and space heating, as well as
some industrial processes. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural
gas to the project area. There is a high-pressure gas line in the west side of
Monterey between Dick Kelly and A Street. Significantly, there is a 6-inch gas stub
at the SEC of Monterey and Dick Kelly plus another 6-inch stub at the NEC of
Monterey and A Street. One of these two stubs will serve any new development.
Telecommunications
Frontier Communications (Frontier) is the local provider. They can provide copper
service to the site for telephone and Internet services. In some areas, FiOS and
CATV are also available through Frontier. Availability of FiOS or CATV services
through Frontier would have to be determined at the time of development.
Cable TV
Time Warner is the local provider for telephone, Internet and cable TV services.
Solid Waste
Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services (Burrtec) provides solid waste collection
and disposal services to the project area through a franchise agreement with the
City. Residential, commercial, industrial, and construction waste is collected and
transported to a transfer station in Cathedral City, then to the Lamb Canyon or
Badlands regional landfills. These landfills are owned and operated by Riverside
County and have available capacity to accommodate waste generated by future
development.
The City's recycling program has contributed to reductions in the need for landfills.
Burrtec collects recyclable materials, including those from construction sites and
green waste, and hauls them to Material Recovery Facilities throughout southern
California for sorting and processing.
MCP PALM DESERT S'ECIFIC PLAN
12Water Main
...... wL *MEW�.. w ...� w..��
Storm Drain Lire Dick Kelly Drive ---• sue••— T� mow_ V 5--
Storm Drain Catch Basin r
! 'Sewer Main r '
12" Water Main-4 It, * 4 !'
12" Water Main
8" Sewer Marc?
I
I�
II Storm Drain Line
°r
c
ar
I Project Site
aI
l� I 8" Sewer
I El
I �1
13 12" Water Main
II l�
12" Water Main 8" Sewer Main CattccStormDraiDraint
Ch Basin --"Is'
I � ..... s'+� � .� 1M� � � •��'`� .... ..... Ewa.. � � JE
.�.. ..... s _..,.... ....` ..�. ... .....
A Street # �� :.rrw .�� r... f*�r.� �.5 w1.+.
Storm Drain Line
N - fit. �-
Legend:
—W— Existing Water Main
—S— Existing Sewer Main
sorprce: msI ,i"nsultinq, Inc.
i
MSA CONSULTING INC.
www.msac onsultingrc.corn N.T.S.
Existing Storm Drain Line
0 Existing Storm Drain Catch Basin
Exhil Dot : November 21, 2016
E- SING UTILITES
EXHIBIT 6
III. LAND USE REGULATIONS
A. Land Use Plan
This section of the Specific Plan provides descriptions of the land uses allowable
within each planning area. It also includes descriptions of the zoning designations
applicable to each Planning Area.
The MPC Palm Desert Specific Plan area is divided into four (4) Planning Areas,
three (3) of which are designated for a specific land use and one (1) of which is
designated for alternative land uses. The land use plan proposed for the two (2)
existing legal parcels comprising the MCP Specific Plan is described below and
illustrated on Exhibit 7. The MCP Specific Plan Land Use is consistent with the
current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Zoninq Designation
The current Zoning Designations are shown earlier on Exhibit 4. A total of four (4)
Planning Areas in the MPC Palm Desert Specific Plan are proposed. The Zoning
Designations for the Planning Areas are listed in the following Table and shown on
Exhibit 8.
Table 1 — Zoning Designations
Planning Acres Zoning Designation
Area
1 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-
2)
2 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-
2)
Planned Residential (PR-
3 6.0 22) Planned Commercial
(PC-2)
Planned Residential
4 11.44 (PR-22), Housing
Overlay District
33'�
Land Use Allocation
The MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan is designed to provide a broad range of land
uses to be developed in a coordinated, high quality environment. This Specific
Plan can be developed based on the following master land use allocation, as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - MCP Palm Desert Land Use Allocation
Planning
Density/Lot Density/Lot
Projected
Area
Land Use
Acres Coverage Coverage
Units/SF
Min. Max.
Planned
Commercial
1
(PC-2)
7.37 25% 50%
55,000*
Planned
2
Commercial
7.37 25 /° 50 /°
Planned
Residential
3
(PR-22, PC-2)
6 10/acre 22/acre
132
Planned
Min. 200
Residential
4
(PR-22),
11.44 17.34/acre 22/acre
Max.252
HOD
Total Maximum
Potential Units 384
Total Potential Sq.
Footage 120,000*
Projected
SF represents
structure footprint; square footage of structure may increase
due to inclusion of second story
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
.
t
C07Y O
RANCHO
Z
{i
m
c
c
Q
C
O
■
PARCELS
7 47 AtY7FS
• :A Street
if
- R r•
Legend:
Parcel 1 4 Camm
Parcel Ca
Parcel 3 Residential / Commercial 5.87 acres
Parcel 4 Residential 11.44 acres
Tetal�n,na,aefes
Source: MSA Consulffnq Inc.
(RD
01 300,
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
www.msoconsultinainc.com SCALE: 1" = 300`
tl
I
February 28, 2018
LAND USE
EXHIBIT 7
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
iiiJo 7t
+Dick Kelly Drive --.
r
�
`
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 1
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR-22)
'y
,
Q1
PLANNED
C DMMERCIAL (PC-2)
PLANNED
COMMERCIAL (PC-2)
+
Gvil�GLa1CC�
�C����
CL
.�
Q
v
m
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 4
PLANNED
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR-22)
C
MMERCIAL (PC-2)
HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT
Legend:
Parcel l Planned Commercial (PC-2)
Parcel 2 Planned Commercial (PC-2)
Parcel 3 Planned Residential (PR-22) I Planned C
Parcel 4 Planned Residential (PR-22), Housing Ov
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc.
01
MSA CONSULTING, INC. 0
www.msaconsultinginc.com SCALE: 1" = 3i
aC-2) �9a
Ik L1
Exhibit Date: February 28. 2018
ZONING
EXHIBIT 8
B. Permitted Uses and Development Standards
Planning Area 1 and 2 — Planned Commercial (PC-2)
Planning Area 1 and 2 may be developed as commercial shopping center(s)
consisting of one or two-story buildings.
The following Specific Plan Uses are in addition to uses allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance regarding PC-2. Uses allowed per Chapter 25.16, Commercial Uses,
are allowed within the PC-2 zone identified in Table 25.16; permitted and
conditional uses are allowed. Without limiting the foregoing, allowed uses shall
include drive -through restaurants, mixed -use developments, car wash, hotel(s),
automobile service stations without regard to the required site location separation
distances per Section 25.34.090, commercial indoor recreation facilities and indoor
amusement establishments and combinations of two or more of the uses listed
above. Ancillary commercial uses, business support services and personal services
shall be allowed. Residential units and/or professional office space shall be allowed
on a second story. Approval of the uses are subject to a CUP application, Precise
Plan application or Administrative Use Permit application; the form of application
shall be consistent with city policies as determined by the Community Development
Director.
Table 3 — Planning Area 1 and 2 Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Front Yard Setback (min)
Side Yard Setback (min)
Street Side Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback (min)
Maximum Lot Coverage
Maximum Height, Retail, Office and Mixed Use
Maximum Height Recreational Facility (Commercial and/or
Private) and/or Entertainment Facility
Maximum Height, Hotel and Mixed -Use
Maximum Number of Stories, Hotel and Mixed -Use
Minimum Landscaping (% of lot area)
3 acres
0 ft.
0 ft.
0 ft.
0 ft.
50%
35 ft.
40 ft.
60 ft.
4
20%
Development standards not listed in the Table shall be consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance Development Standards for the Planned Commercial (2) District, Section
25.16.050
Development standards may be modified with approval of a Precise Plan
Maximum height does not include architectural screen walls and towers as outlined in
Section 25.40.040
Planninq Area 3 — Planned Residential (PR-22); Planned Commercial / (PC-2)
Planning Area 3 may be developed as part of a large attached residential project
on Planning Area 3 combined with the same use as on Planning Area 4.
Alternatively, PA3 may be developed (i) with attached or detached residential units,
for sale or for rent, at densities from 10-22/acre, (ii) as a mixed -use project and/or
100% commercial project using the same development standards as in Planning
Area 1 and 2. Condominium projects may be permitted with approval of a Precise
Plan application.
PA3 will utilize the development standards identified in Planning Area 1, 2, and 4
based on the project.
Planninq Area 4
Planning Area 4 shall be developed with a minimum of 200 attached for sale or for
rent residential units. The developer may take advantage and utilize the Housing
Overlay District per Ordinance No. 1353.
Table 4 — Planning Area 4 Development Standards
Maximum Density PR-22
22 units/acre
Planning Area Landscape
20%
Front Yard Setbacks (min)
10 ft.
Street Side Yard Setbacks (min)
5 ft.
8 ft. with no
one side less
Side Yard Setbacks Combined both sides (min)
than 3 ft.
Rear Yard Setback (min)
10 ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage
50% SFA
65% SFD <
Maximum Lot Coverage
2500 sf.
55% SFD >
Maximum Lot Coverage
2500 sf.
Maximum Number of Stories/Height
3 stories/40 feeti
1 covered
Parking
space per unit
1 space every 8
Guest Parking
units
Common Area Open Space per Unit
250 sf.
Development standards may be modified with approval
of a Precise Plan.
Maximum height does not include architectural projections or towers.
fl) ':?_ k
C. General Development Standards
1. The Project shall be developed in accordance with the City's Zoning
Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this Specific Plan.
2 A reservation of housing affordable to the lower and/or moderate residents (if
any) shall be addressed in the Housing Agreement.
a All improvements constructed on the property shall conform to applicable public
works and building ordinances and codes in effect at the time construction
occur.
4. Where the provisions of this Specific Plan conflict with land use or building
ordinances, regulations, and/or codes, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall
control.
5. The exact location and configuration of Specific Plan Planning Areas may be
altered as Precise Plans and Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps are developed,
subject to the approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
6. Tentative Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, and Precise Plans may be submitted and
approved by the City, consistent with the provisions and intent of this Specific
Plan.
7. All utility, roadway, and other improvements required to adequately serve each
phase of the Project shall be constructed in conjunction with such phase.
8. Shared parking is required for commercial and mixed -use areas throughout the
MCP Specific Plan. The number of required parking spaces may be reduced
where it is demonstrated that parking efficiencies will result from shared land
uses, subject to Planning Commission approval. Shared parking can occur
within individual Planning Areas, or across Planning Area boundaries.
9. Joint use parking shall not exceed 50 percent of the required spaces of any
uses involved. A recorded covenant, acceptable to the city attorney, shall be
required to facilitate joint use.
10. All circulation and parking elements incorporated in Precise Plans and/or
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps shall be reviewed and approved by Fire
Department and Public Works.
11. Pedestrian access to public parkways shall be proposed with Precise Plans or
Tentative Tract Maps for the Specific Plan Property.
39 P\
IV. DESIGN GUIDELINES
A. Purpose
This section establishes design guidelines for the Specific Plan area that
supplement those set forth in the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. They provide a
flexible set of fundamental principles that will assure a cohesive, attractive, and
quality working and living environments. Where conflicts or inconsistencies may
exist, the guidelines of this Specific Plan shall control. The guidelines shall apply to
all Planning Areas in the Specific Plan boundaries, unless otherwise specified.
B. Site Planning
1. All built elements of the Specific Plan area should be developed in a cohesive
and integrated manner such that they function as and are recognizable as a
single destination. This includes consideration of structures, hardscape, and
landscaping that visually tie these elements together in an effective and
pleasing manner.
2. Projects developed within the Specific Plan should incorporate elements of the
City's Sustainability Plan to the greatest extent practical.
3. Each phase of development must be self-sustaining in terms of scale, access,
and amenities.
4. Whenever possible, structures should be clustered to create landscape -
enhanced plazas or pedestrian ways and public spaces. Long, "barracks -like"
rows must be avoided. When clustering is impossible, visual links such as
arcades and trellises should be encouraged between separate structures.
5. Commercial buildings should generally be arranged in a "U," "L," or similarly
shaped configurations to encourage pedestrian activity, provide isolation of
loading and other operation areas, allow visibility of entrances from the street,
and encourage shared pedestrian and vehicular linkages between properties.
Pedestrian improvements and amenities shall be provided throughout the
Specific Plan area to further integrate adjoining Planning Areas and create a
sense of place.
6. Loading docks, trash enclosures, and other service facilities should be located
at the rear of the site whenever possible and recessed and/or properly screened
from view.
7. Special design elements will be required at the interface of the commercial
planning areas and the residential planning areas to minimize visual and noise
elements inconsistent with residential experience.
C. Access & Circulation
Roads and Access Drives
1. Internal circulation should minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts to the greatest
extent possible. Structures should be linked to public sidewalks with textured or
enhanced paving, landscaping, or similar treatments.
Parkinq
1. Parking facilities should be conveniently located, with street access made as
direct as possible.
2. Wherever possible, parking areas should be visible from the residential units
that use them.
3. Residential parking spaces not located within garages or carports should be
shaded by landscaping with effective summer shade of a minimum of 50 percent.
4. Detached and attached garages, carports, and accessory structures should be
designed as integral parts of the project and consistent with the principal
structures of the project in their use of materials, color, and design details.
5. The preferred location for garages and carports is on the interior side of parking
areas.
6. Prefabricated carports are not permitted.
7. Garage doors should be steel or aluminum and may include wood cladding or
metal to enhance architectural compatibility. Hinge -type garage doors are
prohibited.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian, bicycle and Neighborhood Electric Vehicle access and circulation
should connect planning areas to encourage non -vehicular travel. Non -
vehicular access must be integrated into project site plans and, when
appropriate given project use(s), shall occur on dedicated paths that protect
pedestrians and bicyclists from automobiles, and provide shaded areas and
amenities for their users.
When appropriate given project use(s), pedestrian connections must be
provided between Planning Area 1 and 2 and Planning Area 3 and 4. These
pedestrian connections must be dedicated to pedestrian and bicycle access
only, and cannot be located within roadways or internal driveways. Sidewalks
on internal streets should not be the only form of pedestrian access provided,
but should be supplemented by internal walkways, trails or paths. The City shall
review each proposed project within this Specific Plan to assure connectivity
between these Planning Areas.
2 To the extent possible, the entrances to individual residential units should be
plainly visible from nearby parking areas.
3. Individual outdoor walkways, corridors, or access balconies should be designed
to serve no more than five (5) residential units.
4. In the event that a building is located in close proximity to a street, and parking
is provided at the rear or side of the lot, clearly delineated secondary
pedestrian access convenient to parking areas should be provided to the
greatest extent practical.
D. Architectural Elements
1. Architectural development plans will be reviewed for their focus on high -quality,
attractive design and compatibility with the intended objectives of this Specific
Plan, as well as existing and proposed development in the project vicinity.
Designs should be harmonious with regard to building style, form, size, color,
material, and roofline.
2 Architectural designs should incorporate energy efficient materials and
construction techniques, and strive to exceed existing Building Code
requirements.
3. Individual buildings should be distinguishable from one another, while also
being viewed as integral parts of the larger building design.
4. Large buildings should provide architectural interest through variations in
building mass and distribution.
5. Long, unbroken facades and unarticulated box -like forms should be avoided.
Building facades should be tied together through a unified and cohesive design.
Building setbacks and projections and varying rooflines can provide visual
interest while maintaining function.
6. Balconies, porches, and patios should be integrated into single and multi -family
development to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human
scale to structures.
7. Building design should be sensitive and responsive to the varying temperatures
and outdoor living opportunities of the low desert.
a Buildings should provide a 3600 articulation of all building facades.
9. Entryways on commercial buildings should be clearly identifiable to pedestrian
and vehicular traffic, and should be integral parts of building design. Entryways
should provide safe and unobstructed pedestrian access.
10. Monument signs will be located at project area intersections, and will serve as
the primary directional signage for the project. Monument signs will be
designed to be integral to the architectural style of the project, and will be
consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance standards.
E. Landscaping
1. Landscape treatments should maximize the use of native desert and compatible
drought -tolerant plant materials. Species must comply with City and CVWD
water conservation ordinance requirements.
2 Landscape plans must address wind and water erosion issues and
demonstrate the water efficiency gained from plant and irrigation systems.
3. All areas not covered by structures, drives, parking or hardscape should be
appropriately landscaped.
4. The use of turf should be limited to functional play and active use areas.
5. Landscaping should provide shade where needed, including within parking
areas, bus shelters, park seating areas, and pedestrian paths/trails.
6. Where appropriate, organic and inorganic groundcovers are recommended in
place of asphalt or concrete.
F. Walls and Fences
1. Walls and fences should be an integral part of site design, especially in areas of
public visibility. Careful consideration must be given to their placement to
assure a natural transition between land uses.
2 Windbreak walls, berms, and fences may be constructed in areas that warrant
protection from prevailing winds.
G. Open Space
1. Common open space should be conveniently located for the majority of units.
2. Private open spaces should be contiguous to the units they serve and at least
partially screened from view.
3. Open space areas should be designed and oriented to take advantage of
available sunlight and sheltered from wind, traffic, and noise to the greatest
extent practical.
4. Adequate and safe pedestrian and non -motorized access to open spaces
should be provided.
5. Within commercial centers an outdoor plaza or center shall be provided in order
to create a sense of place for pedestrians.
6. Outdoor areas associated with commercial and multi -family developments
should provide attractive spaces that are carefully planned and not simply
leftover areas between structures. Pedestrian amenities, such as tables,
benches, fountains, and shade structures, should be provided.
H. Lighting
1. Exterior lighting fixtures should provide safety and convenience, and should be
integral design elements of the project.
2. All outdoor lights should be screened and shielded to avoid spilling onto
adjoining properties and streets, and must comply with the City's Outdoor
Lighting requirements.
Accessory Facilities
1. Trash storage, transfer, and disposal facilities should be located in parking
areas or at the end of parking bays. Locations should be conveniently
accessible for both trash collection and maintenance and should not block
access drives during loading operations.
2 Trash facilities should be enclosed in accordance with applicable City standards
and the minimum requirements of the disposal service provider. Pedestrian
access should be provided to the rear or side of the enclosure.
3. Accessory facilities in multifamily projects, such as laundry facilities, recreation
buildings, and pool cabanas should be as centrally located within the
development and consistent in architectural design and form with the rest of the
complex. Sales and leasing offices also should be compatible with these
guidelines.
4. Where common mailboxes are provided, their location should be carefully
considered to provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access and vehicular
stacking. Design and architectural character should be compatible and
complementary in form, materials, and colors to the surrounding buildings, as
well as minimum U.S. Postal Service specifications.
5. Any roof -mounted equipment is to be located within an attic space or fully
screened by an architecturally appropriate parapet wall. All HVAC and similar
equipment must be visually and acoustically screened. The screening method
must be functionally and architecturally compatible with the building design in
terms of materials, color, shape, and size.
V. PHASING AND FINANCING
The MCP Palm Desert project will be developed in phases. Phases in development
will be subject to market demand.
As described in this document, infrastructure currently exists immediately adjacent
to the project site. Connections to this existing infrastructure will be made as
planning areas develop, including water, sewer and all dry utilities. Storm drainage
will be developed consistent with Section II D., Local Drainage, herein and with the
approved hydrology study and water quality management plans.
The project financing will generally be private. As with any project, a variety of
financing mechanisms are available to both the owners and the City to fund specific
project or infrastructure needs. These mechanisms may be employed by the
owners as needed throughout the construction of the project.
VI. PROCEDURES
Amendment of the Specific Plan
This Specific Plan may be amended by application for a proposed amendment by
the land owner(s) of the affected parcel(s) within the Specific Plan area, and
approved by the City based on the following criteria:
Amendments Subiect to Director's Approval
The following amendments shall be subject to administrative review and approval
by the Director of Community Development:
• Minor changes in this Specific Plan that provide supplemental detail
consistent with the existing content of the Specific Plan.
Minor changes in the Planning Area boundaries that increase or decrease
any Planning Area acreage by 15 percent or less.
Minor changes in overall density or lot coverage that increases total land
use allocation by 10 percent or less.
Amendments Subiect to Planning Commission Approval
The following amendments shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Commission and may be subject to the City Council calling the proposed
amendments up:
• Any change in land use designation applicable to a Planning Area.
• Major changes in Specific Plan that affect the purpose and intent of
this document.
• Major changes in Planning Area boundaries that increase or
decrease any Planning Area acreage by 15.1 percent or more.
• Major changes in overall density or lot coverage that increase total
land use allocation by 10.1 percent or more.
Concurrent Applications
Whenever possible, applications for development approvals shall be processed
concurrently, when multiple applications are required. For example, if a commercial
project within a Planning Area requires a Parcel Map, Precise Plan and Conditional
Use Permit, every effort shall be made to process all applications concurrently.
Precise Plans
Precise Plans will be required for all projects within this Specific Plan. Precise Plans
shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. Precise Plans
may cover portions of a Planning Area, an entire Planning Area, or multiple
Planning Areas. Partial development of a Planning Area shall not inhibit the overall
development of the subject Planning Area or other Specific Plan Planning Areas.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
As required by Government Code Section 65451, this section of the Specific Plan
addresses the relationship of the MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan to the City of
Palm Desert General Plan. The Goals, Policies and Programs of the General Plan
recently adopted by the City in November of 2016 have been reviewed, and where
applicable, have been analyzed individually for each Element. In the analysis
below, the applicable Goal or Policy is first cited, followed by an analysis of this
Specific Plan's consistency. Where Goals and/or Policies are inter -related, they are
grouped together for discussion.
Land Use & Community Character
1.1 Scale of development. Require new development along the city's corridors
use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure compatible fit
with surrounding development.
The Specific Plan establishes development standards and guidelines for the
ultimate development of planned commercial land uses on the east side of
Monterey. To the east, and not on the Monterey corridor, high density
residential would be constructed.
Along the Monterey corridor, retail and office structures could extend to 40
feet in height, while a hotel could occur at a 60 foot height, which is consistent
with height standards in the City's commercial areas. Design Guidelines
include recommendations for the siting of commercial structures to reduce the
bulk of individual buildings. The Specific Plan includes provisions for the
preparation of Precise Plans, which will address the placement of buildings.
This requirement will allow the City the ability to assure that the scale and
mass of proposed structures is consistent with the scale and mass of
adjacent and surrounding development, including the existing commercial
development immediately to the north and south on Monterey.
Goal 2. Human -Scaled Design. A city designed for people, fostering interaction,
activity, and safety.
2.2 Parking frontages. Require parking strategies and designs that ensure
parking areas do not dominate street frontages and are screened from public
views whenever possible.
The Specific Plan Design Standards require that Precise Plans include
shared parking provisions, to reduce the overall parking fields within the
project. This requirement, coupled with Design Guidelines which encourage
`U' and `L' shaped commercial buildings and clustered structures, will allow
the design of parking areas that do not dominate the street frontages.
2.7 Public gathering spaces. Improve existing and create new gathering spaces
throughout the city to provide beautiful, comfortable, and inviting public and
pedestrian spaces, encouraging walking and public gathering spaces.
2.8 Public plazas. Encourage new development to incorporate public plazas,
seating, drinking fountains, and gathering places, especially in prominent
locations and areas of pedestrian activity.
The Specific Plan includes both commercial and residential development
components. Its Design Guidelines provide for integrated and cohesive design
that will assure that the entire project appears as one coordinated site. These
guidelines also encourage the clustering of structures and creation of public
spaces and pedestrian access, and provide for pedestrian amenities
throughout the site. Finally, dedicated pedestrian connections must be
provided between Planning Area 1 and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4.
2.9 Commercial requirements. Require development projects in nonresidential
and mixed use areas to provide for enhanced pedestrian activity through the
following techniques:
• Requiring that the ground floor frontage be oriented to and accessible
from the sidewalk;
• Locating the majority of a building's frontages in close proximity to the
sidewalk edge;
• Requiring that the first level of the building occupy a majority of the
lot's frontage, with exceptions for vehicle access;
• Requiring that the majority of the linear ground floor retail frontage
(where it occurs) be visually and physically "penetrable," incorporating
windows and other design treatments to create an attractive street
frontage;
• Requiring that the first level of building where retail uses are allowed
have a minimum 15 feet floor to floor height for nonresidential uses;
• Minimizing vehicle intrusions across the sidewalk;
• Allowing for the development of outdoor plazas and dining areas;
• Discouraging new surface parking lots;
• Locating parking (surface or structured) behind buildings, wherever
feasible; and,
• Address parking on a regional basis to maximize efficiency.
The Specific Plan includes a requirement for Precise Plan approvals, which
will allow review of plans to meet these standards. In addition, the master
planned nature of the development components in the Specific Plan assure
that a continuous and unified building layout will occur. The City will limit
access points on Monterey Avenue, thereby reducing potential vehicle
intrusions across sidewalks.
As stated above, the Design Guidelines encourage the clustering of buildings
to allow for public plazas and similar open areas. Further, the Specific Plan
requires the implementation of shared use parking strategies to limit and
coordinate parking areas.
2.10 Auto -oriented uses. Consider allowing uses that serve occupants of vehicles
(such as drive -through windows) and discourage uses that serve the vehicle
(such as car washes and service stations), in places that are clearly
automobile oriented, ensuring that such uses do not disrupt pedestrian flow,
are not concentrated, do not break up the building mass of the streetscape,
and are compatible with the planned uses of the area.
The Specific Plan project area is located on a major arterial roadway, and as
such will provide a convenient and accessible location for uses that serve the
occupants of vehicles, including drive -through facilities.
In addition, the location of high density residential in close proximity to these
commercial uses will encourage the use of these businesses as stops on the
way to or from work or school via pedestrian or bicycle access.
Goal 3. Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing types,
densities, designs and mix of uses and services that support healthy and active
lifestyles.
3.1 Complete neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement process,
ensure that all new Neighborhoods (areas with a "Neighborhood" General
Plan Designation) are complete and well -structured such that the physical
layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use, are
family friendly and address the needs of multiple ages and physical abilities.
New neighborhoods should have the following characteristics:
• Contain short, walkable block lengths.
• Contain a high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles and
vehicles where practicable.
• Are organized around a central focal point such as a park, school, civic
building or neighborhood retail such that most homes are no more
than one quarter -mile from this focal point.
• Have goods and services within a short walking distance.
• Contain a diversity of housing types, where possible.
• Have homes with entries and windows facing the street.
• Have a grid or modified grid street network (except where topography
necessitates another street network layout).
• Provide a diversity of architectural styles.
The Specific Plan's mix of high -density residential and commercial
development will allow for the. development of a non -motorized neighborhood
environment, by promoting close proximity between home and potential jobs
and shopping opportunities. These uses will be within walking distance of the
residential neighborhood. The location of the Specific Plan on Monterey also
allows residents to have easy access to transit, which currently operates on
that roadway.
The proposed residential component of the Specific Plan will include a mix of
for sale and for rent units made available to a varied range of households.
In addition, the project site's location allows for easy connections to proposed
parks and schools located easterly of the site.
The design of the residential component of the project will be governed by
Precise Plan approvals, allowing the City to implement the requirements of
this policy through design consultation and conditions of approval.
32 Conventional neighborhood design. Discourage the construction of new
residential neighborhoods that are characterized by cul-de-sacs, sound walls,
long block lengths, single building and housing types and lack of access to
goods and services.
The Precise Plan(s) which will be prepared for individual projects within the
Specific Plan will provide detail regarding internal design. However, the
Specific Plan Design Guidelines encourage connectivity for pedestrians and
other non -motorized transport, a requirement for dedicated pedestrian access
between Planning Area 1 and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4; the clustering of
buildings (in both the residential and commercial components of the project);
and discourages long single -building construction. The development of higher
density residential is unlikely to generate a need for cul-de-sacs, and its
location to the east of Monterey Avenue and the commercial development will
lessen the need for sound walls.
3.4 Balanced neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing types,
promote a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood in
order to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. For development projects
larger thanfive (5) acres, require that a diversity of housing types be provided
and that these housing types be mixed rather than segregated by unit type.
As described above, the Specific Plan's Planning Area 3 and 4 propose the
construction of a broad range of housing types which would include both
renters and owners; families; and income levels. These planning areas could
include apartments, townhomes and small lot single-family projects.
3.5 Housing affordability. Ensure affordable housing is distributed throughout
the City to avoid concentrations of poverty and to be accessible to jobs.
The Specific Plan includes a mix of residential products that could include
income -restricted units. Because a mix of housing types are anticipated, there
will not be a concentration of affordable units within the project. In addition, the
Specific Plan's inclusion of both a commercial and residential component will
allow residents access to jobs within close walking distance.
3.11 Connections to key destinations. Require direct pedestrian connections
between residential areas and nearby commercial and public/institutional
areas.
3.14 Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that the
majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of
neighborhood goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants,
churches, cafes, dry cleaners, laundromats, farmers markets, banks, hair
care, pharmacies and similar uses.
The Specific Plan requires the development of an integrated and unified
combination of residential and commercial development. The residential
component, which could include a variety of housing types, will be within easy
walking distance to the commercial component. Although it is not possible to
predict what types of businesses will locate in the commercial component, the
uses will include those that will be needed by project residents, and when
combined with the commercial businesses located in existing projects to the
north and south of the site, will provide residents with a broad range of service
and shopping opportunities.
4.3 Regional retail districts. Facilitate major regional serving commercial centers
that provide a mix of uses in a pedestrian oriented format and become vibrant
destinations for people to live, work, shop and congregate. Allow a wide
variety of uses to locate in Regional Retail Districts including destination retail
centers, mixed -use town centers, and hotels, among other uses.
4.4 Regional retail district design. Allow for significant flexibility in the design of
Regional Retail Districts so long as city-wide and project -level connectivity
standards are met, the uses do not adversely affect adjacent uses and
accommodations are made for pedestrians, bicycle and transit users. Design
internal streets and parking into blocks and require sidewalks along both
sides of these streets.
The commercial component of the Specific Plan is proposed for a range of
commercial development on a major arterial roadway. Its designation as a
Regional Retail and Town Center Neighborhood district is consistent with this
Policy, and the anticipated uses within the project. The Design Guidelines
encourage the development of an interconnected project which would include
plazas and similar public spaces that provide a destination for shoppers.
Goal 5. Centers. A variety of mixed use, urban centers throughout the city that
provide opportunities for shopping, recreation, commerce, employment and arts
and culture.
The Specific Plan includes both a residential and a commercial component
which are to be designed and constructed as a cohesive whole. This type of
project is not currently present in the Monterey corridor, and will add
residential development to an essentially commercial area, thereby adding a
mixed -use component to this area of the City.
5.4 Access to transit. Encourage the development of commercial and mixed
use centers that are located on existing or planned transit stops in order to
facilitate and take advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips and allow
residents without private vehicles to access services.
As previously stated, the Specific Plan project area is located on Monterey, a
major roadway which currently includes public transit. As the project site is
developed, the City will coordinate with SunLine Transit regarding the location
of bus stops at or near the project site, as demand warrants.
Mobility Element
Goal 1. Livable Streets. A balanced transportation system that accommodates all
modes of travel safely and efficiently.
1.1 Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design, and
construction of all transportation projects to create safe, livable, and inviting
environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit users of
all ages and capabilities.
The project site is located on Monterey, and will be bordered by Dick Kelly,
Gateway and A Street. Monterey, Dick Kelly and Gateway include bicycle
lanes in their ultimate right of way, and these will be available to users of both
the commercial and the residential components of the project.
The Specific Plan area will be developed through the approval of Precise
Plans, which will be conditioned to include complete street programs on
General Plan roadways and the internal street system, including connections
from Planning Area 1 and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4.
Goal 3. Pedestrian Facilities. Integrated pedestrian pathways that connect
residences, businesses and educational and community uses.
3.1 Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation system for
pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, place to sit and gather,
appropriate street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles, shading, and
amenities for people of all ages.
3.4 Access to Development. Require that all new development projects or
redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external
pedestrian network.
Specific designs for components of the proposed project will be required to
include pedestrian connections both between the project components and
between the project and the pedestrian facilities on Monterey, Dick Kelly and
Gateway. These connections are supported in the Specific Plan Design
Guidelines, which encourage the provision of pedestrian connection
throughout the project, and require connections from Planning Area 1 and 2
to Planning Area 3 and 4.
Health and Wellness Element
6.2 Healthy buildings. Require new development to meet the State's Green
Building Code standards for indoor air quality performance, and promote
green building practices that support "healthy buildings," such as low volatile
organic compound materials, environmental tobacco smoke control, and
indoor air quality construction pollution prevention techniques.
The Specific Plan includes, in its Design Guidelines, provisions which
encourage implementation of the City's Sustainability Plan. The Plan is
specifically geared toward green building practices and healthy development.
Further, the Specific Plan encourages the implementation of energy efficient
construction equal to or in excess of Building Code standards.
7.3 Pedestrian barriers. Discourage physical barriers to walking and bicycling
between and within neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. If physical
barriers are unavoidable, provide safe and comfortable crossings for
pedestrians and cyclists. Physical barriers may include arterial streets with
speed limits above 35 mph, transit or utility rights -of -way, very long blocks
without through -streets, and sound walls, amongst others.
As previously stated, the Specific Plan includes Design Guidelines that
encourage the connection of all parts of the project with pedestrian facilities.
This will allow easy access between the commercial and residential
components of the project, and provide safe and comfortable access for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Environmental Resources Element
Goal 1. Water Resources. Protected and readily available water resources for
community and environmental use.
1.1 Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor water
conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water reuse
and rainwater harvesting.
12 Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water
consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology.
The Specific Plan's landscaping guidelines include the limitation of turf to
functional use only, and the use of desert and drought -tolerant landscaping
throughout the project. The project is further required to comply with CVWD's
water conservation ordinance requirements. Finally, the Design Guidelines
encourage exceedance of the Building Code's Green Building standards, and
the inclusion of the City's Sustainability Plan programs, which both include
water conservation measures.
5.2 GHG reductions. Promote land use and development patterns that reduce
the community's dependence on, and length of, automobile trips.
The proposed project will develop residential units at higher densities
immediately adjacent to commercial development (both existing and
proposed), and interconnect these components. These project features will
allow for non -motorized access and encourage residents to access businesses
on foot, thereby reducing their roadway trips.
6.3 Energy Efficient Buildings. Encourage new buildings and buildings
undergoing major retrofits to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
As previously stated, the Specific Plan Design Guidelines encourage that
projects within the Specific Plan exceed Building Code requirements, and
implement the programs of the City's Sustainability Plan. In addition, since it
is likely that the project will develop after adoption of the 2017 Building Code
by the City, the requirements of that Code, which will be more energy efficient
than current standards, will apply to project components.
8.2 Land use patterns. Promote compact, mixed -use, energy efficient and transit -
oriented development to reduce air pollutants associated with energy and
vehicular use.
The Specific Plan includes both residential and commercial development
adjacent to each other. Further, the Specific Plan area is located on an
existing transit line. Both these features will aid in reducing energy use and
vehicle miles traveled.
Safety Element
a1 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to minimize
flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents
adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on -site retention of runoff,
and minimization of structures located in floodplains.
32 Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to funding
regional flood control infrastructure improvements.
The Specific Plan area is not located in a flood zone. However, the Specific
Plan area is part of a larger area for which a master drainage plan was
prepared and implemented by the City. The project site is subject to the
requirements of this plan, and pays its fair share of improvements through the
existing assessment district on the property. As projects are developed, they
will connect to the storm drain system in surrounding streets.
Public Utilities and Services Element
1.1 Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development
projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that development (regional shallow ground water).
1.6 Collaborative stormwater management. Encourage collaborative, integrated
stormwater management between multiple property owners and sites.
As described above, the stormwater management planning undertaken for
this project site and others in its vicinity established a stormwater
management program for the project site. These facilities include existing
drainage pipes in adjoining streets, as well as a regional retention basin
located to the east of the property. The Specific Plan area is subject to the
assessment district formed to implement the stormwater management plan,
and as such is paying its fair share for drainage infrastructure.
2.2 Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to
pay for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated
by that development.
As described in the Specific Plan, existing sanitary sewer infrastructure exists
surrounding the property. As projects are developed, they will connect to
these facilities in A Street, Gateway and Dick Kelly, and pay the required
connection fees to CVWD. Further, CVWD will impose conditions of approval
on individual projects as Precise Plans are processed through the City.
3.4 Water infrastructure for new development. Require development projects
to pay for their share of new water infrastructure or improvements
necessitated by that project.
As described in the Specific Plan, domestic water is supplied to the project
site by CVWD. Existing water lines occur in A Street, Gateway, Dick Kelly and
Monterey. As individual projects are developed within the Specific Plan Area,
they will connect to these lines and pay required connection fees to CVWD.
Housing
Element Goal 1
A variety of housing types that meet all of the housing needs for all income
groups within the City.
Both Planning Area 3 and Planning Area 4 provide for residential
development in the Specific Plan. In Planning Area 3, a density of 10 to 22 units
per acre is allowed, while Planning Area 4 allows a density of 17 to 22 units
per acre. These development standards and the uses described in the
Specific Plan allow for the development of a broad range of rental and/or
ownership units of varying intensity, ranging from small lot single family
residential to apartments or townhomes. The range of possibilities will result
in varying rents and sale prices.
Goal 2
The preservation and maintenance of the high quality of the City's affordable
housing supply.
Policy 1
New affordable housing projects shall be encouraged in all areas of the City.
Special attention will be made to distributing the units so that large concentrations
of affordable housing in any one area are avoided.
The project site is described in the Housing Element as having the potential
to accommodate 200 housing units. The Specific Plan allows for the
development of up to 384 units.
Policy 11
Promote the jobs/housing balance through the development of housing with
convenient access to commercial land uses, schools, available public transport
and employment centers.
The Specific Plan will result in both commercial and residential development.
Residents from the proposed residential component could find employment in
the commercial component, or in the existing and proposed commercial and
office developments to the north, south and west of the site. In addition, the
Specific Plan is located on Monterey, which currently includes a public transit
bus route. Finally, the Specific Plan is located in close proximity to planned
and existing schools and parks.
i�
F7caml
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT' 70=WA t 16
CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE: February 13, 2020
PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Consideration for approval of a Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map
37234 to subdivide 32+ acres into four (4) planning areas east of Monterey
Avenue, south of Dick Kelly Drive, north of A Street, and west of Gateway
Drive; and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA),
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 2020-1 7
approving a Specific Plan document, including the three (3) recommendations
below, Tentative Parcel Map JPM) 37234; and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) of Environmental Impact.
Planning Area 4 shall require a minimum of 200 residential units per the
Housing Element. The developer is required to reserve twenty -percent
(20%) of the 200 units (40) within the project to be made available at
affordable rents (20 low and 20 very low incomes) and memorialized with
a recorded Housing Agreement.
2. If any residential uses are constructed in Planning Area 3, the Developer
is required to reserve twenty percent (20%) of all units within the project
to be made available at affordable rents (low and very low) and in
accordance with an approved and recorded Housing Agreement.
3, The Specific Plan shall not include any age -restricted housing.
Planninq Commission
At its meeting of September 18, 2018, the Planning Commission heard the project request
and ultimately was in support of the overall project, including age restricted housing; however,
could not reach a consensus regarding staff's recommendation to require twenty percent
(20%) of the units on Planning Areas 3 and 4 for affordable housing. The Planning
Commission had a lengthy discussion on the Housing Element, the applicant's position, and
the staff recommendation. The Planning Commission understood staff's position and the
need for affordable housing, but was seemingly uncomfortable with imposing an affordable
housing requirement since the City does not have a formal affordable housing policy adopted
by the City Council. After several failed motions, the Planning Commission was undecided.
February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 2 of 11
At the suggestion of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission approved a general
recommendation (no resolution) of what they believe the City Council should consider:
1. General support of facilitating affordable housing on this site.
2. That the Specific Plan allow for assisted living uses on Planning Area 3.
Attached to this staff report are the Planning Commission meeting minutes dated September
18, 2018.
Executive Summary
Approval of the staff request will approve a Specific Plan, TPM 37234, and an MND. The Specific
Plan subdivides the 32-acre site into four (4) planning areas: two (2) commercial, one (1) flex,
and one (1) residential parcel. The City's Housing Element requires that the applicant construct
a minimum of 200 residential units, and staff is recommending that twenty percent (20%) (40
units) are made available at affordable rents (20 low and 20 very low incomes) within Planning
Area 4. Since 2017, the applicant has disagreed with staff on whether the City may impose an
affordable housing requirement, since the City does not have a formal adopted policy in place.
Today, the applicant still objects to the affordable housing conditions of approval and submitted
a letter dated February 8, 2018 explaining their objections. A copy of the letter is attached to
this staff report.
In order to move the Specific Plan forward, City staff and the applicant agreed to schedule the
City Council public hearing without identifying the affordable housing requirements. Through the
public hearing, the City Council will need to determine the affordable housing requirements if
any, for the Specific Plan, along with determining if age restricted housing is an appropriate land
use within Planning Area 3.
Background
A. Property Location:
The property consists of two (2) parcels totaling 32+ acres of currently vacant land located in
the northern sphere of the City. The parcels are bounded by four streets: Monterey to the west,
Dick Kelly Drive (Dick Kelly) to the north, A Street to the south, and Gateway Drive (Gateway) to
the east.
B. General Plan and Zoning:
Zoning Designation(s):
• PC-2 - Planned District Commercial (21 acres)
• PR-22 -Planned Residential, 22 units per acre (12 acres)
G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specdic Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties\CC Staff Report Feb 13 docx
February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 3 of 11
General Plan Land Use Designation(s):
• R-R - Regional Retail (21 acres)
• T-CN -Town Center Neighborhood (12 acres)
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: PC-3 - Planned Regional Commercial (Desert Gateway shopping center)
South: PC-3 - Planned Regional Commercial (Lowe's Home Improvement)
PR-13 - Planned Residential (Enclave)
East: P - Public Institution (future school)
PR-22 - Planned Residential (vacant site)
West: City of Rancho Mirage
Proiect Description
The applicant has submitted a Specific Plan document (attached) that sets forth a land -use
plan and development standards that facilitate commercial, residential, hospitality uses, open
space, and mixed -use development within the project boundaries. It establishes a cohesive
development plan for four (4) planning areas that will be sold and developed by future owners
through a Precise Plan (PP) application that requires approval by the Planning Commission.
A. Specific Plan
The Specific Plan encompasses 32f acres, which includes information related to the
existing conditions of the site, existing and proposed street circulation patterns,
designated land uses, development standards, and design criteria for the development of
the four (4) planning areas. The objective of a Specific Plan is to provide the City with
high -quality development that takes advantage of the synergies created by the residential
and commercial uses planned for the site. The planning areas within the specific plan are
as follows:
Planninq Area 1 (PA1): PA1 consists of 7.37 acres located at the northwest corner of
Monterey Avenue and Dick Kelly Drive. PA1 will remain zoned PC-2 and will be developed
as commercial shopping center(s) consisting of one- or two-story buildings, with the
exception of a hotel(s) and mixed -use developments.
All land uses will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance allowed per Chapter 25.16,
Commercial Uses, identified in Table 25.16-1. Without limiting the foregoing, allowed uses
and conditionally permitted uses shall include: drive -through restaurants, mixed -use
developments, car wash, hotel(s), convenience stores, automobile service stations
without regard to the required site location separation distances per Section 25.34.090,
commercial indoor recreation facilities and indoor amusement establishments. Ancillary
commercial uses, business support services, and personal services shall be allowed.
Residential units and/or professional office space shall be allowed on a second story.
G \PianningWevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Propertes\CC Staff Report Feb 13 docx
February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 4 of 11
Planninq Area 2 (PA2): PA2 consists of 7.37 acres located at the southwest corner of
Monterey Avenue and A Street. PA2 will remain zoned PC-2 and will be developed with the
same land uses and development standards as PA1.
Planninq Area 3 (PA3): PA3 consists of six (6) acres located at the northeast corner of Dick
Kelly and Gateway Drives. PA3 is currently zoned PR-22 and will be designated for
alternative land uses such as residential, commercial and mixed -use developments. PA3
may be developed per the following standards:
• Attached or detached residential units for sale or for rent at densities from 10-22 units
per acre.
• As a mixed -use project.
• A commercial project.
• A larger residential project combined with Planning Area 4.
• PA3 will utilize the development standards identified in PA1, 2, and 4 based on the
project.
Planninq Area 4 (PA4): PA4 consists of 11.44 acres located at the southeast corner of
Gateway Drive and A Street. PA4 will remain zoned Planned Residential and allow up to
twenty-two (22) units per acre. Per the City's Housing Element, PA4 is required to create
a minimum of two hundred (200) attached for sale or for rent residential units, and will
have the potential to add forty (40) units towards the City's goal of twenty percent (20%)
affordability (this is discussed in more detail in the Analysis Section of this staff report).
B. Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Parcel Map 37234 was prepared to subdivide the project site into four (4) unique
parcels. When each parcel is sold, the new buyer will submit for a PP application, which will
include site plan layout, architecture, landscaping, grading, parking, hydrology, open space,
walls, reciprocal access between the parcels, and overall internal circulation.
C. Circulation
The project area has immediate access to regional transportation links, including the 1-10
freeway, arterials and local roads that interconnect. Roads immediately adjacent to the
property are described within the Specific Plan.
Analysis
Below please find an analysis of all actions under review:
A. Specific Plan:
The current zoning designation for the properties are PC-2 and PR-22, and the same
zoning will remain in place. Final site design, building design, architecture, and orientation
are yet to be proposed, and the applicant will need to submit a PP application for staff and
Planning Commission review prior to development.
G \Planning\Kewn Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties\CC Staff Report Feb 13.docx
L4
February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 5 of 11
The Specific Plan requires the development of an integrated and unified combination of
residential and commercial development. The residential component, which could include
a variety of housing types, will be within easy walking distance to the commercial
component. Although it is not possible to predict what types of businesses will locate in the
commercial component, the uses will include those that will be needed by project residents,
and when combined with the commercial businesses located in existing projects to the north
and south of the site, will provide residents with a broad range of service and shopping
opportunities.
The Specific Plan document has been prepared in accordance with State Government
Code Section 65450-65457, which sets standards for document content and provides
direction for adoption. The plan itself must be consistent with the City's General Plan and
must contain statements regarding the relationship of the Specific Plan to the City's
General Plan. Statements regarding consistency are provided in the Specific Plan (pages
30-40). Staff supports the Specific Plan document as a means of identifying desirable land
uses and development standards for this particular project. As proposed and with staff's
modifications (identified below), the Specific Plan establishes a distinct project and
provides a commitment of what will be built within the project boundaries, commits
development of the project to a unifying architectural theme, and provides sufficient
flexibility for changes to the project.
Housing Element
On May 12, 2011, and pursuant to State law, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-
24 approving an updated Housing Element. The Housing Element is designed to guide the
City's elected and appointed officials, as well as City staff and the general public, in locating
and constructing housing of all types within the City. The Housing Element is one of the State
mandated components of the City's General Plan and is the only one that requires an update
every eight (8) years. The Housing Element is also the only Element of the General Plan that
requires review and approval by the State of California, specifically the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD).
With every planning period, changes in the law require that the City incorporate new
information. In the 2006-2014 cycle, the City had to identify the parcels available for housing,
and demonstrate that they have sufficient land to accommodate the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) units in the very low, low, and moderate -income categories. This
analysis extends to a requirement to rezone lands, at a density of twenty (20) units per acre
or more.
The City identified twenty-two (22) vacant parcels that were rezoned, and the applicant's
parcels were one of the parcels identified (Letter G). The Housing Element also identified
that a minimum of two hundred (200) units must be provided for this site. Because of the
State's "No Net Loss" provisions, a minimum of two hundred (200) units must be built within
the Specific Plan area. The City's Housing Element does not specify affordability levels within
the 200 units shown on this property.
G \Planning\Kevin SwartzMord\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties\CC Staff Report Feb 13 docx
9001
February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 6 of 11
Planning Area 4
The proposed density and development standards conform to the existing zoning
designations. Building heights are allowed up to three -stories and the PR zone allows for
more imaginative architectural design and will encourage an innovative and unique
development. In accordance with the Housing Element, and as part of the Specific Plan,
staff is recommending that the applicant reserve twenty percent (20%) of the two hundred
(200) units (forty (40) units at affordable rents). The applicant objects to the affordable
housing conditions of approval and submitted a letter dated February 8, 2018, explaining its
objections, and a copy of the letter is attached to this staff report.
Over the years, staff and the applicant have had numerous attempts to find common ground,
but have been unsuccessful. Below are the applicant's alternatives and staffs reasoning for
not accepting them that were presented at the September 18, 2018, Planning Commission
meeting.
1. An affordable housing in -lieu fee in the amount of $1.50 for each livable square foot
for each residential unit within PA4.
It costs the City approximately $250, 000 to construct a single affordable housing unit.
An in -lieu fee of $1.50 per livable square foot is below what the City is reviewing from
KMA's analysis of this property and other properties within the City. Without knowing
what the livable square footage is for PA4, staff is estimating that if the developer
were to pay $1.50 per livable square foot that amount would create between two (2)
and five (5) total affordable units, well below the forty (40) units being required.
2. Providing forty (40) units within a combination often (10) units provided at moderate
income and set aside one acre of land to accommodate the additional thirty (30) units
at low and very low incomes.
Staff was originally open to setting aside land for the future creation of affordable
units; however, staff could not come to terms with the applicant as to an appropriate
size for the parcel to set aside. Staff believes that setting aside a future one -acre
parcel as proposed by the developer is not large enough to accommodate the
buildings, open space, parking, and landscaping.
3. The development of Planning Area 4 could occur in two phases covered by a single
PP application. Phase 1 would encompass 9.64 acres and comprise all of PA4
except Phase 2 (1.8-acre parcel). Phase 1 will have a minimum of one hundred
seventy (170) units (one hundred sixty (160) market -rate units and ten (10) moderate -
income units). Phase 2 would encompass 1.8 acres located along the western edge
of PA4, abutting the eastern edge of PA2, and developed with a minimum of 30 units.
City staff was acceptable to the development of PA4 occurring in two phases covered
by a single PP application and setting aside a 1. 8-acre parcel, as long as the future
Phase 2 project is integrated into one cohesive project with access to all amenities,
parking, open space, etc., and shall not be separated by a fence.
G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties\CC Staff Report Feb 13 docx
February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 7 of 11
Staff also requested a minimum of two hundred (200) units in Planning Area 4 with
forty (40) units at affordable rents. City staff is recommending that the forty (40) units
be divided between twenty (20) low-income units and twenty (20) very -low-income
units. Staff does not support that ten (10) of the forty (40) units will be assigned at
moderate income and built within Phase 1.
4. If the City and the applicant agreed on No. 3, that Phase 2 of the future 1.8-acre
parcel would be designated for thirty (30) units, including fifteen (15) low income and
fifteen (15) very -low-income units, with a term of ten (10) years from the approval of
the PP. During that 10-year period, the owner of PA4 shall have an obligation to sell
the Phase 2 property to either the City or its designee for the property's Fair Market
Value for the purpose of developing affordable housing. The Fair Market Value shall
be determined without regard to the requirement to construct affordable housing, and
taking into account all site improvements, engineering and architectural costs that
benefit the Phase 2 area. The owner of PA4 shall have no obligation for the
construction or operation of the affordable housing units in Phase 2. The Phase 2
applicant shall take all required steps under the Subdivision Map Act to allow for the
transfer of the Phase 2 development area once the purchaser for Phase 2 is identified
by the City and the purchase is documented and binding.
The Specific Plan and future PP applications fall under the provision of Section
65915-65918 of the California Government Code. The code states that the
affordability term is 30 years or longer if required by the construction, financing or
rental program to preserve the affordable housing units. Typically, thirty (30) years
have been imposed in past Housing Agreements. Also, the 30-year term starts with
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or when the units are ready to be leased.
Housinq Policv Subcommittee
Since the Planning Commission meeting (September 18, 2018), staff and the applicant
attempted again to find common ground before scheduling the City Council hearing. The
applicant understands that the City's adoption of a specific plan involves a legislative act, and
that the City Council has broad discretion in making policy choices when it takes formal
legislative action to adopt a general plan or a specific plan. The applicant disagrees with City
staff based on the fact that the City Council has not, to this point, formally adopted a general
plan, ordinance, or an enforceable policy that would allow staff to require twenty percent (20%)
affordable housing on the specific plan.
At the City Council meeting of June 14, 2018, Mayor Jonathan requested under City
Councilmembers' Request for Action that staff provide answers to four questions as they related
to the City's current affordable housing policy:
1. How does our current policy compare to other Coachella Valley cities?
2. Has our policy been consistently applied?
3. Is our policy effective or is it deterring development?
4. Is there a better way to do this?
G.\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Propenies= Staff Report Feb 13.docx
February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 8 of 11
At it's October 11, 2018, City Council meeting, staff presented an informational report that
addressed the four above questions. Staff also requested policy direction on how aggressive
the City Council wishes to be on attempting to create new deed restricted affordable units.
On January 10, 2019, the City Council directed staff to form an ad -hoc affordable housing
subcommittee, and appointed then Councilmembers Harnik and Kelly to the subcommittee to
work with City staff and to:
• Review the City's affordable housing policies
• Review existing policies from around the State
• Perform a comparative analysis of affordable housing with other Coachella Valley
cities, and
• Explore affordable housing policy options for the City
Throughout 2019, Community Development staff from both the Planning and Housing Divisions,
worked with Councilmembers Harnik and Kelly to perform the tasks above. Based on the work
of the subcommittee a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) has been prepared for a new
housing overlay district. The overlay district provides optional standards for affordable housing
development and is intended to incent developers to incorporate affordable housing units in their
project designs. The ZOA is scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission on
February 4, 2020, and is anticipated to be scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council
later this month.
Proposed Land Transaction
On May 29, 2019, the Affordable Housing Subcommittee met to discuss the MCP Specific Plan.
The subcommittee valued this project (PA4) for affordable housing in the future, because of the
site location being adjacent to a future school and the jobs in the area. Staff presented the
applicant's proposals that were presented to the Planning Commission and were most favorable
to the proposal of setting aside land, but believed that approximately five (5) acres was the
appropriate size needed. The subcommittee acknowledged that in an effort to move this case
forward, the City should consider all options available (including purchasing) to retain lands in
the City's name for a future affordable project including the following:
• Appraisal to determine the current market value for approximately 5-acres of
medium/high density residential property.
• City could waive commercial housing mitigation fees to be used as a credit towards the
purchase price of said 5-acre parcel of land.
• Complete exemption of an affordability requirement on PA3.
G \Planning\Kevin SwartztWord\Specdic Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13 docx
February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 9 of 11
After the May 29, 2019 Affordable Housing Subcommittee meeting, staff and the applicant
discussed two options.
• Option One — Schedule a public hearing to the City Council with the same
recommendation that staff presented at the September 18, 2018, Planning Commission
meeting.
• Option Two — Continue to work together and find common ground.
Staff and the applicant both agreed to continue to work together. After months of discussions,
both sides concluded that each (applicant and City) would receive appraisals for PA3.
After both parties received their appraisal reports, a conference call was conducted in December
2019 to discuss the potential sale. Staff indicated that the difference of approximately one million
dollars (67%) between appraisal reports, and methodologies had yielded significantly different
valuation. Staff further indicated knowledge of other appraisals in the immediate vicinity, at lower
values than both appraisals. Staff indicated that it did not believe it was responsible to
recommend a purchase price in excess of the City's prepared appraisal report. The applicant
stated that the property owners would not accept a lower price than their appraisal. While both
parties remain amicable, staff and the applicant remain at an impasse regarding a purchase of
lands.
In order to move the Specific Plan forward, City staff and the applicant agreed to schedule the
City Council public hearing without identifying the affordable housing requirements. Staffs
recommendation remains the same as at the Planning Commission hearing and is reflected in
the recommendation above. Through the public hearing, the City Council will need to determine
the affordable housing requirements if any, for the Specific Plan.
Planninq Area 3
PA3 will be designated for alternative land uses such as commercial, residential, and mixed -
use. If the site becomes commercial and/or mixed -use then PA3 will be subject to the
development standards outlined for PA1 and PA2. If the site is a residential project, then it will
be required to use the development standards identified within PA4.
Based on the Housing Element, staff is recommending that if any residential units are planned
on PA3, then the developer will be required to reserve 20% of all units within the project to be
made available at affordable rents and in accordance with an approved and recorded Housing
Agreement. The applicant has not agreed to this recommendation.
In addition, the applicant and staff have discussed age -restricted senior housing (assisted
living, memory care, skilled nursing, and independent living). Staff believes that allowing any
age -restricted housing within PA3 is not consistent with the General Plan and is not
compatible with the surrounding land uses. Adjacent to the site will be a future school (K
through 12), and staff believes that a senior housing project is not a compatible land use to a
school site or to the job -rich commercial centers along Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore
Drive. The site is much better suited for workforce and family housing because the sites
proximity to jobs and schools. The General Plan encourages housing in close proximity to
places of employment. PA1 and PA2 will provide commercial uses where potential residents
G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13 docx
February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 10 of 11
within PA3 could walk to work and/or school. The General Plan also discourages long single -
building construction, which senior housing developments are typically located within.
Staff is recommending that the Specific Plan not include any age -restricted housing based on
the information provided above and is reflected in the recommendation.
Planning Areas 1 and 2
Both PA1 and PA2 will remain zoned PC-2 and the parcel sizes are similar to other district
commercial developments within the City. This zoning district permits the greatest diversity of
commercial land uses and is ideal for commercial parcels in close proximity to residential
development. It is anticipated that they will develop to serve the existing and future residents in
the area. All land uses will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance allowed per Chapter 25.16,
Commercial Uses, identified in Table 25.16. Without limiting the foregoing, allowed and
conditionally permitted uses shall include drive -through restaurants, mixed -use developments,
car wash, hotel(s), convenience stores, automobile service stations, commercial indoor
recreation facilities and indoor amusement establishments. Residential units and/or professional
office space shall be allowed on a second story. The land uses identified within the Specific Plan
are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan.
B. Building Heights and Development Standards
In general, the Specific Plan document follows the development standards established in the
PC-2 and PR-22 zoning districts. PA1, PA2, and potentially PA3 allows commercial buildings
that conform to the PC-2 zoning district, which allows a maximum building height of thirty-
five (35) feet. PA4 and potentially PA3 allow for residential developments that conform to the
PR-22 zoning district with a height limit of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. The Specific Plan
also allows for an additional ten (10) feet of height for architectural features. This standard
is consistent with the standards for architectural elements in the Municipal Code.
The Specific Plan establishes a maximum building height of sixty (60) feet for hotel and
mixed -use developments within the project boundaries. This height limit exceeds the
maximum building heights established in the PC-2 zone by fifteen (15) feet. Staff is
supportive of the height increase, only for hotel developments and mixed -use projects, as
existing hotels in the vicinity were approved at forty-two (42) feet (Hampton Inn), fifty-six (56)
feet (Fairfield Inn), and fifty (50) feet in height for the Millennium Specific Plan. In addition,
future developments at this site are sufficiently distant from existing residential development,
and impacts to surrounding views are limited.
C. Tentative Parcel Map 37234
The parcel map to subdivide the project site into individual parcels conforms to all City
standards and the Subdivision Map Act. All parcels have reciprocal parking and an access
easement to allow for vehicular and pedestrian movements within the project area. In
addition, all future development will be required to submit a PP application, which will
address site planning and internal circulation, and further define the responsibilities of all
property owners within the Specific Plan.
G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Spea(is Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13 docx
�D
February 13, 2020L 17City Council Staff Report
Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
Page 11 of 11
D. Findings of Approval:
Findings can be made in support o
Municipal Code. Findings in support
Resolution attached to this staff report.
Environmental Review
f
the project, and in accordance with the City's
of this project are contained in the City Council
For the purposes of the CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that
the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff
has prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The initial study and
MND are attached as part of this report and the filing of the MND has occurred in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL ASSISTANT
REVIEW CITY MANAGER
N/A N/A
Robert W. Hargreaves Ryan Stendell Janet Moore Andy FireIt.
City Attorney Director of Comm. Dev. Director of Finance Assistantanager
City Manager Lauri Aylaian:
APPLICANT: MC Properties, LLC
270 North El Camino Real, Suite F397
Encinitas, CA 92024
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft City Council Resolution No.
2. Specific Plan
3. TPM 37234
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Letter from Rutan & Tucker, LLP dated, February 8, 2018
6. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated, September 18, 2018
G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties\CC Staff Report Feb 13 docx
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SPECIFIC PLAN
AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 37234 TO SUBDIVIDE 32+ ACRES INTO
FOUR (4) PLANNING AREAS BOUNDED BY, EAST OF MONTEREY
AVENUE, SOUTH OF DICK KELLY DRIVE, NORTH OF A STREET AND
WEST OF GATEWAY DRIVE; AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA)
CASE NOS: SP 16-342 AND TPM 37234
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th
day of February 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by MC
Properties, LLC, for approval of the above -noted with staff's recommendations outlined in
the staff report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23r,
day of January 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing. to consider the request by MC
Properties, LLC, and continued the item; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 181h day of September 2018, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
by MC Properties, LLC, for approval of the above -noted with staff's recommendations
outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission were. undecided and did not adopt a
resolution for either approval or denial; and
WHEREAS, said applications have complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,"
Resolution No. 2015-75, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project will not 'have a negative impact on the environment and that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration can be adopted; and
WHEREAS, at said public:hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of said request -
The MCP Specific Plan, as proposed and with staff's recommendations, is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Palm Desert General Plan including
that the project will provide additional affordable housing units, provide local
employment centers in close proximity to residential land uses, and increase the
City's sales tax base.
2. The Specific Plan document has been prepared in accordance with State
Government Code Section 65450-65457, which sets standards for document
content and provides direction for adoption. The plan itself must be consistent with
the City's General Plan and must contain statements regarding the relationship of
the Specific Plan to the City's General Plan. Statements regarding consistency
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
are provided in the Specific Plan (pages 30-40)- Staff supports the Specific Plan
document as a means of identifying desirable land uses and development
standards for this particular project. As proposed and with staff's modifications
(identified within the staff report), the Specific Plan establishes a distinct project
and provides a commitment of what will be built within the project boundaries,
commits development of the project to a unifying architectural theme, and
provides sufficient flexibility for changes to the project.
3. The MCP Specific Plan will provide land use compatibility within the boundaries
of the planning areas and with adjacent properties as the proposed uses and
development standards are similar to existing uses to the south, north, and east.
4. The MCP Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the
property has been designated for commercial, residential, and mixed -use, and
that development will comply with applicable City standards and standards
approved as part of the Specific Plan.
5. That the proposed Tentative Parcel Map is not detrimental to the public health,
safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to the surrounding properties
or improvements in the City of Palm Desert.
6. The project under the Specific; Plan complies: with the goals and policies
contained in the City's General Plah'that promote,affordable housing, promote a
variety of neighborhoods, and promote a mix of housing choice for current and
future residents..
Findings for Approval:
1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans...
The current zoning designation for the properties are Planned ❑istrict Commercial
(PC-2) and Planned Residential, 22 units per acre (PR-22), and the same zoning
will remain `in place. Final site design, building design, architecture, and
orientation are yet to be proposed, and the applicant will need to submit a Precise
Plan (PP) application for staff and Planning Commission review prior to
development- The Specific Plan identifies that future projects within Planning
Areas 3 and 4 could include a mix of housing densities inclusive of single-family
detached/attached homes and mufti -family apartmenticondominium units with
affordable housing components. General Plan Land Goal 3 Neighborhoods
proposes that "A variety of housing types, densities, designs and mix of uses and
services that support healthy and active lifestyles. Goal 3.1 Complete
Neighborhoods contain a diversity of housing types.
The Specific Plan's mix of high -density residential and commercial development
will allow for the development of a non -motorized neighborhood environment, by
promoting close proximity between home and potential jobs and shopping
opportunities. These uses will be within walking distance of the residential
2
k3
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
neighborhood. The location of the Specific Plan on Monterey Avenue also allows
residents to have easy access to transit, which currently operates on that roadway.
The proposed residential component of the Specific Plan will include a mix of for
sale and for rent units made available at affordable rents and to a varied range of
households.
In addition, the project site's location allows for easy connections to proposed
parks and schools located easterly of the site. The design of the residential
component of the project will be governed by PP approvals, allowing the City to
implement the requirements of this policy throe design consultation and the
conditions of approval.
The diverse range of housing types withinA_,�6-_Cjty
e oject are omplies with this goal
and the mix of densities is consistent withGenera €Orr.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
The design and improvements of the parcels and parcel maps have been
reviewed by the Planning `Department, Fire Department, and Public Works
Department for consistency. with the General Plan and emergency services- All
existing perimeter streets and utility improvements, and circulation pattern are in
conformance with the General Plan and minor roadway dedication is needed to
complete existing streets. Internal project streets that serve the project and
Tentative Parcel Map 37234 will be reviewed under a Precise Plan (PP)
application for consistency and conformance with all City standards and are
consistent with the General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for.the type of development.
...,The 32+ acres contained in the MCP Specific Plan is suitable for the
development proposed. Environmental, cultural, and other special studies were
prepared for lands within the project area. No environmental issues were
identified that would indicate that the development in this area would be
unsuitable. in addition, existing commercial and residential developments have
successfully constructed similar types of development in the immediate vicinity.
No obstacles to the development of surrounding subdivisions were experienced
and, dbe,,, to the proximity and similarity of the proposed development, it's
reasonabld: to conclude that the site is physically suitable for it. The property is
suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
As proposed, the land uses are consistent with surrounding development- The
Specific Plan proposes commercial, hotel, and mixed -use developments within
the western portion of the project area at heights and intensities similar to
3
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
existing commercial and hotel uses in the vicinity. The Specific Plan also
proposes single-family detachedlattached homes and multi -family
apartmenticondominium units with affordable housing components within the
western portion of the project area, which is consistent with surrounding land
Uses.
The proposed project densities are similar to existing multi -family residential
development within the northern sphere of the City. The location of the higher
density residential uses (Planning Area 4) is well suited as they are in close
proximity to a future school and existing and future. employment opportunities.
The infrastructure, soils, and terrain serving the development will adequately
support these densities.
5. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably
injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),.. a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. The design of
the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat since the surrounding area has been developed with similar
densities and limited wildlife is present at the site. Environmental studies
performed at the site did M' 't identify any endangered or sensitive species. In
addition, the project will pay into the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation fund for. the development of raw land.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
The proposed land uses, when developed under a PP, will be in compliance with
al! grading requirements and the properties will be developed in accordance with
the Uniform. California Building Code, if any grade changes occur within the
Specific Plan,: then they. will be accommodated by the internal street layout and
open space provided throughout the subdivision. Pedestrian access will also be
provided to adjoining land uses and surrounding roadways, which decreases the
need for vehicular traffic between adjoining properties.
7. That the. design' of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision,
The proposed project will be required to accommodate drainage retention basins
for each parcel once development occurs, which will be reviewed under a PP
application. improvements related to drainage will be provided to ensure the
project area accommodates 100% of the 100-year storm. Surrounding perimeter
City streets are built -out to the General Plan Designation Pedestrian connections
will also be provided throughout the project area.
CI
f�
ES
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
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
City Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby recommend approval of SP 16-342 with staffs
recommendations and TPM 37234, subject to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 131h day'of February 2020, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D, KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
r�
�o
Fell,01111
5
GINA NESTANDE, MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions.
2. The applicant shall record Parcel Map 37234 within two (2) years of project approval.
Construction of improvements, in accordance with the approved Specific Plan, shall
commence within two (2) years from the date of approval: unless a time extension is
granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be sub}ect to the restrictions and
limitations set forth herein which are in addition to the approved Specific Plan and all Palm
Desert Municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in. force, or which
hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance
from the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the
Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
5. A cultural resources inventory shall be completed by a qualified archeologist prior to
any.development activities within the project area.
6. Should human remains be discovered during the construction of the proposed project,
the project coordinator will be subject to either the state law regarding the discovery
and disturbance of human remains or the Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance,
all destructive activity in the immediate vicinity shall halt and the County Coroner shall
be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code 7050.5. If the remains are
determined to be. of.Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). The City and Developer will work with the designated MLD to
determine the final disposition of the remains.
7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
& Each Planning Area shall be subject to all applicable fees at the time of issuance of
building permits for improvements within that Planning Area.
[0
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
9. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection between Planning Areas 1 and 2
and Planning Areas 3 and 4.
10. Prior to the development and construction of improvements within Planning Areas 1
thru 4, the property owner shall submit a PP application to the City's Community
Development Department. Precise Plan applications shall be submitted for the
development of a single Planning Area or multiple Planning Areas. The PP application
will require public hearings with the City's Planning Commission. All final landscape
plans will be submitted to the City's Community Development Department and the
CVWD for review and approval.
11. Planning Area 4 will be required to provide a minimum of 200 units per the Housing
Element. The developer is required to reserve twenty; percent (20%) of the 200 units
(40) within the project to be made available at affordable rents (20 low and 20 very low
incomes) and in accordance with an approved and recorded Housing. Agreement.
12. If any residential uses are constructed in Planning Area 3, the ❑eveloper is required to
reserve twenty percent (20%) of all units within the project to be made. available at
affordable rents (low and very low) and in accordance with an approved and recorded
Housing Agreement.
13. The Specific Plan shall not include any age -restricted housing.
14. All Planning Areas shall develop in a manner consistent with the Development
Standards contained : in th.e Specific Plan. All other.. development standards, not
addressed in the.Specific Plan, shall comply with the Palm Desert Municipal Code
(PDMC).
15. The applicant shall pay into the City's Public Art Fee for Planning Area 1 or 2,
whichever is first to. develop of the Specific Plan. It is recommended that this fee is
used ft ""' i site public art project within Planning Area 1 or 2. The remaining
Piarnmry �,re-as all pay into the City's Public Art Fee at the time a Building Permit is
issued for the de"elopment of said Planning Areas.
16. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with PDMC Section 24.16 for any
landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area.
17. All mitigation. measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be
incorporated into the. planning, design, development, and operation of the project.
18. Final Fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the developer submits a PP
application for each Planning Area by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
19. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when the developer submits a
PP application for each Planning Area.
ir1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS:
Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map:
20. The parcel map shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
21. Right-of-way, as may be necessary for the construction of required public
improvements, shall be provided on the parcel map.
22. Prior to City Council approval of Parcel Map 37234, the applicant shall construct or
enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and.amvunt acceptable to the City
Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off -site. improvements. Improvements
may include but are not limited to:
A. Twenty-five percent (25%) of a traffic signal installation at Monterey Avenue and
Street A or the pro-rata share of the signal based upon a traffic study. tf the
traffic signal is constructed by the applicant for the City of Rancho Mirage then
the bond submitted to the City of Palm Desert shall be released by Council
action.
B. The relocation of power lines on Monterey Avenue to accommodate a future
deceleration lane.
C. The fair share cost, asFnined by the City, for the future traffic signal
modification at Monterey Pi venue and Dick Kelly Drive.
D. The removal and replacement of an eight -foot (8') sidewalk on Monterey Avenue
to accommodate a future deceleration lane.
E. The installation of a deceleration lane on Monterey Avenue.
23. Subsequent conditions will be applied at the time each parcel is developed.
24
The construction
dis
W
of
turn lane on Monterey Avenue may be approved at the
leer for the City of Palm Desert and the City of Rancho
me
MCP PALM DESERT
SPECIFIC PLAN
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF PALM DESERT— 73510 FRED WARING, PALM DESERT, CA 92260
Applicant:
MC PROPERTIES LLC, MacLeod -Couch Land Company LLC
C/O Applicant Consultant:
Chambers Development
11870 Pierce Street, Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92505
805.889.9212
0
THE MCP PALM DESERT
SPECIFIC PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4
A.
Overview..................................................................................................... 4
B.
Purpose....................................................................................................... 4
C.
Project Boundary....................................................................................... 5
11.
EXISTING
CONDITIONS.............................................................................. 5
A.
Setting......................................................................................................... 5
B.
Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations ...................... 5
C.
Circulation................................................................................................11
D.
Utility Infrastructure................................................................................12
I11.
LAND
USE REGULATIONS........................................................................17
A.
Land Use Plan...........................................................................................17
B.
Permitted Uses and Development Standards ..........................................
21
C.
General Development Standards.............................................................
23
IV.
DESIGN
GUIDELINES.................................................................................24
A.
Purpose.....................................................................................................
24
B.
Site Planning.............................................................................................24
C.
Access & Circulation................................................................................
25
D.
Architectural Elements.............................................................................
26
E.
Landscaping.............................................................................................27
F.
Walls and Fences......................................................................................27
G.
Open Space...............................................................................................
27
H.
Lighting.....................................................................................................28
I.
Accessory Facilities...................................................................................28
V.
PHASING AND FINANCING.......................................................................
29
VI.
PROCEDURES..............................................................................................
29
VII.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN........................................30
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Zoning Designations........................................................................................17
Table 2 - MCP Palm Desert Land Use Allocation........................................................18
Table 3 - Planning Area 1 And 2 Development Standards.........................................21
Table 4 - Planning Area 3 And 4 Development Standards.........................................22
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit1 Vicinity Map...............................................................................................6
Exhibit 2 Existing Conditions Site Cross Sections .................................................... 7
Exhibit 3 Existing City General Plan........................................................................ 8
Exhibit 4 Existing City Zoning.................................................................................. 9
Exhibit5 Street Cross Sections................................................................................ 10
Exhibit 6 Existing Utilities....................................................................................... 16
Exhibit7 Land Use...................................................................................................19
Exhibit8 Zoning....................................................................................................... 20
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview
A Specific Plan is a document allowed under California law, which provides cities and
counties with a planning tool for master planning project sites. A Specific Plan, when
approved, becomes the zoning document for the project it covers. Specific Plans must be
consistent with the General Plan of the jurisdiction in which they occur.
Specific Plans can be implemented by local jurisdictions in accordance with the
provisions of California Government Code Section 65450. The City of Palm Desert is
implementing this Specific Plan for the MCP Palm Desert project.
The MCP Palm Desert project consists of 32.2 acres of currently vacant land located near
the City's northern gateway at Interstate-10. It is immediately adjacent to the easternmost
lane of Monterey Drive, 1 mile south of the Monterrey/1-10 interchange. Due to its
proximity to the Desert Gateway and Marketplace retail centers, a nearby proposed
elementary school and existing and proposed residential, commercial and medical
complexes, MCP Palm Desert presents an opportunity to provide (1) a retail center
directed at supporting local residents, employees and visitors to the nearby regional
shopping centers, (ii) a significant high density (attached and/or detached, for sale and/or
for rent) residential community and (iii) the potential for other non -competing,
complementary residential uses and/or mixed use projects.
B. Purpose
This Specific Plan sets forth a land use plan and long-range development standards that
facilitate commercial, residential, open space and mixed use development within the
project boundaries. It establishes a cohesive development plan for multiple parcels, yet is
flexible enough to be responsive to future economic conditions.
The Specific Plan's land use plan complements existing and planned development in the
project vicinity and maximizes the use of existing utility infrastructure and roadways.
The objectives of the Specific Plan include:
• The development of high quality architecture, flexible, productive and well -
designed master planned project that takes advantage of the synergies created by
the residential and commercial uses planned for the site.
• Creating a balance for the uses that provides the City with a range of residential
options for future residents; a variety of commercial uses that serve not only the
project residents, but the surrounding neighborhood and the traveling public;
expands the City's sales tax base; and creates opportunities for a broad range of
employment for residents of the project site, the City and the region.
�-3
C. Project Boundary
The property is bounded by Dick Kelly Drive on the north, Gateway Drive on the east,
"A" Street on the south and Monterey on the west. Please see Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Setting
The subject property is located on the central, low-lying valley floor near the northerly
Palm Desert city limits. It consists of vacant, generally flat desert land with sandy
soils and sparse vegetation. The southwestern 15f acres of the property is the high
point of the site, and slopes down in a northeasterly direction, ranging from
approximately 308 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the corner of "A" Street and
Monterey Avenue, to a low point of 260 feet above msl at the northeastern corner of the
property. Please see Exhibit 2, Existing Contours.
Immediately north of the site ties the NEC corner of the Desert Gateway regional
shopping center comprised of Wal-Mart, Kohl's, Ashley furniture and numerous drive
through and fast casual restaurants and "in -line" small to medium sized retail tenants. To
the cast of the site lies undeveloped similarly sloping desert land; the northern portion is
zoned planned residential and the southern portion has been acquired by the Palm Springs
School District for a future school. As shown on Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map to the southeast
of the site lies the Enclave, a 320 unit upscale apartment complex and to the south of the
site lies Lowe's improvement center of which the southwestern most portion
(approximately 5 acres) remains undeveloped. To the west of the site, across Monterey
Avenue, lies undeveloped similarly sloping desert land in the City of Rancho Mirage.
B. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations
The City's General Plan shows the 32-acre site as being within the University Park Area
with approximately 21 acres designated as Regional Retail (R-R) and approximately 1 I
acres as Town Center Neighborhood (T-CN). Please see Exhibit 3, Existing General Plan
Designations.
The City's Zoning Map designates the westernmost approximately 21 acres as Planned
Commercial (PC-2) and, by ordinance 1233, designates the remainder of the site Planned
Residential (PR-22). Please see Exhibit 4, Existing Zoning Designations.
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
�#jr. I
Y. ,S Tit. '��• V �s"`�`.�V, R�' Ar
a
I Xi
Din h}=5 rep .ri 4;.
-•nor r77y Q "� i .�{•"yyi L` �4«
�c;,?s1L.'.. ':,5'�� i� �- `,43 �� L/ f ` ~ ��jhr _ ;,r.a�? �"•' 4"-_ ..
z'f o
. , y •� .�
Vr alclt Kelly :. r
-
City of
_RancA6': irage SITE
i�esert.
{ O
0.
Gernld Ford Drip
Legend: - sir 4; s'la
Cosica (D QLem e's �;arr e !ir U 6: "1; yh
2O Rancho 16 Cinema O7 El Pollo .cco fne Endow ,S,.cw ! Co::dorur;;;. r-;
3Q McDonold's 8� som's C;:,b ? Marlio"t's S"odow Ridgy e
4�Home Depot wdmarr
Q 5torbucks I0 Kohl's
Source: Riverside County Do to From Arc Gis Exhibit Dofe: Oclober31, 2016
IDVICINITY MAP
MSA CONSULTING. INC. EXHIBIT 1
V^NJ r+50(: O05 Ull i1lgi I IC.. c OM N.T.S.
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
EX, �'
SURFACE EX. BOUNDARY
`
FEX, &OGNfJgBOUNDARYY �' A Street
Oickl:efly ---I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 300'
266 SECTION "A"
EX. 8QG— — — — — — — r EX SURFACE
3D7' `—�--�----- J — EX, S0GNOARY
SECTION "B" 259'
SPVrCe: NSA Consulting, Inc-
OD
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
.v Uncor4wlb+gine com
N.T.S.
Exhibit Dote: November 21, ?Of 6
EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE CROSS SECTIONS
EXHIBIT 2
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
1= �
1= I
I i I
— — — — ------
Dick Kelly Drive
I �f�4AJ�J,f71V3+ UiA10��®LS I N
--————— —-—L
a
I l�
I lu
a
I la'
I Id
—------ a
!I = I
—III I
-- T
C � 1
Legend:
itiris�_e e�
Source: City of Polar Desert
ID
a' 400'
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
www.mseconsulfingim,com SCALE: l" = 400'
I
I TOWN 6LMT R 1
colry or-
Pb%(L I IDEamnlr
A Street
--- — � I — — ---
WK QEmV[E7R I
i I
1 �
! l �
h F- -
! I l f/� I I I I 1 I I'TTT
Exhibit Date: October 31, 2016
EXISTING CITY GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT 3
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
I I
--- -----�
— ------- Dick Kelly Drive
COT V
— RANCHO MIRAW J N V fed
E
["1 i Y C,F
� — ASfreei _ _ _ --.-----
I
J I I I I i
�-----
I
P.C. 42) P.-
T
Legend: — _ -
i
Planned Residential (PR-22) _
Planned Commercial (f,C•.l)
Source: City of Palm Desert Zoning Exhibit Date: Februory 28, 2618
ID EXISTING CITY ZONING
0' 400'
MSA CONSULTING, INC. EXHIBIT 4
www.rnsncarisullinginc.cam SCALE: 1" = 400'
m
C
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
a•i.d.xu.r.r 11 .ri.rr..u.r.� ..pur..,eu.n •• r••••n rri
LL,w,c..re,.,.....n.on+ r ec.e .•.TM w.r .ner...w.r
... .... -- 1 ,./1":�'3ja•��J•r.ry�'' +a,x'K�� T".' }r Jp'�,, ,y,j' ��jp / - qy �'y. P.:i, �.
. • �':. -.... .. � :r:l•:: �.:....... .: i'c�IF!� �'ir�ii.3l�'{C'.��i:'-'ii�^,�f��: ��iY�•��i�r �liY'. r•,.�-...
.unr. "` cy MONIFI���VF ryi•.N • .xe
dc. s[trr win: `-« •'"
.�wma f,.cew...nrm weeonu
v. uxe NFuK {
we�rrALL���j �l aI.AN4 WI. Ir.fLluYe.la ' ;IYfrwvN r���H�twi! IpjFe���lle�A,.I 'urru
r
MM� I
.re erne CCf�A��p�Yl ..R eHn.
Source: City of Polm Resefi
IDMSA C, iNC-
%-r msoconsuhnpinc.ecm
Exhibit Dofe: October 3.2017
STREET CROSS SECTIONS
EXHIBIT 5
C. Circulation
The project area has immediate access to regional transportation links, including the I-10
freeway, arterials and local roads that interconnect with the broader roadway system.
Roads immediately adjacent to the property are described below. Please see Exhibit 5
regarding the circulation elements listed below.
Monterev Avenue
Monterey Avenue is immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the property. In the
project area, it is designated as an "Arterial' in the General Plan, which will be built out
to a 150-foot right-of-way that includes 6 travel lands (3 in each direction), a median,
west and east turn lands, parkway and utility corridor. Monterey Avenue will be built out
when the City of Rancho Mirage completes construction of the currently scheduled
westernmost lane and parkway.
MCP Palm Desert may request a southbound left turn lane approximately mid -block on
Monterey Avenue provided (i) there is no conflict with an anticipated northbound left
turn lane into Rancho Mirage; (ii) a traffic study acceptable to the City demonstrates that
the queuing geometries are sufficient, the LOS is within a reasonable level and the turn
lane is safe and (iii) Rancho Mirage approves the request.
Dick Kellv Drive
Dick Kelly Drive is immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the property. In the
project area, it is designated as a "Secondary" in the General Plan and is built out.
Gatewav Drive
Gateway Drive is immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property. In the
project area, it is designated as a "Secondary" in the General Plan and is built out.
"A" Street
"A" Street is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the property. In the project
area, it is designated as a "Secondary" in the General Plan. It has been approved as is
built out, to "Collector" standards.
Public Transit
Sunline Transit Agency provides public bus service throughout the Coachella Valley. The
nearest bus route to the subject property is Line 20, which extends along Monterey
Avenue between the Monterrey/I-10 interchange and Palm Desert Town Center includes
2 bus stops (one on each side of the road) on Monterey Avenue near its intersection with
Dick Kelly Drive, approximately 200 feet south of the subject property. Sunline will
determine whether bus stops adjacent to the property are added based on ridership and
demand.
D. Utility Infrastructure
The Section 29 Assessment District ("AD 29") was formed by the City in 2007 for the
purpose of acquiring, constructing and installing water and sewer lines, storm drainage
facilities and street improvements in the vicinity of the project including, but not limited
to, those described below. AD 29 was funded following the City's adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the plans for the street improvements and storm drainage
facilities were approved by the City and the plans for the water and sewer facilities were
approved by CVWD and all of these facilities were installed in 2007 — 2008. Please see
Exhibit 6 regarding location of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. The City retains
the right to change the size and location of'City owned facilities on the condition that
existing level of service is met or exceeded with respect to the Specific Plan properties.
Water
Domestic water is supplied to the project area by the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD), which serves much of the Coachella Valley. CVWD's primary source of
domestic water is groundwater extracted from the Whitewater River Sub -basin. Efforts
to conserve and supplement finite groundwater supplies include a groundwater recharge
program using imported Colorado River water, tertiary (three -stage) treated wastewater
for golf course and greenway irrigation, and recycled water for agricultural and other
purposes in the lower valley.
Domestic water lines are in place beneath roads adjacent to the project. Existing water
lines are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following:
• "A" Street - 12-inch water line from Monterey Avenue to Gateway Drive
• Gateway Drive - 12-inch water line from "A" Street to Dick Kelly Drive
• Dick Kelly Drive -12-inch water line from Monterey Avenue to Gateway
Drive
• Monterey Avenue — 12-inch water line from "A" Street to Dick Kelly Drive
A Water Supply Assessment will be prepared when Precise Plans and/or Tentative Tract
Maps for the project are submitted to the City for review and approval. No major
expansions of the existing water distribution system are expected to be required by the
development.
Sewer
CVWD provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the project area. Existing
sewer lines in the project vicinity are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following:
• "A" Street - 8-inch sewer line from Lowe's east property line (approximately
648' east of Monterey Avenue centerline) east of Monterey to Gateway Drive
• Gateway Drive - 8-inch sewer line from "A" Street to Dick Kelly Drive
• Dick Kelly Drive - 88-inch sewer from a point 670' east of Monterey Avenue
to Gateway Drive
Effluent from the project area is conveyed to CVWD's Wastewater Reclamation Plant
No.10 (WRP-10) on Cook Street in Palm Desert. It treats approximately 11 million
gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater and has a design capacity of 18 million gallons
per day. Approximately 60 percent of the effluent undergoes tertiary treatment for the
purpose of golf course and greenbelt irrigation, thereby reducing the demand for
groundwater resources.
New development facilitated by this Specific Plan will connect to the existing network of
sewer lines. Increased demand from the project is not expected to require major
infrastructure expansions or adversely affect CVWD's ability to serve the area.
Stormwater Management
The subject property is located outside of any flood hazard areas, as shown on the most
recent (2008) Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA),I It is located in Zone X, which represents areas
determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
Regional Drainage
CVWD is responsible for regional stormwater management in the project area. Parcels
immediately north of the subject property were once included CVWD easements for the
proposed Mid -Valley Stormwater Project. However, the project was retired in January
2012, and all easements were quitclaimed to the respective owners. CVWD has indicated
that there are no regional stormwater management concerns for the subject property or its
immediate vicinity. The property is not included in a CVWD drainage plan.
Local Drainage
Rainfall tributary to the project will flow from buildings, across parking lots and along
internal streets to nearby catch basins. Catch basins will collect and convey runoff via an
onsite storm drain system. The onsite system will confluence at the northeast corner of
the project and connect to an existing storm drainpipe. The existing pipe will convey
flows to the large city -owned retention basin along the railroad tracks. The proposed
project is located within the boundaries of the Section 29 Assessment District (AD 29),
which was formed in 2007 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and installing water
and sewer lines, storm drainage facilities and street improvements adjacent to and in the
vicinity of the project. A hydrology study was prepared for AD 29 in 2007 demonstrating
that the offsite stormwater infrastructure can contain flows from the project site during a
100-year storm event. Therefore, individual projects proposed within the project planning
area will not be required to contain 100 year storm flows onsite as long as flows are
adequately directed to the existing offsite stormwater infrastructure. Implementation of
these and other requirements will assure that drainage and stormwater will not create or
contribute water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stromwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
A Water Quality Improvement Plan and hydrology studies will be required and submitted
to the City for review and approval when Precise Plans and/or Tentative Tract Maps for
the Specific Plan Property have been submitted to the City.
Existing storm drainage facilities are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following:
• "A" Street — 30- inch storm drain pipe from Lowe's east property line to
Gateway Drive
• Gateway Drive — 36-inch storm drain pipe North of "A" Street to Dick Kelly
Drive
• Dick Kelly Drive — 54-inch through 66-inch storm drain pipe east of Gateway
Drive
• Retention Basin -- AD 29 acquired the retention basin; reshaped retention
basin; added slope protection and constructed pipe outlet structure
Electricity
Electricity in the project area is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE's
power is primarily generated outside the Coachella Valley; however, wind -generated
power is purchased from local producers. A variety of rebates are offered for the use of
energy -efficient equipment and appliances, such as electric heat pumps and water heaters.
The project area is well served by electric power. Overhead transmission lines and buried
distribution lines are located along the east side of Monterey Avenue. Underground lines
provide electricity to existing development north of Dick Kelly llrive. Existing
transmission lines on Monterey Avenue will not be undergrounded due to their
size. Buried distribution lines necessary to serve the project exist underground on the
north side of Dick Kelly Drive to Gateway Drive and stubs exist in Dick Kelly Drive
intended for future development.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is typically used for domestic hot water and space heating, as well as some
industrial processes. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to the
project area. There is a high-pressure gas line in the west side of Monterey Avenue
between Dick Kelly Drive and "A" Street. Significantly, there is a 6" gas stub at the SEC
of Monterey Avenue and Dick Kelly Drive plus another 6" stub at the NEC of Monterey
Avenue and "A" Street. One of these 2 stubs will serve any new development.
Telecommunications
Frontier Communications is the local provider. They can provide copper service to the
site for Telephone and Internet services. In some areas, FiOS and CATV are also
available through Frontier Communications. Availability of FiOS or CATV services
through Frontier Communications would have to be determined at the time of
development.
Cable TV
Time Warner is the local provider for telephone, Internet and cable TV services.
Solid Waste
Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services provides solid waste collection and disposal
services to the project area through a franchise agreement with the City. Residential,
commercial, industrial, and construction waste is collected and transported to a transfer
station in Cathedral City, then to the Lamb Canyon or Badlands regional landfills.
These landfills arc owned and operated by Riverside County and have available
capacity to accommodate waste generated by future development.
The City's recycling program has contributed to reductions in the need for landfills.
Burrtec collects recyclable materials, including those from construction sites and green
waste, and hauls them to Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) throughout southern
California for sorting and processing.
,-14
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
Legend:
— W — Existing Water Main LSD-- Existing Storm Drain Line
—5— Existing Sewer Main • Existing Storm Drain Catch Basin
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc.
ID
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
ww vv.rrIsoconsulfingiIIC.Com N.T.S.
Exhibit Date: Novembpj21. 2016
EXISTING UTILITIES
EXHIBIT 6
'3S
III. LAND USE REGULATIONS
A. Land Use Plan
This section of the Specific Plan provides descriptions of the land uses allowable
within each planning area. It also includes descriptions of the zoning designations
applicable to each Planning Area.
The MPC Palm Desert Specific Plan area is divided into four (4) Planning Areas, three
of' which are designated for a specific land use and one of which is designated for
alternative land uses. The land use plan proposed for the two existing legal parcels
comprising the MCP Specific Plan is described below and illustrated on Exhibit 7. The
MCP Specific Plan band Use is consistent with the current General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
Zoning Designation
The current Zoning Designations are shown earlier on Exhibit 4. A total of four Planning
Areas in the MPC Palm Desert Specific Plan are proposed. The Zoning Designations for
the Planning Areas are listed in the following Table and shown on Exhibit 8.
Table 1 — Zoning DesiFnations
Planning Area Acres Zoning Designation
1 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2)
2 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2)
Planned Residential (PR-22)
3 6.0 Planned Commercial (PC-2)
Planned Residential
4 11.44 (PR-22)
,3r=:1
Land Use Allocation
The MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan is designed to provide a broad range of land uses to
be developed in a coordinated, high quality environment. This Specific Plan can be
developed based on the following master land use allocation, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - MCP Palm Desert Land Use Allocation
Density/Lot
Planning
Density/Lot
Coverage
Projected
Area
Land Use
Acres Coverage Min.
Max.
Units/SF
Planned
Commercial
1
(PC-2)
7.37 25%
50%
55,000*
Planned
Commercial
2
(PC-2)
7.37 25%
50%
65,000*
Planned
Residential
3
(PR-22, PC-2)
6 10/acre
22/acre
132
Planned
Residential
Min. 200
4
(PR-22)
11.44 17.34/acre
22/acre
Max.252
Total Maximum
Potential Units
384
Total Potential Sq.
Footage
120,000*
* Projected SF represents structure footprint; square footage of structure may increase due to
inclusion of second story
12)'7
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
CRT OF.
wh'i E
A.
41
F
r _
IT
Legend:
Parcel 3 Residential I Commercial 5.87 acres k'
=n.. .. - ,..- .-v Z'- tip•--. •;9 -s..
Parcel 4 Residential 11.44 acres
Total 32.05 acres
ID
0' 300'
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
www.rnsocongultinginc.cam SCALE; 1" = 300'
e
PARCEL 3
5,87 ACRES
LWf�Ri,
PARCEL 4
1 1.44 ACRES
Exhibit pate: February 26, 2018
LAND USE
EXHIBIT 7
MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 1 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR-22) I
PLANNED PLANNED
C57-Y (DF �._ COMMERCIAL (PC-2] COMMERCIAL (PC-2j
PARCEL 2 PARCEL 4
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR-22)
- PLANNED
COMMERCIAL (PC-2)
. F _ :���: - •: h:. .,.-_. i.Win:
'^ it
� xF
Legend: .
Parcel 1 Planned Cammercial (PC-2j.
Parcel 2 Planned Ca+nrnercfal (PC-2)
Parcel 3 Planned Residential {PR-22) I Planned Cammercial {PC-2) =.
Parcel 4 Planned Residential [PR-22J
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc.
ID
0' 300'
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
www.msaaorFsulllrigirv--com SCALE: 1"= 300'
�,• .._.
6 3 V.
� Y
qr
MTV 00
PALK r
n
Q
i
_ f
,
7 L
€ r
Exhibit Date: February 28. 2018
ZONING
EXHIBIT 8
B. Permitted Uses and Development Standards
Planning Area I and 2 — Planned Commercial (PC-2)
Planning Areas 1 and 2 may be developed as commercial shopping center(s) consisting
of one or two-story buildings.
The following Specific Plan Uses are in addition to uses allowed in the Zoning Ordinance
regarding PC-2. Uses allowed per Chapter 25.16, Commercial Uses, are allowed within
the PC-2 zone identified in Table 25.16; pennitted and conditional uses are allowed.
Without limiting the foregoing, allowed uses shall include drive -through restaurants,
mixed -use developments, car wash, hotel(s) per Section 25.34.070 containing a spa,
convenience stores, automobile service stations without regard to the required site
location separation distances per Section 25.34.090, commercial indoor recreation
facilities and indoor amusement establishments and combinations of two or more of the
uses listed above. Ancillary commercial uses, business support services and personal
services shall be allowed. Residential units and/or professional office space shall be
allowed on a second story. Approval of the uses are subject to a CUP application, Precise
Plan application or administrative use permit application; the form of application shall be
consistent with city policies as determined by the Community Development Director.
Table 3 - Planning Area I And 2 Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size
3 acres
Front Yard Setback (min)
0 ft.
Side Yard Setback (min)
0 ft.
Street Side Yard Setback
0 ft.
Rear Yard Setback (min)
0 ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage
50%
Maximum Height, Retail, Office and Mixed Use
35 ft.
Maximum Height Recreational Facility (Commercial and/or
Private) and/or Entertainment Facility 40 ft.
Maximum Height, Hotel 60 ft.
Maximum no. of Stories, Hotel and Mixed Use 4
Minimum Landscaping (% of lot area) 20%
Development standards not listed in the Table shall be consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance Development Standards for the Planned Commercial (2)
District, Section 25.16.050
Development standards may be modified with approval of a Precise Plan
Maximum height does not include architectural screen walls and towers as
outlined in Section 25.40.040
Planninq Area 3 — Planned Residential (PR-22); Planned Commercial / (PC-2)
Planning Area 3 may be developed as part of a large attached residential project
on Planning Area 3 combined with the same use as on Planning Area 4.
Alternatively, PA3 may be developed (i) with attached or detached residential units,
for sale or for rent, at densities from 10-22/acre, (ii) as a mixed -use project and/or
100% commercial project using the same development standards as in Planning
Area 1 and 2. Condominium projects may be permitted with approval of a Precise
Plan application.
PA3 will utilize the development standards identified in Planning Area 1, 2, and 4
based on the project.
Planninq Area 4
Planning Area 4 shall be developed with a minimum of 200 attached for sale or for
rent residential units.
Table 4 — Planning Area 4 Development Standards
Maximum Density PR-22 22 units/acre
Planning Area Landscape 20%
Front Yard Setbacks (min) 10 ft.
Street Side Yard Setbacks (min)
Side Yard Setbacks Combined both sides (min)
Rear Yard Setback (min)
Maximum Lot Coverage
Maximum Lot Coverage
Maximum Lot Coverage
Maximum Number of Stories/Height
Parking
Guest Parking
Common Area Open Space per Unit
5 ft.
8 ft. with no
one side less
than 3 ft.
10 ft.
50% SFA
65% SFD <
2500 sf.
55% SFD >
2500 sf.
3 stories/40 feet
1 covered
space per unit
1 space every 8
units
250 sf.
Development standards may be modified with approval of a Precise Plan.
Maximum height does not include architectural projections or towers.
C. General Development Standards
1. The Project shall be developed in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance,
except as otherwise provided in this Specific Plan.
2. A reservation of housing affordable to the lower and/or moderate residents (if any)
shall be addressed in the I Iousing Agreement.
3. All improvements constructed on the property shall conform to applicable public
works and building ordinances and codes in effect at the time construction occur.
4. Where the provisions of this Specific Plan conflict with land use or building
ordinances, regulations, and/or codes, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall
control.
5. The exact location and configuration of Specific Plan Planning Areas may be altered
as Precise Plans and Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps are developed, subject to the
approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
6. Tentative Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, and Precise Plans may be submitted and
approved by the City, consistent with the provisions and intent of this Specific Plan.
7. All utility, roadway, and other improvements required to adequately serve each phase
of the Project shall be constructed in conjunction with such phase.
8. Shared parking is required for commercial and mixed -use areas throughout the MCP
Specific Plan. The number of required parking spaces may be reduced where it is
demonstrated that parking efficiencies will result from shared land uses, subject to
Planning Commission approval. Shared parking can occur within individual Planning
Areas, or across Planning Area boundaries.
9. Joint use parking shall not exceed 50 percent of the required spaces of any uses
involved. A recorded covenant, acceptable to the city attorney, shall be required to
facilitate joint use.
10. All circulation and parking elements incorporated in Precise Plans and/or Tentative
Tract and Parcel Maps shall be reviewed and approved by Fire Department and Public
Works.
11. Pedestrian access to public parkways shall be proposed with Precise Plans or
Tentative Tract Maps for the Specific Plan Property.
IV. DESIGN GUIDELINES
A. Purpose
This section establishes design guidelines for the Specific Plan area that supplement
those set forth in the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. They provide a flexible set of
fundamental principles that will assure a cohesive, attractive, and quality working
and living environments. Where conflicts or inconsistencies may exist, the guidelines
of this Specific Plan shall control. The guidelines shall apply to all Planning Areas in
the Specific Plan boundaries, unless otherwise specified.
B. Site Planning
1. All built elements of the Specific Plan area should be developed in a cohesive and
integrated manner such that they function as and are recognizable as a single
destination. This includes consideration of structures, hardscape, and landscaping that
visually tie these elements together in an effective and pleasing manner.
2. Projects developed within the Specific Plan should incorporate elements of the City's
Sustainability Plan to the greatest extent practical.
3. Each phase of development must be self-sustaining in terms of scale, access, and
amenities.
4. Whenever possible, structures should be clustered to create landscape -enhanced
plazas or pedestrian ways and public spaces. Long, "barracks -like" rows must
be avoided. When clustering is impossible, visual links such as arcades and
trellises should be encouraged between separate structures.
5. Commercial buildings should generally be arranged in a "U," "L," or similarly
shaped configurations to encourage pedestrian activity, provide isolation of loading
and other operation areas, allow visibility of entrances from the street, and encourage
shared pedestrian and vehicular linkages between properties. Pedestrian
improvements and amenities shall be provided throughout the Specific Plan area to
further integrate adjoining Planning Areas and create a sense of place.
6. Loading docks, trash enclosures, and other service facilities should be located at the
rear of the site whenever possible and recessed and/or properly screened from view.
7. Special design elements will be required at the interface of the commercial planning
areas and the residential planning areas to minimize visual and noise elements
inconsistent with residential experience.
C. Access & Circulation
Roads and Access Drives
1. Internal circulation should minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts to the greatest
extent possible. Structures should be linked to public sidewalks with textured or
enhanced paving, landscaping, or similar treatments.
Parking
1. Parking facilities should be conveniently located, with street access made as direct
as possible.
2. Wherever possible, parking areas should be visible from the residential units that use
them.
3. Residential parking spaces not located within garages or carports should be
shaded by landscaping with effective summer shade of a minimum of 50%.
4. Detached and attached garages, carports, and accessory structures should be
designed as integral parts of the project and consistent with the principal structures
of the project in their use of materials, color, and design details.
5. The preferred location for garages and carports is on the interior side of parking areas.
6. Prefabricated carports are not permitted.
7. Garage doors should be steel or aluminum and may include wood cladding or
metal to enhance architectural compatibility. Hinge -type garage doors are prohibited.
Pedestrian Access
1. Pedestrian, bicycle and NEV access and circulation should connect planning areas
to encourage non -vehicular travel. Non -vehicular access must be integrated into
project site plans and, when appropriate given project use(s), shall occur on dedicated
paths that protect pedestrians and bicyclists from automobiles, and provide shaded
areas and amenities for their users.
When appropriate given project use(s), Pedestrian connections must be provided
between Planning Areas 1 and 2 and Planning Area 3 and 4. These pedestrian
connections must be dedicated to pedestrian and bicycle access only, and cannot
be located within roadways or internal driveways. Sidewalks on internal streets
should not be the only form of pedestrian access provided, but should be
supplemented by internal walkways, trails or paths. The City shall review each
proposed project within this Specific Plan to assure connectivity between these
Planning Areas.
2. To the extent possible, the entrances to individual residential units should be plainly
visible from nearby parking areas.
3. Individual outdoor walkways, corridors, or access balconies should be designed to
serve no more than five residential units.
4. In the event that a building is located in close proximity to a street, and parking is
provided at the rear or side of the lot, clearly delineated secondary pedestrian
access convenient to parking areas should be provided to the greatest extent practical.
D. Architectural Elements
1. Architectural development plans will be reviewed for their focus on high -quality,
attractive design and compatibility with the intended objectives of this Specific
Plan, as well as existing and proposed development in the project vicinity. Designs
should be harmonious with regard to building style, form, size, color, material, and
roofline.
2. Architectural designs should incorporate energy efficient materials and
construction techniques, and strive to exceed existing Building Code requirements.
3. Individual buildings should be distinguishable from one another, while also being
viewed as integral parts of the larger building design.
4. Large buildings should provide architectural interest through variations in building
mass and distribution.
5. Long, unbroken facades and unarticulated box -like forms should be avoided.
Building facades should be tied together through a unified and cohesive design.
Building setbacks and projections and varying rooflines can provide visual interest
while maintaining function.
6. Balconies, porches, and patios should be integrated into single and multi -family
development to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale
to structures.
7. Building design should be sensitive and responsive to the varying temperatures and
outdoor living opportunities of the low desert.
8. Buildings should provide a 360' articulation of all building facades.
9. Entryways on commercial buildings should be clearly identifiable to pedestrian and
vehicular traffic, and should be integral parts of building design. Entryways should
provide safe and unobstructed pedestrian access.
10. Monument signs will be located at project area intersections, and will serve as the
primary directional signage for the project. Monument signs will be designed to
be integral to the
Architectural style of the project, and will be consistent with the City's Zoning
Ordinance standards.
E. Landscaping
1. Landscape treatments should maximize the use of native desert and compatible
drought- tolerant plant materials. Species must comply with City and CVWD
water conservation ordinance requirements.
2. Landscape plans must address wind and water erosion issues and demonstrate
the water efficiency gained from plant and irrigation systems.
3. All areas not covered by structures, drives, parking or hardscape should be
appropriately landscaped.
4. The use of turf should be limited to functional play and active use areas.
5. Landscaping should provide shade where needed, including within parking areas,
bus shelters, park seating areas, and pedestrian paths/trails.
6. Where appropriate, organic and inorganic groundcovers are recommended in place of
asphalt or concrete.
F. Walls and Fences
1. Walls and fences should be an integral part of site design, especially in areas of
public visibility. Careful consideration must be given to their placement so as to
assure a natural transition between land uses.
2. Windbreak walls, berms, and fences may be constructed in areas that warrant
protection from prevailing winds.
G. Open Space
1. Common open space should be conveniently located for the majority of units.
2. Private open spaces should be contiguous to the units they serve and at least
partially screened from view.
3. Open space areas should be designed and oriented to take advantage of available
sunlight and sheltered from wind, traffic, and noise to the greatest extent practical.
M
C
4. Adequate and safe pedestrian and non -motorized access to open spaces should be
provided.
5. Within commercial centers an outdoor plaza or center shall be provided in order to
create a sense of place for pedestrians.
6. Outdoor areas associated with commercial and multi -family developments should
provide attractive spaces that are carefully planned and not simply leftover areas
between structures. Pedestrian amenities, such as tables, benches, fountains, and
shade structures, should be provided.
H. Lighting
1. Exterior lighting fixtures should provide safety and convenience, and should be
integral design elements of the project.
2. All outdoor lights should be screened and shielded to avoid spilling onto adjoining
properties and streets, and must comply with the City's Outdoor Lighting
requirements.
I. Accessory Facilities
1. Trash storage, transfer, and disposal facilities should be located in parking areas or at
the end of parking bays. Locations should be conveniently accessible for both trash
collection and maintenance and should not block access drives during loading
operations.
2. Trash facilities should be enclosed in accordance with applicable City standards
and the minimum requirements of the disposal service provider. Pedestrian access
should be provided to the rear or side of the enclosure.
3. Accessory facilities in multifamily projects, such as laundry facilities, recreation
buildings, and pool cabanas should be as centrally located within the development
and consistent in architectural design and form with the rest of the complex. Sales
and leasing offices also should be compatible with these guidelines.
4. Where common mailboxes are provided, their location should be carefully
considered so as to provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access and vehicular
stacking. Design and architectural character should be compatible and
complementary in form, materials, and colors to the surrounding buildings, as well
as minimum U.S. Postal Service specifications.
5. Any roof -mounted equipment is to be located within an attic space or fully screened
by an architecturally appropriate parapet wall. All HVAC and similar equipment
must be visually and acoustically screened. The screening method must be
functionally and architecturally compatible with the building design in terms of
materials, color, shape, and size.
q_�
V. PHASING AND FINANCING
The MCP Palm Desert project will be developed in phases. Phases in development will
be subject to market demand.
As described in this document, infrastructure currently exists immediately adjacent to the
project site. Connections to this existing infrastructure will be made as planning areas
develop, including water, sewer and all dry utilities. Storrn drainage will be developed
consistent with Section I1 D., Local Drainage, herein and with the approved hydrology
study and water quality management plans.
The project financing will generally be private. As with any project, a variety of financing
mechanisms are available to both the owners and the City to fund specific project or
infrastructure needs. These mechanisms may be employed by the owners as needed
throughout the construction of the project.
VI. PROCEDURES
Amendment of the Specific Plan
This Specific Plan may be amended by application for a proposed amendment by the land
owner(s) of the affected parcel(s) within the Specific Plan area, and approved by the City
based on the following criteria:
Amendments Subject to Director's Approval
The following amendments shall be subject to administrative review and approval by
the Director of Community Development:
• Minor changes in this Specific Plan that provide supplemental detail consistent
with the existing content of the Specific Plan.
• Minor changes in the Planning Area boundaries that increase or decrease any
Planning Area acreage by l 5% or less.
• Minor changes in overall density or lot coverage that increases total land use
allocation by 10% or less.
Amendments Subject to Planning Commission Approval
The following amendments shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
Commission and may be subject to the City Council calling the proposed amendments
up:
• Any change in land use designation applicable to a Planning Area.
• Major changes in Specific Plan that affect the purpose and intent of this
document.
• Major changes in Planning Area boundaries that increase or decrease any
Planning Area acreage by 15.1 % or more.
• Major changes in overall density or lot coverage that increase total land use
allocation by 10.1% or more.
L+9
C (.
Concurrent Applications
Whenever possible, applications for development approvals shall be processed
concurrently, when multiple applications are required. For example, if a commercial
project within a Planning Area requires a Parcel Map, Precise Plan and Conditional Use
Permit, every effort shall be made to process all applications concurrently.
Precise Plans
Precise Plans will be required for all projects within this Specific Plan. Precise Plans shall
be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. Precise Plans may cover
portions of a Planning Area, an entire Planning Area, or multiple Planning Areas. Partial
development of a Planning Area shall not inhibit the overall development of the subject
Planning Area or other Specific Plan Planning Areas.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
As required by Government Code Section 65451, this section of the Specific Plan
addresses the relationship of the MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan to the City of Palm
Desert General Plan. The Goals, Policies and Programs of the General Plan recently
adopted by the City in November of 2016 have been reviewed, and where applicable,
have been analyzed individually for each Element. In the analysis below, the applicable
Goal or Policy is first cited, followed by an analysis of this Specific Plan's consistency.
Where Goals and/or Policies are inter -related, they are grouped together for discussion.
Land Use & Community Character
1.1 Scale of development. Require new development along the city's corridors use
design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure compatible fit with
surrounding development.
The Specific Plan establishes development standards and guidelines for the
ultimate development ofplanned commercial land uses on the east side of Monterey
Avenue. To the east, and not on the Monterey Avenue corridor, high density
residential would be constructed.
Along the Monterey corridor, retail and office structures could extend to 40 feet in
height, while a hotel could occur at a 60 foot height, which is consistent with height
standards in the City's commercial areas. Design Guidelines include
recommendations for the siting of commercial structures to reduce the bulk of
individual buildings. The Specific Plan includes provisions for the preparation of
Precise Plans which will address the placement of buildings. This requirement will
allow the City the ability to assure that the scale and mass ofproposed structures
is consistent with the scale and mass of adjacent and surrounding development,
including the existing commercial development immediately to the north and south
on Monterey Avenue.
`I9
I
Goal 2. Human -Scaled Design. A city designed for people, fostering interaction,
activity, and safety.
2.2 Parking frontages. Require parking strategies and designs that ensure parking
areas do not dominate street frontages and are screened from public views
whenever possible.
The Specific Plan Design Standards require that Precise Plans include shared
parking provisions, to reduce the overall parking fields within the project. This
requirement, coupled with Design Guidelines which encourage 'U' and 'L'shaped
commercial buildings and clustered structures, will allow the design of parking
areas that do not dominate the street fi,ontages.
2.7 Public gathering spaces. Improve existing and create new gathering spaces
throughout the city to provide beautiful, comfortable, and inviting public and
pedestrian spaces, encouraging walking and public gathering spaces.
2.8 Public plazas. Encourage new development to incorporate public plazas, seating,
drinking fountains, and gathering places, especially in prominent locations and
areas of pedestrian activity.
The Specific Plan includes both commercial and residential development
components. Its Design Guidelines provide for integrated and cohesive design that
will assure that the entire project appears as one coordinated site. These guidelines
also encourage the clustering of .structures and creation of public .spaces and
pedestrian access, and provide for pedestrian amenities throughout the site.
Finally, dedicated pedestrian connections must be provided between Planning
Area I and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4.
2.9 Commercial requirements. Require development projects in nonresidential and
mixed use areas to provide for enhanced pedestrian activity through the following
techniques:
• Requiring that the ground floor frontage be oriented to and accessible from
the sidewalk.
• Locating the majority of a building's frontages in close proximity to the
sidewalk edge;
• Requiring that the first level of the building occupy a majority of the lot's
frontage, with exceptions for vehicle access;
• Requiring that the majority of the linear ground floor retail frontage (where
it occurs) be visually and physically "penetrable," incorporating windows
and other design treatments to create an attractive street frontage;
• Requiring that the first level of building where retail uses are allowed have
a minimum 15 feet floor to floor height for nonresidential uses;
• Minimizing vehicle intrusions across the sidewalk;
• Allowing for the development of outdoor plazas and dining areas;
• Discouraging new surface parking lots; and
'50
• Locating parking (surface or structured) behind buildings, wherever
feasible.
• Address parking on a regional basis to maximize efficiency.
The Specific Plan includes a requirement for Precise Plan approvals, which will
allow review oj* plans to meet these standards. In addition, the master planned
nature of the development components in the Specific Plan assure that a continuous
and unified building layout will occur. The City will limit access points on
Monterey Avenue, thereby reducing potential vehicle intrusions across .sidewalks.
As stated above, the Design Guidelines encourage the clustering of buildings to
allow for public plazas and .similar open areas. Further, the Specific Plan requires
the implementation ofshared use parking strategies to limit and coordinate parking
areas.
2.10 Auto -oriented uses. Consider allowing uses that serve occupants of vehicles (such
as drive -through windows) and discourage uses that serve the vehicle (such as car
washes and service stations), in places that are clearly automobile oriented,
ensuring that such uses do not disrupt pedestrian flow, are not concentrated, do not
break up the building mass of the streetscape, and are compatible with the planned
uses of the area.
The Specific Plan project area is located on a major arterial roadway, and as .such
will provide a convenient and accessible location for uses that serve the occupants
of vehicles, including drive -through facilities.
In addition, the location of high density residential in close proximity to these
commercial uses will encourage the use of these businesses as stops on the way to
or from work or school via pedestrian or bicycle access.
Goal 3. Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing types,
densities, designs and mix of uses and services that support healthy and active lifestyles.
3.1 Complete neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement process, ensure
that all new Neighborhoods (areas with a "Neighborhood" General Plan
Designation) are complete and well structured such that the physical layout and
land use mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use, are family friendly
and address the needs of multiple ages and physical abilities. New neighborhoods
should have the following characteristics:
• Contain short, walkable block lengths.
• Contain a high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles
where practicable.
• Are organized around a central focal point such as a park, school, civic
building or neighborhood retail such that most homes are no more than one
quarter -mile from this focal point.
• Have goods and services within a short walking distance.
• Contain a diversity of housing types, where possible.
• Have homes with entries and windows facing the street.
• Have a grid or modified grid street network (except where topography
necessitates another street network layout).
• Provide a diversity of architectural styles.
The Specific Plan's mix of high density residential and commercial development
will allow for the development of a non -motorized neighborhood environment, by
promoting close proximity between home and potential jobs and shopping
opportunities. These uses will be within walking distance of the residential
neighborhood. The location of the Specific Plan on Monterey Avenue also allows
residents to have easy access to transit, which currently operates on that roadway.
The proposed residential component of the Specific Plan could include a mix offor
sale and for rent units available to a varied range of households, including both
families and seniors. The Specific Plan also includes the potential for assisted
living facilities in the plan, which would allow for transition of neighborhood
residents who could remain in the neighborhood in the long term.
In addition, the project site's location allows for easy connections to proposed
parks and .schools located easterly of the .site.
The design of the residential component of the project will be governed by Precise
Plan approvals, allowing the City to implement the requirements of this policy
through design consultation and conditions of approval.
3.2 Conventional neighborhood design. Discourage the constriction of new
residential neighborhoods that are characterized by cul-de-sacs, sound walls, long
block lengths, single building and housing types and lack of access to goods and
services.
The Precise Plan(s) which will be prepared for individual projects within the
Specific Plan will provide detail regarding internal design. However, the Specific
Plan Design Guidelines encourage connectivity for pedestrians and other non -
motorized transport; a requirement for dedicated pedestrian access between
Planning Area 1 and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4; the clustering of buildings (in
both the residential and commercial components of the project); and discourages
long single -building construction. The development of higher density residential is
unlikely to generate a need for cul-de-sacs, and its location to the east of Monterey
Avenue and the commercial development will lessen the need for sound walls.
3.4 Balanced neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing types,
promote a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood in order to
accommodate diverse ages and incomes. For development projects larger than five
acres, require that a diversity of housing types be provided and that these housing
types be mixed rather than segregated by unit type.
As described above, the Specific Plan's Planning Area 3 and 4 propose the
construction of a broad range of housing types which would include both renters
and owners; families and seniors; and income levels. These planning areas could
include apartments, townhomes and small lot single family projects.
3.5 Housing affordability. 1?nsure affordable housing is distributed throughout the
City to avoid concentrations of poverty and to be accessible to jobs.
The Specific Plan includes a mix of residential products that could include income -
restricted units. Because a mix of housing types are anticipated, there will not be a
concentration of affordable units within the project. In addition, the Specific Plan's
inclusion of both a commercial and residential component will allow residents
access to jobs within close walking distance.
3.6 Senior housing. Encourage the development of senior housing only in
neighborhoods that arc accessible to public transit, commercial services and health
and community facilities.
The Specific Plan includes the potential for.senior housing in Planning Area 3. This
Planning Area will be located immediately adjacent to the commercial services on
the west side of the Specific Plan area, and within walking distance of transit which
is currently available on Monterey Avenue. In addition, the project site is located
within a mile of multiple medical services, including a planned medical office
complex on the west side of Monterey Avenue, in Rancho Mirage. Finally, .should
a portion of this planning area develop assisted living facilities, additional services
for resident seniors would be made available.
3.11 Connections to key destinations. Require direct pedestrian connections between
residential areas and nearby commercial and public/institutional areas.
3.14 Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that the majority of
residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of neighborhood
goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes, dry
cleaners, laundromats, fanners markets, banks, hair care, phannacies and similar
uses.
The Specific Plan requires the development of an integrated and unified
combination of residential and commercial development. The residential
component, which could include a variety of housing types, will be within easy
walking distance to the commercial component. Although it is not possible to
predict what types of businesses will locate in the commercial component, the uses
will include those that will be needed by project residents, and when combined with
the commercial businesses located in existing projects to the north and south of the
site, will provide residents with a broad range of service and shopping
opportunities.
`55
4.3 Regional retail districts. Facilitate major regional serving commercial centers that
provide a mix of uses in a pedestrian oriented format and become vibrant
destinations for people to live, work, shop and congregate. Allow a wide variety of
uses to locate in Regional Retail Districts including destination retail centers,
mixed -use town centers, and hotels, among other- uses.
4.4 Regional retail district design. Allow for significant flexibility in the design of
Regional Retail Districts so long as city-wide and project -level connectivity
standards are rnet, the uses do not adversely affect adjacent uses and
accommodations are made for pedestrians, bicycle and transit users. Design
internal streets and parking into blocks and require sidewalks along both sides of
these streets.
The commercial component of the Specific Plan is proposed for a range of
commercial development on a major arterial roadway. Its designation as a
Regional Retail and Town Center Neighborhood district is consistent with this
Policy, and the anticipated uses within the project. The Design Guidelines
encourage the development of an interconnected project which would include
plazas and similar public .spaces that provide a destination for shoppers.
Goal 5. Centers. A variety of mixed use, urban centers throughout the city that provide
opportunities for shopping, recreation, commerce, employment and arts and culture.
The Specific Plan includes both a residential and a commercial component which
are to be designed and constructed as a cohesive whole. This type ofproject is not
currently present in the Monterey Avenue corridor, and will add residential
development to an essentially commercial area, thereby adding a mixed use
component to this area of the City.
5.4 Access to transit. Encourage the development of commercial and mixed use
centers that are located on existing or planned transit stops in order to facilitate and
take advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips and allow residents without
private vehicles to access services.
As previously stated, the Specific Plan project area is located on Monterey Avenue,
a major roadway which currently includes public transit. As the project site is
developed, the City will coordinate with SunLine Transit regarding the location of
bus stops at or near the project site, as demand warrants.
Mobility Element
Goal 1. Livable Streets. A balanced transportation system that accommodates all modes
of travel safely and efficiently.
1.1 Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design, and
construction of all transportation projects to create safe, livable, and inviting
5�f
environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit users of all
ages and capabilities.
The project site is located on Monterey Avenue, and will be bordered by Dick Kelly
Drive, Gateway Drive and A Street. Monterey, Dick Kelly and Gateway include
bicycle lanes in their ultimate right of way, and these will be available to users of
both the commercial and the residential components of the project.
The Specific Plan area will be developed through the approval of'Precise Plans,
which will be conditioned to include complete street programs on General Plan
roadways and the internal sheet system, including connections from Planning Area
1 and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4.
Goal 3. Pedestrian Facilities. Integrated pedestrian pathways that connect residences,
businesses and educational and community uses.
3.1 Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation system for
pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, place to sit and gather, appropriate
street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles, shading, and amenities for people of'
all ages.
3.4 Access to Development. Require that all new development projects or
redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external pedestrian
network.
Specific designs for components of the proposed project will be required to include
pedestrian connections both between the project components and between the
project and the pedestrian facilities on Monterey, Dick Kelly and Gateway. These
connections are .supported in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, which
encourage the provision of pedestrian connection throughout the project, and
require connections from Planning Area I and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4.
Health and Wellness Element
6.2 Healthy buildings. Require new development to meet the State's Green Building
Code standards for indoor air quality performance, and promote green building
practices that support "healthy buildings," such as low VOC materials,
environmental tobacco smoke control, and indoor air quality construction pollution
prevention techniques.
The Specific Plan includes, in its Design Guidelines, provisions which encourage
implementation of the City's Sustainability Plan. The Plan is specifically geared
toward green building practices and healthy development. Further, the Specific
Plan encourages the implementation of energy efficient construction equal to or in
excess of Building Code standards.
75
7.3 Pedestrian barriers. Discourage physical barriers to walking and bicycling
between and within neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. If physical barriers
are unavoidable, provide safe and comfortable crossings for pedestrians and
cyclists. Physical barriers may include arterial streets with speed limits above 35
mph, transit or utility rights -of -way, very long blocks without through -streets, and
sound walls, amongst others.
As previously .stated, the Specific Plan includes Design Guidelines that encourage
the connection of all parts of the project with pedestrian facilities. This will allow
easy access between the commercial and residential components of the project, and
provide .safe and comfortable access for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Environmental Resources Element
Goal 1. Water Resources. Protected and readily available water resources for
community and environmental use.
1.1 Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor water
conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water reuse and
rainwater harvesting.
1.2 Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water consumption
through plant selection and irrigation technology.
The Specific Plans landscaping guidelines include the limitation of turf to
functional use only, and the use of desert and drought -tolerant landscaping
throughout the project. The project is further required to comply with CVWD's
water conservation ordinance requirements. Finally, the Design Guidelines
encourage exceedance of the Building Code's Green Building standards, and the
inclusion of the City's Sustainability Plan programs, which both include water
conservation measures.
5.2 GHG reductions. Promote land use and development patterns that reduce the
community's dependence on, and length of, automobile trips.
The proposed project will develop residential units at higher densities immediately
adjacent to commercial development (both existing and proposed), and
interconnect these components. These project features will allow for non -motorized
access and encourage residents to access businesses on foot, thereby reducing their
roadway trips.
6.3 Energy Efficient Buildings. Encourage new buildings and buildings undergoing
major retrofits to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
As previously stated, the Specific Plan Design Guidelines encourage that projects
within the Specific Plan exceed Building Code requirements, and implement the
programs of the City's Sustainability Plan. In addition, since it is likely that the
project will develop after adoption of the 2017 Building Code by the City, the
requirements of that Code, which will be more energy efficient than current
standards, will apply to project components.
8.2 Land use patterns. Promote compact, mixed -use, energy efficient and transit -
oriented development to reduce air pollutants associated with energy and vehicular
use.
The Specific Plan includes both residential and commercial development adjacent
to each other. Further, the Specific Plan area is located on on existing transit line.
Both these features will aid in reducing energy use and vehicle miles traveled.
Safety Element
3.1 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to minimize flood
risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents adverse drainage
impacts to adjacent properties, on -site retention of runoff, and minimization of
structures located in floodplains.
3.2 Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to funding regional
flood control infrastructure improvements.
The Specific Plan area is not located in a flood zone. However, the Specific Plan
area is part of a larger area for which a master drainage plan was prepared and
implemented by the City. The project site is subject to the requirements of this plan,
and pays its fair share of improvements through the existing assessment district on
the property. As projects are developed, they will connect to the storm drain system
in .surrounding streets.
Public Utilities and Services Element
1.1 Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development projects
pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated
by that development (regional shallow ground water).
1.6 Collaborative stormwater management. Encourage collaborative, integrated
stormwater management between multiple property owners and sites.
As described above, the stormwater management planning undertaken for this
project site and others in its vicinity established a stormwater management
program for the project site. These facilities include existing drainage pipes in
adjoining streets, as well as a regional retention basin located to the east of the
property. The Specific Plan area is subject to the assessment district formed to
implement the stormwater management plan, and as such is paying its fair share
for drainage infrastructure.
2.2 Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay
for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that
development.
As described in the Specific Plan, existing sanitary sewer infrastructure exists
surrounding the property. As projects are developed, they will connect to these
facilities in A Street, Gateway Drive and Dick Kelly Drive, and pay the required
connection fees to CVWD. Further, CVWD will impose conditions of approval on
individual projects as Precise Plans are processed through the City.
3.4 Water infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay
for their share of new water infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that
project.
As described in the Specific Plan, domestic water is supplied to the project site by
CVWD. Existing water lines occur in A Street, Gateway Drive, Dick Kelly Drive
and Monterey Avenue. As individual projects are developed within the Specific
Plan Area, they will connect to these lines and pay required connection fees to
CVWD.
Housing Element
Goal 1
A variety of housing types that meet all of the housing needs for all income groups within
the City.
Both Planning Area 3 and Planning Area 4 provide for residential development in
the Specific Plan. In Planning Area 3, a density of 10 to 22 units per acre is allowed,
while Planning Area 4 allows a density of 17 to 22 units per acre. These
development standards and the uses described in the Specific Plan allow for the
development of a broad range of rental and/or ownership units of varying intensity,
ranging from small lot single family residential to apartments or townhomes. The
range of possibilities will result in varying rents and sale prices.
Goal 2
The preservation and maintenance of the high quality of the City's affordable housing
supply.
Policy 1
New affordable housing projects shall be encouraged in all areas of the City. Special
attention will be made to distributing the units so that large concentrations of affordable
housing in any one area are avoided.
The project site is described in the Housing Element as having the potential to
accommodate 200 housing units. The Specific Plan allows for the development of
up to 384 units.
Policy 9
The City shall continue to address the needs of the senior population in development of
housing.
Program 9.B
The City shall continue to encourage the development of assisted living facilities for
seniors.
As described above, the residential component of the Specific Plan includes the
potential for senior housing, either as apartments or homes, or in the form of
assisted living facilities. The exact development of Planning Areas 3 and 4 will be
determined through the approval of Precise Plans for each development project.
Policy 11
Promote the jobs/housing balance through the development of housing with convenient
access to
commercial land uses, schools, available public transport and employment centers.
The Specific Plan will result in both commercial and residential development.
Residents fi-om the proposed residential component could find employment in the
commercial component, or in the existing and proposed commercial and office
developments to the north, south and west of the .site. In addition, the Specific Plan
is located on Monterey Avenue, which currently includes a public transit bus route.
Finally, the Specific Plan is located in close proximity to planned and existing
.schools and parks.
- - - - - -
- - - - ------------
PIP
"Ala
=-V-r
1 a
nip
1 ON
A F
End
lot
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CEQA Environmental Checklist & Environmental Assessment
Project Title:
Lead agency name and address:
Contact persons and phone number:
MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan
SP 16-342, TPM 37234
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Kevin Swartz
760-346-0611
Project location: The ±32 acre project site is bounded by Dick Kelly Drive on the north, Gateway Drive on the
east, "A" Street on the south, and Monterey Avenue on the west. APNs 694-130-016 and 694-130-021.
Project sponsor's-name and address: Chris Chambers - Chambers Development
805-889-9212
General Plan Designation: Regional Retail (R-R) I Zoning: Planned Commercial (PC-2), Planned
Town Center Neighborhood (T-CN). Residential (PR-22).
Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the
project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets
if necessary.)
The MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan ("Project") is proposed for 32.2 acres of currently vacant land located near
the City's northern gateway at Interstate-10. The site is immediately adjacent to the easternmost lane of Monterey
Drive, 1 mile south of the Monterrey/I-10 interchange. The Project sets forth a land use plan and long-range
development standards that facilitate commercial, residential, open space and mixed use development within the
project boundaries.
Currently, the proposed site is located within the City's University Park Area which is designated as Regional
Retail (R-R) and Town Center Neighborhood (T-CB) within the City's General Plan. The City's Zoning Map
currently designates the westernmost part as Planned Commercial Development and the remainder of the site as
Planned Residential (PR-22).
The Project area is divided into four (4) Planning Areas (PA), three of which are designated for a specific land
use (PA 1, 2 and 4) and one of which is designated for alternative land uses (PA 3) (Exhibit 7). The Project is
designed to provide a broad range of land uses to be developed in a coordinated, high quality environment. The
Specific Plan area can be developed based on the following master land use allocation, as shown in the following
table.
Table 1: MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan: Zoning and Land Use Allocation
Planning
Acres Zoning/Land Use
Density / Lot
Density / Lot
Projected
Area
Coverage Min.
Coverage Max.
Units/SF
1
7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2)
25%
50%
55,000*
2
7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2)
25%
50%
65,000*
3
5.87 Planned Residential (PR-22),
10/acre
22/acre
132
Planned Commercial (PC-2)
4 11.44 Planned Residential (PR-22) 17.34/acre 22/acre 200
Max, 252
Total Potential Residential Units 384
Total Commercial Square Footage — Single Story 120,000
Maximum Potential Commercial Square Footage — Two Stories 240,000
*Projected SF represents structure footprint (single story). Totals account for potential second story.
Plannina Areas 1 and 2 — Planned Commercial (PC-2)
Planning Areas 1 and 2 will be developed as commercial shopping center(s) containing one or two story
buildings. The Specific Plan Uses are in addition to uses allowed in the Zoning Ordinance for the PC-2 zone. In
addition to those permitted in the PC-2 zone, the Specific Plan proposes to allow, with approval of a CUP, drive -
through restaurants, mixed -use developments, car wash, hotel(s), convenience stores, automobile service stations
without regard to the required site location separation distances per Section 25.34.090, commercial indoor
recreation facilities and indoor amusement establishments and combinations of two or more of the uses listed
above. Ancillary commercial uses, business support services and personal services are proposed to be allowed
as well. Residential units and/or professional office space is proposed to be allowed on a second story. Approval
of these additional uses is proposed to be subject to a CUP application, Precise Plan application or administrative
use permit application, subject to determination of the Community Development Director.
Planning Area 3 — Planned Residential (PR-22) Planned Commercial (PC-2)
The Specific Plan proposes that Planning Area 3 may be developed as part of a large attached residential project
and could be combined with Planning Area 4. Alternatively, the Specific Plan proposes that PA 3 may be
developed with (i) attached or detached residential units, for sale or for rent, at densities from 10-22/acre,-(11) as
a mixed use project and/or 100% commercial using the same development standards as in Planning Areas 1 and
2 (iii) as a variety of specialized housing designed for market rate or affordable housing types. Condominium
projects could be developed with a Precise Plan application.
Planning Area 4 — Planned Residential (PR-22)
Planning area 4 is proposed to be developed with a minimum of 200 attached for sale or for rent residential units
at a density of 17.35/acre. Planning Area 4 development standards are provided in Table 4 of the Project Specific
Plan. Planning Area 4 will also have the potential to add a total of up to 43 units towards the City's goal of 20%
affordability of the 200-unit project through a combination of (i) 10 of the units to be developed and constructed
in Planning Area 4 will be restricted to occupants classified as moderate income and (ii) land will be reserved
for a development that will be restricted to "low" and "very low" income occupants. This additional component
is proposed on the south linear 1.5 acres of Planning Area 4 which could yield up to an additional 33 dwelling
units.
For purposes of analysis, maximum buildout potential for each Planning Area was used to assess potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project.
Utilities and Service Providers
The following utilities will provide service to the Specific Plan area:
Sewer: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Water: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Electricity: Southern California Edison (SCE)
Gas: Southern California Gas Company
Telephone: Frontier (Formally Verizon)
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
North: Dick Kelly Drive, Commercial Development (Kohl's, PetSmart, Auto Zone)
South: "A" Street, Partially Vacant Lands, Lowe's Home Improvement, Multi -family Residential (Enclave)
East: Gateway Drive, Vacant Lands
West: Monterey Avenue, Vacant Lands
Other public agencies whose approval is or may be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.) None.
-2-
(:���
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The enviromnental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture and
❑
Air Quality
Forestry Resources
®
Biological Resources
®
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
®
Greenhouse Gas
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
Emissions
Materials
❑
Land Use / Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
I Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
I Recreation
❑
Transportation/Traffic
El
Utilities
Utilities / Service
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
X not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Y-2,-3-26 t�
Kevin Swartz Date
City of Palm Desert
-3-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced infonnation sources show that the impact simply does not
apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative
as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has detennined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may
be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier
Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Infonnation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
PACIFIC
OCEAN
r '
L J TERRA NOVA
PLANNING R RESEARCH. INC.
MEXICO
o 6eaen WA Springs .
s Palm'Spiingso' • ,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
MC Properties
Regional Location Map
Palm Desert, California
Legend:
(1) Cosice
(a)� Dentr-s�
Lowe's Horne Impravernent
QRancho 15 Cinema
ti J E1 Polly'-aco.
Thu Er.)clove Rental Condominiums
McDonald's
�°J Sam-s S(ib
i 3 Marrfolf's .Shadow Ring
y:';
4� Home Depaf
Wolmarf
i4 Future schaol.vie
f r-
Q Starbucks
!0 Kohl's
w
Source: MSA Consultinq, Inc., 2016
Exhibit
r~ 1 MC Properties
rL _j TERRA NOVA Vicinity Map
FL.WNING A AZ SEAACK iMC Palm Desert, California
i
f EX. SURFACE EX. BOUNDARY
t— EX. BOUNDARY 1 — A Street
i7ick Kelry — »�— L_ -- — — — — — '� 300'
�Q__ F — — — — — ` 285'
266SECTION "A"
EX. BOUNDARY — ' Y — ` — ' — � EX. SURFACE
3Q7' — — -- — .� _ EX. BOUNDARY
—2&a-_ T-------------------`—._—
SECTION "B" 259'
Source: M S A Consuidng. 2017
r -r
L ,j TERRA NOVA
P NMW • PESEARCN, u .
MC Properties
Site Cross Sections
Palm Desert, California
N �:
[V
Exhibit
3
� I I
I I
Dick Kelly Drive
U TV OF
�
u
v
m
�
I
I
�Z
I
I`
Ql
._.. ..
..... J a
I
I
t
I
I I
I
-i-+ T
I LT 11 l
Legend:
�Yown+�enzer�li�e�gNrio "
Source: MSA Consultinq, Inc., 2017
� 1
TERRA NOVA
P.AYNING A RESEARCH,,h'C.
A Street
L
Town cwrER I
I
�
I I
I
— -j-- —,_
�
I
I
l
h F-`
I
!
MC Properties
Existing City General Plan
Palm Desert, California
J—
00TY OFF
PG]LK MER7
J -
TOWN- [ENTER
7U RHO60 -
I
H4
N
fl �
c7
N
Exhibit
Cl
���
Li L t I I
i G __
I
Dick Kelly Drive
RAHCHO PC-2 i PR-22
J
2 -. - -i
" PROJECT
- --� -- - -- - SITE
I>
- -TTTT 7 I
J-
- — I II
�- r -� T
Legend:
PR-22
PC-2
A Street _
I I j
I �
� I i
.-13 I
i
l �
Source: MSA Consuitinq, Inc., 2017, City of Palm Desert, 2018
r, 1 MC Properties
L j TERRA NOVA® Existing City Zoning
CLRNNINC A iiEffi-ARCH,,Nc Palm Desert, California
C07Y OF
PALM DUERT
PR-22 1 P.C.D.
f'
I
- R. IL
I-T-I-
N 00
r�v
Exhibit
��C7�EI MC7+T3 t! r
"a rerra ram+. xe;e e.. L5' as .'x .aasx. �bs1'i esae urn r 5'� verse ..xia-cn . .a-ays 5V rvms wae,
-- sl[ r�ii i-f(Jir3 tJ!',' Dick;KeHy. Drive
S?nrnr i)rcjln Catch Basin � &sewerMoin t.
q i Fr:
12" Water Main '
I
Legend:
—W— Existing Water Main —SD— Existing Storm Drain Line
-�5— Existing Sewer Main 0 Existing Storm Drain Catch Basin
N r`
I Cq
O
Source: MSA Consultinq, Inc., 2017 `�
r
Exhibit
r 1 MC Properties
TERRA NOVA Existing Utilities
P:ANNNG 4 RE$eARCFt INC Palm Desert, California
f o� N
2
0
4 f
IN
DICK 2511 s�
..
f � to �zox 1
li.'. -�,
, . , .-'-'.•.�1
/- o
1--40X1
—�
i'....-.
'.
, ,
1
L
YA
a
lC}
Source: Linscon, Law and Greenspan Engineers, 2016
KELLY
ST
7�
DR
KEY
<-- = INBOUND PERCENTAGE
�— = OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE
= PROJECT SITE
DOLE WY
r 1 MC Properties
L i TERRA NOVA Trip Distribution Patterns for Planning Areas 1 & 2
M-4"H�.G i HESE CM. ANC. Palm Desert, California
N �:
7
-11
oat \
L0 r
I � �
O
i o ;
i �—z0%
l f �
O
f �
i
1 00
of
a
G
m
O
r7
Source: Linscon, Law and Greenspan Engineers, 201a
r �
L J TERRA NOVA
P[AN iRESEAMG. INC.
C14 a
F1
IE
DICK 2x
N �`2fia
KELLY b �e�
OR 1 a%
_
47 N.. -.
fn-.......-
--. - N00
-''-..'....
l:: ::;:::.
: : . �I
I....
6��It
I
..............
'
KEY
" '_
= INBOUND PERCENTAGE
OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE
PROJECT SITE
rn
l
:: "I
20
A 20%--�
ST
MC Properties
Trip Distribution Patterns for Planning Areas 3 & 4
Palm Desert, California
DOLE WY
N Y
` N
1 [V
r
Exhibit
0
I. AESTIiETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
KI
a
M
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance; MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan.
B
Setting
The project site, and the City of Palm Desert, is located in the Coachella Valley, surrounded by the San Bernardino,
San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains ranges in all directions. The San Bernardino, Santa Rosa, and San Jacinto
mountain ranges have a significant rise over the valley floor and are visible from most locations in the City. The
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto foothills extend along the west and southern portions of the City, approximately 4 miles
southwest of the subject property. The Little San Bernardino foothills are located to north of city limits and
approximately 3.50 miles northeast of the project site. The development of the project site will result in a mixed -
use development with commercial and residential components.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto foothills and higher elevations are a scenic
vista for the majority of the Coachella Valley. From the subject site, views of the Little San Bernardino
Mountains can be enjoyed from the north and east. As a result of intervening developments in all directions,
the lower elevations are blocked, however the upper and middle elevations remain visible. The Santa Rosa
and Jacinto Mountains can be seen from the west and south vantage points of the site. Similar to the San
Bernardino Mountains, the views to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains' lower elevations are
obstructed by existing development.
Planning areas I through 3 would allow the development of commercial buildings that will have
a maximum building height of 60 feet for a hotel use and a 40 feet limit on retail or
office buildings. Planning Area 4 will have a maximum height of 50 feet with the density of the
development being 65% lot coverage if the lot size under 2,500 square feet or 55% lot coverage if the lot
size is over 2,500 square feet. The height and density standards allowed in the Specific Plan are consistent
with surrounding developments to the north of the project. The nearest sensitive receptors, a residential
development immediately adjacent to the south, would still enjoy the scenic vistas since the most prominent
ones are located to the south of the residential community. A less than significant impact is expected.
b) No Impact. The project site is located immediately adjacent to Monterey Avenue, which is not designated
as state scenic highway is designated by the City's General Plan as a scenic corridor. It does not contain
scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or trees. A less than significant impact is expected to occur.
-13- /j5
C
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Currently the subject site is vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project,
a Specific Plan, would allow the development of a mixed -use development that result in a commercial and
residential operation. The subject site is divided into four planning areas (see Exhibit 7: Proposed Land
Use). Planning areas 1 through 3 would allow the development of commercial buildings that will have
a maximum building height of 60 feet for a hotel use and a 40 feet limit on retail or
office buildings. Planning Area 4 will have a maximum height of 50 feet with the density of the
development being 65% lot coverage if the lot size under 2,500 square feet or 55% lot coverage if the lot
size is over 2,500 square feet..
Currently the visual character of Monterey Avenue, a mix of commercial and residential developments, is
similar to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to the visual character of the project area are considered
less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped and there is no onsite lighting.
Implementation of the Specific Plan, and subsequent development of the project area will result in the
addition of lighting to supplement the future buildings. Even so, light and glare levels are not expected to
create an adverse effect since all development must adhere to the city's lighting standards as stipulated in
Title 24.16 Outdoor Lighting Requirements of the Municipal Code. The proposed project, a Specific Plan,
will follow all these standards thus reducing the potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
-14- /1j
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government code
section 51 104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non -forest use?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; Riverside County Important Farmland Map, 2010.
X
X
X
X
0
Setting
The project site is located in an area of the City designated for commercial and residential land use. There are no
active agricultural lands within the vicinity of the project.
Discussion of Impacts
a-e) No Impact. Currently, the project site is designated for commercial and residential land uses on City land
use maps. According to the Riverside County Important Farmland, 2010 map, the area is considered Other
Land and is not suitable for livestock grazing, confined livestock, or poultry. The site is not designated as
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance by the California
Department of Conservation. In addition, the site is surrounded by lands that are not in agricultural use. The
proposed project will result a mixed -use development comprised of both commercial and residential uses.
The proposed project will not conflict with zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. It will
not result in other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. There
will be no impact to agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
-15- ��
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
C
Potentially Lcss Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation I Impact
FN
0
X
94
X
Source: CalEEMOd Version 2013.2.2, SCAQMD AQMP 2016, 2003 CV PMio SIP, project materials.
Setting
The project site is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's 2016
Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (2003
CV PM,o SIP). The SCAQMD operates and maintains regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations
throughout its jurisdiction. The proposed site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes
monitoring stations in Palm Springs and Indio. The Indio station has been operational since 1985 and the Palm
Springs station since 1987. A new station in Thermal was recently established, but has limited data collected at this
time.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 was used to project air quality emissions
that will be generated by the proposed project's construction and calculate the maximum number of acres disturbed
during peak hours per day using crawler tractors, graders, rubber tired dozers, and scrapers.
Criteria air pollutants are contaminants for which state and federal air quality standards have been established. The
Salton Sea Air Basin exceeds state and federal standards for fugitive dust (PMio) and ozone (Os), and is in
attainment/unclassified for PM2.5. Ambient air quality in the SSAB, including the project site, does not exceed state
and federal standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxides, sulfur dioxide, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, or
Vinyl Chloride.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and will be
subject to SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley
PMIo State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PMro SIP). The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans
of the jurisdictions in the region. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and
guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. Although slight modifications will be made to
the land use breakdown of the site, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Palm Desert land use
designations assigned to the subject property. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the intent
of the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Impacts associated with compliance with applicable management plans are therefore less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2
was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by the proposed project. Criteria air
pollutants will be released during both the construction and operation of the proposed project, as
summarized in the tables below. Table 2 summarizes short-term constriction -related emissions, and Table
3 summarizes ongoing emissions generated during operation.
Constriction Emissions
The construction period includes -all aspects of project development, including site preparation, grading,
hauling, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. For analysis purposes, it
is assumed that construction will occur over a 5-year period from mid 2017 to mid 2022. Although specific
grading plans are currently not available, it was assumed that the project would require 500 cubic yards
(CY) of material import and export. Maximum buildout according to proposed development standards was
also assumed to capture worse case scenario impacts.
Table 2
MCP Palm Desert SP
Maximum Daily Construction -Related Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
Construction Emissions'
CO NOz ROG
SOz
PM30
2017
48.00 69.85 6.19
0.06
9.95
2018
52.04 59.76 5.39
0.08
5.77
2019
49.35 28.97 4.70
0.08
5.56
2020
46.72 26.06 4.21
0.08
5.37
2021
14.94 12.72 33.61
0.02
0.80
2022
5.04 1.75 33.58
0.01
0.79
SCAQMD Thresholds
550.00 100.00 75.00
150.00
150.00
Exceeds?
No No No
No
No
Average of winter and summer emissions, 2017-2022.
Source: CaIEEMod model, version 2013.2.2
PM2.5
6.44
3.92
2.45
2.27
0.64
0.27
55.00
No
As shown in Table 2, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds
for any criteria pollutant. The model was run with two assumptions: that a fugitive dust control program,
as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 and the Coachella Valley SIP would be implemented, and that low VOC
architectural coatings would be employed.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the project. They include area
source emissions, emissions from energy demand (electricity), and mobile source (vehicle) emissions.
Traffic generation trip rates were calculated by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLC). It was
assumed that the project would generate approximately 6,678 daily vehicle trips. Table 3 provides a
summary of projected emissions at operation of the proposed project. As shown below, total operations will
not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and operations of all facilities will be less than significant.
-17- - 1__�
Table 3
MCP Palm Desert SP
Operational Emissions Summary
(pounds per day)
CO NO,, ROG S02
PM10
PM2.5
Operation 207.82 33.63 43.50 0.29
19.78
6.23
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00
150.00
55.00
Exceeds? No No No No
No
No
Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton
Sea Air Basin, which is classified as a "non -attainment" area for PMio and ozone. In order to achieve
attainment in the region, the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan and 2016 SCAQMD AQMP
were adopted, which establishes strict standards for dust management and criteria pollutant emissions for
development proposals. The proposed project will contribute to an incremental increase in regional PM10
and ozone emissions. However, given its limited size and scope, cumulative impacts are not expected to be
considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PM10
or ozone precursors (NOx and CO). The project will not conflict with any attainment plans and will result
in less than significant impacts.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest sensitive receptors to the well sites are multi -family residences
located 50 meters south of the project site.
To determine if the proposed project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality
impacts, the mass rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look -Up Table was used. The City of
Coachella and the project area are located within Source Receptor Area 30 (Coachella Valley). Although
the project total area is 32 acres, it was assumed that construction would be limited to 5-acres per day.
Therefore, the 5-acre site tables at a distance of 50 meters were used to analyze LSTs associated with well
site upgrades. The following tables show comparison of maximum daily emissions compared to the LST
thresholds.
Table 4
MCP Palm Desert SP
Localized Significance Thresholds
(pounds per day)
CO NOx PM10
PM2.5
Construction 52.04 69.85 9.95
6.44
LST Threshold 3,237 340 44
11
Exceed? No No No
No
Emission Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2.
LST Threshold Source: LST Mass Rate Look -up Table, SCAQMD.
As shown in the table above, LSTs will not be exceeded during project development. Therefore, air quality
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during will be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the development of commercial and
residential land uses and is not expected to generate objectionable odors during any phase of construction
or at project buildout. Short term odors associated with paving and construction activities could be
generated; however, any such odors would be quickly dispersed below detectable levels as distance from
the construction site increases. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are expected to be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
-19- -1<1
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional X
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) I lave a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
FA
0
X
X
X
Source: Biological Resource Assessment, prepared by Ecological Consultants, June 9, 2016. Palm Desert General
Plan 2016.
Setting
The project area lies within the confines of a geographical region known as the Colorado Desert (Jaeger, 1957). As
is typical of this subdivision of the Sonoran Desert, annual rainfall averages less than six inches (National Climatic
Center, 2015). Most precipitation falls during winter and late spring with occasional summer storms accounting for
approximately one fifth of the annual total. Winter days are mild, averaging 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Winter nights
occasionally drop to near freezing. The month of July brings the hottest temperatures with daytime highs averaging
109 degrees F.
-20- - D
The elevation of the project site ranges from 260 feet above sea level at the northeast corner of the project site then
rises to 307 feet near the southwest corner. The only topographical relief consists of sand hummocks that rise from
one to four feet above their base. The hummocks have been formed by shrubs that interrupt the flow of sand carrying
wind coming from the northwest off the Whitewater River Floodplain. The shrubs reduce wind velocity and result
in sand deposits or "hummocks" on the leeward or easterly side of the shrubs. The environment of the project site
is included as part of the sand field habitat of the valley floor as described in the CVMSHCP.
Soil characteristics are uniform over the entire site. Soil is composed of wind-blown alluvium created by persistent
air movements from the northwest. This process increased in intensity with the drying out of the Coachella Valley
at the close of the Pleistocene epoch ending 10,000 years before present. At the current time residential and
commercial developments to the west and north have resulted in some sand stabilization on portions of the site.
Based on the literature review and field assessment of the site, the subject property is located within the boundaries
of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The site is neither located within
nor adjacent to any designated conservation areas. The nearest conservation area is Thousand Palms Conservation
Area, located approximately 2 miles northeast of the project site. In the CVMSHCP, the project site is mapped as
stabilized shielded sand fields.
The area has been impacted by human developments and activities on or near all boundaries of the project site.
Paved roads surround the site and traffic noise could be detected at all times even in the center of the project
site. Some native vegetation has been removed from site edges as a result of road shoulder maintenance and the
placement of sidewalks around the periphery of the 32 acres. Off -road -vehicle tracks were noted on approximately
4% of the site. Some litter was noted but did not cover more than 1% of the site. The entire project area has been
inundated with the exotic and invasive Sahara mustard, Brassica tnurnefortii. The establishment of this non-native,
cpherneral species has contributed to the initial stabilization of blowsand on the project site.
A Biological Resource Assessment of the project site was prepared by Ecological Consultants on June 9, 2016. The
following discussion provides field results and analyzes potential impacts associated with development of the
proposed project.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Field surveys were initiated in May of
2016. Specific dates of biological surveys were May 24, 25, 30 and 31 and June 1, 2, 7 and 8, 2016. Night
surveys were conducted on the evenings of May 28 and 29, 2016.
Special -Status Plant/Wildlife Species on Proiect Site
Three sensitive species were detected during the biological field visits that are classified as covered species
under the CVMSIICP: Coachella Valley milk vetch, Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and Palm Springs
ground squirrel. Several additional sensitive species may occur or near the project site but were not detected.
These include the flat -tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket and Coachella Valley giant
sand -treader cricket. All of the above species are covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHC). Mitigation for impacts to these species is accomplished through
payment of a fee to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. No additional surveys are required
for special -status plant/wildlife species.
Burrowing Owl
No evidence was recorded of the western burrowing owl, a protected species and one not functionally
covered under the Plan. The site is considered suitable habitat for the owl and owls might take up residence
on the site at any time. Based upon the recommendation of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife,
a focused burrowing owl survey should be conducted not more than 30 days prior to site disturbance. See
Mitigation measure BIO-1, at the end of this section.
b, c) No Impact. The project site does not contain any streams, riparian habitat, marshes, protected wetlands,
vernal pools or sensitive natural communities protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, there will be no impact to such resources.
d) No Impact. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is not suitable for a wildlife or
migratory corridor. Results of animal tracking performed during field assessments found that the site did
not contain any discernable or routinely used corridors. No impacts are expected.
MiQ,ratory Bird Treaty Act
In general, migratory bird species are not covered under the CVMSHCP. however, no evidence of'
migratory bird species nesting on site was found and the site is not considered a significant food or shelter
resource for migratory bird species. No impacts are expected
e, f) No Impact. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the CVMSIICP, therefore, is subject
to payment of the Development Mitigation Fee, which will mitigate potential impacts to covered species.
The site is not within or adjacent to a CVMSIICP-designated Conservation Area, so no additional
mitigation measures or provisions are required. The project will not conflict with any policies or ordinances
that protect biological species, or any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
No project -related impacts will occur.
Mitigation Measures
13I0-1: Conduct a burrowing owl clearance survey not more than 30 days prior to site disturbance. If burrowing
owls are detected during the surveys, avoidance and minimization measures shall be required. Avoidance
and minimization measures include: establishing a buffer zone, installing a visual barrier, implementing
burrow exclusion and/or closure techniques, in conformance with CDFW protocol
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A. Burrowing owl clearance surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist per BIO-1, above.
Responsible parties: Project manager, qualified biologist.
-22- ��
Potentially Less Than Less Than
No
Significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
X
in ' 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
X
pursuant to ' 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
X
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those X
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Source: "Phase I Historical/Archeological Resources Survey for APN: 694-130-016 and -021" prepared by CRM
TECH, 5 August 2016; Palm Desert General Plan 2016.
Setting
The earliest time period in region for human development is identified as the Paloeindian period that occurred
approximately 8,000 to 12,000 years ago when small, mobile bands of hunters and gathers, who relied on a variety
of small and large game animals in addition to wild plants for subsistence. The Early Archaic Period, which occurred
between 8,000 to 4,000 years ago, saw a decrease in the area's population. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca.
4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by continued low population with groups of smaller sizes that went on to
settle near available seasonal food resources and relied on opportunistic hunting of game animals. The next time
period is the Late Prehistoric, which took place from approximately 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish
missions. During the times of its presence the shores of the Holocene Lake Cahuilla attracted settlements and
resource procurement. The lake's desiccation around 1700 resulted in the native people moving away from its
receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites have been identified along
the shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. The City of Palm Desert lies outside of the ancient shoreline.
In 1823-25, Jos6 Romero, Josh Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted European explorers
to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma. With the
exception of traveling along established trails, few non -Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican
and early American periods. The most important was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that
was "discovered" in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and hereafter known as the Bradshaw Trail. In the Coachella
Valley, this historic wagon route traversed a similar course to that of present-day Highway I I I and served as a
main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, up until the completion of the
Southern Pacific Railroad.
The establishment of the railroad stations sparked non -Indian development and spread further in the 1880's after
public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws. With
the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells, made farming the dominant
economic activity in the valley. In the 1920's, the hospitality industry began to take effect and eventually led to
country clubs.
The modern community of Palm Desert is located in the general vicinity of Sand Hole, an unreliable water hole on
the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail. The community was founded in 1945-1946 by three brothers, Randall, Clifford,
and Phil Henderson, who organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town. Following the
footsteps of Palm Springs and other "cove communities" along Highway 111, such as Rancho Mirage and La
-23-
Quinta, Palm Desert soon joined the rank of winter resort towns favored by the rich and famous of the era. In 1947,
the Palm Desert post office was established. Then in 1973 after four unsuccessful attempts, the community became
the 17"' incorporated city in Riverside County. CRM TECH prepared a Cultural Resources Report in August 2016.
Findings and impact analysis are summarized in the subsequent discussions.
Discussion of Impacts
a-c) No Impact. A literature review was conducted at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of
California Riverside, and a field assessment was conducted to analysis the potential for cultural resources
onsite. In addition, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California's Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission's sacred lands file as well as
contacted 25 representatives of' local tribes in writing for additional information on potential Native
American cultural resources that may be located with or near the project area per AB52 statue. A CRM
"TECH archeologist and Native American monitor from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
conducted the intensive -level field assessment.
According to the EIC records, the project area had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this
study, and no cultural resources were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project area. The
historical resources that were consulted for this area suggest that the project area is low for sensitivity for
cultural resources. No development occurred in the surrounding areas until the late 1950's. Within or
adjacent to the project area itself, the earliest notable man-made feature was Monterey Avenue. The analysis
of the site concluded that there is no potential for any historical resources within or adjacent to the site. For
these reasons, the construction of the proposed development would not result in adverse impacts to cultural
resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project area.
d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. No cemeteries or human remains are known to occur on -
site, and it is unlikely that human remains will be uncovered during project development. However, if
resources to be uncovered during ground disturbance activities then with the implementation of mitigation
measures to conform to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, impacts to the resources
will be less than significant. Mitigation measure CUL-1 was provided at the request of the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-1: Should human remains be discovered during construction of the proposed project, the project contractor
would be subject to either the State law regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains or the
Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance all destructive activity in the immediate vicinity shall halt and
the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5. If the remains
are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall
be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City and
Developer will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The applicant shall immediately notify the City if resources are identified. If the remains are determined to
be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The
NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD).
Responsible parties: Project manager.
-24-
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would
the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Larthquake Fault Zone Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides`?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
09
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016. "Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area,"
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1980; "Land Subsidence, Groundwater Levels, and Geology
in the Coachella Valley, California, 1993-2010," by Michelle Sneed, Justin T. Brandt, and Mike Solt.
Setting
The Coachella Valley is located in the northwestern portion of the Salton Trough, a tectonic depression roughly
130 miles long and 70 miles wide that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of Mexico. The valley is
bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, San Jacinto Mountains on the west, Santa Rosa
Mountains on the south, and Little San Bernardino Mountains and Indio Hills on the north. The Salton Sea is located
to the southeast.
-25- <�? S
The valley's geologic composition is directly related to its proximity to the San Andreas Fault, which passes through
the northeasterly portion of the valley, and other active faults. The region is susceptible to a range of geologic
hazards, including ground rupture, major ground shaking, slope instability, and collapsible and expansive soils.
Episodic flooding of major regional drainages, including the Whitewater River, results in the deposition of sand
and gravel on the valley floor. Strong sustained winds emanating from the San Gorgonio Pass cause wind erosion
and transport and deposit dry, finely granulated, sandy soils on the central valley floor.
Regional soils range from rocky outcrops within the mountains bordering the valley to coarse gravels of mountain
canyons and recently laid fine- and medium -grained alluvial (stream deposited) and aeolian (wind deposited)
sediments on the central valley floor.
Implementation of the proposed development will have no impacts on Geology and Soils; however, building
strictures could be impacted by geologic hazards and unpact soil resources, and is discussed further below.
Discussion of Impacts
a.1) No Impact. The subject property is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest
earthquake fault is the San Andreas Fault (southern segment), located more than 3 miles north of the project
site, which is capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 5.5. Fault rupture is not expected on the
project site.
a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a seismically active region where earthquakes
originating on local and regional seismic faults can produce severe ground shaking. Buildings proposed for
the site will be required to be constructed in accordance with the most recent edition of the California
Building Code (CBC) and Palm Desert Municipal Code to provide collapse -resistant design.
The City has adopted several modifications to the CBC in accordance to local geologic conditions in the
area. The Palm Desert Municipal Code provides regulations for collapse -resistant design. Project -related
impacts associated with seismic ground shaking are less than significance.
a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The California Geological Survey does not identify liquefaction
susceptible areas for the City of Palm Desert. The project site is located in an area that has a low
susceptibility to liquefaction (General Plan, Exhibit V-5). Onsite underlying soils consist of Myoma fine
sand (MaD; 5-15 percent slopes) (See Appendix 2; Custom Soil Resource Report for MC Properties) and
is poorly graded coarse grain sediments. Sand is susceptible to liquefaction under water exposure and
seismic shaking. The depth of the groundwater in the area is greater than 100 feet below the ground surface.
For liquefaction to occur, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface.
The City will require a site -specific soil analysis to address design loads with the submittal of grading and
building plans. These City requirements assure that project -related impacts associated with seismic related
ground failure including liquefaction are less than significant.
a.iv) No Impact. The project site lies on the Coachella Valley floor, and is just outside the landslide and rockfall
hazard area (General Plan; Exhibit V-1). The site consists of, and is surrounded by, relatively flat terrain;
therefore, no impacts associated with landslides are anticipated.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area designated as an area "very severe
wind erosion hazards" (General Plan; Exhibit V-3). The City will require the preparation and
implementation of a dust management plan as part of the grading permit process for the project site. This
plan will include wind erosion best management practices, as prescribed by the SCAQMD. Project related
impacts associated with wind erosion will be less than significant.
-26- �ZG
i
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Surface soils of the project site mainly consist of poorly graded sand. As
described in Section VI a) iv., above, the site has low susceptibility to liquefaction due to groundwater
levels greater than 100 feet below the ground surface. The site is not susceptible to lateral spreading, which
requires a shallow water table or proximity to a water source that could cause inundation of onsite soils.
The site is not susceptible to landslides due to its relatively flat terrain and distance from mountainous
slopes.
Land subsidence has been documented in the Coachella Valley due to extensive groundwater pumping. The
project site is located close to the "USGS subsidence zone study area" which is monitored to record
subsidence in the City of Palm Desert. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has indicated a
commitment to groundwater replenishment programs intended to limit future subsidence within the
Coachella Valley. However, subsidence is considered a regional problem requiring regional mitigation and
not site -specific mitigation.
Although there has been recent documentation of subsidence occurring in the Coachella Valley, but no
fissures or other superficial evidence of subsidence on or near the project site. Therefore, current and near
future impacts due to subsidence are expected to be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils typically contain large amounts of clay that expand when
water is absorbed and shrink when they dry. As described in VI a) iv., above, the site's underlying soils
consist of poorly graded sand, which have a low -moderate shrink -swell potential ("Soil Survey of Riverside
County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1980).
Moderate -high shrink -swell potential would expose people and property to hazards such as liquefaction and
ground failure. Therefore, the City recommends implementation of Seismic Hazard Mitigation policies
prior to any construction to enforce state and local seismic and structural regulations, structural assessment
and mitigation of buildings, and state licensed surveys of soils and geology.
The City of' Palm Desert has no Unreinforced Masonry ordinance or inventory requirements for other
potentially hazardous structures. However, it has adopted a code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
under Title 21 of its Municipal Code, which sets forth regulations governing the classification and
abatement of' dangerous buildings in general. Implementation of City policies, programs, and codes will
decrease the project -related impact. Therefore, less than significant impacts associated with expansive soils
Will occur.
e) No Impact. The proposed project will connect to the CVWD existing sewer system. No septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. No adverse impacts associated with wastewater
disposal systems will occur.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
-27-
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
(CaIEEMod)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
(Development Code; General Plan)
Source: CaIEEMod Versiond 2013.2.2
Setting
C
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
X
X
No
Impact
Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (C114), nitrous oxide (N20), 03, and water vapor (I-120).
Some GHGs, such as CO2, C144, and N20, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural
processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human
activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results mostly from off -
gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs, which have a much greater heat -
absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which are associated with certain industrial
products and processes.
Greenhouse gas emissions are generated by both moving and stationary sources, including vehicles, the production
of electricity and natural gas, water pumping and fertilizers.
State law mandates that all cities decrease their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In June
2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-
3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by
2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050. In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S-3-05, the legislature enacted
AB 32 (Nunez and Pavley), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor
Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, 2006. On April 29, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive
order which identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and
AB 32. Executive Order B-30-15 set an interim target goal of reducing GIIG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels
by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG
emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05.
The SCAQMD has not adopted recommended numeric CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions for lead
agencies to use in assessing GHG impacts of residential and commercial development projects. The SCAQN D
fonned a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to work with SCAQMD staff on developing GHG
CEQA significance thresholds until statewide significance thresholds or guidelines are established. The SCAQMD
proposed three tiers of compliance that may lead to a determination that impacts are less than significant, including
the following:
1. Projects with GHGs within budgets set out in approved regional plans to be developed under the SB 375
process.
2. Projects with GHG emissions that are below designated quantitative thresholds:
a. Industrial projects with an incremental GHG emissions increase that falls below (or is mitigated to be
less than) 10,000 MT CO2E per year.
-28- Sig
b. Commercial and residential projects with an incremental GHG emissions increase that falls below (or
is mitigated to be less than) 3,000 MT CO2E per year, provided that such projects also meet energy
efficiency and water conservation performance targets that have yet to be developed.
3. Projects that purchase GHG offsets that, either alone or in combination with one of the three tiers mentioned
above, achieve the target significance screening level.
Because the proposed project consists of mixed -use development, the recommended SCAQMD threshold to apply
to the project is the Option 2b, 3,000 MT CO2E per year. This analysis added amortized construction emissions to
the estimated annual operational emissions before comparing operational emissions to the proposed threshold of
3,000 MT CO2E per year.
In 2010, the City adopted the Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP), which demonstrates how the City has been
involved on issues relating to environmental sustainability including, energy, waste management, storm water,
water reclamation, transportation, and landscaping. The Plan sets out a series ofgoals for the City that are grounded
in the principles of environmental soundness and sustainable development and addresses six resource areas,
including the built environment.
Discussion of Impacts
a-b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project will produce greenhouse gas (GI-IG)
emissions during both construction and operation. As stated in Section III, Air Quality, the CalEFMod
model was utilized to quantify air quality emission projections, which include GIIG emissions.
Determinations of significance for construction -related and operational greenhouse gas emissions were
based on the comparison of project -generated emissions to applicable local policy's and regulations relating
to GHG reduction GI-IG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group thresholds. Because the proposed
project consists of mixed -use development, the recommended SCAQMD threshold to apply to the project
is the Option 2b, 3,000 MT CO2E per year.
SCAQMD does not have a threshold for construction GHG emissions. For analysis purposes, the
significance of construction -related GHG impacts are also based on the threshold of 3,000 metric tons per
year of CO2e, along with the project's consistency with adopted State and local GHG reduction measures.
Further,
Table 5 shows both construction and operational impacts. All construction related GHG emissions will be
temporary and will end once the project is completed. SCAQMD staff recommends that construction
emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, so that GHG reduction measures would address
construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction targets (SCAQMD 2008). The
operation of the proposed infrastructure project will generate continuous greenhouse gases through area
source emissions, for instance vehicle trips and off -gassing from pavement.
Table 5
MCP Palm Desert SP
Construction and Operational
GHG Emissions Summary
(Metric Tons/Year)
CO2 C114 N20 CO2e
Construction 2,927.51 0.44 0.00 2,936.84
Operation 5,977.49 1.94 0.05 6,032.74
Operation Plus Amortized Construction* 6,130.63
CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2.
* 2,936.84 CO2e/yr amortized over 30 years = 97.89 CO2e/yr to be added
to operational total.
-29- r,
All components of construction, including equipment, fuels, materials, and management practices, would
be subject to current and future SCAQMD rules and regulations related to greenhouse gases. Applicable
SCAQMD rules include, but are not limited to, source specific standards that reduce the greenhouse gas
content in engines, architectural coatings, paving/asphalt, and limit equipment idling durations. In addition,
total project construction GHG emissions would be below the threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per
year. Therefore, since construction -related GHG emissions are below thresholds, this GHG impact would
be less than significant.
However, operation of the proposed project would exceed the operational emissions threshold by
approximately 3,130.63 metric tons of CO2e per year. This is in large part due to mobile source emissions
and energy demand for the project. The project currently does not provide for solar, which would help
reduce impacts associated with energy demands. Mobile source emissions are based on daily trip rates
provided by the project traffic report, and cannot be reduced via project specific mitigation measures unless
overall potential density of the Specific Plan area is reduced.
Although the project will exceed the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold (item 2b), the SCAQMD draft threshold
tiered approach also states that a project would not have significant GHG emissions if it were consistent
with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan (item 1). In August 2015, the City of Palm Desert updated its
adopted Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP) with approaches to reducing GHG emissions by a total
of' 35,829 MT CO2E, a reduction target of approximately 5.8% below the 2008 baseline. To reduce the
generation of the GHG during project's construction and operational phases, the updated ESP goals and
policies (such as requiring that new development must exceed Title 24 standards by at least 5 to 15% and
complying with the City's current diversion rate of 74%) were incorporated into the CaIEEMod modeling.
The implementation of the mitigation measure provided below will assure that GHG emissions from the
proposed project will meet the proposed thresholds of the SCAQMD, through compliance with the City's
ESP. As a result, impacts associated with GHG emissions will be less than significant.
In addition, the project will not conflict with the goals of executive order S-3-05 because it is not considered
a "large emitter" of GHGs (25,000 MT CO2e/year) requiring cap -and -trade regulation per CARB's
regulatory measure to help achieve statewide GHG reduction goals. The proposed project would not conflict
with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures.
GHG-1: The following GHG emissions reduction measures shall be implemented:
• Use light-colored surfaces and shading mechanisms in parking areas.
• Provide preferential parking for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles.
• Exceed 2016 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by 10%.
• Implement energy -efficient design practices such as high-performance glazing, Energy Star compliant
systems and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes, programmable thermostats, solar
access, and sealed ducts.
• Equip the pool(s) and spa(s) with active solar water heating systems.
• Use native species and drought tolerant species for a minimum of 50% of the ornamental plant palette in
non -turf areas for to minimize water demand.
• Ensure recycling of construction debris and waste through administration by an on -site recycling
coordinator and presence of recycling/separation areas.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. None
A. Building plans shall incorporate the measures listed in mitigation measure GHG-1.
Responsible parties: Planning Department, City Engineer, Building Department.
-30- 9
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Ernit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
91
04
X
X
K1
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste.
Setting
The project site is located on a flat, vacant, undeveloped land. Within the City of Palm Desert, the transport, storage,
and use of hazardous materials is strictly regulated. The City implements the General Plan's Hazardous and Toxic
Materials Element through regular consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the
Department of Environmental Health. The City also monitors and regulates industrial plants and commercial areas
through the element's goals, policies, and programs.
The State Water Resources Control Board's online database (Geo Tracker) indicates that the City of Palm Desert
contains 53 sites that are either listed or permitted as hazardous material sites under the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The majority of these sites are located along Highway I I I and Interstate 10.
The nearest LUST site is located approximately 1 mile north of the project site and is beyond the city limits in the
community of Thousand Palms. According to GeoTracker, site cleanup has been previously completed and the case
is considered closed.
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the development of commercial and
residential land uses. Cleaners, solvents, fertilizers and pesticides may be used on -site for routine cleaning
and landscaping. During the construction phase, the storage and use of small quantities of' hazardous
materials, mostly diesel, will be used. Furthermore, the proposed project will include automotive uses,
which have the potential of generating several different types of waste. The materials, if used will be
properly stored, handled, and treated according to the regulations issued by the State of California. These
cleaners, solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides will not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to
humans or cause a foreseeable chemical release into the environment.
The constriction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment, which uses small amounts of oil and
fuels and other potential flammable substances. During construction, equipment would require refueling
and minor maintenance. The contractor will be required to identify a staging area(s) for storing materials.
The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction activities would occur in accordance with
applicable Federal, State, and local laws including California Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (CalOSHA) requirements. The proposed project would not result in a significant risk of
explosion or accidental release of hazardous substances. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
c) No Impact: No schools are located within one -quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school is Xavier
College Preparatory High School located approximately 1.87 miles northeast from the proposed site. There
will be no hazardous materials -related impacts to schools.
d) No Impact: The subject property is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.3. The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
e, No Impact: The Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 6.4 miles northwest of the
subject property. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 7.2 miles southeast of the project
site. The subject site is not located within the boundaries of either of the airports' land use compatibility
plan. The site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project will not result in safety hazards
for people living or working in the area.
g) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not significantly alter the existing circulation
pattern in the project area or adversely impact evacuation plans. Proposed parking, site access, and
circulation plans will be reviewed by the Fire and Police Departments to assure that driveways and roads
are adequate for emergency vehicles. A construction plan will be required by the City to assure that the
project does not interfere with emergency access during development. These standard requirements will
assure that impacts associated with emergency response remain less than significant.
h) No Impact: The project site is not located in a wildland fire hazard zone and is not susceptible to wildfires.
Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with
wildfires. No related impact is expected.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None.
-329
-
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off -
site'?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stornwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by sciche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: littos:Hrainfall.weatherdb.com/1/19812/Palm-Desert-California, Accessed on 12.08.2016; Coachella
Valley Water Management Plan Update (Final Report), January 2012; FEMA Flood Map Service Center; FIRM
Map No. 06065CI595G.
-33-
Setting
Domestic Water
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides domestic water to the City of Palm Desert, including the
project site. Its primary source of fresh water is groundwater extracted by deep wells from the Whitewater River
sub -basin. The Whitewater River Subbasin water resource consists of a combination of natural runoff, recycled
water, imported water, inflows from adjacent basins, and ground water system. This subbasin is also artificially
recharged through imported State Water Project Exchange and Colorado River water. The total storage capacity of
the Whitewater River Subbasin is approximately 28.8 million -acre feet and it currently contains approximately 25
million -acre feet. It is capable of meeting the water demands of the Coachella Valley, including the City of Palm
Desert, for extended normal and drought periods.
CVWD's domestic water system includes 50 wells with an average depth of 900 feet to serve the City of Palm
Desert and its wider customer base. CVWD has a total of 27 reservoirs, with an average capacity of 1.8 million
gallons.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
CVWD also provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the City of Palm Desert. CVWD treats and
recycles Palm Desert wastewater at the Cook Street Wastewater Reclamation Plant, with a capacity of 20 million
gal/day (mgd). CVWD continually increases the capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities by constructing
new treatment ponds, aeration, and other structures. CVWD implements all requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge.
The project site is located in the northern portion of the Coachella Valley. It has an average rainfall of 3.76 inches
per year. Several watersheds drain the adjoining elevated terrain of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains
towards the valley floor. The Whitewater River is the primary drainage course for the City of Palm Desert, which
runs approximately 3.44 miles south of the project site. The Mid -Valley Stormwater Channel runs just south of the
railroad tracks which is at approximately 0.53 miles to the north of the project site. The Mid -Valley Stormwater
Channel mainly collects runoff from the southern portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad.
The project site and areas surrounding it are subject to City requirements relating to flood control. The City
implements standard requirements for the retention of storm flows, and participates in the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to protect surface waters from pollution. Development projects must retain
the 100-year storm flow on site.
Discussion of Impacts:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Whitewater River watershed. All water
providers in the watershed are required to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards
for the protection of water quality, including the preparation of site -specific Water Quality Management
Plans (WQMP) for surface waters.
The proposed project will connect to an existing 8-inch water line located in Monterey Avenue, Dick Kelly
Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. The proposed project will also connect to an existing 8-inch sewer
line located in Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive.
The existing storm drain catch basins and storm drain lines are present on A Street, Gateway Drive, and
Monterey Avenue/ Dick Kelly Drive intersection (northwestern corner) (Exhibit 6: Existing Utilities). To
better manage the on -site and off -site floods during 100-storm event, the project site will be connected to
these storm drain catch basins and storm drain lines.
The CVWD is required to meet water quality requirements in its production and delivery of domestic water.
The CVWD is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW)
-34- C1 , I,
and the U.S. Envirorunental Protection Agency (USEPA), and must maintain strict water quality standards
in the treatment of effluent.
Wastewater will be transported to and processed at the Cook Street Wastewater Treatment Plant (Water
Reclamation Plant No. 10) located in the central portion of the City on Cook Street. The proposed project
will extend an 8-inch sanitary sewer line from the project site to connect to an existing 8-inch line along
Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. The proposed project will not violate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. The project will connect to existing sewer lines located in the
immediate project vicinity.
The project will also be required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulations, which minimize the pollutant load associated with urban runoff. The imposition of conditions
of approval, local, state and federal standard requirements and the requirements of law will assure that the
project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No impact is
associated.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require water for commercial and residential
use and landscape irrigation. The Coachella Valley Water District has developed demand factors by land
use that the City has deemed appropriate for this analysis. The commercial demand factor was provided by
CVWD staff from the CVWD draft Supplemental Water Supply Program and Fee Study. Annual demand
(consumption) factors were developed based on collected data specific to the Coachella Valley and local
water purveyors. Commercial land uses for PA 1 and 2 arc expected to generate a demand of 1.92 acre-feet
per acre per year, which means full -built out of PA 1 (7.37 ac) and PA 2 (7.37 ac) has the potential to
generate a demand of 28.30 acre-feet per year. Residential land uses for PA 3 and 4 are expected to generate
a demand of 2.31 acre-feet per acre per year, which means full -built of PA 3 (5.87 ac) and PA 4 (11.44 ac)
the site has the potential to generate a demand of 39.98 acre-feet per year. In the event, PA 3 is developed
with only commercial land uses, the site will generate a demand of 11.30 acre-feet per acre per year. For
analysis purposes, the total project water demand analyzed is the scenario where PA 3 is built -out as a
residential development, therefore, it is estimated to be approximately 68.28 acre-feet per year, which is
less than 0.02% of the Coachella Valley's water source.
The project will be consistent with the land use designation for the property, on which CVWD's water
demand and supply analysis is based. Based on the District's Urban Water Management Plan (2015-2016),
CVWD will be able to fulfill the project's water demand. Project impacts associated with domestic water
demand are expected to be less than significant.
The project will connect to existing water lines beneath Monterey Avenue, Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and
Gateway Drive. No new wells or additional water infrastructure are proposed for the project water
requirement.
The project will be required to comply with the City's water -efficiency requirements, including the use of
drought -tolerant planting materials and limited landscaping irrigation. Implementation of these and other
applicable requirements will assure that water -related impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
c-e) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site is generally flat and contains no rivers or streams.
Development of the proposed project will increase impermeable surfaces on site, and therefore increase on -
site storm flows.
Resional Drainaee Svstem
CVWD is responsible for regional stormwater management in the project area. Parcels immediately north
of the subject property were once included CVWD easements for the proposed Mid -Valley Stormwater
Project. However, the project was retired in January 2012, and all easements were quitclaimed to the
respective owners. CVWD has indicated that there are no regional stormwater management concerns for
the subject site or its immediate vicinity. The property is not included in a CVWD drainage plan.
-35- (� s
Local and Proiect Drainap-e Svstem
Existing storm drainage facilities are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following:
• "A" Street — 30-inch storm drain pipe from Lowe's east property line to Gateway Drive
• Gateway Drive — 36-inch storm drain pipe North of "A" Street to Dick Kelly Drive
• Dick Kelly Drive — 54-inch through 66-inch storm drain pipe east of Gateway Drive
• Retention Basin AD 29 acquired the retention basin; reshaped retention basin; added slope
protection and constructed pipe outlet structure
The majority of the project site will be paved for parking lots and driveway access, which can increase the
runoff volumes and velocities to the existing downstream drainage channel. Also, stormwater runoff from
the project site may contain numerous pollutants. The site topography gently slopes at 34% from north to
south end of the site, cross section A. Based on the cross section B, the site topography gently slopes at
48% from southwest corner to northeast. To reduce discharge of pollutants into urban runoff from the
proposed development, the project site shall be properly designed and graded.
Rainfall tributary to the project will flow from buildings, across parking lots and along internal streets to
nearby catch basins. Catch basins will collect and convey runoff via an onsite stonn drain systern. The
onsite system will confluence at the north-east corner of the project and connect to an existing storm drain
pipe. The existing pipe will conveys flows to the large city -owned retention basin along the railroad tracks.
The catch basins and storm drain systems will be designed to carry the 1-hour, 100-year stone event in
accordance with the City's drainage requirements.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Section 29 Assessment District (AD 29), which
was formed in 2007 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and installing water and sewer lines, storm
drainage facilities and street improvements in the vicinity of the project. A hydrology study was prepared
for AD 29 in 2007 demonstrating that the offsite stormwater infrastructure can contain flows from the
project site during a 100-year storm event. Therefore, individual projects proposed within the project
planning area will not be required to contain 100 year storm flows onsite as long as flows are adequately
directed to the existing offsite storm water infrastructure. Implementation of these and other applicable
requirements will assure that drainage and stormwater will not create or contribute water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, potential impacts will be less than significant with adherence to city
requirements.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with all applicable water
quality standards, and will implement a Water Quality Management Plan approved by the City and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board for both construction activities and long-term operation of the site.
Adherence to the City's standard requirements related to water quality will ensure impacts will be less than
significant.
g, h) No Impact. The project site is not located in the 100-year floodplain and will not place housing or other
structures in an area that would impede or redirect flows (General Plan; Exhibit V-6). According to Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the site
is located in Zone X, which represents "areas outside of 0.2% annual chance flood." (FIRM Map No.
06065CI595G, December 08, 2016)
Although, the project site is not located in a flood zone but is part of a larger area for which a master
drainage plan was prepared and implemented by the City. The project site is subject to the requirements of
this plan, and pays its fair share of improvements through the existing assessment district on the property.
As projects are developed, they will connect to the storm drain system in surrounding streets.
-36-
i, j) Less than Significant Impact. As noted above, the proposed project is located outside a FEMA or
regionally designated floodplain. However, the Mid -Valley Stormwater Channel runs approximately 0.58
miles north of the project site, which is underground. This project site is also in a seismic active region. As
a result, seismic waves can cause oscillations in the enclosed water channel called seiche. The project will
be required to accommodate the on -site and off -site run-offs, thus reducing significant impacts associated
with flooding.
The project site is not located near a large body of water and will not be susceptible to tsunamis or inudflow.
No impact is expected.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
�i1
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
X
®R
F0
Setting
The project site is governed by the policies and land use designations of the City of Palm Desert General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. The site is currently designated for commercial and residential land uses.
Discussion of Impacts
a) No Impact. The subject property is currently vacant and located in an area that is developed for similar
commercial and residential land uses. The proposed development will not physically divide an established
community. No impact is expected.
b) No Impact. Currently, the proposed site located within the City's University Park Area with approximately
21 acres designated as Regional Retail (R-R) and 11 acres as Town Center Neighborhood (T-CB) within
the City's General Plan. The City's Zoning Map currently designates the westernmost 21 acres as Planned
Commercial Development and the remainder of the site (I I acres) as Planned Residential (PR-22). The
project proposes a Specific Plan to address site -specific regulations and standards for the site.
The Project area is divided into four (4) Planning Areas (PA), three of which are designated for a specific
land use (PA 1, 2 and 4) and one of which is designated for alternative land uses (PA 3). The Project is
designed to provide a broad range of land uses to be developed in a coordinated, high quality environment.
The Specific Plan area can be developed based on the following master land use allocation, as shown in the
following table.
-38- q Q
MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan: Zoning and Land Use Allocation
Planning
Acres Proposed Zoning/Land Use Density / Lot Density / Lot
Projected
Area
Coverage Min. Coverage Max.
Units/SF
1
7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2) 25% 50%
55,000*
2
7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2) 25% 50%
65,000*
3
5.87 Planned Residential (PR-22), 10/acre 22/acre I
132
Planned Commerical (PC-2)
4
1 1.44 Planned Residential (PR-22) 17.34/acre 22/acre I
252
Total Potential Residential Units I
384
Total Commercial Square Footage — Single Story
120,000
Maximum Potential Commercial Square Footage —Two Stories I
240,000
*Projected
SF represents structure footprint (single story). Totals account for potential second
story.
The Specific Plan proposes to expand the types of commercial uses allowed within the project beyond those
current permitted in the PC-2 zone. However, these additional land uses are commercial in nature, and are
generally consistent with commercial shopping centers' typical uses. The additional uses proposed will
have a less than significant impact on zoning standards in the City. The proposed land uses are consistent
with commercial and residential land uses immediately surrounding the site. Minor variations from the
Ordinance include increased variations to setback requirements to improve sight distance within driveways.
These variations are not significant changes to the City's standards, and are allowed with approval of a
Specific Plan.
All activities will be conducted pursuant to the City's Municipal Code requirements and standards to avoid
any conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction. No impact is
expected.
Overall, the provisions of the Specific Plan and the development of the project are not expected to conflict
with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. No
impact is expected.
c) No impact. As described in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project site is located in the Coachella
Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) boundaries. Once developments obtain city
approval, they will be required to comply with its requirements, including payment of the MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee. No conservation plan -related conflict is expected.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
-39- 911
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016.
Setting
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
X
I►t
In 1988, the State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, under direction of
the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, released a report identifying aggregate materials in the Palm Springs
Production Consumption Region. That report also included the City of Palm Desert and focused on three mineral
resource categories (MRZ-1, -2, and -3).
The majority of the City of Palm Desert is made up of alluvial fans, which are mainly sand and gravel. Sand and
gravels are considered an economic resource and commonly used for road base and other building materials. Small
amounts of limestone, copper and gold have been explored from some parts of the city in past. No existing sand or
gravel operations occur in the vicinity of the project site.
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in Mineral Zone MRZ-3, which indicates an
area containing mineral deposits, however the significance of these deposits cannot be evaluated from
available data (Palm Desert General Plan; Exhibit IV-7). The site is designated for commercial and
residential development, and is not in an area designated for mining activities. Although development of
the site has the potential to reduce the area available for sand and gravel mining, the reduction will be
minimal, and impacts to mineral resources will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
-40- l D
XII. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016.
C
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
0
X
91
X
X
Setting
The subject site is located on Monterey Avenue and bounded by Dick Kelley Drive, Gateway Drive, and A Street.
Monterey Avenue is designated as an "Arterial" roadway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. As such,
noise levels on this roadway would be greater than those experienced on local streets. Traffic noise, as in most
communities, is the main source of noise within the City of Palm Desert. Monterey Avenue averages over 40,000
vehicles per day. The noise levels on Monterey Avenue north of Gerald Ford Drive are approximately 74.2 dBA
CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline.
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped. The main noise
source in the area is vehicular traffic from Monterey Avenue. The proposed development would create an
increase in the noise environment but it would not exceed the existing noise levels by a substantial level
since the noise would be contain with the project area.
Impacts of Off -Site Noise Sources on the Proposed Project
The proposed project area will experience noise levels of 74.2 dBA at buildout of the General, which is
below the City's standard for commercial development. The residential component of the proposed project
would be located along Gateway Drive, which is designated as a local street with lower noise levels making
it compatible to residential uses. Even so, the city requires all new development to comply with the most
recent version of the California Building Code noise insulation standards, thus ensuring that the off -site
noise impact to the proposed development are minimized to a less than significant level.
Impacts of the Proposed Project on Surrounding Development
The main source of noise will be vehicular traffic to the subject site, maintenance equipment, and HVAC
units. Traffic noise would be comprised of mix of the vehicles that will be comparable with existing vehicles
on surrounding roads. Noise that created by the proposed development's residents and customers is
expected to consistent with noise levels that are experienced at mixed -use developments. Given that the
proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses, operational noise impacts are not expected
to exceed acceptable noise standards for a mixed -use development.
Groundborne Vibration
Groundborne vibration would only occur during the constriction phase. The principal source of ground
bome vibration will be as a result of heavy construction equipment. I Ience, this will be a temporary impact
that is further lessened by following the city municipal code, which limits construction activities.
Long-term operation of the project is not expected to generate ground -borne vibrations or noise. Impacts
will be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development's primary permanent noise sources will be
vehicles traveling to and from the site, HVAC units, and grounds maintenance equipment. The proposed
project is not expected to results a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project. Project -related vehicles will be consistent with vehicles
already using area roadways. Less than significant impacts are expected.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The City will require that construction activity comply with Section
9.24.070 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction activity to between 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays
and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. No activity is permitted on Sundays and holidays. Constriction of the
project will therefore not occur during the sensitive evening hours, when hotel guests would be impacted.
This standard requirement will assure that construction impacts on the proposed hotel will be less than
significant.
e-f) No Impact. The Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 6.4 miles northwest of the
subject property and its noise contours are localized, and not located in the vicinity of the proposed project
area. No impacts will occur.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
-42- � O
XIII. POPULATION AND IIOUSING —
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of'
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
09
10
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; California Department of Finance, Report E-5 accessed December 2016.
Setting
In 2017, the population of the City of Palm Desert was 50,740 with the average household size being 2.14 persons
per household. The City is comprised of a single- and multi -family residential development. 55% of the residential
developments are currently single-family homes. The proposed project, a Specific Plan that will allow a mixed -use
development that includes a multi -family residential component will add housing to the expected increase Palm
Desert will see in its population.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Approval of the proposed project will not generate substantial population
growth in the area. The proposed project would result in a mixed -use development with a multi -family
residential component. Planning Area 3 has the potential to add a maximum of 132 dwelling units. Even
so, Planning Area 3 also has an overlay of a commercial development. Planning Area 4 will be designated
as a planned residential development with a minimum potential of 200 dwelling units. Within PA 4's 200
unit development, 10 of these units will be restricted to occupants with moderate income. Along the south
linear 1.5 acres of PA 4, a 33-unit development will be restricted to low to very low income occupants.
This would result in a maximum increase of population to be 840 persons. This increase is not substantial,
since the City's population is projected to increase as a result of time in other developments in the region.
A less than significant impact is expected.
b-c) No Impact. The project site is a vacant property. The proposed development of the site would not result in
the displacement of existing housing nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing for
displaced people. No impact will occur.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
X1V. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016.
Setting
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Fire Protection: The City contracts with Riverside County Fire Department for its local service. The nearest fire
station is Riverside County Fire Palm Desert Station 71 at 73995 Country Club Drive, approximately 3.7 mile
southeast of the project site. The City of Palm Desert also receives additional fire support from station No. 55 in
Indian Wells and Stations No. 50 and No. 69 in Rancho Mirage, in addition to the services provided by its own
stations. The Cove Communities Fire Department has 84 personnel in total, distributed among the three cities, all
of which operate under a Regional Fire Protection Program. The station physically closest to the emergency will
respond even if it is outside the station's official jurisdiction.
Police Protection: The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for police
protection services. The nearest police station is Palm Desert Police Department at 73705 Gerald Ford Drive,
approximately 0.9 mile southwest of the project site. The police department consists of 70 sworn officers that
include 45 deputies, 10 of which are dedicated to traffic enforcement. The City of Palm Desert currently provides
about 1.75 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. The average response time for the highest priority emergency
calls was 4.6 minutes.
Schools: The City of Palm Desert is located within the boundaries of the two school districts: Desert Sands Unified
School District (DSUSD) and Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD). Most of the city is served by DSUSD.
PSUSD includes the northwestern portion of the city. Both the school districts currently operate four elementary
schools, one middle school, one continuation high school, and one high school within the City. The nearest school
is Xavier College Preparatory High School, a private school located approximately 3.3 miles northeast from the
proposed site.
Parks: In the City of Palm Desert, a total of 911 acres are dedicated for parks (General Plan; Table III-2). The three
types of parks serving the Palm Desert area are community, neighborhood, and mini/pocket parks. The nearest park
to the project site is Palm Desert Civic Center Park, approximately 5.2 miles south.
-44- Lf
Discussion of Impacts
a)
Fire Protection
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project will marginally increase the demand on fire
service in the City. The project is expected to induce population growth due to residential factor requiring
additional fire protection services. The project will require fire protection services comparable to
surrounding commercial land uses. The development within the project, however, will contribute to the
maintenance of fire services through the City's structural fire tax, which is assessed on property tax bills,
and assures that the City can continue to provide fire services as development occurs. Given the site's
proximity to a local fire station, fire personnel will be able to reach the site within the target five-minute
response time. Emergency access will be provided to the property via the existing public roadway network.
The Fire Department will review the project site plan to ensure it meets applicable fire standards and
regulations. No construction of new or expanded fire services or facilities are required for the proposed
project. Project -related fire protection impacts will be less than significant.
Police Protection
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in a marginal increase in demand for police
services. Project operations will require police services comparable to surrounding commercial land uses.
Police personnel will be able to access the site using Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive. The project
will be required to comply with all Police Department regulations and procedures. Project related impacts
are expected to be less than significant.
4rhnnls
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not require the construction of a new school
facility. The project is a mixed -use commercial and residential development and residential portion may
increase the City's student population. The proposed project will be required to pay the mandated school
development impact fees to offset increases in student population associated with the employees at the
facility. The proposed project will be required to pay current PSUSD developer impact fees of $0.56 per
square foot for commercial portion (PA 1 and 2) and $3.48 per square foot for residential portion (PA 3 and
4). No impact is anticipated.
Parks/ Other public facilities
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes a mixed -use commercial and residential
development, and residential part of the project may results in population growth in the area, which would
occasionally increase the demand to the existing city's facilities. However, the impact will be less than
significant and would not result in the need for new parks and recreation facilities.
No additional public facilities are required for the proposed project to accommodate the employees, guests,
residents, and visitors. Increase in demand for the city's existing facilities will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
-45- � 0
XV. RE-CREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment'?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016.
Setting
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Iti
1�
Within the City of Palm Desert, there are several mini, neighborhood, community, and school parks, one community
center, a Community Health and Wellness Centers, a senior center, and a museum. Approximately 2,572 acres of
land is designated for the "Open Space Land Use" which includes parks, private parks/open space, public reserves,
and waterway in the City.
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include onsite recreational amenities at all
planning areas, as required in the Zoning Ordinance for that use. Future residence, visitors, and hotel
guests can be expected to utilize onsite recreational amenities as well as local and regional recreational
facilities. The proposed development will not induce substantial population growth that would result in
significant impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Project -
related impacts are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
-46-
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
XVI. TRANS PORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass X
transit and non -motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards X
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels X
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible X
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or X
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; "Site Access Analysis for the Proposed MacLeod Mixed -Use Project",
prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLC) in September 7, 21, 2016.
Setting
The project site is generally located on the southeast quadrant of the block bound by Monterey Avenue, Dick Kelly
Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. As the project site will be divided into four planning area (PA "I", "2", "3",
"4"), multiple access will be provided to the project site. PA 1 and 2 fronts the Monterey Avenue, while, PA 2 and
3 fronts the Gateway Drive. Access to the PA 1 and 2 (i.e. Planned Commercial (PC-2)) will be provided via a left-
in/right-in/right-out only driveway located along Monterey Avenue, two (2) driveways along Dick Kelly Drive, and
two (2) driveways along A Street. Access to the PA 3 and 4 will be provided via two (2) driveways along Gateway
Drive, one (1) driveway along Dick Kelly Drive, and one (1) driveway along A Street.
In the General Plan Circulation Element (General Plan Exhibit III-6), Monterey Avenue is classified as Arterial
Street, and Dick Kelly Drive and A Street as Secondary Street. To improve the traffic circulation in the Arterial and
-47- l C5_�
C
Secondary streets close to project vicinity, it has been agreed by the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage that
the intersection of A Street at Monterey Avenue will be improved to a full -movement signalized intersection. The
improvernent will be consistent with the "Letter of Understanding and Mutual Agreement" between the City of'
Palm Desert and City of Rancho Mirage, dated August 25, 2005. The construction and funding of the signal has not
yet been determined. The provision of a southbound left turn median break on Monterey Avenue into the PA 1 and
2 of the proposed site will be determined by the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. In addition, Year 2020
AM and PM peak hour Ambient Growth plus Cumulative plus Project traffic volurne forecast, Year 2020 Ambient
Growth plus Cumulative plus Project traffic condition level of service analysis, and left turn queuing analysis at the
proposed PA 1 and 2 driveway along Monterey Avenue will be considered at that time.
The Specific Plan allows for a southbound left turn lane approximately mid block on Monterey Avenue provided
(i) there is no conflict with an anticipated northbound left turn lane into Rancho Mirage; (ii) a traffic study
acceptable to the City demonstrates that the queuing geometries are sufficient, the LOS is within a reasonable level
and the turn lane is safe and, (iii) Rancho Mirage approves the request.
I.inscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLC) prepared a "Site Access Analysis for the Proposed MacLeod Mixed -
Use Project" for the proposed project in September 2016. The traffic analysis was based upon a variety of sources,
including the Highway Capacity Manual (IICM) Method of Analysis, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers'
9th Edition Trip Generation Manual (2012).
The categories used for the existing site condition analysis are No. 220 (apartment; TE/DU), No. 820 (shopping
center; TE/1000 SF), and No. 945 (gasoline/service station with convenience market; TE/VEP), which correctly
describes the proposed development.
Discussion of Impacts
a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The following traffic analysis was based upon a variety of sources,
including the General Plan Circulation Element and the project specific "Site Access Analysis for the
Proposed MacLeod Mixed -Use Project," prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLC).
Existine Traffic Conditions
The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Existing roadways in the vicinity of the project site include
Monterey Avenue, Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. Monterey Avenue is designated as
Arterial Street and Dick Kelly Drive and A Street as Secondary Street in the General Plan. Monterey
Avenue at N of Gerald Ford Drive carried approximately 34,600 (avg.) vehicles per day based on year 2000
General Plan analysis. General Plan conditions and traffic analysis indicated that Monterey Avenue at N of
Gerald Ford Drive was operating at LOS C (Palm Desert General Plan; Table 1II-13).
The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for Monterey Avenue/ Dick Kelly Drive were derived
based on existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes conducted by Counts Unlimited, Inc. in May 2016.
Between 7:45 and 8:30 AM (peak AM hours), total traffic volume along Monterey Avenue was
approximately 1,073 (southbound) and 619 (northbound), respectively, from which 90 (westbound) was
transferred to Dick Kelly Drive (including right and left turns). Between 4:30 and 5:15 PM (peak PM hours),
total traffic volume along Monterey Avenue was approximately 857 (southbound) and 1,323 (northbound),
respectively, from which 202 was transferred to Dick Kelly Drive (westbound; including right and left
turns). Based on the existing traffic volume, the Monterey Avenue/ Dick Kelly Drive intersection is
operating at the acceptable LOS. According to the City of Palm Desert General Plan/Circulation Element,
LOS D is the maximum acceptable level of service that shall be maintained.
Furthermore, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method for stop -controlled intersections was utilized
for the analysis of the unsignalized intersections in the project vicinity.
-48-
Proiect Traffic Generation
The trip generation potential of the project is estimated using ITF. No. 220 (apartment; TE/DU), No. 820
(shopping center; TE/1000 SF), and No. 945 (gasoline/service station with convenience market; TE/VEP)
rates contained in the 9" Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE), [Washington, D.C., 2012]. Table 6 summarizes the project traffic generation rates. Table 7
summarizes the trip generation forecast of the proposed project. The project was revised in 2018 after the
project specific report was prepared. Table 7 was modified in order to analyze the change between 360
dwelling units to 384 dwelling units. The total increases would be less than significant.
Based on Table 6 and 7, the proposed project is forecast to generate 6,678 daily trips, with 387 trips (131
inbound, 226 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 530 trips (289 inbound, 239 outbound)
produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday.
Table 6
MCP Palm Desert SP
Project Traffic Generation Rates
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ITE Land Use Code 2-Way Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Generation Rates:
220 (apartment; TE/DU), 6.65 0.10
820 (shopping center; TE/1000
SF) 42.70 0.60
945 (gasoline/service station
with convenience market;
TE/VEP) 162.78 5.08
TE/DU= Trip end per dwelling unit
TE/1000 SF= Trip end per 1,000 SF of development
TE/VFP= Trip end per vehicle fueling position
Project Description
Generation Rates:
Apartments (360 DU)
Apartments (384 DU)
Increase as of 2018 Update:
Shopping Center; 108,000 SF)
Gasoline Station with
Convenience Market (18 VEP
Project Trip Generation
(Sub -Total)
Increase as of 2018 Update:
Total Project Net Trip
Generation
Increase as of 2018 Update:
0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62
0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71
5.08 10.16 6.76 6.75 13.51
Table 7
MCP Palm Desert SP
Project Traffic Generation Forecast
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
2-Way
Enter
Exit
Total
Enter
Exit
Total
1,930
37
146
183
ill
63
174
2,058
39
W6
395
E%8
3§J6
Hwi
128
2
10
12
7
4
13
3,246
57
36
93
120
124
244
1,374
35
34
69
51
48
99
9,007
191
277
468
409
359
768
9,135
193
12S7
48a87
416
480363
7916
6,550
129
216
345
282
235
517
6,678
131
226
357
289
239
530
EM Hpi
363
-49- Q
i
Proiect Traffic Distribution and Assignment
As the project site is on the Monterey Avenue, which is an Arterial Street and carries 34,600 during peak
hours, the directional traffic distribution pattern is also analyzed for the project. Exhibit 8 shows the
directional traffic distribution pattern for the PA 1 and 2 while Exhibit 9 shows the directional traffic
distribution pattern for the PA 3 and 4. (Exhibits are provided at the end of this section).
Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the subject site have been distributed to the adjacent street
system on the following considerations:
• Proximity to Monterey Avenue
• Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic
signals
• Existing intersection traffic volumes
• Ingress/egress availability at the project site
• Planned improvement at Monterey Avenue/A Street
Future Traffic Conditions at Proiect Build -out
The project site is located in an area, which is surrounded by a number of Arterial Street (Monterey Avenue,
Gerald Ford Drive, and Dinah Shore), Secondary Streets (Dick Kelly Drive and A Street), and commercial
development (i.e. Costco, Sam's Club, Walmart, and Auto Zone); therefore, it is important to forecast the
future traffic condition in the project vicinity including the proposed project and surrounding development.
In order to make a realistic estimate of future on -street condition in the project vicinity, eleven on -site
developments (Millennium Palm Desert, Mar-iott's Shadow Ridge, Starwood Vacation Ownership, Desert
Wells, University Park, Catavina, Single Family Homes, Villa Portofino, Gallery, Dolce Development, and
Encore) in the surrounding areas are considered to calculate cumulative projects on the traffic volume.
The cumulative projects are forecast to generate a total of 56,774 daily trips, with 2,639 trips (1,1 10 inbound
and 1,529 outbound) forecast during the AM peak hour and 4,272 trips (2,284 inbound and 1,988 outbound)
forecast during the PM peak hour.
The project with the impact of the surrounding projects will operate at the acceptable level.
Oueuinp- Analvsis
A queuing assessment was also conducted for the proposed project to assess the potential impacts along
Monterey Avenue associated with the proposed development and the construction of the southbound left -
turn pocket (median break) at the PA 1 and 2 driveways.
Queuing analysis shows that the proposed southbound left-tum pocket along Monterey Avenue will provide
adequate storage to minimize impacts to through traffic along Monterey Avenue. Also, motorists entering
and exiting the project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion.
Based on the above analysis, the southbound left -turn movement is along Monterey Avenue forecast to
operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour. In addition, the forecast 95`h percentile queue
for the southbound left turn movement can be accommodated within the available left -turn storage capacity,
based on the preliminary left -turn pocket/median break design.
Overall, impacts associated with the ultimate development of the site will be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 6.4 miles northwest of the
subject property. The development of the proposed project will have no impact on the facilities or operations
of regional airports, and will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic
levels. It will also not create substantial safety risks. No project related impact is anticipated.
-50- � I
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will be developed in accordance with City design guidelines
and will not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. The project's access point will
be located with adequate sight distances, and project -generated traffic will be consistent with existing traffic
in the area. Improvements along Monterey Avenue will be provided to offset the project related impact
from the regular traffic. Therefore, project related impact would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the PA I and 2 will be provided via a left-in/right-in/right-out
only driveway located along Monterey Avenue, two (2) driveways along Dick Kelly Drive, and two (2)
driveways along A Street. Access to the PA 3 and 4 will be provided via two (2) driveways along Gateway
Drive, one (1) driveway along Dick Kelly Drive, and one (1) driveway along A Street. All the planning
areas are interlinked through inner small driveways. PA 2 and 3 are connected to the Monetary Avenue
through the EW street between PA 1 and 2.
All three driveways will also be available for emergency purposes; therefore, emergency access should not
impact traffic flow along Dinah Shore Drive, Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gerald Ford Drive
significantly. However, prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department will review
the project site plan to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access. The proposed
project will not result in inadequate emergency access. Less than significant impact is anticipated.
Less Than Significant Impact. SunLine Transit operates bus routes along Monterey Avenue and will
provide public transit access to the proposed project. SunLine has adequate capacity in its system to
accommodate the proposed project. The project design will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities. Less than significant impact is anticipated.
Mitigation Measures: None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None.
-51-
XVI1. TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources,
or in a local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
tribe.
Potentially Less 'Phan Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
X
Source: "Phase I Historical/Archeological Resources Survey for APN: 694-130-016 and -021" prepared by CRM
TECH, 5 August 2016; Palm Desert General Plan 2016.
Setting: The project site is located in an area that within the traditional lands of the Desert Cahuilla. Even so, the
project area is not located in within or adjacent to tribal lands. Monterey Avenue borders the site's western
boundary and there is existing development adjacent to the proposed site. Please see Section V for greater
discussion on the cultural setting.
Discussion of Impacts
a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section V Cultural Resources, Native American consultation
was conducted to evaluate the potential presence of tribal cultural resources within the project area. Correspondence
with the State of California's Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) resulted in the recommendation to
further consult with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI). The associated correspondence is
included in Appendix B.
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians identified the APE as part of the tribe's traditional use area, and requests
Native American monitoring during the undertaking as well as formal, government -to -government consultation
under Section 106 guidelines. These requests have been addressed via mitigation measures provided in Cultural
Resources section of this document. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources are expected to be less than
significant.
-52- I r
ll�
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional X
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded X
entitlements needed?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected X
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid X
waste?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan.
Setting
Wastewater Treatment
The City of Palm Desert collaborates with the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to treat and recycle
wastewater at the Cook Street Wastewater Treatment Plant. This wastewater treatment plant also serves other
communities and has a tertiary water capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities by constructing new treatment
ponds, aeration, and other structures throughout the Coachella Valley. CVWD implements all requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge.
Domestic Water
CVWD provides domestic water to the project property. Groundwater is the primary source of fresh water, which
is extorted by deep wells from the Whitewater River sub -basin. CVWD's service area is located in the Whitewater
-53- l3
River Watershed. The adoption of Ordinance No. 1422.3 titled "Ordinance of the Coachella Valley Water District
Imposing Revised and Additional Restrictions on Water Use to Comply with Statewide Drought Regulations" to
implement regional management of water supplies. CVWD, as an urban water supplier, is required to prepare an
"Urban Water Management Plan (UWNIP), California Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656. CVWD's
UWMP is a planning tool that documents actions in support of long-term water resources planning and ensures
adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future urban water demands.
Furthermore, CVWD also prepares an annual report each year to document and analyze the needs and long-term
demand for domestic water. This analysis includes conservation measures and replenishment programs to make it
possible for CVWD to meet increasing demand of the services area.
All water conservation measures required by CVWD will be implemented by the proposed project when the future
developments are constructed and operated. More so, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has
issued Emergency Order 2014-0718-01 E, which mandates water supplier enactcertain water conservation
regulations
Stormwater
Stone water drainage infrastructure within the City of Palm Desert consists of a network of regional and local
drainage systems, which are ultimately interrelated. The regional and local drainage system includes natural and
improved streams, storm drains, storm channels, and catch basins intended to manage stormwater that flows into
the Whitewater Stone Water Channel, Deep Canyon Stormwater Channel, Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, Mid -
Valley Stormwater Channel, Dead Indian Channel, Ironwood Channel, and Portola and Haystack Channels. The
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the Riverside County Flood Control District, and the City of Palm Desert
control this drainage system.
Solid Waste
Waste Management of the Desert provides solid waste disposal, through a franchise agreement with the City, and
will be responsible for collection and disposal of solid waste from the project site. Trash and recycled materials are
collected from customers in the City and transported to the Badlands Landfill, located at 31125 Ironwood Avenue,
Moreno Valley. Other possible alternatives include the Lamb Canyon Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill. The County
of Riverside operates all these landfills.
Discussion of Impacts
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The development of the proposed project would result in an increase to
wastewater flows. Existing sewer lines will connect to the proposed development without necessitate a
major extension. As stated CVWD, provides wastewater services and operates a wastewater treatment
facilities in the area, is subject to follow wastewater standards established by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Every component will abide to the required design facilities that will be consistent with
CVWWD and the RWQCB standards. The standards and requirements will assure that impacts associated
with wastewater standards will be lowered to less than significant levels.
b, d) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing water lines, located on the adjacent streets, will
connect with the proposed developments. The exiting water lines are located on "A" Street, Gateway Drive,
Dick Kelly Drive, and Monterey Avenue. The proposed project will be responsible for the connections
necessary to tie into existing water lines to the standards set by the City and CVWD. The site is being
developed with land uses consistent with the parcel's land use designation for commercial and residential
uses, which is consistent with the assumptions made by CVWD in their UWMP. Build out of the project
will result in an increase of less than 2% in demand over current conditions. This is within the CVWD's
capacity, and impacts associated with water supplies will be less than significant. The City's and CVWD's
standards and requirements will assure that impacts associated with water conveyance and water supply
will be less than significant.
-54- Lf
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located outside of any flood hazard areas.
This property is located in Zone X, which represents areas that are outside of the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain. Regional stormwater management is administered by CVWD. Currently, there are no regional
stormwater management concerns for the subject property or its immediate vicinity.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The City works with Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to treat
and recycle wastewater at the Cook Street Wastewater Treatment Plant. This wastewater treatment plant
also serves other communities and has a tertiary water capacity of 20 million gallons per day (mgd). CVWD
continually increases the capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities by constructing new treatment
ponds, aeration, and other structures. CVWD implements all requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. There will be less than significant
impact to wastewater treatment capacities associated with the proposed project.
f, g) Less Than Significant Impact. Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services provides solid waste and disposal
services to the city. All waste generated on the project site will be collected and transported to the Badlands
Landfill. This landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County. They have the capacity to accommodate
waste generated by future development on the project site. Burrtec is required to comply with local, regional
and state requirements, thus reducing impacts associated with solid waste disposal to a less than significant
level.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
None.
a)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XIV. MANDATORY I-INDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eluninate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Ctunulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Less Than Less Than No
Significant w/ Significant Impact
Mitigation Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated:
X
X
GI
Bioloeical Resources
The project site is not located within the boundaries of a CVMSHCP-designatedconservation area, and
does not contain any wildlife corridor or biological linkage area. However, mitigation measures have been
included in this Initial Study to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls, to ensure impacts are less than
significant.
Cultural Resources
The site has a low probability of containing archaeological resources, and there are no historic structures
on site. However, mitigation measures have been included in this Initial Study to assure that impacts
associated with cultural resources remain less than significant.
With implementation of the mitigation measures provided in this report, impacts will be less than
significant.
b) Less than significant. The proposed project proposes a Specific Plan to support the planned land uses
discussed in this document. The proposed project will be consistent with the land use designations for the
site. The project is also consistent with the commercial and residential development trends in the immediate
vicinity. Public utility providers have indicated they will be capable of serving the project with existing
_56_
and/or planned facilities. Potential environmental impacts are expected to remain at, or be mitigated to,
levels below significance, and long-term environmental goals are not expected to be adversely impacted by
the project.
c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The project will contribute to the
cumulative impacts of development in the City of Palm Desert and broader Coachella Valley. Project
construction will contribute to the region's current exceedances of PMio and ozone; however, these impacts
will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of City requirements, consistent
with the region's fugitive dust reduction measures.
d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: This Initial Study document identifies
potential impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions as a result of build out of the proposed project.
The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation. A set of
mitigation measures are included in this Initial Study to minimize the greenhouse emissions and assure that
GHG emissions from the proposed project will meet the proposed thresholds of the SCAQMD, through
compliance with the City's ESP. As a result, impacts associated with GI-IG emissions will be less than
significant.
RUTAN
RUTAN 6 TUCKER. LLP
February 8, 2018
VIA E-MAIL and FIRST CLASS MAIL
Email: robert.harp-reaves(a�,bbklaw.com
Robert Hargreaves
BEST BEST & KRIEGER
74-760 Highway 111, Suite 200
Indian Wells, CA 92210
David 11. Lanferman
Direct Dial: (650) 320-1507
E-mail: dlanfennan ,rutan.com
Re: City of Palm Desert -- M.C. Properties:
Specific Plan and Development Applications — "Affordable Housing" Issue
Appeal for City Council direction
Dear Mr. I largreaves:
My clients and I appreciate your consideration in discussing our clients' efforts to process
their Specific Plan and related development applications and studies with the City staff. It has
appeared for some months that the applicants ("MCP") and City staff reached agreements on
virtually all of the issues related to this project long ago, and that the project is entirely consistent
with the existing general plan and fully compliant with the applicable zoning such that it is ripe
for submission for Council consideration and final approval. The only major issue that has
remained unresolved is the issue regarding the project including appropriate and lawful provisions
for "affordable housing.'
Since the project as proposed is fully compliant with all Council -adopted City plans and
policies, and since there is no legal (or other) justification for staffs demands for extraordinary
contributions of privately -subsidized housing units, it is now time for this application — as proposed
by MCP — to be considered and approved. We need to be able to move forward with this
application, without further staff -inflicted delays, and are hereby requesting your urgent
intervention and assistance in bringing this matter to the City Council for decision and direction.
Staffs Uniustified Demand for Exactions of "Affordable Housing"
Despite MCPs' numerous conversations with City planning staff striving to reach
agreement as how the project should make lawful and effective provision for affordable housing,
City staff has persisted in demanding that the application be re -written to include staff s desired -
I In addition, there has been an ongoing dialogue about the inclusion of "assisted living" as an
allowable use under the PR 22 zoning, which will be discussed at the end of this letter.
Rutan & Tucker. LLP I Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814 1 650-320-1500 1 Fax 650-320-9905 2644/0;3460-0001
Orange County I Palo Alto I www rutan.com 119692123a02/08/18
<<s
RUTAN
Robert I Iargreaves
February 8, 2018
Page 2
-- but unjustified — exaction of 20% of the project's new residential dwelling units available
exclusively for restricted below -market occupancy. Those demands have been an unnecessary
roadblock, and there is no point in staff s insistence that we "apply" for a project that does not
reflect our intentions or lawful conditions of approval. As we and our clients have repeatedly
explained, such requirements have no basis or justification in any City Council -approved general
plan, housing element, or zoning ordinance. Moreover, imposition of' a 20% below -market
requirement as urged by staff would substantially impair, if not destroy, the economic feasibility
of the entire project and thus derail the project and deprive the community of the many other
benefits and amenities that MCP has willingly agreed to provide as part of the project as planned.
On November 28, 2017, Mr. Swartz stated the City's demand as follows:
• Planning Area 4 will be required to provide a minimum of 200 units per the Housing
Element. The Developer is required to reserve twenty percent (20%) of the 200 units within the
project to be made available at Affordable Rents and in accordance with an approved and recorded
Housing Agreement.
• The Developer can also dedicate the 20% requirement of the 200 units at Affordable
Rents, on a future parcel that is approved by the City in regards to lot size and project location
under a Precise Plan application, and in accordance with an approved and recorded Housing
Agreement.
• If any residential uses are constructed on Planning Area 3 then the Developer is required
to reserve 20% of all units within the project to be made available at Affordable Rents and in
accordance with an approved and recorded Housing Agreement.
MCP's Affordable Housing Proposals:
We appreciate the City's concerns about improving the affordability of housing, and MCP
has previously made two alternative proposals whereby the project could be voluntarily
conditioned to effectively and reasonably address those concerns. To reiterate those proposals,
both of which are still on the table:
2017:
First, as stated in Mr. Chambers' letter to Ryan Stendell and Kevin Swartz of May 10,
MCP would offer, as a condition of approval for the MCP Specific Plan, to pay an
affordable housing in lieu fee of $1.50 per square foot of livable interior area for
the residential project that will be developed on Parcel 4 of the Specific Plan. MCP
would further agree to pay an affordable housing in lieu fee of $1.00 per square
foot of livable area for any residential project developed on Parcel 3 and/or will pay
2644/033460-0001
11969212.3 a02/08/I8 /
RUTAN
Robert Hargreaves
February 8, 2018
Page 3
the appropriate lawfully established City fee respecting any other use developed on
Parcel 3.
This proposal was conditioned on the City and MCP entering into a development
agreement with specific terms for the project.
Second, MCP subsequently made another good faith offer to respond to and address the
City staff s demands in Mr. Chambers' letter of July 2017:
MCP would agree to reserve a portion of the Specific Plan area for the provision of
affordable housing. The Specific Plan currently provides that on Parcel 4, a
minimum of 200 multi -family residential units shall be developed. MCP offers to
provide a total of 40 units toward the staffs goal of 20% "affordability" by
providing a combination of (i) 10 of the units to be developed and constructed will
be restricted to occupants classified as "moderate" income and (ii) land will be set
aside sufficient to accommodate a 30-unit project that will be restricted to "low"
and "very low" income occupants.
Mr. Chambers has repeatedly insisted that such a set aside will occur at the south
linear 1.5 acres of Parcel 4 which, at a density of 22/acre, could yield an additional
33 dwelling units.
Legal Issues Raised by Staffs Refusal to Process:
As you and I have further discussed in our own several conversations, the staffs insistence
on exacting 20% of the new homes for restricted below -market occupancy as a condition of
processing the long -pending application raises numerous serious legal problems for the City.
1. No Justification or Authority In the City's General Plan, Housing Element, or
Zoning Ordinances:
The City's adopted plans and ordinances provide no legal authority for the staff s
extraordinary demands. As we have discussed, there is nothing in any of the City's legislatively -
approved general plan, housing element, or zoning ordinance that purports to require such a 20%
contribution. Despite our clients' repeated requests to the Planning Department, City Manager
and other City staff, the City has never been able to cite any Council -adopted ordinance or
resolution to support or justify their demands on this point. It is, of course, undisputed that these
kind of legislative policy decisions regarding housing approvals are to be made by the elected City
Council — not by the unelected staff. Indeed, the City staff has itself acknowledged that "staff
2644/033460-0001
1 1969212 3 a02/08/ 18
I ��
RUTAN
Robert Hargreaves
February 8, 2018
Page 4
lacks clear policy direction to guide entitlement processes" as they may involve affordable housing
mandates.z
1, irst, the City does not have any "inclusionary zoning" ordinance mandating the provision
of any particular number or percentage of new dwelling units on terms restricting occupancy o►-
purchase to certain income levels. Second, in May 2015, the City Council rejected a proposal to
consider adoption of an "affordable housing fee" or "in -lieu fee" on market -rate residential
developments as a recognized alternative to inclusionary zoning. In the absence of lawful,
Council -approved, requirements for contributions of affordable housing by private residential
developers, there does not appear to be any valid basis for the Staff to attempt to arbitrarily
improvise such requirements as a condition of processing of the MCP Specific Plan application.
The staff s demands are not consistent with the general plan. The Housing Element does
not include any explicit policy mandating the City to require a 20% "affordable housing"
requirement in the new development generally, or in the MCP parcels specifically. It merely
reflects a general policy ("Policy 1 ") that "new affordable housing projects shall be encouraged in
all areas of the City." According to "Program 1.F" the City undertook to re -zone undeveloped
property in the NW corner of the City (including the MCI' property) to high density residential
zoning — "PR-22" -- in 2012, presumably as an encouragement to develop currently unfinanceable,
non -subsidized, affordable housing projects. (Council Ordinances 1233 and 1240A.)3
"PR-22" zoning appears to be a sub -category under the City's "PR" zoning. PR zoning is
defined in PDMC § 25.10.020(G): "The purpose of this district is to provide for flexibility in
development, creative, and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as
coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types and community
facilities, both public and private. The district is further intended to provide for the optimum
integration of urban and natural amenities within developments. The PR district is also established
to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will
be given reasonable consideration for approval, and to provide the City assurances that the
completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval." (Ord. 1259 § 1,
2013) The PR-22 zoning operates to allow an increased density of residential development,
allowing 20 -22 units per acre, and, according to the "evaluation" comment in the current Housing
Element, "can accommodate affordable housing." Nothing in the text of the Housing Element or
2 City Staff Report, dated June 18, 2015.
' The City's zoning ordinance at that time did not appear to track the General Plan precisely. As
explained in the Housing Element (p. III-31), the General Plan's Land Use Element designates
residential areas as being "low density" (0-4 units/acre); "medium density" (4-10 u/ac.); "high
density" (10-22 u/ac.). By contrast, the Zoning Ordinance include R-1 (up to 5 u/ac); R-2 (up to
10 u/ae); R-3 (up to 17 u/ac); and the hybrid "PR" zone (allowing up to 25 units/acre for projects
providing at least 20% affordable units.) The Council, however, has recently re -zoned the MCP
property to better accommodate the proposed development as planned.
2644i033460-0001
11969212 3 a02,108/18
l
RUTAN
Robert Hargreaves
February 8, 2018
Page 5
the Zoning Code indicates any specific requirement to include "affordable housing" in
developments tinder PR 22 zoning.
Moreover, even if the Housing Element had included text purporting to require (not just
"encourage") the provision of "affordable housing" that alone would not suffice to create a lawful
or enforceable requirement, in the absence of substantial evidence justifying such a requirement.
So far as we are aware, however, the City staff has not provided any such evidence, nor has the
Council approved specific mandates or percentages to justify staff's affordable housing demands.
2. Violation of California's Housing Accountability Act
In addition, this development would qualify as a project that is protected under the
California Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"). The HAA was recently described by the Court of
Appeal, in Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of'Los Angeles (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 927, 938-39:
The HAA (Gov. Code §65589.5), known as the "anti-NIMBY law," was designed
to limit the ability of local governments to reject or render infeasible housing
developments based on their density without a thorough analysis of the "economic,
social, and environmental effects of the action." (§ 65589.5, subd. (b).) When a
proposed development complies with objective general plan and zoning standards,
including design review standards, a local agency that intends to disapprove the
project, or approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, must
make written findings based on substantial evidence that the project would have a
specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and that there are no feasible
methods to mitigate or avoid those impacts other than disapproval of the project. (§
65589.5, subd. 0)(1) & (2).
Despite staff s insistence on changing the composition of the housing units in the project, there
has been no suggestion — much less any substantial evidence — that approval of the project as proposed
by MCP regarding the size or density of the project would have "a specific, adverse impact on the
public health or safety." The City would therefore be at risk of violating the HAA, in the event that it
failed to approve the project as currently proposed -- including MCP's voluntarily proposed solution
to the quest for affordable housing.
Other Grounds for Challenges to City Staff Demands:
In the event that the City were to persist in attempting to require a certain percentage or
number of price -restricted or rent -restricted housing units as a condition of approval for residential
development of the MCP property — or to use such demands as a pretext for denying the specific
plan application -- such actions would likely be seen as resulting in violations of constitutional
principles, and controlling state law, and could expose the City to substantial liability in litigation
for several reasons, including the following:
2644/033460-0001
11969212 3 a02/08/18
RUTAN
Robert Hargreaves
February 8, 2018
Page 6
(a) The threatened application of such "affordable housing" requirements against this
project would also violate federal and state constitutional law which prohibits governments from
imposing unconstitutional conditions, i.e., requiring applicants to surrender constitutional rights as
conditions of obtaining permits or approvals, unless there is a substantial and reasonable
relationship between the conditions and some adverse impact or harm caused by the applicant;'
(b) The threatened application of affordable requirements against this project would
violate federal and state constitutional law limiting the imposition of unjustified development
impact fees or exactions such as these, including the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government
Code §66000 et seq.), because there is no substantial evidence demonstrating a reasonable nexus
and rough proportionality between the proposed affordable housing exactions and adverse public
impacts caused by the proposed development-5
4 See, e.g., the United States Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. John's River Water
Management District (2013) 570 U. S. _; 133 S.Ct. 2586, and the more recent California
Supreme Court decision in City of Perris v. Stamper (2016) 1 Cal.5`h 576, confirming the
constitutional limitations on property exactions and exactions of fees in lieu of property. See
also, San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California
(2017) 12 Cal. App. 5th H 24, 1159 [applying the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions to
invalidate certain fees and conditions of approval].) The unconstitutional conditions doctrine
"prevent) s] the government from coercing people into giving" up their property rights. (Koontz,
133 S. Ct. 2586, 2594). The unconstitutional conditions doctrine is implicated when the
government approves a land -development project "on the condition that the applicant turn over
property" or when the government denies the project "because the applicant refuses to do so."
(id, 133 S. Ct. at 2595.)
5 Efforts to contrive evidence to demonstrate an actual "nexus" between new market rate
residential development and increased public needs for affordable housing have been criticized
as unsound and highly speculative. See, e.g., the scholarly critique of the methodology and
unfounded assumptions of such "nexus analyses" in the study published by the Goldman School
of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley: The Use of Residential Nexus Analysis
in Support of Inclu.sionary Housing Ordinance: A Critical Evaluation, (November 2011). No
court in California, or elsewhere, has ever approved or sanctioned any such "nexus" justification
for imposing mandatory inclusionary or affordable housing exactions.
To the contrary, it is widely acknowledged that the development of market rate housing
increases the supply of housing generally, and thus is part of the "solution" to housing
affordability. "Mhile the development of market rate housing may generate a local need for
new highway lanes or school rooms, it clearly does not create a need for more subsidized
housing." (Alan A. Altshuler & Jose Gomez -Ibanez, REGULATION FOR REVENUE: THE
2644/033460-0001
11969212 3 aOM8118
v�
RUTAN
Robert Hargreaves
February 8, 2018
Page 7
(c) State law limits the imposition of restrictions and exactions on new rental housing
and preempts action such as the threatened imposition of rent controls, affordable housing "impact
fees," or in lieu housing exactions. ("Costa -Hawkins Rental Housing Act" [Civ. Code §§ 1954.50
et seq.]; Palmer v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4" 1396 [invalidating the City's
imposition of' `affordability' requirements on rents to be charged in a percentage of newly -
developed rental housing units, and invalidating fees "in lieu of' providing such rent restricted
units in kind].)
(d) Such requirements could be viewed as an unconstitutional implementation and levy
of "special taxes," for which the State Constitution requires prior approval by 2/3 of the electorate;
(e) Such requirements could be viewed as creating additional inconsistencies with
other aspects of the General Plan, such as its Land Use and Economic Development elements;
(1) The threatened application of the staff's demands for 20% affordable housing
requirements would violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the
laws and due process of law, by arbitrarily shifting the public financial burdens of' addressing a
general, community -wide, need for affordable housing to this one specific project, far in excess of
any needs created by this project;
(g) The application of affordable housing requirements against this project, without fee
waivers, or adjustment, or other financial subsidy, would impose prohibitive costs on the project
and render the project infeasible, resulting in an unconstitutional taking of property without just
compensation in violation of both federal and state constitutional law. (E.g., Jefferson Street
Ventures v. City of Indio (2015) 236 Cal.AppAth 1175 [city's imposition of a condition limiting
development of a portion of parcel was an invalid taking].) Indeed, the City's own Housing
Element (at p. III-48) appears to recognize this inconvenient fact of economic reality".6
Responses to City Staff Pretexts for Affordable Housing Demands
(a) Old Settlement Agreements are no justification: The City staff has apparently made
reference to old `consent decrees' or settlement agreements in litigation from the 1990's against
POLITICAL ECONOMY oI' LAND USE EXACTIONS (The Brookings Institution & Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy, 1993), p. 5 [emph. added].)
6 The "affordable housing analysis" commissioned by City staff from Keyser Marston (March 6,
2017) did not acknowledge these portions of the City's Housing Element, and that flawed
"analysis" apparently assumed that the "financial gap" created by affordable and/or different uses
than current zoning requirements could be subsidized or reduced by imagining development at
higher densities — despite these acknowledged market barriers to such high-density/low amenity
housing developments.
2644/033460-0001
11969212 3 a02/09! 18
RUTAN
Robert Hargreaves
February 8, 2018
Page 8
the former Redevelopment Agency. However, those do not appear to be applicable in this context,
and in any event, would not create or add any new independent legal authority for the City to now
try to assert demands for housing not authorized elsewhere under state law or City legislation
(See, Trancas Property OwnersAss'n v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 172; .League of
Residential Neighborhood Advocates v. City of Los Angeles (9"' Cir. 2007) 498 F.3d 1052 [consent
decree approved by federal district court was invalid, purporting to create obligations beyond those
allowed by state zoning law]; Keith v. Volpe (9'1` Cir. 1997) 118 F.3d 1386 ["the parties could not
,use a consent decree to enforce terms which would exceed their authority and supplant state
law.-'].
(b) The threat (or fear) of unspecified retaliatory action, often cited by City Staff, by
the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") is unjustified, and does
not support the City staffs demands: The City staff has argued that the HCD "requires" the City
to impose these affordable housing demands, or that 13CD will punish Palm Desert or suspend the
City's land use authority to approve new development unless the Council insists on at least 20%
contributions of affordable housing from new residential projects. Such arguments are misplaced,
since State housing law is aimed at other approaches to improve the availability of housing and we
are not aware of any recognized evidence of such retaliatory action having been taken by the HCD.
Neither State housing law nor HCD policy provides for such sanctions against local
governments that do not implement mandatory inclusionary policies. State law instead requires
that cities periodically inventory and zone land at appropriate densities sufficient to enable
satisfaction of the city's assigned RI-INA targets for affordable housing; it does not mandate
exactions such as being demanded by staff, nor does state law authorize HCD to require developers
to dedicate or provide rent -restricted or price -restricted housing. To the contrary, state housing
law provides that "nothing in this article shall be construed as a grant of authority ... to impose rent
controls or restrictions on the sale of real property." (Gov. Code § 65589(b).)
The arguments previously suggested by City staff have been explicitly rejected by the
California Court of Appeal, in Tuthill v. City of San Buenaventura (2014) 223 Cal.AppAth 1081,
1090-91. The Court there explained that State housing legislation does not impose any mandatory
duties or obligations on local governments with regard to State housing policy:
[S]ection 65580 constitutes a "general statement of public policy, not a directive to
anv aaencv ... on how to implement the wlicv." (Building Industry Assn. v. Marin
Mun. Water Dist. (1991) 235 Ca1.App.3d 1641, 1650.) .... Section 65580 only
directs public entities to cooperate in the provision of affordable housing and to
address regional housing needs.
Simply put, State housing law does not authorize HCD to impose punishments such as
imagined by City staff. If the City Council were to succumb to the staff's demands, the City would
26441033460-0001
11969212 3 a02/08/18
RUTAN
Robert Hargreaves
February 8, 2018
Page 9
not be able to excuse its arbitrary and unlawful 20% affordable demands — or to defend against
legal challenges -- by trying to argue that "the State Legislature made me do it."
MCP's Request to Allow Assisted Livine Facilities in Parce 4
City Staff has required that the Specific Plan delete any reference to "assisted living"
facilities as a permitted use. Applicant has consistently maintained that the use is allowed under
current zoning ordinance and understands that the staff report may recommend denial of this use.
Applicant believes the use will be subject to the discretion of the City Council upon review of the
merits of such a use in a general sense and upon a thorough review of a Precise Plan application.
Conclusions:
Despite months of discussions and negotiations, MCP and staff have been unable to resolve
this matter informally. Accordingly, we believe that it is now necessary to move this dispute to
the City Council for resolution, unless there may be some other administrative remedy available
and effective for that purpose. We hereby respectfully request that you consider this as an appeal
to the City Council and direct City staff to work with MCP in bringing this application for Council
review and decision as quickly as possible.
Please contact me if you have any questions or additional information. Thank you for your
courtesy and consideration.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
David P. Lanferman
DPL:mtr
cc: Chris Chambers, for MC Properties
City Manager, City of Palm Desert
i
2644/033460-0001
11969212 3 a02/09118 l
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 2018.
Rec: Continue to the next regular meeting.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and
a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was continued to the next
regular meeting (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT:
Gregory).
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
None
IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 2018.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Commissioner Greenwood moved to, by Minute Motion, approve as presented the
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 2018. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 4-0 (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt,
and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory).
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council of a
Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map 37234 to subdivide 32+ acres into four (4)
parcels bounded by, east of Monterey Avenue, south of Dick Kelly Drive, north of
A Street, and west of Gateway Drive; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act .(CEQA). Case Nos. SP
16-342 & TPM 37234 (MC Properties. LLC. Encinitas. California. Apolicantl.
Commissioner Greenwood stated the architectural firm he works for was involved with
the said project and recused himself from this item.
Associate Planner Kevin Swartz presented the staff report (staff reports are available
at www.citvofpalmdesert.orq). Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions.
He offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked if there are other projects in the vicinity that have
paid in -lieu fees for affordable housing, if so, what were the fees for the basis of a
comparison.
2 n
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Mr. Swartz responded that Family Development (The Retreat) agreed to pay a $2.00
a square foot for the affordable housing in -lieu fee. Recently, Palm Desert Country
Club agreed to pay a $12.00 in -lieu fee; and The Wolff Company agreed to pay $9.86
in -lieu fee.
Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell interjected that Family
Development paid a $1.00 in -lieu fee.
Based on a $9.00 or $12.00 in -lieu fee, Commissioner DeLuna asked how much of
the money is set aside for affordable housing on a project as proposed by MC
Properties.
Mr. Swartz replied that the money set aside for affordable housing is based on the
rentable square footage.
Mr. Stendell added that it is difficult to provide a number since there is not a final site
plan for the proposed project. He explained the Specific Plan is a broad document so
there is not a final number to do the calculation. He mentioned City staff has been
trying to keep affordable units on the site because it is a good site for the affordable
units.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if the $1.50 in -lieu fee is low for the area.
Mr. Swartz answered yes.
Commissioner Lindsay Holt referred to the 20 percent for affordable housing and
asked if the percentage is a policy or a recommendation from staff.
Mr. Swartz replied that the 20 percent for affordable housing is an internal City policy.
Commissioner Holt asked if there was any consideration to formalize or adopt a policy.
Mr. Swartz said the 20 percent set aside for affordable housing policy was in the fQrm
of a memorandum from a previous City Manager.
Commissioner Holt inquired if it would be easier to first adopt a policy.
Mr. Stendell responded that there was an attempt to formalize a policy; however, it
was never formally adopted. He said affordable housing is an extremely hard -charging
topic because it affects development. The memorandum mentioned by Mr. Swartz
was composed in 2012 or 2013 that provided discretionary approvals.
Commissioner Holt asked if there is a case law or other examples of cities making
similar affordable housing requests.
3 n
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Mr. Stendell explained cities used to have a redevelopment agency and the 20 percent
revenue stream that helped produce affordable housing units. With the loss of
redevelopment agencies, there are cities having a hard time achieving their affordable
housing requirements and other cities are adopting thorough inclusionary affordable
housing ordinances. Due to a recent increase in development, Mayor Sabby Jonathan
asked City staff to provide a report on the current policy and how Palm Desert is
compared to other valley cities. It does not help current applicants going through the
process, but it will help other people that need clarity on the affordable housing issue.
Commissioner Holt asked what is the City's status meeting the Housing Element
requirements for affordable housing units.
Mr. Swartz responded that in 2012, the City rezoned properties to accommodate the
requirements for affordable housing units. He noted the proposed project is one of the
parcels rezoned for affordable housing. For this reason, the City has required 40
affordable units for the proposed project.
Commissioner Holt clarified that the 20 percent for affordable housing is based on the
number of units that would be developed.
Mr. Swartz replied that is correct.
Commissioner Holt commented that 200 is the minimum number of units; however,
the applicant could have a maximum of 254 units.
Mr. Swartz remarked that the total is 20 units per acre so the maximum number is
approximately 250 units.
Commissioner Holt said if the applicant developed 250 units, the 20 percent of
affordable units would be 40 units.
Mr. Swartz answered that the City is only requesting 20 percent of 200 units.
Commissioner Holt clarified that the City is only requesting 40 units for affordable
housing if the applicant develops more than 200 units.
Mr. Swartz replied that is correct.
Commissioner Holt commented that staff's recommendation is not to move forward
with a parcel map. Staff is recommending setting aside a section of Planning Area 4.
Mr. Swartz replied that is correct.
Commissioner Holt felt the City should have learned a lesson about setting aside
affordable housing units outside of the project area, and not having them blend into
an overall project.
4
1 � 1
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Chairman Pradetto asked staff for what projected rents might be in the market rate
housing versus what rents might be in low and very low scenarios.
Mr. Stendell answered no, stating he would need to get someone from the Housing
Department to speak on market rate and affordable rents. If the Planning Commission
is interested in rent information, staff could look into it.
Chairman Pradetto commented higher density units are more affordable by nature
than single-family stand-alone units are. He assumed that rents for single-family
dwelling units would be more than an apartment in a dense development. If the market
rate rent for a single-family dwelling unit is $2,000, he assumed that the difference in
rent between the $2,000 unit and the low and very low is different from an apartment
where the market rate rent is $1,300.
Mr. Stendell agreed with Chair Pradetto's broad logic.
Chairman Pradetto stated that the Planning Commission has no idea what the
proposed units would sell for or what the rent would be. However, the nature of a
dense development and the location of the proposed project is going to be more
affordable than a development in south Palm Desert or a lower density development.
Therefore, the developer would be providing units that are inherently more affordable
and asked to what extent is it fair to place a condition to provide an additional burden
of 20 percent for affordable housing. He commented that it would have been more
helpful to know the numbers on market rates and affordable rents.
Mr. Stendell believed that Chairman Pradetto explained the difference between what
the City calls for state -mandated affordable housing versus housing that is affordable.
He noted the proposed site is identified within the Housing Element for the location
proximity, and the City has been after some form of state -mandated affordable
housing. He agreed with Chairman Pradetto that by nature, the proposed project is a
dense development and most likely will have affordable housing.
Chairman Pradetto asked what the repercussions are if the City failed to develop a
certain level or a number of affordable and very affordable housing units.
Mr. Stendell answered that he does not have a complete answer to this question.
However, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
has the authority to take control of the City's land use authority. He stated that the
HCD could enter the City and approve densities that are uncomfortable for the City of
Palm Desert.
Commissioner Holt mentioned one repercussion is state grant applications could be
affected.
Chairman Pradetto asked if the state would provide Palm Desert a warning that they
would take the City's land authority.
5
�3ZD
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Mr. Stendell responded that a developer can go straight to HCD via legislation or HCD
could override the City's land use controls.
Chairman Pradetto asked how would building a development at 20 units per acre that
would help lead to more affordable units be construed as being a bad actor. He said
the Planning Commission is actively considering an application to increase the density
and the zoning towards the Housing Element.
Mr. Stendell replied that it is a policy decision by both the recommending body and the
City Council.
Commissioner Holt noted that no matter where the development takes place, the
difference between the market rate and the rates for low- and very -low income
affordable housing is very different. As a community, the Planning Commission has to
consider if they want to create housing that is affordable for people that work in the
community or push the people out into other communities where they have to travel
far for work. She voiced her concern not having a concrete policy that is consistent
with projects. She said if the Planning Commission were to negotiate the 20 percent
for affordable housing for the proposed project, she assumed it would set a precedent.
However, they could negotiate on future projects and have a different solution, which
does not sit well with her. Commissioner Holt calculated and noted the cost for the
City to construct a single affordable housing unit, based on the information provided
in the staff report.
Commissioner Nancy DeLuna commented that the Planning Commission is operating
under a basic premise that she would like explained. She pointed out that she keeps
hearing affordable housing referred to as a burden. She asked why affordable housing
is considered a burden.
Mr. Stendell responded that there is no question in his mind that a condition on a
project or state -mandated affordable housing affects the financial viability however,
deferred the question to the applicant.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that there is a state mandate to provide
affordable housing.
Mr. Stendell replied that is correct, stating that cities are required to plan for affordable
housing units.
If the proposed project is approved, Chairman Pradetto asked where it would place
Palm Desert in meeting state requirements.
Mr. Stendell responded that the City of Palm Desert is doing better than other cities.
He mentioned the City has a certified Housing Element and the City is able to file a
yearly performance report. To date, Palm Desert has not received any
correspondence from HCD that the City has to do anything differently.
Commissioner Holt asked what the City does with the in -lieu fees.
1.1
�31
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Mr. Stendell communicated that the City has constructed and rehabilitated affordable
housing units. He believed the City's housing portfolio has 1,100+ units. In addition,
the City has worked with private developers to create affordable units by using some
of the City's housing funds.
Commissioner Holt inquired what would be the City Council's preference if they had
to choose between in -lieu fees and the development of affordable units within a certain
development.
Mr. Stendell responded that City staff looks at each site with practical eyes and asks
what the value of affordability in the neighborhood is. He reiterated that staff is using
a policy memorandum for discretionary approvals.
Commissioner Holt mentioned that the applicant offered alternatives and asked if the
alternatives are still standing.
Mr. Swartz deferred the question to the applicant.
Commissioner Holt commented that they are mainly referring to Planning Area 4;
however, the same requirement is applicable to Planning Area 3.
Mr. Swartz replied that is correct.
Commissioner Holt asked what if Planning Area 3 was developed as single-family
residential and not high -density residential.
Mr. Swartz responded that would be ok, but 20 percent of the homes would still be
required at affordable rents.
Chairman Pradetto asked if the applicant would pay an in -lieu fee if they were
developing commercial property.
Mr. Stendell answered that there is an established in -lieu fee on commercial
development for affordability.
Commissioner Holt asked what the in -lieu fee for commercial development is.
Mr. Stendell replied that the fee is $1.00 a square foot.
Chairman Pradetto inquired how the affordable units would be managed so that the
units are rented out to qualifying applicants.
Mr. Swartz replied that the applicant would maintain the affordable units, and the City
would work with the applicant on the affordable rents. He noted that typically there
would be a third party maintaining the units.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that the Planning Commission is
considering the 20 percent for affordable housing units, as recommended by staff.
7
� 32-
MINUTES ( l
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Mr. Swartz replied that is,correct.
Commissioner Holt asked if the applicant could return and renegotiate the setting
aside of land for affordable housing.
Mr. Swartz answered that staff would include language in the Specific Plan so it is set
in stone.
Mr. Stendell added that the Planning Commission and the City Council could modify
the language in the Specific Plan.
Since the language is not set in stone, Commissioner Holt commented that the setting
aside of land for affordable housing is negotiable.
Chairman Pradetto stated that currently there is not a level playing field with
objectionable standards and each project could be treated differently based on
whether the applicant could negotiate well or not.
Commissioner DeLuna commented that there are other considerations, for example,
some parcels are closer to amenities that lend themselves to more affordable housing
and some are not. Therefore, placing the same requirement on every parcel might be
equally inequitable.
Commissioner Holt mentioned that the request is a discretionary permit so the
Planning Commission does not have to approve the Specific Plan. The Commission
could include conditions or make a recommendation to include conditions.
As Chairman Pradetto pointed out, Commissioner DeLuna said if the proposed project
was considered more affordable because of the high density, then the difference or
the disparity between the affordable units and the market rate units generated would
be less. Therefore, it is not much of a disparity as it might be if they were high -end
condominiums or high -end single-family homes.
Commissioner Holt interjected that if the units were at market rate, the rent could be
increased.
Commissioner DeLuna noted that affordable housing is based on median income.
Mr. Stendell added that the affordable housing rent varies based on the area median
income (AMI).
Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING
or OPPOSING this matter.
MR. CHRIS CHAMBERS, Consultant with MC Properties, LLC, Riverside, California,
stated that he has been working on the proposed project for two and a half to three
years and introduced the other representatives of the project. He said the Planning
Commission had good questions and made good comments. Mr. Chambers shared
1.1
MINUTES ( J
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
that the MacLeod family has been an outstanding member of the community and early
investors in the outlying areas of Palm Desert. He disclosed that Myron Macleod joined
an assessment district approximately 10 years ago, and has been paying debt service
on $30 million for public infrastructure that has gone in the surrounding proposed site.
The development team has wanted to keep the project locally and make sure that they
touch the local flavor and the local sentiments surrounding the proposed development.
He said the reason for seeking a Specific Plan was to establish design criteria, and in
conjunction, he and MSA Engineering Consultants removed as many questions as
possible for the ultimate developer. In addition, they wanted a clear path to
development when someone decides to develop the site. He pointed out that the
proposed site is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan and made
clear they are not requesting a change of zone, a general plan amendment, or a
development agreement. Mr. Chambers noted that Palm Desert denied a
development agreement, which could provide some subsidies for the development,
fee deferrals, and contributions by the City from the housing fund. He said cities are
better able to exact financial contribution from projects when they are asking for a
General Plan amendment or a change of zone. As the Planning Commission listens
to all the different exactions on different projects, Mr. Chambers implored the
Commission to ask and inquire about the original zoning when the project was
approved. He said Palm Desert has affordable housing projects that were developed
when there was a redevelopment agency. The extinguishment of the redevelopment
agencies has got them all in a pickle today. He said there are affordable housing
projects that were open space and were changed to high -density residential
communities. The City has to look at what it is doing with the developer on every single
project and look at the developer's contribution. He stated that the proposed project is
consistent with the zoning and the General Plan. They asked for subsidies, however,
they were denied by the City. Mr. Chambers took a"moment to compliment City staff.
He said staff has been extremely responsive and very diligent in what was presented
and how it was presented. In the past several years, many issues have been resolved.
However, three issues have not been resolved. The first issue pertains to the 100-year
storm retention requirement. He noted that he has had at least three discussions with
the Public Works Department. He mentioned he has a letter from Public Works
indicating that the 100-year storm retention will not be required on the site because of
the storm drainage improvements that were done through Assessment District 29. The
second issue is regarding assistant living. He said one of the goals in the Housing
Element is to generate, assist, and cooperate with a development community for the
provision of assisted living facilities. He pointed out that assisted living is a valid use
in the City of Palm Desert. As of 2014, 35 percent of the residents are 65 and older.
In addition, AARP concluded and reported that almost 80 percent of people want to
stay in the community in which they live. Mr. Chambers communicated assisted
facilities do provide that option; therefore, the applicant would like assisted living as
an allowable use for Planning Area 3. He informed the Commission they are
establishing development criteria for precise plans that will go before the Planning
Commission for approval. He noted that staff was very resilient in their position of
reserving 20 percent for affordable rents or the project would not receive staff's
approval. Over the course of two and a half years, he made a list of no less than 10
iterations of what the applicant could do to move the ball toward their goal, but they all
have fallen short. He mentioned they proposed an affordable housing in -lieu fee in an
9
13`-r
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
amount of $1.50 and noted that The Retreat at Desert Willow agreed to $1.00 in -lieu
fee. He stated the City did not respond to their proposed in -lieu fee amount. Mr.
Chambers said the best course of action is to look at the Specific Plan without the
affordable housing requirement. It is consistent with the legal position and there is no
requirement in the Housing Element. In addition, the City of Palm Desert is not
required to grab affordable housing from every project that comes before the City. He
referred to Mr. Stendell's comment that Palm Desert is required to plan, but not provide
affordable housing. He made clear there is no ordinance, only a general policy that
states the City should cooperate with developers in trying to find affordable housing.
He noted the applicant provided the Commission with proposed revisions to the
Planning Commission resolution. The revisions would allow the project to move to the
City Council on a neutral basis. If the City imposes affordable housing on 40 units, he
expressed the project would not be profitable or financeable. Based on the
approximate cost of $250,000 to construct a single affordable housing unit, the cost
would be $10 million. Lastly, he briefly talked about legislature and assessments and
offered to answer any questions.
MS. KATHY JENSON, Attorney with Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, California,
stated if the applicant is required to reserve 20 percent (40 units) for affordable rents,
it would be the first project not asking for any concessions such as a development
agreement or a density bonus that would trigger a legitimate ask for affordable
housing. She mentioned the last time she was in front of the Commission, it related to
The Sands project (Canterra II), which the project was a perfect example of justifying
the requirement for affordable housing. She pointed out that the land went from open
space to high -density land, and the applicant received a density bonus and other
incentives. For the proposed project to be treated the same as The Sands project is
preposterous. She stated that there is not a city in the Coachella Valley mandatorily
imposing an inclusionary affordable housing requirement. She referred to the letter
sent to the City from David Lanferman (Rutan & Tucker, LLP) and noted the letter was
attached to the staff report. She stated there is no authority when asked; the City
Council decided they did not want a uniform policy. Therefore, as other projects asked
for concessions, the applicants' negotiated different deals. She reiterated that her
client is not asking for any concessions; however, they are being treated the same as
the other projects. She mentioned numbers were based on a Keyser Marston
Associates study and noted that they did not agree with the study. However, the
fundamental premise was that the proposed property was going to have a zone
change, which would vastly increase the value of the property and it was only fair that
the developer should share a part of the value with the City of Palm Desert. She
believed the idea was the City essentially could take two-thirds (2/3) of the upside.
She proclaimed that there is no upside. She referred to page six (6), item number four
(4), which states "The Specific Plan and future PP (Precise Plan) applications fall
under the provision of Section 65915-65918 of the California Government Code." She
stated the code does not mention Specific Plans. Specific Plans help physically lay
out the best use of the property; it is not an incentive -based program. She noted that
the developer was told the Specific Plan was mandatory, which is now the
discretionary approval that authorizes a $10 million exaction. The $10 million exaction
would make the proposed project infeasible and they will not accept as a condition.
She referred to the Planning Commission resolution and recommended the following
10
_r5g
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
condition be added to the resolution, "That the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council decide the issues regarding affordable housing."
She communicated a policy should be made by the policymakers. Ms. Jenson noted
striking Condition of Approval No. 2 in the resolution since once the map is recorded,
it is final and the Specific Plan is a legislative determination. She believed City staff
agreed the condition could be stricken. In closing, she said affordable housing units
would be produced as part of The Sands project and she is sure there are more
affordable units coming to the City in the future. She offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Holt reiterated items the applicant would like to discuss, including the
requirement for the 100-year storm retention. She asked if the City typically requires
improvements related to the 100-year storm.
Mr. Swartz answered yes. He explained that it is not a Condition of Approval, but a
sentence that could be stricken from the resolution.
Commissioner Holt asked if it is allowed to retain some of the stormwater within the
streets.
Mr. Swartz replied no.
MR. CHAMBERS interposed that when the assessment district was designed, the
drainage was designed to accept a certain amount of flow of the proposed site.
Commissioner Holt inquired if the improvements were constructed.
MR. CHAMBERS replied yes, adding that they expanded the retention basin off -site.
Commissioner Holt asked Mr. Chambers if they want the assisted living component to
be an allowable use on Planning Area 3.
MR. CHAMBERS replied yes.
Commissioner Holt noted the applicant would also like to discuss the affordable
housing requirement and the requirement for the start of construction within five years
(Condition of Approval No. 2).
Mr. Swartz interjected that staff was agreeable to eliminating Condition of Approval
No. 2.
Commissioner Holt commented that the items for discussion are the assisted living
component and the requirement for affordable housing. She pointed out that the staff
report mentions several alternatives the applicant discussed with the City, including
the in -lieu fee in an amount of $1.50 for each livable square foot for each residential
unit within Planning Area 4.
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
At this point, MR. CHAMBERS stated he would not want to reopen negotiations. He
felt they have laid out their case. He said the $1.50 in -lieu fee that the City never
responded to would be an amenable solution to the remaining MacLeod family
members.
Commissioner Holt said there was a discussion about providing either 40 units with a
combination of 10 units at moderate income and the remaining 30 units at low- and
very -low income. There was another discussion about 30 units (15 low-income units
and 15 very -low-income units). She inquired if the applicant would be amenable to the
two options.
MR. CHAMBERS responded that there are many complicated factors involved with
the latter option, which they never addressed with City staff. He felt the second option
is not worth pursuing. He stated providing the 10 units at moderate income would be
acceptable to the applicant.
For the record, MS. JENSON stated they sent the City documentation that laid out
details of the applicant's alternatives, but it was not concluded.
MR. CHAMBERS added that the in -lieu fee of $1.50 and the 10 units at moderate
income would have to be made clear that it is the contribution for the proposed project
in perpetuity.
MR. BOB KOLODNY, San Diego, California, commented he is an attorney that has
been representing the MacLeod family for approximately 40 years. When the City was
moving forward with an assessment district, the MacLeod family invested in the
property as a very long-term investor. After listening to comments during the public
hearing, he made clear that the MacLeod family are not developers. The family has
been trying to decide what the best use is for the property. He said the family
considered a zone change because they thought there would be a better use.
However, the family was told it would not be a good idea and they elected not to do
so. The family was told that the adjacent properties would be developed so they
decided to contribute into the assessment district for improvements on and around the
property. When Myron MacLeod, who recently passed away, suggested the family talk
to Mr. Chambers to help expedite the process with the City. He said the family decided
not to seek a development agreement or anything that would be problematic, other
than a Specific Plan to create four parcels. Thus, someday the property can monetize
since the family has spent hundreds and thousands of dollars in the assessment
district. Brokers informed the family that the only way for the property to be viable is
to work with the City on a Specific Plan and not ask for any concessions. Before Mr.
MacLeod passed away, he met with the City and he was apprised of what he referred
to as an exaction, reserving 20 percent of the units for affordable housing without legal
authority. He then realized that the project would no longer be viable. Mr. MacLeod
asked Mr. Chambers to move forward without asking for anything, and Mr. Chambers
contacted Rutan & Tucker to determine if there is legal authority imposing the
requirements made by the City. Mr. Kolodny said he wanted the Planning Commission
to understand a little of the history about the Macleod family and the property. He
asked the Planning Commission if it is not appropriate, without a specific policy to
12
13'I
MINUTES C
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
approve the Specific Plan, move it forward to the City Council without the
recommendation on the 20 percent for affordable housing. He noted the Council would
be addressing the issue of affordable housing in the future, as opposed to creating a
precedent on the proposed plan. He felt the City is taking their client's property without
any legal authority. Again, he urged the Planning Commission to consider approving
the Specific Plan without imposing the conditions for affordable housing.
Commissioner DeLuna commented that there is a reference to an assisted living
facility, and noted that Commissioner Holt inquired if the affordable housing of 20
percent would act against the assisted living facility. She noted that the assisted living
and affordable housing are entirely different.
Mr. Stendell said he is not aware of a covenant that has been recorded against an
assisted living facility. He agreed and considers affordable housing and assisted living
two different uses.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if an assisted living facility would be constructed on
Planning Area 3, would the 20 percent of 200 for affordable housing units remain the
same.
Mr. Stendell explained that it the Planning Commission were to recommend the option
of an assisted living facility on Planning Area 3, he would not see expanding the
affordable housing component. The recommended condition for 20 percent affordable
housing units would only pertain to Planning Area 4.
Chairman Pradetto stated that the McLeod family is contributing to a $10 million debt
service for improvements in the area.
MR. CHAMBERS clarified that the family has contributed $10 million towards the $30
million assessment district.
According to the City's calculation, Chairman Pradetto clarified that 40 units at
affordable rents would equate to an additional $10 million.
MR. CHAMBERS replied yes.
Chairman Pradetto reaffirmed that the applicant is not asking for a Change of Zone or
General Plan amendment, which other developers would leverage for concessions.
MR. CHAMBERS replied that is correct.
Chairman Pradetto asked City Attorney Robert Hargreaves to address the
Commission.
Mr. Hargreaves communicated that the proposed request for a Specific Plan has been
a cooperative process. There have been many issues and everyone has been
successful in working through issues, including issues that have been discussed
during the public hearing. However, the process is hindered on the condition for
13
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
affordable housing. He stated that cities had an informal affordable housing policy that
goes back for decades. If you go back, there are development agreements and other
approvals where affordable housing requirements have been negotiated and imposed.
He asserted that the requirement is not setting a precedent in terms of the substance.
He said when the project was originally proposed, he believed the density was five
units per acre based on the Keyser Marston study. Keyser Marston indicated if the
City increased the density to 20 units per acre, the City can create value and some of
the value can go to affordable housing. In this case, the City did not wait for the
developer to come in and negotiate. The City went ahead and upzoned the area
because of the requirements of the Housing Element, including other areas of the City.
He said in a sense, forego the opportunity to use the upzoning as leverage. The
question was asked if there is a legal authority, he stated, yes there is a legal authority.
Mr. Hargreaves indicated he had that conversation with Ms. Jenson a number of times
and she has not shown him that the City has no legal authority. He proclaimed there
is no requirement. It is a policy decision that ultimately goes to the City Council, and
he does not know that staff or anyone else will know what the Council would decide.
He said the current City Council has not faced this type of decision in today's
environment; a different environment the City was dealing with when there were a
redevelopment agency and a booming economy. He mentioned that the state is crying
out for affordable housing, but they have not exactly mandated that cities provide
affordable housing. The state has told cities to accommodate affordable housing if
cities deny projects coming forward with affordable housing the state can take away
the cities land use planning. He also mentioned the state has a very strong policy. In
recent legislation, the state has come forward with measures to push for affordable
housing. He noted that a Specific Plan is essentially an amendment to the General
Plan, which is a legislative act and opens up negotiations. He stressed there is legal
authority for the City Council to impose an affordable housing requirement.
Concerning the assessment district, the district funds public improvements, which the
property owner would be required to contribute to the district.
With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Holt noted she is not an affordable housing expert; however, she
appreciated staff seeking a solution to the affordability crisis in California. She stated
it is going to take the State of California to do something so there is consistency. She
commented there is not a set in stone policy and the City Council is not encouraging
a policy. She said she does not know if it is within the Planning Commission's purview
to recommend that the Council create a uniform affordable housing policy. She
recommended that the City Council create a policy or they need to state that the
applicant or property owner must negotiate with the Council or City staff. Secondly,
she said the applicant is willing to pay the in -lieu fee. She was not sure if it is prudent
to make a recommendation to the City Council to accept the in -lieu fee or an amount
imposed by Council as they see fit. Lastly, she stated she does not have an issue with
allowing the assisted living component on Planning Area 3.
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chairman Pradetto clarified that Commissioner
recommendation to the City Council to accept the
percent affordable housing requirement and
determination.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Holt would be open to making a
in -lieu fee of $1.50 without the 20
ask the Council to make that
Commissioner Holt remarked that at the end of the day, it is going to be the City
Council's decision. Her personal opinion, she does not see a precedent for requiring
20 percent for affordable housing. However, she does see a precedent for an in -lieu
fee but does not know what the fee should be.
Commissioner DeLuna stated that the in -lieu fee is too low. If they allow the $1.50 to
go through, they will be setting a precedent. She noted other projects have contributed
between $7.00 and $12.00. She mentioned there might be a reason why there is not
a uniform policy throughout the City. She noted the Macleod property is well suited for
an affordable housing component. She said a school and a medical facility proposed
is in the area, which would attract an affordable housing developer. In addition, the
proposed site is in close proximity to Walmart, Lowe's, Home Depot, and future
commercial sites. She conveyed when you rule out an affordable housing component,
you are ruling out people who are not looking for a handout but looking for a leg up. In
a conscientious community, the City has to address multiple housing needs. She
pointed out that the proposed site is uniquely well suited for affordable housing, for
that reason, City staff is being firm with the condition for 20 percent affordable housing
units. She noted if you do not attach an affordable housing component, then you are
setting a precedent.
Commissioner Holt asked Commissioner DeLuna if she had a recommendation for the
in -lieu fee.
Mr. Stendell interjected that the Planning Commission is having some trepidation over
the affordable housing component. He communicated that the City Council will discuss
establishing a policy for affordable housing. Therefore, the Planning Commission
could stay neutral and let the Council decide. Staff will pass on the Commission's
comments to the Council.
Commissioner Holt asked what the Commission should do with the assisted living
component.
Mr. Stendell responded that the Planning Commission should address the assisted
living component.
Commissioner DeLuna commented that the site does not seem like an ideal location
for assisted living and she would need to do more research. She also does not know
when the proposed medical facility in Rancho Mirage will be constructed, if the
assisted living component is being based on the medical facility. She stated she does
not have a strong opinion or strongly object to the proposed use on Planning Area 3.
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Chairman Pradetto said that it seems the applicant has made it clear that 40 units for
affordable housing is infeasible. However, the applicant seems to be open to 30 units,
with 10 units at market rate.
Commissioner DeLuna remarked that moderate income could go as high as 60
percent of AMI, which could mitigate some of the concerns about the project becoming
economically infeasible. She mentioned that the applicant could also sell a portion of
the site and dedicate it to affordable housing to qualify for tax credits so it will not be
a burden to the applicant.
Commissioner Holt inquired if the Planning Commission must make a
recommendation on the parcel map.
Mr. Stendell clarified if Commissioner Holt was referring to the set -aside piece of the
map.
Commissioner Holt replied that is correct.
Mr. Stendell answered yes.
Commissioner Holt asked the Commission if they agreed to the set -aside piece of the
map.
Commissioner DeLuna responded that she would prefer to see the piece integrated.
However, she would rather see the piece set aside than not allowed for any affordable
housing.
Commissioner Holt agreed.
Chairman Pradetto asked Commissioner DeLuna if an affordable housing developer
using housing credits could build a portion of the project or they need their own parcel
set aside as it is drawn.
Commissioner DeLuna replied that both have existed. She hesitated to give any kind
of opinion that she might be held to; however, both options have been successfully
developed. She does not know if it would work well in this situation.
Chairman Pradetto commented that he knows the easy way out, but does not want to
take it and said it is up to the City Council. He preferred that the Planning Commission
provide a recommendation.
Commissioner DeLuna agreed. At this point, she said she is not willing to write off the
affordable housing component. She felt the Commission should send some kind of
direction to the Council.
Chairman Pradetto asked Commissioner DeLuna if she is open to the 30 units at low -
and very -low income and 10 units at moderate income.
W
MINUTES C }
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Commissioner DeLuna replied yes.
Commissioner Holt said it would be nice to see some affordable units. She asked the
Commission if they are going to make a recommendation on the in -lieu fees.
Commissioner DeLuna voiced that she is not comfortable with the proposed $1.50 in -
lieu fee.
Commissioner Holt asked if the Commission should recommend either the in -lieu fee
or the 20 percent set aside for affordable housing.
Commissioner DeLuna asked City staff if the Commission is going in the right
direction.
Mr. Stendell responded that quick negotiations are a bad idea. He felt policy direction
from the Commission is important. He said direction regarding the affordable housing
component would be appreciated, and provide staff with a broad policy direction to
pass on to the City Council.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Commission could recommend requiring
affordable housing without specifying the amount or the type.
Mr. Stendell replied yes.
Chairman Pradetto inquired if it would be the same as a quick negotiation regardless
of what the Commission recommends. He said more negotiation would take place
between now and the time it goes to the City Council.
Mr. Stendell remarked that time is the variable.
Commissioner DeLuna expressed that City staff has well researched their point of
view over a period of years and she respects the research and the work that staff has
done. Therefore, she cannot find a good reason to go against staff's recommendation,
unless they slightly modify the recommendation.
Commissioner Holt noted that staff's preference is not to make modifications.
If the Commission decided to agree with the 20 percent, Chairman Pradetto stated
that his vote would be to continue the item for more information or to vote no. He noted
that they only have three members present to vote.
Mr. Stendell recommended the Planning Commission not to specify the on -site units
or in -lieu fees as directives to the City Council.
Mr. Swartz added that there is a resolution with Conditions of Approval. Therefore, if
the resolution is approved, the Commission is also approving the conditions. He said
any modified conditions must be part of the recommendation.
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
MR. CHAMBERS communicated that they provided the Planning Commission with a
redlined resolution with their proposed changes. He explained the resolution would go
forward without an affordable housing component. It would move forward with the
Commission approving the Specific Plan and the Commission's recommendation that
the Council takes some form of action in the alternative.
Commissioner DeLuna stated she is not comfortable excluding affordable housing
from the consideration.
Commissioner Holt asked if staff could revise the resolution based on the
Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Stendell replied that is correct.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Commission would need to make a motion.
Chairman Pradetto answered yes; however, the motion must be very specific.
Commissioner DeLuna voiced that the representative for the applicant presented the
Commission with their revisions to the resolution. She said she has not had a chance
to read the revised resolution and did not feel comfortable moving forward without
some provision concerning affordable housing.
Commissioner Holt inquired if the Commission could make the same recommendation
for the conditions that staff make the necessary revisions as City staff, City Council,
and the applicant move forward with negotiations.
Chairman Pradetto said the Commission could do whatever they want if there is a
motion.
Commissioner Holt noted they also needed to include assisted living in the motion.
Commissioner DeLuna moved to recommend to the City Council accepting staff's
report with the inclusion of an affordable housing component or an in -lieu fee to be
determined by ... before finishing the motion, she asked Mr. Stendell for assistance
in completing the motion.
Chairman Pradetto interjected that the Commission would need to remove the specific
condition regarding the 20 percent for affordable housing.
Commissioner DeLuna added to the motion to remove the specific condition requiring
20 percent for affordable housing and moving forward to the City Council with an
affordable housing component. She asked if her motion was specific enough to move
forward.
Chairman Pradetto clarified that the recommendation is to strike Condition of Approval
No. 12, including that the City Council study an appropriate set aside or in -lieu fee for
affordable housing.
18
�3
1
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Commissioner Holt inquired if the Commission needed to make a specific reference
to any of the particular items or conditions within the resolution, or recommend that
City staff revise the resolution accordingly.
Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 7:46 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 7:55
p.m.
Mr. Stendell reported that staff has two paths the Planning Commission could
recommend to the City Council. One, take an action recommending approval of the
proposed project without the Planning Commission resolution. Essentially the action
would be a Minute Motion and not adopt a resolution. Staff would take the broad
direction from the Commission and staff would construct a recommendation to the City
Council.
Chairman Pradetto asked if the Planning Commission has done something similar
before.
Mr. Stendell replied yes, stating a similar case was the short-term rental policy. He
continued with the second path. If the Commission were uncomfortable with the other
option, staff would take the direction received by the Commission and revise the
resolution. Staff would return to the Commission with a revised resolution reflecting
the Commission's recommendations. He stressed the City council would most likely
deal with the policy on how to handle the affordable housing issue.
Commissioner DeLuna moved to approve staff's recommendation to move the
proposed project forward to the City Council.
From the audience, MS. JENSON asked if the motion included moving forward with
the resolution.
Commissioner DeLuna replied yes, moving forward with the resolution presented by
City staff.
Mr. Stendell clarified that Commissioner DeLuna's motion is the recommendation from
the staff report.
Commissioner DeLuna replied yes.
Commissioner Holt asked if the Commission is going to add the option of an in -lieu
fee at the discretion of the City Council.
Commissioner DeLuna remarked that she could add it to her motion or Commissioner
Holt could amend her motion.
Commissioner Holt stated the Commission's recommendation would be to move
forward with staff's recommendation to include 20 percent of the 200 units for
affordable housing or an in -lieu fee determined by the City Council.
19
MINUTES {
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Commissioner DeLuna said she is comfortable with Commissioner Holt's statement.
For the record, Chairman Pradetto clarified that the motion is to adopt City staff's
recommendation and request that the City Council look at an in -lieu fee option for
funding the affordable housing component.
Commissioner DeLuna replied yes.
Commissioner Holt inquired if the resolution stands as written by staff.
For clarification purposes, Mr. Stendell asked Commissioner DeLuna if she is
recommending adopting the resolution as presented by City staff.
Commissioner DeLuna replied yes, with the modification to include 20 percent of the
200 units for affordable housing or an in -lieu fee determined by the City Council.
Chairman Pradetto explained there is a motion on the table and without a second,
then the motion will not be considered. Therefore, the Commission may consider a
new motion, which may or may not be recommended by City staff.
Commissioner Holt seconded the motion. She communicated she felt comfortable
seconding the motion because the 20 percent of 200 is 40 units, which is not far off
from the other compromises the Planning Commission had discussed. She pointed
out the City Council would make the final decision. She said the Planning
Commission's motion would demonstrate that the Commission is seeking some sort
affordability component to the proposed project.
Chairman Pradetto asked if the project did not receive three votes to move forward to
the City Council, the project would still go to the Council.
Mr. Stendell replied yes.
Chairman Pradetto stated he felt sensitive to the developer and would not vote in favor
of the 20 percent of the units for affordable housing. He asked the Commissioners to
cast their vote.
Mr. Stendell announced the motion failed by a 2-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna and Holt;
NOES: Pradetto; ABSENT: Greenwood and Gregory).
MS. JENSON interjected that the developer would waive the requirement of the
resolution if the Planning Commission could move the proposed project forward
pursuant to the second oral recommendation.
Chairman Pradetto stated the project would go before the City Council, regardless.
Mr. Stendell said that was correct, noting the meeting minutes and the project would
go before the City Council without a recommendation for approval from the
Commission.
20
MINUTES ?
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
Mr. Hargreaves interjected that there could be another motion. He explained the
Commission could consider City staff's suggestion to push the resolution to the side
and introduce a new motion that encapsulates a consensus of what they want the
Council to consider. Such as, approve the Specific Plan as presented with an
affordable housing component and specify parameters, including direction on the
assisted living component.
Commissioner Holt moved to, by Minute Motion, recommend that the City Council
approve the Specific Plan, with an affordable housing component; and allow assisted facilities
to be an allowable use on Parcel 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and
carried by a 3-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT:
Greenwood and Gregory).
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council
approving a Change of Zone, a Precise Plan of design, and a Tentative Parcel
Map (TPM) to construct a senior living project of 164 units, including a clubhouse
building located at 74-300 Country Club Drive; and adoption of a Notice of
Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Case Nos. PP/CZ 18-0003* and TPM 37512 (The Wolff Companv, Scottsdale,
Arizona, Applicant).
Commissioner Greenwood stated he was involved in the said project and recused
himself.
Mr. Swartz outlined the salient points from the staff report. He noted that the applicant
would pay an affordable housing in -lieu fee of $9.86 totaling $1,350,000. Staff
recommended approval and offered to answer any questions.
Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING
or OPPOSING this matter.
MR. DAVID TODD, The Wolff Company, Scottsdale, Arizona, stated they are excited
about the proposed project and appreciated City staff's diligence in getting them to
this point. They are also excited to develop in Palm Desert.
Commissioner Holt understood the proposed project is for active adults. She asked if
the proposed project would have elevators.
MR. TODD replied yes.
Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there are walking paths throughout the project.
MR. TODD answered yes, stating they have an internal fitness facility, pool, spa, and
pointed to the walking paths on the site plan.
Commissioner DeLuna commented that there seems to be little turf to walk pets.
�..= I � = ��°_,..�
STAFF REPOR.7,WWU0"�_
CITY OF PALM DESERT, �ASSi`B TO 20 KONG
MEETINGDATE: January23, 2020
PREPARED BY: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
REQUEST: Approval of a Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map 37234 to subdivide 32t
acres into four (4) parcels bounded by east of Monterey Avenue, south of
Dick Kelly Drive, north of "A" Street, and west of Gateway Drive; and adoption
of a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of February 13, 2020,
Backaround Analvsis
The Department of Community Development notified City Clerk's Office that the subject public
hearing had been duly noticed, in accordance with all applicable public notice guidelines for same.
Subsequently, Applicant contacted the City to request continuance of their cases to the Council's
next regular meeting on Thursday, February 13, 2020. Therefore, your concurrence and granting
of a continuance is respectfully requested.
Fiscal Analvsis
No fiscal impact.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL
Approved as to Form or REVIEW
Content
NIA NIA
Robert W. Hargreaves Rachelle D. Klassen ) Janet M. Moore
City Attorney City Clerk Director of Finance
City Manager Lauri Aylaian N/A
APPLICANT: MC Properties, LLC
270 North El Camino Real, Suite F397
Encinitas, CA 92024
ASSISTANT
CITY MANAGER
NIA
Andy Firestine
Assistant City Manager
1
I
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Kevin Swartz e-mail dated January 14, 2020.
Klassen, Rachelle
From:
Swartz, Kevin
Sent:
Tuesday, January 14, 2020 9:18 AM
To:
Klassen, Rachelle
Cc:
Stendell, Ryan
Subject:
MCP Public Hearing Item
Rachelle,
Please add the following item under Public Hearings. The applicant has requested a continuance until the February 13th
CC Meeting.
Sorry for the late notice.
Public Hearings.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 37234 TO
SUBDIVIDE 32+ ACRES INTO FOUR (4) PARCELS BOUNDED BY, EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE,
SOUTH OF DICK KELLY DRIVE, NORTH OF A STREET, AND WEST OF GATEWAY DRIVE; AND
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Rec: The applicant has requested to continue the public hearing to the February 13, 2020, City Council
meeting.
Kevin Swartz
Associate Planner
Ph:760.346.0611 Direct:760.776.6485
kswartz a cityotpalmdesert.org
Install the Palm Desert In Touch app to stay in touch with your community
Android Apple Mobile Web