Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPP-CUP-EA 16-394 - Public Comment LettersNOTE TO: Planning Commissioners 4' FROM: Diana Altorfer, Venezia Resident DATE: March 5, 2018 RE: The Sands Proposal Public Hearing of February 20, 2018 Thank You for asking questions of the developer that needed to be asked at the Hearing. It appeared that you were much more conscious of the homeowners and becoming more sensitive to the impact of the proposed development upon surrounding communities. This is the first 3-story, 40-foot-high, massive building complex to be developed in Palm Desert where two sides of the project are existing single story private homes. The action is unprecedented! When our homes were built in 2003-04, there was a 30-year agreement for future development in the lot next door, not to exceed 306 units, and 2-story height maximum. Nowhere in the surrounding communities are single story homes adjacent to a 3-story complex. The comparison with Ariana Boutique's (at right) 3-story Apartment Complex on Deep Canyon south of Hwy 111, is absurd. It is much smaller, it was built in 1978, is well under 40 ft high, is surrounded largely by businesses. The nearest apartment complex built subsequently. ' C4)('teff 't'�''�`'� Where else do I look to see the contrast between 41 ft high buildings and single leve homes, three times the height of two surrounding neighborhoods. The question remains unanswered, which is why, and I apologize for this, I turned by back on Commission members to address the developer that a 3-dimentional mock up of this development should have been made available. An original homeowner of 41956 Via Garibaldi, purchased his home in 2004, and then put his home on the market in June of 2017, after learning about the development by notice of the Public Hearing. It's been 9 months and no sale. His wife has MS and he needs to move to Northern California for more support from family. Another home nearby has also been on the market since last July with 3 price changes, to no avail. Who says this doesn't impact home values? Word of it has reached realtors... • Price History 756K DATE EVENT PRICE I 01/30/18 41956 Vla Garibaldi 12/04/17 i7 ®! >j • 09/01/17 598K 06/15/17 • 632K Price change Price change Price change Usted for sale 5599,000 $624,900 $629,900 $645.000 One must NOT forget that Carter Elementary School will now be adjacent to two 3-story buildings, exposing the school yard: CBS News March 3, 2018: Investigators believe 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz tried to make a sniper's nest by shooting out a window in a third -floor stairwell. He fired 16 rounds into the glass, but the hurricane -proof material didn't shatter. Sources tell CBS Miami, Cruz then reloaded only to have his gun jam. With police closing in, Cruz dropped the weapon and exited the school with other students. FOX news had a video report saying that it appeared that the suspect's efforts to establish that higher vantage point were thwarted by the school's use of hurricane -resistant windows. "Had he succeeded there could have been a dramatic increase in the number of deaths and injuries." We should be reducing anxiety for our parents of school children, not making it worse! And, what IF the unthinkable DOES happen? A "grandfathered" two-story apartment complex would blend into the community, just as Canterra has. With the City's commitment to make Palm Desert more "walkable" downtown, that same commitment would apply in this area. We can walk to the Soccer Complex, the Swimming Complex, the Civic Park with skateboards and playgrounds, dog parks, tennis and basketball courts. We even walk to the Fourth of July fireworks. This area doesn't need a self-contained complex that duplicates the activities nearby. If that property were truly dedicated to housing, it could incorporate more units instead of amenities, and not have to create to this three-story anomaly. Big developments are fine when you have a choice whether to buy an adjacent home. To do so after -the -fact is unparalleled. We are at your mercy. It's up to you, and your conscience. Yours sincerely, .Lavi,a K. ALtorfer Diana K. Altorfer cc: Palm Desert City Council Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Editor, The Desert Sun Ceja, Eric From: Beverly DiGregorio <bevo59@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 12:54 PM To: Ceja, Eric this an unsatisfactory plan. Bev DiGregorio 41726 Via Aregio Palm Desert February 19, 2018 Mr. Eric Ceja Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, I have no expectation that the opinions of current residents living adjacent to or within a short distance of the upcoming project commonly known at The Sands will have anything to do with your decision making process regarding plans to continue develop of this project. You've already made that point. As mentioned in a previous letter to you, I pointed out several concerns and negative impacts this (expanded) development would cause. As I expected, nothing changed in the trajectory of this project. Your decisions tell me you have absolutely no regard for the physical or economic wellbeing of current residents living adjacent to or near this project. I'm sure you're acting within legal parameters but, that doesn't make it 'right'. As I learn more about the process and the decisions you have been a party to, it helps me understand why many people distrust and disrespect politicians and people in positions such as yours. As you know I'm beyond the 'public comment' period but, that's not important at this point. I think it IS important that you know that you're hurting more people than you're helping. I speak for myself only. I do not necessarily represent the opinions of any organization or association. David W. Beach 74174 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Ceja, Eric From: June Engblom <juneengblom@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 4:45 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands I'm writing to express my opposition to three story construction in Palm Desert. If I speak am unlimited to 3 minutes? How many times may I speak ? May I read a statement for someone who is afraid of public speaking or who cannot make the meeting? Thanks June Engblom Portola Cc resident Sent from my iPhone 1 Ceja, Eric From: Dianne SanClemente <diannesanclemente@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:26 AM To: desertdianne@hotmail.com; Ceja, Eric Subject: Not in my backyard We oppose a 3 story apt complex in our backyard. The San Clemente Family Ceja, Eric From: JoesephE.Stongle <stongj@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 11:04 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Apple Subject: Huge property going up beside/hind "VENEZIA" Dear Mr. Eric Ceja, 1 am quite certain that you're aware we have single family (all one story) on our property and what you want to build are two and three floors. I do not know if any of you thought of the terrible possibility that someof your buildings are perfect for a school shooting, similar to Vegas. Your project is massive and my immediate concern is that it will destroy the value of my property with its traffic of cars and people. Then there's the problem of views to some in our community. Please reconsider! Sincerely, J.E. Stongle 1 Ceja, Eric From: JoesephE.Stongle <stongj@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 1:33 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Apple Dear Mr. Ceja, I thought it best to write back and clarify my letter. I am a retired flight attendant and after 35 years of service I immediately think "SAFETY"/"EXIT" ECT. In light of the situation at hand in Fla. You plan to have buildings that face the back of the school yard and that concerns some of us at "VENEZIA" Sincerely, J.E. Stongle 1 Ceja, Eric From: Karla Lewis <karlalewis1373@grnail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 7:08 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Project on Hovley Lane East February 18, 2018 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, I am writing you in response to a letter we received from the city regarding CASE NO. DA/PP/EA 16-394, The Sands Apartments, located at 74-351 Hovley Lane East. First of all, I understand the need for affordable housing in our city. Too many people who work here have to drive long distances because they can not find affordable housing in Palm Desert. I understand that the proposed project was approved over 20 years ago, but with a much smaller footprint as far as the number of units. The redesigned project has been increased to 412 apartments with some being three stories high. I oppose three story structures so close to housing developments. Currently the Canterra Apartments border our community, Portola Country Club, and at two stories they are much higher than our homes. If you come into our community and look at the homes along Angels Camp Rd. you will see that the parking lot at Canterra is at the same height as the roof of the homes backing it. This concems me as the topography of the area is so different. Imagine if we are already eight feet below the parking lot what a three story project will look like from our vantage point. I also oppose the planned signalized intersection at Hovley Lane East and Jasmine. An additional traffic light in such a short distance between Portola and Corporate Way would change the flow of traffic. That would mean we had two stoplights between Portola and Cook. As it is, we are never impeded by traffic at the Canterra Apartments. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider this new design and not allow three story units. Furthermore, I would hope that the project would take into consideration our community and heighten the block wall so that it is the same as what is behind Canterra to block the view and help with noise. The developer should also be required to make landscape plans three feet from the border wall and with trees and hedges tall enough to block the apartments from viewing our homes. Respectfully yours, Karla Lewis 74232 Zircon Cir. W. 1 Ceja, Eric From: Diana Altorfer <ditorfer@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:14 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Re: Just one more Sands Question Thank you, Eric, Can you also say WHERE the other three developments are in Palm Desert which will have 3-story components? I have driven all over trying to find how high three story buildings are... So far I have pictures of the new hotel in Palm Desert (which I understand was planned for 5 stories but neighbors successfully complained and got it down to 3 stories!!??) and the center building at Ralph's (grocery) on Country Club and Cook. It sure would have been better had the developer been required by the City to do a 3-D model like many developers do when they present a proposal. It is so hard to fathom 8 of these 3-story buildings in the 17.5 acre lot. (Why do they say 18.5 acres in some documents when half of 35 acres is 17.5? I also taught math at middle school.) Diana Altorfer On Feb 16, 2018, at 4:48 PM, <eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org> <eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org> wrote: Hi Diana, Yes, the plan is to bring the site down to roughly match the grades of the surrounding properties. Along Venezia the grades will match (within a few inches). Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org Original Message From: Diana Altorfer [mailto:ditorfer@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 10:05 PM To: Ceja, Eric <eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: The Sands Question Eric, Are the developers planning to REMOVE all of this sand to bring it level with the adjoining communities, or just try to level it out? It is quite high in several areas so it could also raise the height relative to adjoining communities if it's not removed... Please advise... Diana Altorfer 1 Ceja, Eric From: Dave Wood <dfwood55@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 1:51 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Proposed development next to Carter Elementary Dear Sir, Surely there are better development and desirable options than what is being proposed. The traffic generated around the school as well as the athletic fields will not be good. The height of some of the buildings proposed will not be good. The housing density that is being proposed will not be good. (I believe that it was increased from the original proposal) I urge you to consider other options! Regards, David Wood 41766 Via Treviso (Venezia) Palm Desert, CA 92269 260-414-0699 Onward... Dave Wood 260.414.0699 dfwood55@gmail.com There is NO traffic jam on the extra mile! ><> 1 Ceja, Eric From: Jean Reid <jeanreid5678@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 7:41 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands Apartments Development Eric Ceja, We live in Portola Country Club and back onto this site. We are very concerned how this high density project will affect our quiet, peaceful community. We oppose the 3 story construction planned and the building of 412 homes in a spot earmarked for 306. Hopefully our community members' concerns will be considered. Best regards, Jean Reid Donna & Gerry Nye 74312 Angels Camp Road Palm Desert, Ca i Ceja, Eric From: Papillon Graphics <trish@papillongraphic`s.com> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 4:31 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands project Hi Eric, I've emailed you before but wanted to make a few points. In the legal notice sent to us from the City under "Project Location" there was mention of Carter School, Cantera, and Portola CC but absolutely NO mention of Venezia....why was this? Being an established community for over 14 years, we deserve some consideration. There are no set -backs for the garages and I understand that the garbage area is going to be located next to our East wall. We need set -backs for privacy and security reasons. Take 53 of the parking garages and fill them in on the uncovered spaces along the south side and then put the parking spaces on our back wall along with landscaping ficus trees that can't be climbed! The fact that the Sands development needs a stop light is another indication that the development is too large. Why not cut back 3 of those 8- 3 story building to 2 stories. Cut back on some amenities; there are plenty of recreational facilities with -in walking distance. A Beer Garden....really? Best Regards, Trish Trish Pierce Papillon Graphics, Inc. V: 760.776.8714 F: 760.779.0723 M: 760.285.1944 1 Ceja, Eric From: Teri Coulter <coulterteri@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:04 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: [SPAM] - Low Income 3 Story Apt Project on Hovely We plan to attend the meeting at the Civic Center in Palm Desert on February 20th regarding the above apartment complex. We realize you have heard all the complaints but add ours to the list. We live next door and this project will have a tremendous negative impact on our entire area. We bought our house in 2014 with the intention to retire here. If we had known this land was going to be used in such an unethical manner, we would not have invested in this area. This project will: - Negatively impact our property values. - Decrease the security of our properties with a parking structure that will be built up against our back wall! - Remove our privacy when the height of the garages and the multiple story buildings abut the boundary walls. The property owners should have been informed about this project before the builder tried to "sneak" around the environmental impact studies. How does the planning commission plan to deal with the loss or privacy and security? Will additional police force be available to address the increase in noise complaints, and other intrusions? Teri and Steve Coulter Sent from my iPad 1 Ceja, Eric From: Phyllis Sherwood <fraydleps@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 8:16 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Venezia This is unexceptionable. We are absolutely against the future plans to building on the sands behind Venezia. Sincerely, The Barzman's Sent from my iPad Ceja, Eric From: Sent: To: Subject: Valerie Davidson <valdavidson42@gmail.com> Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:11 AM Ceja, Eric Fwd: Projects Case No. DA/PP/EE16-394 Subject: Projects Case No. DA/PP/EE16-394 To: eceia@citvofpalmdesert.org Mr. Eric Ceja: As a "snowbird" who resides 5 or more months of the year in concern and disapproval regarding the above project. We are a community of seniors and allowing a project of this community. I would urge you to reconsider this project. Sincerely, R. Davidson, 42535 Tungsten Place, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Portola Country Club, I would like to express my height and density will very negatively affect our i Ceja, Eric • From: Jack and Susan Youmans '<jackandsusanyoumans@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 1:19 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: New apartment complex on Hovley I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed three story apartments on Hovley Lane. I do not feel that we need three story apartments overlooking a 55+ Community, AND an elementary school. I do advocate for affordable housing in Palm Desert. However, the location is not appropriate for this type of housing. Susan Youmans Portola Country Club Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 Ceja, Eric From: Jo <jypsyjo3721@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:51 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands apartments Eric Ceja, I live in Portola Country Club and definitely oppose the 3 story apartments that the city is considering to be built on Hovely. Not only is the height of the building an objection but the amount of apartments to be built should not be acceptable by our city. I have lived in Palm Desert/Portola for 18 years and been very happy in your city but this plan is the most negative plan our city has proposed. 3o Pitman 74517 Azurite Circle East Palm Desert 92260 1 Ceja, Eric From: Suzanne O. <sunscrn13@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:30 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Fwd: Hovely Lane East proposed apartment development Subject: Hovely Lane East proposed apartment development I am a homeowner and full-time resident in Portola Country Club. My property is adjacent to the proposed apartment development on Hovely. First, I would like to say that I am grateful to see this property developed. Copious amounts of blowing sand from this site have not only created a health hazard during my residency on this property, it also leaves quite a mess for me to clean. Additionally, I have to remove numerous tumbleweeds every year that have blown into my yard from this property. However, I stress my strong opposition to the proposed development in two specific areas: 1). The three-story height of the proposed structure, and 2). The proposed density of the development. Proposed height points: 1.. A three-story structure is completely out of keeping with all of the surrounding properties. There are no structures of this height within blocks of this site in all directions. Not only will this create an eyesore in the area, it will compromise the aesthetics of the neighborhoods and diminish property values in the affected neighborhoods. 2. A structure of this height invades the privacy of adjacent properties. My yard and master bedroom will be easily visible from a third story vantage point. Children in the adjacent school will also be subject to surveillance from this vantage point, something that should be of great concern to all parents and safety -conscious residents of Palm Desert. Proposed density points: 1. At present, we enjoy a quiet and peaceful neighborhood. Every added resident in our neighborhood provides the opportunity for an increase in noise. It is in the best interest of all adjoining residents to minimize the noise pollution to the extent possible. 2. Every additional housing unit carries with it the potential of two addition vehicles. Not only does this create additional noise, it will significantly increase traffic congestion on Hovely and at the intersection of Hovely and Portola, an intersection that is already busy, especially during the hours that the school day is beginning and ending. Thank you for considering my points of concern. I trust that our elected officials will act in the best interests of existing residents rather than the monetary interests of developers. Suzanne Ostermann 74372 Angels Camp Rd. Palm Desert, CA 92260 1 Ceja, Eric From:. Kit Bishop <kitbishop730@gmail:com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:31 AM To: Ceja, Eric I own a home in Portola Country Club. I object to the proposed new development. It is too big, would be a privacy invasion to homes on Angel's Camp and would cause more traffic problems on Hovley. Sincerely, Tom & Kit Bishop\ 74435 Gary Av Palm Desert, CA 1 Ceja, Eric From: Gini Estes <dandvestes@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:22 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Three story apartments At tonight's meeting, please consider the impact on the lives of palm desert residents who live and work in that area. We are opposed to the height of our next door neighbors and the impact on our views and traffic, noise, etc. the reason we chose Palm desert as our home was because of the life style we now enjoy, and do not want to see it ruined. Thank you, Don and Virginia Estes, owners and residents of Portola a Country Club. Sent from my iPad 1 February 19, 2018 Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, This letter is being written on behalf of the residents and Board of Venezia HOA whose property lines border on that of the proposed development called The Sands. The Board of the HOA, on behalf of its residents, opposes the development as currently designed. When a large majority of its residents bought homes in this development, it was understood that the vacant lot next to James Earl Carter School and Venezia would some day be built. But it was clearly a complex with the number of apartments not to exceed 306. The town determined that this agreement, to which it is a signatory, could be changed. We believe that it is extremely unfair to change the design and diversity of the neighborhood after the fact. The residents of Venezia recognize the need for additional housing and are aware of the standing plans for the property next to Carter Elementary School. However, what they didn't bargain for was a development almost 35% larger than that already planned. As one of the members of your architectural committee stated, the project is too big for the site selected. It is akin to using a shoe horn to wedge your large foot into a small shoe. On two sides of the development are single level structures. And for 30 years it has been zoned 2 stories as Canterra II. Now we are being asked to accept multiple 3 story stuctures. It would be the first 3 story complex in this area. Further, the plan speaks glowingly of the setbacks from the Portola Valley Country Club and Canterra Apartments. It also states that as a giveback, the town can reduce the setback, but it didn't say that they could eliminate it. This is precisely what has transpired. Venezia seems to have been ignored when it comes to setbacks and landscaping. Instead, they get to see the backs of numerous garages with their attendant drain pipes, etc. it is as if the town has disregarded a few residents who are sacrificed for the interests of the many. The owners, who are property tax payers, are considered second rate behind the renters. We suggest that the setback be restored and the garages bordering Venezia be moved to another location. Then the landscaping can be added to make the ambience from Venezia looking east to be more acceptable. Lastly, we ask that the project be modified to revert to the plan that was signed by the town years ago, i.e. 306 units. This project is so large it needs its own traffic Tight! We sincerely hope that our suggestions receive the attention we believe they deserve. Best regards, Walter R. Altorfer President, Venezia HOA Board of Directors Cc: City of Palm Desert City Council Ceja, Eric From: Dianne SanClemente <diannesanclemente@msn:com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:26 AM To: desertdianne@hotmail.com; Ceja, Eric Subject: Not in my backyard We oppose a 3 story apt complex in our backyard. The San Clemente Family Ceja, Eric From: Hester Wes <whester@foxholetechnology.com> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 10:39 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: ditorfer@dc.rr.com; CityhallMail; weber Subject: The Sands - A Negative Impact to the Palm Desert Community - Vote No! Eric, We are writing to express our non-support of The Sands project in Palm Desert Community as currently planned. We currently live in the Venezia Housing area, which is next to The Sands planned development thus have major concerns in the following areas: 1. Three story (3-story) buildings can not exist at The Sands - 3-story (eight of them), two story (2—story) buildings (7 of them) are planned but can not exist as requested. o Does not conform with zoning codes applied to similar neighborhoods which only allows for 2-story buildings. o Extreme privacy and safety concerns of putting a 3-story building next to existing 1-story homes and a school play ground. In light of recent school gun issues and the recent Las Vegas Hotel shooting, we submit that allowing a 3-story building next to a school play ground and housing area violates privacy and safety issues. 2. Garages Must Have 25 Foot Setback from Venezia Homes - Garages lining the property line between Venezia: o Concern that The Sands will extend 5 feet or more (if sand isn't removed!) above backyard walls of Venezia. Causing privacy and visibility issues. o Garages too close to the Venezia Housing area wall should be 25 foot setback to allow for privacy and safety. A fire in a garage could cause damage to a Venezia Home. 3. Increased Traffic Congestion - Additional traffic in the area to include the over crowding of the school system is a major concern. 4. Redundant Play Grounds Not Needed — The Sands development plan calls for additional development of play grounds when there is currently a large outdoor recreational complex that could be used by The Sands residents just next door. The noise and lights from the additional play ground with in 100 feet of the Venezia Community will cause Privacy and Noice issues. Thus do not build. 5. Impact of Low Income Housing on Surrounding Areas - Addition of low-income housing next to a recently planned and established high -income housing area is going to reduce the value of the homes in the Venezia Housing Area. Thus request the City of Palm Desert immediately offer a Tax Assessment adjustment for 2018, and following years, of 40% less than 2017 tax assessment to account for the direct negative influence of the City Of Palm Desert Planning Division's impact on the home owners of Venezia. Again, thanks for your continued support regarding this critical issue to the Palm Desert Community. And if possible, I would like to request a meeting with you to further address our concerns. Warm regards, Wes Hester President & CEO esdft=b)cNE 11781 Lee Jackson Hwy, Suite 260 Fairfax, VA 22033 whester@ foxholetechnologv.com 1 Office Phone Number (0) 703-496-4514 Ce11 Phone Number (C) 703-586-3234 Fax Number (F) 202-379-1790 wWw.foxholetechnologv.com RLTW ISO 9001:2015 I CMMI® Level 3 I VA Certified Service -Disabled Veteran -Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) I Nunn —Perry Small Business of the Year Please consider the environment before printing this email. Foxhole Technology, Inc. is not an agent of, nor does it have the authority to bind or commit, or otherwise allocate or budget funds of or from the Federal Government of the United States.This email and its contents are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) as they may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator. Foxhole Technology, Inc. is not an agent of, nor does it have the authority to bind or commit, or otherwise allocate or budget funds of or from the Federal Government of the United States.This email and its contents are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) as they may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator. 2 In this summers meeting we brought up the following concerns: traffic, the view, noise, and water among other issues. In your Mitigated Negative Declaration which I will call MND from here on, here's what you say about traffic.You said there'd be a traffic signal at Jasmine Ct, but there is only promise of a signal warrant analysis. And that is AFTER post project condition, after construction and full occupancy of the proposed project is complete. Who knows if a signal will ever go in? You also painted a line on Portola to make 2 right turn lanes onto Hovley. The view: ou claim in the MND that our views are already obstructed by trees, carports or brick walls —so what's a few more 3 story buildings going to matter, right? Come to the apartments and look for yourselves...come to my back yard and look for yourselves...come to the upstairs of Portola CC's clubhouse and look for yourselves. The noise: your MND "predicts" we will have no temporary or permanent or periodic increase in ambient noise levels....with bulldozers and 865 new neighbors we will most certainly experience increased noise. The water: CVWD told you no problem, then why are they telling us not to flush each time we use the rest room? Your MND mentioined that no reptiles or mammals were observed. I guarantee you there are coyotes —I hear them howling many mornings. I see lizards daily upand over my wall. I see hawks, doves, road runners , small birds I cant identify. And I hear owls at night. In the MND Eric signs off that he find the project could have significant effect on the environment. Supposedly revisions by the developer have been done to minimize this? What revisions have been done? Over and over again in the MND the words "allowed under the General Plan" occur to justify why this can be done or that wont be so bad. Perhaps the real problem here is the GP.Why did you council members vote to approve multi story construction in the first place? Arent you PD residents? Don't the views and overcrowding matter to you? How were we informed of the GP? Some small tidbit in the Desert Sun? If you sat at Albertsons and informally polled people...Excuse me, how would you feel about 3 to 5 story construction in Pb? I bet my bottom dollar the overwhelming response would be NOOO..In just 30minutes at a pancake breakfast at Portola I obtained 78 signatures opposing 3 story construction. Getting back to the MND "allowed under the GP" yoou could put anwhere from 7 to 40 units per acre. On the Hovley plot that means from 126 apartments to 720 apartments. Think about that for a minute..you all voted to say 720 apartments would be allowed under the GP on that tiny piece of land. The fact that 720 could even be proposed is preposterous. Who knows, maybe someday we'll have 6 story apartment buildings on Gerald Ford and DinahShore just because the General Plan says its allowed. Just because you MAY do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Please consider carefully how you are impacting the future of beautiful Palm Desert before you vote for 3 stories. If you lived next door, how would you vote? From the city of PD website your core values and moral code include Honesty and Integrity..Why was this originallybrought up in the summer? Why say this is about low income housing when you propose 60 units out of 412 and summer you wanted 82? You could get those 60units doing20% of the original planned 306 apartments. Does anyone read our emails besides Eric? If you lived next door to this project, can you honestly say you'd vote to approve? Exemplary customer service...Why do you and the builder get several months to prepare and we get 3 minutes to oppose? Why do our opinions not matter? What makes you think this won't affect your customers at Chaparral, Silver Sands and the other complexes along Portola? Shouldn't more be done than a small blurb in the Desert Sun and letters to a handful of adjacent homeowners? Accountability and responsibility who is going to be responsible for cracks in our windows and sheetrock and in our brick walls from excavators and other heavy equipment? How will we be compensated? Will we have to hire lawyers? Your website also calls PD a uniquely beautiful desert environment and a premier resort destination..If you continue to allow 3 -5 story construction, how long will it take for residents to decide to move to different CV cities? And for tourists to say,I remember when I could see the mountians fromthis restaurant, but not any more...those 3 story buildings and 5 story parking garages on 111 totally obstruct my view. Three story construction, like Monterey Ridge apartments, when properly done don't have to make such a negative impact. Monterey Ridge is on the northern edge, more vacant area of town, whose footprint has not yet been established. Monterey Ridge was started well below street level, so you hardly notice how tall it really is. Via Bellagio, on the other hand, at just 2 stories, dwarfs the fire station and everything else at the corner of Portola and Country Club. Imagine another story on top of Bellagio. Now try to cram that in an established neighborhood of one story single family homes and older construction 2 story apartments. The Sands will completely engulf everything around it. Please don't vote to change the landscape of old Palm Desert. I walk my dog at Civic Park. 2-3 x a week. I am always astounded by the beauty that surrounds me and the joy that these amenities bring to our citizens. The fact that our leaders now want to change the look and feel of our perfect little city by erecting 3 story apartments and office buildings, really has me stumped. I've read all your biographies on the city website and understand that you all love the outdoors and hiking, like many of us do as well. I hope one day you don't look down on Palm Desert from the Bump n Grind or the Cross and say to yourself, "What was I thinking in 2018 when I approved The Sands apartments?" I really hope you will look down on the city and realize that voting against the Sands being 3 stories put you on the right side of history. This builder is from northern California. He doesn't care about Southern California or low income residents. All he cares about is the almighty dollar. He 'II go back home to Carmel Valley and wont lose one minute of sleep after he destroys the feel of our beautiful Southern California town. If he cared about low income wage earners, • he'd push for 82 units instead of 60. If he cared about Southern California, he would do two story construction. The original plan of 306 units could still provide 60 units of low income at the 20% plan. Hopefully, when you gather to vote on this, or any other proposal, your first question will be...if I lived next door, how would I vote? You are, after all, our neighbors and our elected representatives that we expect will take our feelings into consideration each time you vote. Have you received and read the emails we have sent? We sure hope so, because once you fully understand our side of the story, we are confident you'll vote for us and against The Sands as a 3 story project. ri d f"e TVl�l r I fl NI G Dear Mayor Jonathan, members of Palm Desert City Council, and members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission: We are Palm Desert residents residing in the Venezia subdivision, directly adjacent to the proposed "Sands" development. Because residents of our community are directly and harshly impacted by a proposed construction that would fundamentally alter the residential character of our neighborhood, we appeal to you for transparency and disclosure regarding this project. We have received little or no notification or information from the City regarding the "Sands" project to date, e.g. the Architectural Committee approval on March 28th, 2017. As parties most affected, we deserve better communication from the representatives we elected to represent us. We respectfully request that at the start of the Planning Commission's public meeting on March 20, 2018 that the Planning Commission disclose and detail the financial, political and tax benefits and concessions that would accrue to the developer and to the town of Palm Desert as a result of approval of the "Sands" project. As property -owning residents of Palm Desert who elected you to office to represent our interests, we feel it is your moral, and probably your legal obligation to explain why you have abrogated the rights and interests of our community and to some degree, the other communities affected by the proposed project.,„,«, /;�> Canterra apartments is a property that will be directly impacted, but unlike Venezia, the Canterra residents are renters, and can elect relocation with far less financial loss and logistical burdens than can the homeowners of single-family homes in Venezia. Any project with so many issues that would adversely affect the adjacent residents should include those residents in discussions and decisions: the traffic, the air and noise pollution, the degradation of views and aesthetics of the area, the increased difficulty of fire mediation and greater danger of fire to our community due to zero setback between garage or carport structures Venezia. Have any other structures been approved or built in Palm Desert with zero setbacks? With the recent rash of tragic school shootings, mothers and others in our community fear the potential danger to children in the playground of the Carter Elementary School, a playground that can be overlooked by anyone positioned high in the proposed adjacent 3-story buildings. At the meeting on February 20, 2018, we were told that a last-minute change in plans an hour and a half prior to the meeting added an additional 3-story building adjacent to the school. This type of development is inappropriate for our peaceful, low-rise residential area. As one drives north on Portola, one can see extensive tracts of open desert that would better accommodate such a high-rise, high -density development. Then subsequent adjacent and nearby developments could be planned with an awareness of that neighborhood's high -density character rather than having it forced upon them. All the residents of Venezia had trusted the integrity of the 306 unit zoning of the General Plan in force at the time we purchased our homes, and we have been blindsided by the annulment of the long-standing zoning regulations that abandon the common-sense and safety regulations of setback, population density, parking density and building height. Finally, we request that your staff research and disclose whether there are any similar proposed high density, 3-story developments with zoning regulations waived, planned in either of our two neighboring cities: Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells communities, whose representatives seem historically to be more inclined to protect the interests of their residents. It would not be difficult to limit the height of all the buildings in the proposed "Sands" development to 2 stories. The proposed development includes the following: A sand volleyball area, a regulation basketball court, two outdoor kitchens, two fire troughs, an event lawn, a sandy area with hammocks, a game lawn, 4 cabanas, a playground, a large lap pool with tiled surroundings, a secondary pool with tiled surroundings, a wading pool, a dog park for large dogs and another dog park for small dogs, and a BEER GARDEN! How many developments in Palm Desert have a beer garden? And if there are any, are they directly adjacent to an elementary school? There is almost 300,000 square feet of space set aside for such amenities, some of which could be reduced or eliminated, and elimination of some of those extensive amenities would tend to motivate the residents to participate in activities in facilities currently in place nearby. We already have a superb, large soccer park almost adjacent to the proposed development that includes basketball courts, playground, "Frisbee golf," bocce ball field and horseshoe pits as well as gazebos, event kitchens and restrooms. Civic Center Park is minutes away and has extensive facilities including many gazebos, a playground, open fields, gym, tennis and volleyball courts, indoor basketball and pickle ball courts, as well as an extensive and very well equipped aquatic facility. Use of such community resources by the residents would tend to better integrate them into the community, as opposed to the use of inclusive self-contained amenities. As Palm Desert residents who elected you to represent the interest of ALL of your constituents, we hope that you will consider rejecting such a radical departure from historic Palm Desert norms, and deny approval of the project as planned, at least requiring revision of the plans to limit all building height to 2 stories. There have been extensive discussions of this issue in our community, and we believe that this letter represents the opinions of Venezia residents. Sincerely, Richard Wohl, M.D. Walter Altorfer, President Venezia HOA / den V Edward Knopf, Previous Presi , Vezia HOA 8Z :Z Na LZ 83.1 EU c7 -vim rrn Fr, xf rn� ■C tnrn -40C:3 rn Ceja, Eric From: • Stanley, Jane Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:26 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: FW: 3 story complex Not forwarded to City Council Original Message From: Richard [mailto:ricfell3@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 3:50 PM To: CityhallMail <Cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: 3 story complex And there will be NO change in traffic!!! What incompetent individual came up with that scenario??? Imagine all the dust during construction blowing into Carter school. Imagine the environmental impact on the kids at the school. Maybe 2 levels at the most....but better no complex at all. And a beer garden on top!!!! Great!!!! Richard Feldman....my son goes to Carter 1 Ceja, Eric From: l eborah Maggio <dwmaggio@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 5:09 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: mike Maggio; Adrian Eichperger Subject: Sands Apartment Project I am a concerned grandparent of a first grader at Carter Elementary School. I am following closely the plans to build the three story apartment complex adjacent to the school. This is a flawed plan, that is not safe for the children. Has any study been done regarding the negative impact of this project to our children? If not, why not? If so, where can it be found? Please advise as soon as possible. Thank you 1 Ceja, Eric From: Stanley, Jane Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:31 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: FW: 3 story complex Not forwarded to the City Council. From: Mia Sherman [mailto:miamaxsherman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:16 PM To: CityhallMail <Cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: 3 story complex The 3 story complex buildings should not be built because it is very unsafe! they will be over looking the school and due to the recent school shootings it is a very bad idea! It overlooks that playground and school and i will not have it! I SAY NO! 1 Ceja. Eric From: 'Dave Dalton <midada1962@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:23 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Planned Apartments on Hovley, east. I am writing this email to oppose the three story apartments being planned for the open land next to Carter Elem. On Hovley East. Keep the plans to two stories only. I oppose the three story apartment complex. I oppose!! Regards, Dave Dalton 74264 Angels Camp Rd. Palm Desert, CA 92260 1 Ceja, Eric From: Gloria Christini <rcgc73@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:47 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands project on Hovely We are protesting the Sands project on Hovely because of the height, 3 stories, zero setbacks, noise from a lighted volleyball court and beer garden . And you are allowing this right next to a school . Shame on you. Gloria and Richard Christini 42574 Tungsten P1 Palm Desert , .ca 92260 1 Ceja, Eric From: Steven Zoet <szoet57@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 3:56 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: CityhallMail Subject: [SPAM] - Proposed Sands Development Project Dear Eric, My wife, Pamela, and I retired to Palm Desert as full-time residents two years ago from Los Angeles and have enjoyed, to date, the high quality of life and services that Palm Desert has come to be known for. As residents of the Venezia development, however, we feel that the high quality of life we came to this specific community for will be greatly threatened if the proposed Sands project is developed as proposed on the currently vacant parcel that is adjacent to our development. I retired from a 37 year career in municipal service. Over the course of those 37 years, I had the pleasure of serving five different cities in three different states. The common thread to all of those communities, and, I would hope, to all communities in general, was the ability and willingness of staff and elected officials to work with their established residents and existing developments when proposing and integrating new development. I had the benefit and privilege of directing many different departments over the course of my years and served an extended term as an Interim City Manager as my Council took a year to fill that vacancy after a national search. I state that only for reasons of my having a broad understanding of and respect for the processes involved and the need for cities to integrate new development to serve the needs of a diverse citizenry. Throughout my experiences, which have dealt with the introduction and eventual construction of many large-scale housing and commercial developments, those that had the most long term success were always predicated on open dialog and compromise when existing residential communities and business factions opposed what was being proposed. My experiences, both personal and professional, have certainly allowed me to realize both the challenges and opportunities that typically are afforded these proposals and their outcomes. In the case of the proposed Sands project, I and my neighbors simply feel that it is too large and impactful for ourselves and the other bordering communities of Portola Country Club and Cantera apartments. As you and others involved in the review and approval process of this proposed project have no doubt heard on repeated occasions, the addition of the proposed 106 units over that which was previously zoned for the site (and the assumption on which I spent nearly my life -savings to buy into the adjacent Venezia development) is simply wrong and too excessive for the site. Too much impact, including three story structures (again, more than we had bargained for and understood was approved for future construction) is simply out of character and ill advised for the surrounding community. I don't presume that you, or any other readers of this correspondence, would appreciate the invasion of personal privacy by having residents of adjacent three story structures peering into your backyard and windows when it doesn't have to and shouldn't be the case. It is unsettling to say the least. Not even mentioning the very real liklihood of depreciating the value of our largest investment. I do not wish to project myself as an anti-growth/anti-development resident of the City. Quite the contrary. Given my professional background, I know the lifeblood that new residential, commercial and other development can be to any community. Responsible and appropriate growth, however, is and should be the bellwhether of any decision. If this project is approved as currently proposed it would be quite the contrary outcome to what I and many other feel to be appropriate for the site and its impacts on residents who have long existed in adjoining developments. On behalf of my wife and myself, who wish to continue to enjoy the existing peace and quite of our home and community, we implore you to please demand that the developer of this proposed project scale back its impact to something that is more suitable to the site while still accomplishing a favorable financial outcome for themselves which they are, of course, entitled to and in business for. Reasonable development that is suited to a site mitigates impacts that are forced onto other surrounding developments. This can and should be the desired outcome for all involved. I know that out-of-town developers, as is likely the case here, don't always share the same sentiments as they are not directly impacted as those of us who live and/or work within this wonderful, dynamic community. Please keep it as such by working through the processes of assuring and approving a development that is more suited to the site and in conformance with what was originally planned, namely some 300 units situated within two, not three, story structures. Additionally, reasonable setbacks should be assured so as to also protect the privacy and quality of life that will otherwise be impacted by those who are forced to live with them through no fault of their own. I would respectfully ask that this message also be provided to members of the City Council and Planning Commission as well. Together, as residents, staff and elected and appointed officials, I am sure we can all work with and through the developer of this proposed project to accomplish reasonable objectives for all, including opportunities for low income housing which we all acknowledge to be a pressing need within California. The amount of proposed low income units committed to this project, and the benefit of the overall additional units afforded as a result is simply, in sum, too much for this limited site. Reductions in numbers, 1 while still preserving opportunities for low income housing and the multitude of benefits it affords, can and should be made in the argument of reasonableness if nothing more. Thank you for hearing our viewpoints, and those shared by many others, as you work through this process. Having made a career of it myself, I know that it isn't always easy, but can, in most cases, result in successful outcomes when the interests of ALL parties are heard and served, even when that often necessitates compromises by all parties involved. Sincerely, Steven and Pamela Zoet Residents of Venezia 2 Ceja, Eric To: Cc: Subject: Hermann, David Stendell, Ryan RE: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission From: webmasterc citvofoalmdesert.ore(mailto:webmasterPcitvofoalmdesert.orej Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 8:25 PM To: Information Mail Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Date & Time: Response #: Submitter ID: IP address: Time to complete: Survey Details Page 1 Contact Us 03/05/2018 8:25 PM 911 11373 67.49.66.30 19 min. , 32 sec. Your Contact Information First Name Email Address Address City ZIP Code I am a: (o) Palm Desert Resident Chris chrisc3964PRmail.com 42545 Sutters Mill Rd Palm Desert 92260 Last Name Phone Number Address 2 State Clement 7143283964 Not answered California Comments or Concerns: I am writing with concerns over the Sands Project on Hovely. 3 Stories is way too tall for this area. There is a school, and at least 3 housing tracts that will be affected, along with the added traffic to all within a small radius of this location. The new construction on Country Club and Portola, behind the Fire Dept is 2 stories and it is an Eye Sore!! Blocking some of the great views in Palm Desert. The 3 story Sands Project is going to create many problems, such as traffic, Police and Fire resources, and safety, along with many more issues. PLEASE do not let the developer overdevelop this property!!!!! Thank You, Chris Clement 1 Ceja, Eric From: mack <making19@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:13 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: FW: 3 story building oppose three story apartments on Hovey between the school and Post Office Margaret A. King Portola Country Club 74663 Azurite CI E Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ceja, Eric From: rocio montejano-martinez <rocio.montejanomartinez@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 5:54 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan; oscarmartinez1978@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Palm Desert / Venezia Homeowner - Opposing "Density Bonus" Sands Development (2nd email) Hello Eric- can you please confirm that this letter in it's entirety will be on record? I resent the letter from August below. Thank you. On Feb 20, 2018, at 4:31 PM, rocio montejano-martinez <rocio.monteianomartinez@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you Eric, we really appreciate it. Had we known about the plans we wouldn't have purchased this $800k+home. If you can please also include these pictures that show the sand piles and their visibility, if we can see the sand piles we will also be able to see the 39ft proposed buildings and sadly they too will be able to see in, invading our families and elementary schools children's privacy. In addition, given the Las vegas massacre it is frightening that the city would allow 39 foot building near an elementary school (a scary vantage point). Our children don't have a voice or say in this long term decision as a parent and resident I pray that the city does not approve 3 story buildings putting our children at risk. There is not a "need" for all the recreational facilities included in proposal thus removing the need for 39ft buildings overlooking school/residential area. The school did not appear to know the proposal and it's specifics. <image 1.JPG> <image2.JPG> Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2017, at 8:06 AM, <eceia@citvofpalmdesert.org> <eceia@citvofpalmdesert.ore> wrote: Hi Oscar & Rocio, Thank you for your letter. A copy of your statement will be provided to the Planning Commissioners. Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org 1 From: rocio monteja no -ma rti nez fmaiIto: rocio. monteianomartinezc amaiI.com] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 11:47 AM To: Information Mail; CityhalHMail; Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric Cc: rocio montejano-martinez; Oscar • Subject: Palm Desert / Venezia Homeowner - Opposing "Density Bonus" Sands Development Attention Palm Desert City officials - My husband and are taking the time to write this letter in efforts to oppose the approval of the "density bonus" in the Sands Development. We made every attempt to be concise in highlighting how this would have a negative impact on our "quality of life" by invading our privacy, impacting our communities noise levels, housing population (which would also impact school population) and local traffic. Brief background on our family: We have been married for 6 years, have 2 children (2 year old daughter and 2 month old son). We sold our home in Riverside (Dec 2016) and opted to purchase in Palm Desert (Jan 2017) for the 'quality of life' we know we could achieve for our growing family. My husband and I both work in the financial industry and have been with the same company for over 15 years. I was raised in Cathedral City, attended Cathedral City High school and College of the Desert. I moved to Riverside to attend UC Riverside where I met my husband and we opted to purchase our first home there. We enjoyed our life in Riverside but knew that once we started our family, we wanted to live in an affluent area, with great public schools that did not have the issues that are faced with over population. Most of our family lives in the area so we opted to look into Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert. We viewed a home in the Venezia Community, central to great shopping, fine dinning, speciality grocery shopping in a quiet secluded area - it appeared to be the PERFECT area to raise our family. That is until we recently learned of the proposed project that appears to primarily have "business benefits" and greatly undermining the negative impacts to the homeowners. City officials perspective What we've read and heard city officials say regarding "business justifications" supporting the "density bonus": • It will help local businesses with recruiting employees - in our experience most employees do not live in the cities that they work in; especially considering the short commutes between the valley cities. • This is a "qualified" area for low income housing due to the bus line route, nearby employment offices - bus lines cross many communities within the city this is not a strong case for making this a good location for increase in population. • Having employees live and work in Palm Desert will keep dollars spent within the city of Palm Desert - the density bonus targets a specific population given income levels; local shopping in the area does not support this view. 2 • The state of California is encouraging cities to take advantage of "density bonuses" - this is great and we support it in the right areas that would not require 3 story buildings invading privacy, quality of life, views and ultimately home values. Our resident perspective Negative impacts that the "density bonus" will have on our quality of life and overall lively hood. Sentiments that we've heard are also shared by many local homeowner residents. 1 ) Privacy - 3 story buildings will allow overlooking into our private lives and into our backyards and homes. As parents to young children we take great comfort in allowing our kids to play in the privacy of their backyards without the worry of anyone prying. 2 ) Noise Levels - having an apartment complex will naturally increase noise levels however, unnecessarily increasing the housing population by over 100 will cause extreme noise disturbance by cars, traffic, entering/leaving premise, recreational area activities. 3) Housing population - our community includes 90 homes, adding 306 additional households will already impact the population greatly, approving an additional 100 units is a negligent decision and will have severe impacts to classroom sizes, trash, public area usage such as local parks, library etc 4) Traffic - traffic is already an issue given the multiple elementary schools, post office, existing apartment complex and proximity to highway 111. Adding an additional 100 units will cause irresponsible traffic congestion that may increase safety for children. Thank you for your time and consideration, for you this may a one time business decision/transaction but for us it will impact our daily lives as our goal is to retire in this home. Oscar & Rocio Martinez Venezia Community Homeowners 74226 Via Venezia 3 Ceja, Eric From: C Petersen <Iangleypetersens@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:57 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Project Just two more voices STRONGLY opposing the 3 story Sands Project. The change in density and environment is not an improvement nor an asset to any of the surrounding communities. Though it might appear we are not not personally impacted (aka not immediately adjacent to the project) anyone who lives o. Or near Portola Ave, or travels on it, will be impacted due to the increase in density. Please return this project to its original 2 story, lower density project! Thank you, N & C Petersen i Ceja, Eric Prom: Annette Funk <amfunk4l@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:54 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands Project This is to register my opposition to the proposed project of 3-story buildings in the lower density neighborhood and adjacent to the elementary school. I hope you will hear the voices of concern in the adjacent communities and deny the variances. Sincerely, Annette M. Funk 42390 Sutters Mill Rd Palm Desert, CA 92260 Sent from my iPhone i Ceja, Eric From: Alan Clendenon <alanandlindac@gniail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:34 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Apartment Project Dear Sir, I would like to register my opposition to the proposed Sands Apartment Project. Please make no special concessions for these builder/investors. We moved to Palm Desert because we liked the area. This project is going to cause more traffic and congestion. please keep it to the 2 story limit if you must build something. Thank you. Alan Clendenon 74060 Mercury Cir W. Palm Desert, CA 92260. 1 Ceja, Eric From: Valerie Davidson <valdavidson42@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:26 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Project Dear Sir: I would like to voice my opposition to the 3 storey Sand project that you are considering. This would not be a good fit for our neighbourhood, and I sincerely hope that you will reconsider. Thankyou, Valerie and Roy Davidson, 42535 Tungsten Place Ceja, Eric From: mikemudgett@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:13 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands development Please be advised that my wife and I oppose the development of this complex. The three story concept is unacceptable in this neighborhood. The original two story design would fit much better and not impact the quality of this community. We strongly urge you to reconsider this project. Mike and Cyndi Mudgett Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Tab E, an AT&T 4G LTE tablet 1 Ceja, Eric From: Meredith <mlh8108@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 1:34 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Project Gentle persons: As a resident of Portola Country Club, Palm Desert, I'm writing to express my strong objection to a proposed plan to build three stories of apartments on raised property immediately next to our community. The proposal would mean that residents on the third story would have 24/7 views of back yards, patios and house windows on the north end of our community, as well as on areas further south. I ask the you keep this significant invasion of privacy foremost in your minds as you consider this proposal. A two story building of apartments would at least lessen the privacy concerns of our community....and would appear to be a win/win solution. The only adverse effect would be less profit for the developer on this sole project....surely less important than the many thousands of Palm Desert residents who would be negatively affected. Thank you for you consideration of this urgent objection. Sincerely, Meredith L Hardy 74368 Gary Avenue Palm Desert CA 92260 mlh8108@gmail.com Sent from my iPad 1 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission March 2, 2018 I am responding to the project 74-351 Hovley Lane East, with great trepidation that our planning commission has decided to represent New Cities Investment Partners, LLC, and not the homeowners of their own community. We at Portola County Club have shared our concerns on the occasions open to the public, with little respect from our planning commission to realize our concerns, and protect our will being as continued homeowners and taxpayers of this community. One of the great reasons of moving to this area, 5 years ago was that the building sites were not higher than 2 stories, one didn't feel enclosed with buildings looking down over all the community. A real asset to Palm Desert, now apparently I am hearing that ruling has been updated, what a shame. Especially since there is such open areas for expansion to builders in the desert to continue with the original philosophy of not more than 2 store buildings. Those of us who live along the walls of PCC, will have people looking right in our back yards, not to mention the added traffic along Portola/Hovley Lane East. We have a primary school on that corner, with school traffic blocking that intersection twice daily, how in the world can this area accommodate the safety of the children with the upcoming 412 apartments projected. You normally can double an additional 824 cars passing through that area daily, without any other traffic restrictions is my understanding. I am very opposed to this project, the way it is projected and almost approved by some members on the planning commission board. It seems the decision has been made by some, without consideration of your immediate homeowners. Please reconsider your decisions. Respectfully Nancy Thorp 74013 Angels Camp Rd Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ceja, Eric From: Linda Holland <Iinnie8108@gmail.tom> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 11:00 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Three story Sands debacle To you and elected Palm Desert officials: packing in more people, cars, floodlights, noise in the middle of Carter school, soccer fields, peaceful, longstanding senior neighborhoods is pure quantity over quality and lack of basic good sense. Please do not do this. Lin Holland, neighbor and voter Sent from my iPad 1 Ceja, Eric From: barryatthelake267 <barryatthelake267@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:50 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands My name is Barry Smith and I live at Portola CC in Palm Desert. This email is to protest the proposed bulilding of a three story Sands. I feel like this is a security risk for our school that would be right next to this three story Sands. We live in a very peacefull comunity and this would change the very reason we purchased our property. We hope you will not allow the three story proposed Sands for these reason and many more we could bring up Barry Smith a concerned resident of Palm Springs Sent from my Galaxy Tab A 1 Bob Logelin & Jennifer Logelin 74240 Angels Camp Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 Council Members City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 4, 2018 RE: 74-351 Hovley Lane East, Case No. PP/EA 16-394, AKA "Sands Development" As homeowners in Portola Country Club, we — Bob Logelin and Jennifer Logelin - are writing in response to the report from Staff to the Planning Commission recommending the "Sands" project be sent to the Palm Desert City Council for approval. The current proposal to increase density, over the current allowable limits, by allowing a three story building in an area with predominately two story buildings and increasing the number of units is misguided. This appears to be an effort to address housing affordability and supply issues without understanding or considering the impacts of this decision, or considering the need for accountability in securing low income housing. Having worked in the Community Services Department for the City of Vancouver, in B.C. Canada, as Director of Housing and Community Operations, I, Jennifer (nee Standeven), do bring some experience to this discussion; in both the provision of tow income housing and the use of "density bonuses" as a means to address housing issues. While laudable in what we assume is your intention, increasing housing for "lower income households;" these types of loose arrangements with Developers are ineffective and actually can harm the groups you are trying to assist, as well as the surrounding community. Density bonuses given to Developers for providing low income housing units are based on the following fallacies: • First, the only way low income housing can be developed is through the municipality giving up its long term community plans and its right to manage density and development. Developers are using the current housing market to push this belief as it provides an opportunity to increase their profit margin and, more importantly, set a precedent for future negotiations requesting exceptions to community plans and density/development rules. 1/3 • Second, is the fallacy that people who have low incomes and are in need of affordable housing will actually benefit from this type of divergence from community plans and density and development limits. The report provides no specificity as to who these "lower -income households" are, their income level, or their needs in terms of housing, in order to understand who may benefit from Council's generous waiving of density limits to the Developer. As well there is no description of how the process of selecting these "lower -income households" will occur, or whether this will be left to the Owner/operator of the project. Thus there is no assurance that any low income people will actually reside in these units or if this housing will meet their needs. • The third fallacy is assuming that these units will be secured over time for "lower -income households". From the report we are left with the impression that the City is assuming the Developer or Owner (or management company) will manage this in good faith over time, ensuring only "low-income households" will occupy these units. It's questionable whether this is a reasonable assumption as the purpose of these organizations is to generate profit not provide social benefits. Given that the generous waiving of density rules for this property will not change for the life of the building, and is unlikely to change when redevelopment takes place, it's reasonable to expect that the low cost units will be secured over time and not simply revert to market rents. However even where cities have registered this requirement on title there is seldom a cost effective mechanism for cities to ensure compliance, given finite staffing levels and other competing priorities, e.g. delivering other services to their taxpayers. We would ask Council to seriously consider whether they are able to provide the staff necessary to ensure oversight including auditing the operation of this development on an ongoing basis. If not, then there is a significant risk that Council will have given up reasonable density and development limits for the possibility of a short term benefit that may or may not continue, even though the benefit given to the Owner is ongoing. There is also no means to determine whether the value of the benefit given to Developer is cost effective in terms of evaluating options for the creation of affordable housing. Perhaps more important than the fallacies used to promote density bonuses, these arrangements do not recognize or quantify the unintended consequences on the surrounding communities. And to be clear our concern is not about the introduction of "lower -income households" into the Portola area, as there is already a brilliant mixed income community that evolved within Palm Desert's planning parameters. The Portola area has a mix of residential housing options including multi -unit housing, gated communities, rental units, manufactured homes, mobile homes and single family homes. One of the closest areas to the proposed development is Portola Country Club, with 499 units of housing, primarily manufactured housing, with a few "stick built" units. The residents are aged 55+, with some residents in their 90's; all "aging in place" as the experts in senior living advise us to do. Some residents are still working while many are retired and volunteering inside the Country Club and/or in the larger Palm Desert community. There are US and Canadian Snowbirds, year round residents, and permanent residents who head to the coast during the hottest months of the year (Desertbirds?). There are owners and renters here, some have mortgages and a few are financing their retirement through reverse mortgages. This is a community that already provides mixed income housing and housing for "lower -income households" through affordable home prices and rental rates. 2/3 Portola Country Club is a caring community. Neighbors look after each other. Neighbors take out and return the garbage bins for those who can't manage the large and heavy bins. There is a monthly community dinner to build connections and provide access to a great meal once a month, as well as a small food pantry to help those on low incomes. Some of the younger (in their 70's!) residents drive their elderly neighbors to doctor and other appointments, help them in their homes, and with their care. With numerous recreation options there is a cultural of physical activity and exercise. This is all done at the community level without the direction, oversight or funding by government. Although we don't believe that any Council, in any community in North America, would intentionally set out to harm this type of healthy, safe, and caring community, you are risking doing exactly that if you approve the current project proposal. Changing density and development rules that may impact the worth of homes and potentially the quality of life for the residents, is exactly what may occur if you allow the proposed three stories and increased units in this development. Is this really worth the risk? Especially given there is no guarantee that the goal of low income housing will even be achieved, either in the short or long term. Instead we are urging you to turn down this proposal and have staff investigate other approaches to providing affordable housing in Palm Desert that will include short term and long term accountability. And finally, one last word of caution — seniors votel While the two of us are not eligible to vote in Palm Desert, please remember that most of the residents here can and do vote. Sincerely, Jennifer Logelin Bob Logelin CC Portola Country Club, Board of Directors Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Planning Commission 3/3 Ceja. Eric From: Deena Fernandez <deenanjoe@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 5:01 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands development Please reconsider the option of a three story versus a two story in the sands development. Why would you want to destroy the beauty of the desert with tall buildings. We all moved here to get away from the big city look. In addition to this consider the safety of the children near a three story building. Great hiding place for snipers@ Deena Fernandez Portola CC 1 Ceja, Eric From: paula willis <pwillis0128@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 9:58 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: No No No to apartment building on Hovely City Council - Are our kids not under attack enough! That is too close to the school to have a revolving influx of unknown elements around little kids walking to school or playing in the school yard. Also, traffic to pick up and drop off the children is already horribly impacted. Imagine morning traffic on the two lane street of Hovely with some part of 50 residents going to and fro. Next you'll want to permit a liquor store on Hovely! Paula Willis 1 Ceja, Eric From: paula willis <pwillis0128@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 9:58 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: No No No to apartment building on Hovely City Council - Are our kids not under attack enough! That is too close to the school to have a revolving influx of unknown elements around little kids walking to school or playing in the school yard. Also, traffic to pick up and drop off the children is already horribly impacted. Imagine morning traffic on the two lane street of Hovely with some part of 50 residents going to and fro. Next you'll want to permit a liquor store on Hovely! Paula Willis 1 I 74365 CHICORY ST I 77550 MOUNTAIN VW I 74251 FAIRWAY DR 1\fven+- S AL ovc e(4 A.1.7b / Pr iv c 12 f.tikh /0 • NveY Mrole Ao I C PJ Li71,s9 v) 7;04. E 10621•41, At)t-2. -705", 4) 40 I-60W 5A,A, Oefo2r,ci -b) 3 • v(ii Pet4kirk614A • 4 I 016e, 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 A'r I (...C° 5-04C 18-0512 18-0514 18-0523 r" 4i.a. • Vali 1/4(0444040 ?CD • Gvocez,j it. 44"a. /1,- k 4 1, OSCar 141414141' 3-511 .6.-,4“-q. 0.4 $,,,L4-,As AC,• • • 9 ilmwe. weAl • T) 164t f:›3 T,. 00,A Njukt,tit..k 'off . 46,1,2 tvo-ila.e.. "' 17 (-sit 1\16w0404,,, 1-touve.J4,1.1c., liao iv; '1,1 ALre .5a.ce , WOVN\ / C16\4-0., Q tjta m 47, Paci 42„ M1AAI be3 L1/41;,," - ;. A,,,11,,A.-,,a4 • 49.3,1:j- fce . f te,;1411 )15'45°13 =.? 44 DO it- 26, 2L /I1 Honorable Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission: My husband and I purchased our Venezia home in 2003 and were aware that 'someday" someone would develop the 18 acres between Venezia and Canterra. Well, that "someday" is now and the developer is New Cities Investment Partners. We knew that the land could accommodate around 306 units and that seemed reasonable as we compared that to Canterra. The location is on a busy street in an established neighborhood of apartments, low income housing, gated communities, an elementary school, soccer park and Marriott villas. I strongly object to the three story buildings and hope the 3rd story can be eliminated from 5 buildings. The height is simply too tall for the neighborhood, especially next to Carter Elementary. Also, by eliminating the 3rd story it will also reduce the density of the complex. James Carter School already creates a serious traffic back up both before and after school on both Hovley and Portola. At times both before and after school it is impossible to drive out the Venezia gate to turn right and drive to the Post Office. Why? There is a solid line of cars extending from Portola Country Club, past Venezia and continuing with a right turn onto Hovley and then into the school parking lot. The car lineup is equally bad heading west on Hovley as drivers turn left into the school parking lot. With The Sands as a new neighbor, I can anticipate there will be increased traffic jams with the newly installed light at The Sands entrance. It will be busier because people living at The Sands will be driving to work at about the same time as school starts. The increased congestion will be horrible. *Reduce the height of the apartment buildings to 2 stories to better fit into the neighborhood and also reduce the population of the complex. *Do additional traffic studies to show the impact of 1200 more people living at The Sands with attention given to peak traffic hours on Hovley both before and after school. You can then come up with a great solution to resolve the traffic issues. As members of The Planning Commission you can make adjustments to this project so that The Sands can be compatible with its adjoining neighbors, Canterra, Portola Country Club, Venezia, Carter Elementary and the Marriott Villas. I look forward to you doing so. Sincerely, Donna Knopf 74138 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 at Planning Co?mean e i g Case No. From: SANDS Apartment Comments 3/20/18 This is not the proper location for 3 story apartment buildings in a neighborhood with all 1 story homes. This project is trying to put 10 Ibs in a 5 lb bag which is ridiculous when the city soccer park practically next door has many of the same facilities. The sight lines from Venezia to The Sands will look like the empire state building from our neighborhood. See the picture taken from the middle of Via Pellestrina and you can see the 2 story building at Canterra Apts . so imagine what 15 2 or 3 story buildings will look like near our homeowners' back walls. Open uncovered parking should be on both sides of the street that runs in front of the Venezia properties. Covered carports will look horrible against our homeowners back walls and will rise up approximately 4 feet above our walls. A buffer area planted with tall trees must be installed to protect the privacy of our homeowners' back yards. Buildings need to be situated so only the end of the buildings face Venezia to help protect our privacy. The 3 story buildings should be deleted from the plans. The least that should be done is to relocate buildings 8 & 11 and exchange them with Buildings 2 & 6. Respectively, Venezia Homeowners for 15 years Edward & Donna Knopf Receiv d at FIanning Crni sio Date ISCase No. 11 From: ed 14-f ��g 6, I 40 WE ARE PALM DESERT RESIDENTS AND WE OPPOSE THREE (3) STORY CONSTRUCTION OVERLOOKING SCHOOLYARDS SIGNATURE -1%rC L z% 10 11I 12 13 i �' jc� /Z 14 Q�� �C�lt`_ 15 } 16 17K 18 /Jc'//7-rV 2�' 2. Nc ���� � 1 n 22 23 24 251 26��// 2 28j; : 0/< l'(-12 (7, .29; 30 ADDRESS n k 7 z' /ki s 7- k ;C. (" (�Cu �l,r S.� r Cam. j ?/- 5/3z (�,�i¢;��� /�, i��. JCL L_i U 7 q6 �1 ? C rC_c> >� C ; r E.. `713%%04,4-1-../.�� - )/z5 71 If -A-74 4746' % c-c-i-c.`r.-4:se ( L +' 6;�(r Received at Planning Co „r675, g Dat ase From* allelaCa �i WE ARE PALM DESERT RESIDENTS AND WE OPPOSE THREE (3) STORY CONSTRUCTION OVERLOOKING SCHOOLYARDS 1 2 3 4 SIGNATURE r,fr„„ A.401 6 t 7 ) 0 , L-e- v /4t,-k 8 v46e.DI 9 10 ... 11 12 131 14 15 16 17 24' 25 26 27. ( 28 29 30 {D kcier Ntql /1-771,t-S a A ADDRESS Yyc,/ ,4/,4zt.L 6:94-76-,/ J. dO p6t?i1, .,:tc. N1 «a (k q 22 S�`i 1(4°VA c_ ly s t --- r4J 1 4 0 -73 -1 Q >���w�� � D_ 9 D- 0 r ! we% (,'cam p /1,4 2 7y33e-•Z/t<°,,'C(r c ZZ 6v L-iS1a Lid gIV413141 !Ui'\i/ 1 Pi) zz60 ? i Ib i Ca •SS6 Ct ,(4it u 0-1 ci Z 20 c ).J,i (-4 .( L ` 1,: /77 r /5 �j `i�f7TinJSr•�, �/�Gl� f/�- 7x/-,�. L c� �..; i4e pa_,_ r ti S� 737'/ I (11,V.9,-v /, X .�T ,, �r --AwA/A 1x, Un I'/e (A t I � � Sl• / qp-P , ? Rt (f\ C1 7 2 (i 14- 5 I �a 6'1 t'l� -- C.�.t�� 1f� +�,r? �-- ``% �- � i' �ii'Z CO �� l Z:C1 �� �fy)� r�� 6 R1►<l it MC-MC-ti // // // // L•:741/1, ti r,-,,-(;_,_ Iv 4- it-:_7(66,,,,,, Pki ,f; itiO.,*c(---.. 8 �t, �t- l' Z l it e-� )_ 7 3 / / -4.( 7C- ((-' L-/;-� .. _ F',.,,, . ,C, z. 1 rr // 1 WE ARE PALM DESERT RESIDENTS AND WE OPPOSE THREE (3) STORY CONSTRUCTION OVERLOOKING SCHOOLYARDS 1A- SIGNATURE ADDRESS JJbC >J ink 11 Pd 9 7 � �{ z c_ zlli �6_ �% �%� ��:� l '" C% Cr;i �C � a -121 ✓`7414c-, -C-<_ C( %1 c, 6C( �.� C� (� �F'CC�dC{ C. i C(C C C., op Iv_ 13 14 i5 16 17 18 ,k :�L.'Y\(\ 1, i l• 1r�"�wt,fk �� 1 26 27 28 29 r tam" �-- c eI y _PAAJip,A -mil )\ _ickckDJ, Al'Lhv'',(- l J ' : - it 2I, q,./.-);F:;c1( T tAiw- t4A pr( 7I3*c;Ci i``'+ r S4 I S( D r 72f�6—4 SALLT- ` 1-(6' z) l?./Al 4,5 i s 4?y ; 1 L; -\ A..f= �3 2 ' ; 19 i WE ARE PALM DESERT RESIDENTS AND WE OPPOSE THREE (3) STORY CONSTRUCTION OVERLOOKING SCHOOLYARDS SIGNATURE ADDRESS tAA'01 C\ 2 \) et( 3 Fo 5-t.( 7- 7 4-7Ls- 1( 4 ipCkai` (__„/ A • ,(29-4/ e '7 7Z/L05- (1-)kd 6r-k'/A/6`_-D 6 rco-c\ CrcI EC-Sf 7 ' -7 L/6 L.) 7 C 8 Ar- s----0 -c r 9 4eL/a '>vretA)-r. , a .2(---z-e.-6-)-7 e(-). 7V c 12 13 ( 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 --V-scsy 25 711: .4f 26 27 28 29.. 30 F\ -2(-1(iiauce/s Cavvsho 74--( , ,k-D \) Ad/ 7 1 /t-I cl .22-x2V4_ a)-7 e% y' 2 4' 66 1-1.1106 .14-Ala eL c Wn? PI:, /Li 2-(4 1\11 k rtc Lt2 -11-7 C tr LL1 L4A-.-LicZL r L., : -/a 17--. 7,.d A.1 A-1 7 2/ 1pt_ PI ( ( ID, 77 Lt P ( I r 1( (?) WE ARE PALM DESERT RESIDENTS AND WE OPPOSE THREE (3) STORY CONSTRUCTION OVERLOOKING SCHOOLYARDS SIGNATURE I 1 efecl_ I2 6 7 8 9 10 ( 6)11 11 (LA- 12 13 1-51 16 - • 171 gL-L3z,- 181A 191 BUc at\ v-lOcir\ yxe C ( 20 121 I22 1231 1241 25 26 271 128 29 130 ADDRESS gc-Lq (Le -7 6-7f2-- Zc4i.r.)-1 71i ers( f) 7142S, - " .173 4>1.472145' 11 6/362 -S1 ‘//e' TI cc Ct' z-//3? -7/10 c.g A-tiq.els• eilwr -2 (71 cV7 (7 I e 7(/: ) c/ 1,4-7 • j Z (1Z(4()1.. W11(."E / / - /4- 7:2/, I/ V A /Y 1/7 rejci 4/.263 C. C-ro-n J)0 7//<•/ / LI (5 L74-fr/J_ Hci iro Jose Martinez 74051 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 20, 2018 Palm Desert Planning Commission Comments Regarding Sands Apartment Project Hello, My name is Jose Martinez, I live in Venezia at 74051 Via Pellestrina. I moved here with my husband last summer after he retired. We chose Palm Desert over many cities in the United States because it's a beautiful master planned city with fantastic green belts and generous setbacks- it's a resort destination! After we moved in, we found out about the 3 story 40' tall buildings planned next door, and we were devastated. 3 Stories- Really! How will this affect us? Canterra is 200 yards away, that's 2 football fields, and we can clearly see them in our view to the East. Now just imagine 3 story buildings, just yards away. I empathize with our neighbors on Garibaldi, to lose privacy not only in their backyards, but their bedrooms! I'm here today to ask you to Vote No on 3 story buildings. I know that the Developer wants more units to offset the low income rents, but please have him do it with 2 Story buildings. If that means removing amenities, so be it. The City already provides fantastic amenities, all within 1 mile. • Soccer parks • Basketball courts • Aquatic Center • Baseball fields • Dog Parks -Small and Large • And so much more If this was in your backyard, how would you vote? I hope you would vote to protect your privacy, the privacy of your family, and the privacy of your neighbors, just as I would. Vote No on 3 Stories! Thank you Joe Martinez Received at Planning Co .4 . ission meeting t �/f rcase Nod. 1!Q-594 ram: 6� lak II Z- Waivers have been granted for this project in many additional ways, including poor public notice, wiping out setbacks, parking standard reductions, and straight and narrow sidewalks along Hovley rather than the meandering sidewalks and landscaping that reduce separation from the traffic. I know that Canterra gave the City a 20 acre park for approval, what is New Cities doing for the community? It makes me wonder what other deals have been made outside the view of the public in defiance of Brown Act requirements. Policy 3.20 of the General Plan states that The City will "Preserve and enhance the character of existing residential neighborhoods." Moving ahead with this proposal will only work for New Cities. For my neighbors and myself, it will eliminate mountain views, slash property values, and destroy back yard and bedroom privacy along Garibaldi. My letter to the Planning Commission and City Council outline many other concerns I have with the project, but elimination of the 3 story buildings and ensuring reasonable setbacks will end my opposition. Vote No on 3 Story Buildings Loren Campbell Lee and Denise Souder 74067 Via Venezia Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-674-7171 March 19, 2018 The Honorable Sabby Jonathan, Mayor Susan Marie Weber, Mayor Pro Tem Jan Harnik, Council Member Kathleen Kelly, Council Member Gina Nestande, Council Member City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Sent Via Email: cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org Subject: Sands Apartment Project aka Canterra II Dear Mayor Jonathan and Members of the City Council: We are writing this letter to voice our strong opposition to the proposed Sands Apartment Project on Hovley Lane East. When looking for a new home a few years ago, we searched for two years in -state and out-of-state before we settled in the Venezia community of Palm Desert, and we bought with the knowledge that an apartment project (Canterra II) mirroring Canterra I would be built adjacent to the Venezia community. We bought in good faith that the City would build Canterra II in similar design and scope as Canterra I. We were shocked to learn a few months ago that the City changed the zoning and has allowed several concessions to be made to the developer for the proposed Project that is currently before the Planning Commission. We want to emphatically state our belief that a housing development of this size and scope is not consistent with the existing and established neighborhoods. Five 3-story buildings along with several 2-story buildings constitute a mini -Disneyland in Palm Desert. We also feel this large- scale project is not safe due to the concessions made by the City that are contrary to customary building codes. We believe that several of our concerns as Venezia residents are not being taken seriously, as they have not been addressed by either the Planning Commission nor the developer. Specifically: 1. Was a Needs Assessment performed to determine an actual need for a high -density housing development in Palm Desert? Would love to see statitics supporting the developer's verbal assertion. 2. Is Palm Desert behind in its number of affordable housing units per the State of California? Would love to see current stats. 3. Neither the developer nor the Planning Commission have addressed the concerns of Venezia homeowners as to whether there will be adequate fire and medical emergency services with these additional residents. 4. Neither the developer nor the Planning Commission have addressed the concerns of Venezia homeowners as to whether our taxes will be increased to pay for additional services to the new development, and whether or not these services would be in the form of increased water or electric bills, or taxes to support such fire and emergency services. 5. It is inconceivable that a project of this magnitude could move forward for vote in the Planning Commission without an environmental impact report. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that the ARC approved this project. This project is equivalent to 5 El Paseo hotel buildings plus additional 2-story buildings next to a 1-story residential housing development. 6. The fact that other 3-story apartment buildings exist or are in the planning process in Palm Desert has no bearing in the decision of whether or not to approve this project. Each development needs to be evaluated in its own context, and simply because one exists does not mean that this particular Sands project needs to exist at this specific location, despite what Staff and Ms., DeLuna of the Planning Commission state. Mr. Ceja was incorrect when he stated to the Desert Sun that this project is not unique in scope or location. He needs to back up this assertion with data. 7. Neither the developer nor the Planning Commission have addressed the concerns of the Venezia and Portola Country Club homeowners regarding potential damage to existing homes during the course of construction. a. Who will compensate and repair any structural damages to existing homes in Venezia and Portola Country Club that are the direct cause of this developer's construction? Homeowners should not have to bear the cost for damages created by this developer. 8. Neither the developer nor the Planning Commission have addressed the very real possibility that the Venezia properties may lose value. We disagree that this is Less Than Significant Impact. If the Planning Commission truly believes that there will not be an impact on property values, then they should be willing to put this in writing in the form of a guarantee of payment if such property devaluation occurs due to their approval of this proposed development. And this guarantee should be for each of the 94 homeowners in Venezia. 9. We are disagreeing with the developer's assertion and the assertion of Staff that traffic will not be impacted as a result of this project. a. It is simply not logical that adding 400 units with a resulting 1200 plus residents will not affect traffic on Hovley and Portola. The proposed location of the new stoplight does not make sense as traffic will barely turn the corner from Portola on to Hovley and then have to stop again. And the stoplight will also stop traffic traveling west on Hovley. b. Currently, the traffic on Portola is often backed up a full block to the entrance of Venezia by cars waiting to enter the school lot on Hovley. Another right turn lane was added in the past year to address this issue, but the fact remains that these cars are still lining up on Portola twice a day to drop off and pick up their children. We invite the Planning Commissioners to leave their office and come see in person what the traffic patterns are at the times that children are dropped off and picked up from school. The Planning Commissioners need to see this in real time. 10. We are disagreeing with the developer's drawings for site lines from Venezia which do not represent reality. Currently, we can see the 2-story buildings of Canterra I and the lights from the soccer field from the front of Venezia, near Portola. The Planning Commissioners need to see the actual site lines for themselves on the Venezia streets and not rely on developer's drawings. 11. We strongly feel that the parents of each child at Carter Elementary School need to be notified that there will be 3-story buildings overlooking the school and the school yard. The parents have a right to know what is being built so that they will have the choice to move their children to schools where there are no buildings overlooking the educational settings. 12. We also feel that we need to bring to your attention the grave concerns that we have about one of the Planning Commissioners, Ms. Nancy DeLuna and her seemingly biased endorsement of the proposed Sands development project in Palm Desert. During open meetings this past year of the Planning Commission that have included this project on the agenda, Ms. DeLuna has been perceived as both verbally offensive and indifferent to the residents of Venezia and the Portola Country Club as they voiced their objections to this project. At the most recent Planning Commission meeting on February 20, 2018, the developer was changing the project's drawings and plans during the meeting while he was at the podium being asked questions by the Planning Commission. Ms. DeLuna wanted to move forward to approve the project, despite the fact that her three colleagues requested the developer return in 1 month with updated plans. She told the developer "welcome to the neighborhood (community)" and voiced her intent to pass this Project with no further discussion or finalized plans. As residents of Palm Desert, we expect our City Council and the many Commission, Committee members, and Staff to be professional and civil in their dealing with constituents. We deserve to have due process and have our voices heard when we raise concerns, especially when we disagree with the scope, magnitude and impact of a large multi -story development being proposed that is adjacent to our property. The majority of us living in Venezia were not notified of this proposed Project by the developer, and thus feel that our interests have been bypassed and dismissed by the developer and the City, and we feel that due process is being circumvented. We respectfully ask that you as the City Council, provide oversight to the Planning Commission to address Ms. DeLuna's behavior, and we ask that she recuse herself from this Project. A development of this proportion will forever change the landscape of residential housing in Palm Desert and deserves much more careful consideration than what Ms. DeLuna is affording it. Despite what the developer states and would want us to believe, this Project is not an act of benevolence on his part, as he specializes in these projects. The proposed development is simply an opportunity for him to take advantage of density bonuses, tax credits, and affordable housing credits, all offered by the State of California as they seek remedies to ease the affordable housing shortage in urban areas, even if his proposed project is illogical and out -of -place. And contrary to what the Planning Commission and Staff may believe, we are not against affordable housing. What we do oppose is the high -density housing that would overlook our homes, create an eye- sore by being 3 stories high, and which violates the good faith agreement we signed when we purchased our home. Mr. Loren Campbell and Mr. Joe Martinez sent a letter to you on March 4, 2018 outlining valid points against this Project. We paraphrase their closing statement that the final outcome of all the decisions to be made with respect to this Project will become precedent for every developer's future applications, a fact that we have tried to convey to Staff and the Planning Commission without apparent success. The solution is to adhere to the original Canterra Plan which contains affordable housing units in 2-story structures, and which does not violate the rights of Venezia and Portola Country Club homeowners. If this project reflects the new vision of residential housing in Palm Desert per the City Council, then each home sold should now come with a warning that the homeowner is buying into the new Pasadena/Los Angeles of the desert. If this Project comes before the City Council, we ask that you to take careful consideration of all facts and concerns before making a decision that has the power to change residential housing in Palm Desert for many years to come. Sincerely, Lee A. Souder Denise M. Souder Cc: Palm Desert Planning Commission The Desert Sun Mail - Inewell@ncic2.com co CU N O D N M °' (1) a) +� z Tue 3/20/2018 12:50 PM To Lee Newell <Inewell@ncic2.com About The Sands Apts Comments .0 0 reigyred at Planning Ct ,jr tin �r' letase No. Flo -tQA_- From: ice.com/owa/?realm=ncic2.com&exsvurl=l &II-cc=1033&modurl=0&path=/mail/inbox https://outlook.o More affordable housing should exist! Sick of the arrogance and ignorance! l6h Like Reply OW 15 Meryll Krolick Replied • 1 Reply Lisa M Styve Are the vast amounts of increasing homeless in the area a better option, cuz that's the situation. 1611 Like Reply Lisa M Styve Replied • 2 Replies vissse yp OW 7 Matthew Owen Jenkins The rich will forever always hate the poor That's okay because all our caskets are the same size... 15h Like Reply 8 KE Jerry Reiter There is precious little available here in Palm Desert for low-income families in need of housing. No excuses. Get started building. 13h Like Reply 04 sick of angry rich people. 12h Like Reply 0, Esther Bueras Only in Palm Desert will they oppose low- income/affordable housing. You people are disgusting. 11 rn Like Reply Derek Gonzalez I'm upset due to these exclamations against affordable housing. L-1-1 Like Reply Ryan Brock But jeez. The district could save a fortune by not bussing low income kids to high income neighborhoods! .' ': 151-1 Like Reply IP Jim Burke Replied • 3 Replies Jackson David Worlow Think about someone besides yourself 1111 Like Reply 0 the hotel they are building across the street from an elementary school. We need more affordable housing. Making it close to a school will be a lot of help for those parents that have children that need to walk to school and struggle to get their children to school before going in to work. 31-1 Like Reply Ramiro Diaz-Piedra Replied * 4 Replies Kristy Qawiyy Bullock Why because they are too poor for your pretty little town. 11 Like Reply Q18 QQ17 Kristy Qawiyy Bullock Replied 8 Replies Meryl) Krolick More affordable housing should exist! Sick of the arrogance and ignorance! h Like l Rele y ey Meryl) Krolick Replied • 1 Reply Anna Altheide Last I checked there are other cities in the I lr.itArl ai--+"r+ ►Aritk IrNtr► ref ') r++F%r‘i k 1 rilrJirirar+ Lie d pot it UI l.UI I II I iUl IIL ► USC development. Plenty of the valley is cheap to live in, just move ten minutes away and voila! 1511 Like Reply 0 �qr.!1!1i i 4 Jackie Gomez Issues of what? Because in Indio, there are plenty of apartment complexes next to schools, no issues. Cheap to live in? What you consider cheap, is not cheap for other families. You might have the privilage to think $800-$1000 for a 2 bedroom is affordable but a widowed mother of two won't share the same sentiment. This is an issue of an socioeconomic status. As soon as you put the word cheap in your comment, I see where your thoughts are. I'm a Palm Desert resident, I think you mean move 45 mins away, because the only area that has "cheap" rent without a waiting list is Mecca and Salton Sea. 1511 Like Reply Q21 Ramiro Diaz-Piedra Damn Jackie Gomez well put C)2 idh I ikp Manly Ceja, Eric From: Stanley, Jane Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:06 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: FW: Sands Apartment Complex Blind copied to the City Council From: Todd Heagle [mailto:theagle27@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 6:55 PM To: CityhallMail <Cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Sands Apartment Complex Hello, I am writing this email in opposition to the proposed Sands three story apartment complex. As not only a homeowner in the Venezia complex, but also a parent of children at Carter elementary, I am strongly opposed to the project. First of all, I can't help but feel it is bit if a bait and switch situation wherein initially there was a proposed project for apartments and then all of a sudden it became a much larger project. I think the additional traffic in the morning and afternoons will be a major burden. I think the apartments overlooking the children's play area is concerning. Not to mention the negative impact this project will have on the value of my home in Venezia. I am completely against this project and will not sit idly by without voicing my opinion. Please consider the ramifications of this project. There is a perfect plot of land across from Eisenhower hospital at the intersection of Bob Hope and Country Club that wouldn't affect or impact any of the above concerns. Todd Heagle 1 NOTE TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Diana Altorfer. Venezia Resident DATE: March 5, 2018 RE: The Sands Proposal Public Hearing of February 20, 2018 Thank You for asking questions of the developer that needed to be asked at the Hearing. It appeared that you were much more conscious of the homeowners and becoming more sensitive to the impact of the proposed development upon surrounding communities. This is the first 3-story, 40-foot-high, massive building complex to be developed in Palm Desert where two sides of the project are existing single story private homes. The action is unprecedented! When our homes were built in 2003-04, there was a 30-year agreement for future development in the lot next door, not to exceed 306 units, and 2-story height maximum. Nowhere in the surrounding communities are single story homes adjacent to a 3-story complex. The comparison with Ariana Boutique's (at right) 3-story Apartment Complex on Deep Canyon south of Hwy 111, is absurd. It is much smaller, it was built in 1978, is well under 40 ft high, is surrounded largely by businesses. The nearest apartment complex built subsequently. Where else do I look to see the contrast between 41 ft high buildings and single level homes, three times the height of two surrounding neighborhoods. The question remains unanswered, which is why, and 1 apologize for this, I turned by back on Commission members to address the developer that a 3-dimentional mock up of this development should have been made available. An original homeowner of 41956 Via Garibaldi, purchased his home in 2004, and then put his home on the market in June of 20 l 7, after learning about the development by notice of the Public Hearing. It's been 9 months and no sale. His wife has MS and he needs to move to Northern California for more support from family. Another home nearby has also been on the market since last July with 3 price changes, to no avail. Who says this doesn't impact home values? Word of it has reached realtors... Price History 756K 41956 ViaGirfbaldl I g Price a 12/0-0117 $674,900 change lj a a 09/o1/17 Price Sb.9.900 change ■ 637K DATE EVENT PRICE 01/30/1B Price $599.000 change 06/15/17 List e[3 $645.000 for sale One must NOT forget that Carter Elementary School will now be adjacent to two 3-story buildings, exposing the school yard: CBS News March 3, 2018: Investigators believe 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz tried to make a sniper's nest by shooting out a window in a third -floor stairwell. He fired 16 rounds into the glass, but the hurricane -proof material didn't shatter. Sources tell CBS Miami, Cruz then reloaded only to have his gun jam. With police closing in, Cruz dropped the weapon and exited the school with other students. cnx .,4.a,o hid n "„don rcnnrt s�vino that it appeared that the suspect's efforts to establish that higher vantage point were thwarted by the school's use of hurricane -resistant windows. "Had he succeeded there could have been a dramatic increase in the number of deaths and injuries." We should be reducing anxiety for our parents of school children, not making it worse! And, what IF the unthinkable DOES happen? A "grandfathered" two-story apartment complex would blend into the community, just as Canterra has. With the City's commitment to make Palm Desert more "walkable" downtown, that same commitment would apply in this area. We can walk to the Soccer Complex, the Swimming Complex, the Civic Park with skateboards and playgrounds, dog parks, tennis and basketball courts. We even walk to the Fourth of July fireworks. This area doesn't need a self-contained complex that duplicates the activities nearby. If that property were truly dedicated to housing, it could incorporate more units instead of amenities, and not have to create to this three-story anomaly. Big developments are fine when you have a choice whether to buy an adjacent home. To do so after -the -fact is unparalleled. We are at your mercy. It's up to you, and your conscience. Yours sincerely, al-t0-&)(1 Diana K. Altorfer cc: Palm Desert City Council Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Editor. The Desert Sun March 10, 2018 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission: Commissioner Nancy De Luna Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chairman Ron Gregory Chairman Joseph Pradetto My name is Jack Forney, I own and reside at 76831 Kentucky Ave. (Lot 199 Tract 4871), Palm Desert. My home abuts the 8' tee box of the closed Executive Course, which was closed for the unsubstantiated claim of $200,000.00 annual revenue loss. Closing the course and deliberate elimination of proper water and maintenance created a condition of visual blight, dust, dirt and a 10% loss of property value to the 188 property owners abutting the course as reported by the Riverside Country Assessors Office " Properties abutting a golf course are typically appraised 10°/0 higher than a similar property not abutting a golf course. PDCC is a community of single family homes primarily owned and occupied by senior citizens who purchased their homes for the mountain views and open space of the golf course for their "Golden Years". We have been told we must compromise and our generation should be willing to accept change. The current proposed road for Tract 37241(Section B) Oregon Drive is located 16 feet from my rear property line. I have previously offered orally and in writing a compromise solution: Rotate Units B8, B9, B10 and B11, 90 degrees as currently proposed (see attachments). The long side of the structures (96 feet) is perpendicular to the existing property lines, the 90 degrees proposal would make the long side (96 feet) parallel with existing property lines and allow the units and the road to be moved 30 feet south therefore improving safety and reducing road noise and pollution to adjacent properties (proposed sketch attached), Additionally this movement might eliminate one or both of the retaining walls proposed for the north side of the area from lot 203 to lot 191, Tract 4871. The above mentioned retaining walls if left as proposed would create a 4 wall perimeter behind my house!! My permanent fencing on my property line, a chain link fence perimeter wall and 2 retaining walls. This infil project located between two rows of single family homes is unique to the City of Palm Desert and not consistent with the Precise Plan Application Development Standards under Article 5 of the Plan. A. Access and circulation standards: Only one way in and out? B. Site Planning shall occur that minimizes obstruction of scenic views of adjacent properties: Height of proposed units 18 feet, roof top a/c and superfluous dormers? C. Site Planning shall be compatible with existing terrain. Rolling Hills versus multiple Retention Basins'? D. Site Planning shall occur in a manner that does not expose unattractive areas or activities to the determent of existing properties. Multiple 30 inch high Retaining Walls, Pickle Ball Courts, Pool Areas, Road Location and Walking Paths, etc.? E. Tree selection should be carefully considered as to Family Type, maximum height and spread or canopy. No landscape plan presented, No 30 feet to 40 feet tall trees of Acacia Family. Additionally this project does not conform to the Revised City of Palm Desert General Plan. 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 service. Preserve and enhance the character of existing Residential Neighborhoods. Support the conversion of struggling golf courses into new complimentary uses. The City will consider uses such as: ▪ Active Recreational Space . Natural Habitant Restoration • Passive Open Space and Trails • Community scale agriculture ▪ Neighborhoods supportive of commercial and service uses High quality neighborhoods Require new developments to comply with requirements of the CVMSHCP. Limit grading and vegetation removal of new development activities to the minimum extent necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Mr. McFadden has stated in the application for Change of Zone and Development Plan "50 percent of the proposed project will be Open Space"! Mr. McFadden fails to state that approximately 10 percent of that Open Space is covered by an agreement with Palm Desert Villas on Green that prohibits construction on the property (Document No. 2007-0338228 dated 05/23/2007). The additional area of Open Space in Tract 37240 Section A, Tract 37241 Section B and Tract 37242 Section C includes walking paths, recreational facilities, parking spaces, roads, cul-de-sacs and multiple retention basins which are necessitated by grading for level pads, concrete slabs, structures, asphalt roads and vehicle parking spaces. This is not the green grass and open space that surrounding property owners expected when they purchased their golf course abutting homes. 1 sincerely request that the Planning Commission revise their decision to approve a Change of Zone for this project and submit to the City Council their recommendation to deny this project. Abraham Lincoln once said, "Public Sentiment is everything. With Public Sentiment you can not fail. Without it you cannot succeed. The only way to measure Public Sentiment is to VOTE", Allow the 188 affected property owners abutting the Executive Course to VOTE as was allowed the owners abutting the former PDCC Driving Range that provided the area now occupied by the Horton Homes. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jack L. Forney cc: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert Community Development Attachments: Road Relocation DRAWING 1 & 2 rnrnY Vf • • W LU o► r 1 C • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0\ • • CO 1-4 0\ • • • • • • w • 7 EC • z • 0 • EL ELF • 0 • • • • • • • > • • Inc ■ • • • • • • • 0 Amay, r► --" w 0 a 0) Z Q a Z )- w ❑ m 0 ■ < W W OM • • Da w • • p 0 W CC • • • • 0 Q. • 0ZW00 • • v�waI--1 • •ngaazv • ri. • • • w w • • 47) C a u) N 0 • L EX1S;'ING LOTS FF: 695.401) peeel (EX. FF; 695.301) FF: 694.70* ) FF: 694.70t) it Y ,_�—s-.— a * - i D M e— s--- S R ;s • F lbs La-4-4—l—.—.— -4 • 1 m sv ----1 k N l a I ae 1 •*•a•• 1.14 —? I H • } Ceja, Eric From: Stanley, Jane Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:06 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: FW: Sands Apartment Complex Blind copied to the City Council From: Todd Heagle [mailto:theagle27@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 6:55 PM To: CityhallMail <Cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Sands Apartment Complex Hello, I am writing this email in opposition to the proposed Sands three story apartment complex. As not only a homeowner in the Venezia complex, but also a parent of children at Carter elementary, I am strongly opposed to the project. First of all, I can't help but feel it is bit if a bait and switch situation wherein initially there was a proposed project for apartments and then all of a sudden it became a much larger project. I think the additional traffic in the morning and afternoons will be a major burden. I think the apartments overlooking the children's play area is concerning. Not to mention the negative impact this project will have on the value of my home in Venezia. I am completely against this project and will not sit idly by without voicing my opinion. Please consider the ramifications of this project. There is a perfect plot of land across from Eisenhower hospital at the intersection of Bob Hope and Country Club that wouldn't affect or impact any of the above concerns. Todd Heagle i RICHARD H. WOHL, M.D., DIAIJE H. WOHL March 8, 2018 To Mayor Jonathan, Palm Desert City Council members, members of the Planning Commission, members of Desert Sands Unified School District and Assemblyman Chad Mayes: We want to address 2 matters that we feel strongly impact the issue of the proposed "Sands" development. First, there is a fundamental subject that we feel affects the very character of our town: our State Assembly, and by proxy, our local representatives have been reacting indiscriminately to a media and political frenzy seeking a solution to the "California housing crisis," and seem to approach the problem without regard to the welfare of the majority of the state and local residents. Last week, U.S. News and World Report published their annual "Best States Ranking" and California came out dead last - #50 — in quality of life by being at the bottom in the natural and social environment categories. This should not be a "zero -sum" game! California residents are already suffering. The situation will not be solved by penalizing those who moved here in good faith, expecting their representatives to protect the environment and quality of life that attracted them here in the first place. At a coffee this morning, Mayor Jonathan emphasized his and the Council's dedication to and focus on quality -of -life here. High -density, high-rise structures, with many zoning exemptions that had never been allowed before should be placed in a new area of development that will not impact those who have invested in their homes and planned their lives, which are now being threatened with disruption. If placed in an area of new developments, others then buying and building there would at least honestly know what they are facing. Black Rock, the world's largest money manager, bought 167 acres in Palm Desert last August, near UC Riverside and Cal State campuses. That is the sort of place a development like "The Sands" should appropriately be located. We realize that the town has given preliminary approval to the developer and could be liable for expenses if the project is changed or cancelled, possibly reflecting negatively on the Council and Commission. But since this was done without proper communication or informed consent of the affected residents, respecting the interests of the majority of your constituents, we believe the Council should deny approval of the project as it is currently presented, and at least restrict all building to no more than two stories. Second, the March 7 New York Times reports an article from the Orange County Register detailing six potential school threats in 10 days in Long Beach. An article in The Washington Post this week described the mind of a school shooter whose ultimate ambition is to kill more children than have ever been killed in any of the many school massacres to date. Fifteen -year -old Jesse Osborne, in South Carolina, shot and killed his father and a 6-year-old elementary school child. He then told authorities that he wanted to outdo previous school shooters, e.g. Adam Lanza, with the aim of killing up to 150 children. Ominously, one massacre tends to beget another. Several very tall, 3-story buildings with towers that overlook the Carter School playground are planned in the Sands development. An hour and a half prior to the most recent Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 20, the developer, under pressure, made a last-minute concession to the attorney of Canterra Apartments, by moving one of the 3- story buildings from the side of the apartments to a position overlooking the school. That high building might have interfered with the views of some Canterra apartment residents, who are charged a premium for views, but with the change, will augment available overviews of the adjacent Carter School playground. We all accept the fact there will be development of the adjacent lot, but we and the many residents of Venezia that we have contacted all want the project to be limited to two stories. cl City of Palm DesQTt MAR 0 9 2018 Community Development Sincerely, Richard H. Wohl, M.D., Diane H. Wohl 74175 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone (303)618-2962 e-mail: rhwohl@gmail.com Recei ed at Planning Commission meetin Dat ase No. Ear From; pc\.•It(7r Public Hearing for Planning Commission of February 20, 2018 Re: The Plans for Development of Canterra I1/The Sands on Hovley Lane East My name is Diana Altorfer. My husband and I live on Via Pellestrina in Venezia and are original owners, since 2003. We moved here with the knowledge of the lot next door was a second Canterra, or Canterra II. There were even rumors a few years ago that it could be a single-family community like ours. This massive project, however, came to our attention AFTER it had been studied and eiven Preliminary annroval by the Architectural Review Committee. March 28th of last year. A three-story apartment complex reaching over 39 feet in height was unfathomable, as was the thought of 412 apartments, potentially 1200 potential new residents! It NEVER crossed our minds! Well, Dorothy, The City of Palm Desert is about to bring the Emerald City of OZ to OUR neighborhood! Last summer, after much discussion, the decision of the Planning Commission was postponed for further analysis in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Ladies and Gentlemen, after reading the results of the first Checklist on page 13 about the Aesthetics of the project, 1 realized it was totally biased. a) Will it have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The results: Less than significant Impact Should be: Potentially Significant Six Venezia homes border the west side of Canterra II and just above their 7-foot back wall, their new view will be a long row of enclosed garages, with gutters and drain spouts. (No diagram was provided.) Garage roofs peak at 11+ feet. There is no setback for Venezia, no landscaped buffer (apparently the garage walls ARE the buffer). Same view along the retention basin — more garages, and the trash bins. The row of garages are a potential fire hazard, sending flames into Venezia. Speaking as a former middle school teacher, and they are ideal for middle or high schoolers to gather for after school parties, smoking, drinking, whatever they're not supposed to do. I can't imagine ANY of you saying this is acceptable. But these remain unchanged in the plans. EXISTING HOUSES-1 PROPERTY LINE 9 7" plink 3 STORY BUILDING BEYOND - 2/5' BETWEEN EXISTING HOMES AND NEAREST PROPOSED 3 STORY c) Will it substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The results: Less than significant Impact SHOULD BE Potentially Significant Impact Absolutely! Portola Country Club and Venezia combined have 594 single story homes, will be able to see these massive 3 story buildings daily, and residents who can look back into backyards. and a SCHOOL nlaveround? Do we feel safer now? Absolutely NOT. d) Will it create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The results: Less than significant Impact Garages and most parking spaces are a distance from the buildings, largely on the perimeter of the property. They require their own source of light for security, the extent to which is purely a guess right now. UNKNOWN The analysis of the sand/dust removal also shows bias at Have you toured this site lately? These pictures speak for themselves! A similar pile of sand 15 feet or higher is back along same wall at Carter, on Venezia's back wall. Dawn your face masks.... Less than Significant. Are f i. kCanterra II This long-awaited Mitigated Declaration indicates a strong BIAS and should be viewed with that in mind. It is shameful to be so blase about the potential impact on adjacent residents. The development is massive. It is so large that it requires its own stop light, compounding traffic issues that already exist. Canterra II should be GRANDFATHERED and remain a two-story building site. A better use of Open Space within Canterra 11 to include additional two-story dwellings would be less invasive in this part of town. This project is obviously intended to BOOST City of Palm Desert's numbers quickly, despite its dissimilar surroundings. Three-story apartment buildings are an anomaly north of Fred Waring. Being the only vacant lot around us, it should NOT be the testing ground for high density concessions. While sacrificing our views, our privacy, our neighborhood sense of community, here's the OTHER side of the coin. In addition to Canterra II's 412 apartments and Community Club House: (read fine print with magnifying glass) 1. Sand Volleyball Area 2. Half Basketball Court 3. TWO Outdoor Kitchens 4. TWO Fire Troughs 5. Event Lawn 6. Sandy Area with Hammocks 7. Game Lawn 8. BEER Garden 9. 4 Cabanas 10. Playground 11. Large Lap Pool, tiled surroundings 12. Secondary Pool, tiled surroundings 13. Wading Pool 14. Dog Park area for small dogs 15. Dog Park area for large dogs 16. 297,000 square feet of Open Space If this passes as presented by the developers, and endorsed by the Planning Department, it is truly a slap in the face to local homeowners, taxpayers (and voters). It shows where your priorities are, and PROMOTING GOODWILL is obviously not in the General Plan! Latest Headlines: OZ! Coming SOON to a neighborhood near you! Red marks the Spot! 1' 74;27—c7 7y 3S/ 174Veray �.9i�e �= s7 • 6 ; erg) C....( %- €/9 /.. 79�9.tl t(t'/ 4 A /rev/P e 7/ Uwe/ _ _ 2 PCl/ 7 "et ) 4-1 a>444/ i' e_ v/1 Prft.dce _ a � 'LA / R &eel 'fret. %4/ f S i, ji A) /We)"YImPI) q/,1 .g�//ouA k 7` e / C�,�t, /M / �� C,?-y o` Joke D / /4 / . --74 / of2 /1 _ •t/rff/7`/ 1.e iec/44 ,J //i9t4pleoe /le t om-/hA�7 /r�-u� 2 C AI 9 OI Arieol� A b o' 4 /v . _G 4ee /' f� Y 'S, 4e _itof oJec pae /�S � _C'oCJ/vs /A V/9i / ,A ff o,/ / r9 /te,94//d/e, /N.„!!Q%' tJIN- .>� QGt� �f% f✓ /Q) .Q /1 %/5 / %f,'v//thy' °,77 /r'Jts‘rivn /tveligriri 4 44s_ jp ureo saflee/ _G��J/4,v//,�- �f ! kJ475 o 2 (rilt.°A /r ed/zi.s cola 'J /e - 27, /1 N 07. 4 titer,` / (sPe( Zie 6 s /t�CO fneP/uC/ -4,,f 419/2"ve, fX-c:j/ f . l e rr7 4r/S19 fPo,,r/ tcw,,S7/ov) a/ f'knee 5 4i7 ,�1� - � ��N U� �wis .c,�-,,uff> N _- �° � G/s 41; /,3o fs s(0�..��6o�s 4 /�C.�� p / b�IrP5 A/s)1/� OSorJ4 b NPSS 6-1 e /7 1 i1 � ®l'�.1�1I pir f'e _ 400/( /97/40/1,/ �� 7? /" #4> /.5'5X E• vk'4" p�9ti PS you / ri / ,e) cdwr- d 7 / 6/ ,94.) 44e4Jme./7" d( tJf e u/file- RP �- i Received at Planning Commission meeting Date!$ Case Nci 110 2') ' From•P KJ ► a NQLO Bob Logelin & Jennifer Logelin 74240 Angels Camp Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 Council Members City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 4, 2018 RE: 74-351 Hovley Lane East, Case No. PP/EA 16-394, AKA "Sands Development" As homeowners in Portola Country Club, we — Bob Logelin and Jennifer Logelin - are writing in response to the report from Staff to the Planning Commission recommending the "Sands" project be sent to the Palm Desert City Council for approval. The current proposal to increase density, over the current allowable limits, by allowing a three story building in an area with predominately two story buildings and increasing the number of units is misguided. This appears to be an effort to address housing affordability and supply issues without understanding or considering the impacts of this decision, or considering the need for accountability in securing low income housing. Having worked in the Community Services Department for the City of Vancouver, in B.C. Canada, as Director of Housing and Community Operations, I, Jennifer (nee Standeven), do bring some experience to this discussion; in both the provision of low income housing and the use of "density bonuses" as a means to address housing issues. While laudable in what we assume is your intention, increasing housing for "lower income households;" these types of loose arrangements with Developers are ineffective and actually can harm the groups you are trying to assist, as well as the surrounding community. Density bonuses given to Developers for providing low income housing units are based on the following fallacies: • First, the only way low income housing can be developed is through the municipality giving up its long term community plans and its right to manage density and development. Developers are using the current housing market to push this belief as it provides an opportunity to increase their profit margin and, more importantly, set a precedent for future negotiations requesting exceptions to community plans and density/development rules. 1/3 1 • Second, is the fallacy that people who have low incomes and are in need of affordable housing will actually benefit from this type of divergence from community plans and density and development limits. The report provides no specificity as to who these "lower -income households" are, their income level, or their needs in terms of housing, in order to understand who may benefit from Council's generous waiving of density limits to the Developer. As well there is no description of how the process of selecting these "lower -income households" will occur, or whether this will be left to the Owner/operator of the project. Thus there is no assurance that any low income people will actually reside in these units or if this housing will meet their needs. • The third fallacy is assuming that these units will be secured over time for "lower -income households". From the report we are left with the impression that the City is assuming the Developer or Owner (or management company) will manage this in good faith over time, ensuring only "low-income households" will occupy these units. It's questionable whether this is a reasonable assumption as the purpose of these organizations is to generate profit not provide social benefits. Given that the generous waiving of density rules for this property will not change for the life of the building, and is unlikely to change when redevelopment takes place, it's reasonable to expect that the low cost units will be secured over time and not simply revert to market rents. However even where cities have registered this requirement on title there is seldom a cost effective mechanism for cities to ensure compliance, given finite staffing levels and other competing priorities, e.g. delivering other services to their taxpayers. We would ask Council to seriously consider whether they are able to provide the staff necessary to ensure oversight including auditing the operation of this development on an ongoing basis. If not, then there is a significant risk that Council will have given up reasonable density and development limits for the possibility of a short term benefit that may or may not continue, even though the benefit given to the Owner is ongoing. There is also no means to determine whether the value of the benefit given to Developer is cost effective in terms of evaluating options for the creation of affordable housing. Perhaps more important than the fallacies used to promote density bonuses, these arrangements do not recognize or quantify the unintended consequences on the surrounding communities. And to be clear our concern is not about the introduction of "lower -income households" into the Portola area, as there is already a brilliant mixed income community that evolved within Palm Desert's planning parameters. The Portola area has a mix of residential housing options including multi -unit housing, gated communities, rental units, manufactured homes, mobile homes and single family homes. One of the closest areas to the proposed development is Portola Country Club, with 499 units of housing, primarily manufactured housing, with a few "stick built" units. The residents are aged 55+, with some residents in their 90's; all "aging in place" as the experts in senior living advise us to do. Some residents are still working while many are retired and volunteering inside the Country Club and/or in the larger Palm Desert community. There are US and Canadian Snowbirds, year round residents, and permanent residents who head to the coast during the hottest months of the year (Desertbirds?). There are owners and renters here, some have mortgages and a few are financing their retirement through reverse mortgages. This is a community that already provides mixed income housing and housing for "lower -income households" through affordable home prices and rental rates. 2/3 Portola Country Club is a caring community. Neighbors look after each other. Neighbors take out and return the garbage bins for those who can't manage the large and heavy bins. There is a monthly community dinner to build connections and provide access to a great meal once a month, as well as a small food pantry to help those on low incomes. Some of the younger (in their 70's!) residents drive their elderly neighbors to doctor and other appointments, help them in their homes, and with their care. With numerous recreation options there is a cultural of physical activity and exercise. This is all done at the community level without the direction, oversight or funding by government. Although we don't believe that any Council, in any community in North America, would intentionally set out to harm this type of healthy, safe, and caring community, you are risking doing exactly that if you approve the current project proposal. Changing density and development rules that may impact the worth of homes and potentially the quality of life for the residents, is exactly what may occur if you allow the proposed three stories and increased units in this development. Is this really worth the risk? Especially given there is no guarantee that the goal of low income housing will even be achieved, either in the short or long term. Instead we are urging you to turn down this proposal and have staff investigate other approaches to providing affordable housing in Palm Desert that will include short term and long term accountability. And finally, one last word of caution — seniors vote! While the two of us are not eligible to vote in Palm Desert, please remember that most of the residents here can and do vote. Sincerely, Jennifer Logelin Bob Logelin CC Portola Country Club, Board of Directors Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Planning Commission 3/3 Ceja, Eric From: Stanley, Jane Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 2:33 PM To: Nestande, Gina Cc: Ceja, Eric Subject: Message re: Sands Development Original Message From: June Engblom [mailto:juneengblom@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:39 AM To: CityhallMail <Cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Attn Gina Nestande I believe Eric Ceja wants The Sands apartments to be a done deal. What can we the citizens say to persuade our elected officials to listen to us ?What can we say or do to limit the construction to 2 levels? Palm Desert is a beautiful city with a thoughtful plan . Up to this point the three story apartments have been limited to Gerald Ford area...they've started the construction low and therefore don't seem like 3 story units..they are in the newer, previously undeveloped area and don't seem out of place. Three stories squeezed between a school and two story apartments will look out of place. Two story construction next to the fire station at Portola and Country Club dwarfs everything around it. Is this the look we really want for our beautiful city? HELP! Sent from my iPhone 1 Diana K. Altorfer 74139 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 February 12, 2018 Architectural Review Commission Chris Van Vliet, Chair Karel Lambell, Vice Chair Doug Brewer, Allan Levin, Michael McAuliffe, Jim McIntosh, John Vuksic Dear Commissioner Vliet and fellow Commissioners, I am a resident of the Venezia Community on Portola and East Hovley and have been since 2004 when our new home was completed. Our back -wall borders Portola Country Club, with a 15-feet buffer (not buildable) due to the proximity of homes behind us. That was 13 years ago. The Sands project which lies directly behind 5 Venezia backyards (and a portion of a 6th) has no such restriction. In fact, they can build a continuous line of garages immediately behind Venezia's adjoining back wall, with NO buffer what -so -ever. The backs of these garages rise above Venezia's 7-foot divider wall, with a roof line to exceed 11 feet. No buffer also means potential of any garage fire reaching over the wall and to into Venezia backyards. Where was this consideration given in your meeting? I find neither a reference or concern for fire, nor a requirement for any buffer on the other side! The first time any residents in Venezia heard about this project was following the 4-1-2 approval March 28, 2017 by your Commission. We had NO opportunity to ask these questions or state our concerns beforehand. In talking to Mr. Ceja at the Planning Department, his concern now is not over the design, only over the environmental issues that were raised. The design seems set in stone. I am a 5th generation Californian and do understand the need for low income housing. The increase to 412 can be accommodated in two story buildings if the recreational amenities were not included, like more typical apartment designs. The plans referenced the nearby Soccer Field which has basketball hoops, playgrounds and picnic areas, even frisbee golf. The Palm Desert public pool facility is within walking distance, so the area is surrounded by recreational facilities! Were you to return simply to the STATE's request for additional affordable housing, you would NOT be changing the residential atmosphere and integrity of the neighboring communities. The STATE isn't mandating recreational amenities, and in this case, it seems redundant. Sadly, the three-story buildings also have raised serious concerns in a newer Venezia homeowner whose two young children will attend Carter School. The mother did NOT want the three-story building to overlook the school yard as in the plans. She sees another Las Vegas incident right behind her home. Is it too late to modify this mammoth size project? Must we use the legal system to challenge it? Yours truly, cc: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Ceja, Eric From: E&D Knopf <knopfepdc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:45 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Public Hearing Legal Notice Case NO. PP/EA 16-351 Attn: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert Dear Eric, We received a copy of the legal notice in the mail for Case No, PP/EA 16-394 on February 3, 2018. As residents of Venezia we have written letters to all City Board members in opposition to this immense project. We know The Sands Development has been on the agenda since June 2017. Several months have gone by and now the project is on the front burner. In your recent legal notice of the boundaries of the project you mention everyone in the neighborhood BUT Venezia. It states: The project is bounded by Hovley Lane East on the north, James Carter Elementary School to the west, Canterra's Apartments to the East and Portola Country Club to the south." Why is Venezia not mentioned as one of the adjoining properties? Since it is not mentioned in the legal notice we are asking for a revision to the meets and bounds to include Venezia and republish the document in its corrected and revised form. As in previous letters we have sent, please be aware there are other vacant pieces of land in the 92260 zip code that could better cope with the scope and breadth of this housing development. Sincerely, Donna and Ed Knopf Venezia homeowners 74138 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 1 Ceja, Eric From: Ann Hoene <hoeneap@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 1:49 PM To: Ceja, Eric; Ann Hoene Subject: 74-351 Hovley Lane East proposed project Hello Eric, We will be attending the meeting dated February 20, 2018, however, we wanted my email on record. 1. We do not support the proposed three story buildings proposed in this project. The density increase and the change in desert views would be a detriment to the community. We understand why the developer wants to build 3 story buildings, but, greed is not an acceptable reason to destroy the beautiful desert vista of Palm Desert. 2. We also have concerns about the increase in traffic, not only on Portola Ave, but, also on Hovley Lane. Presently, there are certain times of day that the traffic is backed up on Portola Ave off of Hovley Lane because of parents dropping their children off at the school and than again when they are picking them up. I would suspect this complex would increase the congestion. 3. We do support lower income housing. Low income housing is not a new concept. Our small town in Idaho implemented both low income housing and additional parking per unit built back in the 1970's. Our feeling is that the City of Palm Desert is trying to make up for previous developments that were built without this requirement. There are developments that have built in Palm Desert in the last 10 years without meeting this requirement. We feel it is unfair to build 3 story building in this project just to make up for your lack of planning. We hope that the City of Palm Desert will reconsider allowing residential 3 story buildings in the city of Palm Desert. Thank you for your time. See you at the meeting! Ann and Phil Hoene 1 Ceja, Eric From: OmaJean Harris <djharris37@earthlink.net> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 2:22 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: CASE NO PP/EA16-394 TO ERIC CEJA AND ALL MEMBERS OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION: My questions for the Planning Commission: 1. Did the Planning Commission consider how The Sands Apartment 15 tall building project would impact the Portola Country Club Community of retired citizens? 2 Did the Planning Commission apply time to view our community visualize the effects these tall apartments will have on our senior citizens? 3. Portola Country Club residents must be 55 years or older. Many of us purchased our homes for the beautiful surrounding views. We enjoy the quiet serenity of our :"retirement home." We have invested in improving our homes, anticipating property values would increase. 4. We, as senior citizens of Portola C.C. enjoy the calm, peaceable pleasure activities to enjoy playing golf, swimming, walking our dogs in a safe environment. 5.. The plans of this apartment development will not protect our Portola Country Club community from the lack of privacy, loud noises from car horns and intruders who climb our fences. 6. Why does the builder and the city need to approve this massive apartment structure close to a long established community of retired senior citizens who have shopped and supported Palm Desert businesses. 7. The Coachella Valley and our state are in a DROUGHT - lack of snow and rain water. We have all read and heard the radio and T.V. city of Palm Desert encourages water conservation, so why approve a 412 unit apartment structure with unknown water usage by tenants. 8. The citizens of Portola C.C. are conscious observers of water conservation! Ceja, Eric From: Phyllis Sherwood <fraydleps@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 4:54 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands development Cannot happen this should not happen and hopefully will not happen. The Barzman's Sent from my iPad 1 Ceja, Eric From: Loren Campbell <loren@lorencampbell.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 11:58 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands/Canberra II Project I am a homeowner living in Venezia, and am very concerned about the change in plans for the Sands/Canterra II Project. Can you please add me as an interested party for your mailings on this project. Loren Campbell 74051 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 909-499-3295 Loren@lorencampbell.com i Ceja, Eric From: jmbecs@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 10:04 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Development on Hovley Project Eric, Unfortunately, due to a previous engagement, we are unable to attend the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 20. Below is my message from June supporting my friends and neighbors who live adjacent to this proposed project. To Whom it May Concern; I have no problem with an apartment complex proposed for this area as rental units and low -coming housing are really needed. In Palm Desert, we have one of the best 2-year colleges, COD, and more housing is needed for these hard working students. My issue is the number of 412 units, some being 3-stories high, built directly on top of a grade school. The idea of Hovley handling this extra amount of traffic does not make sense. The proposed addition of an added traffic signal right past the school will only add MORE congestion for parents dropping off/picking up their kids and could create a higher risk of accidents for the children who walk to school. Thanks for hearing me out Elayne Stull & Judith Bastian PCC 74556 Zircon Cir E PD 630-234-3913 1 Ceja, Eric From: Peter Profera <twopros2@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 8:01 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Apartments affecting Portola and neighboring homes We wish to add our names in opposition to the expansion of the proposed construction. Pat & Pete Profera Ceja, Eric From: JIM KENNEDY <jcl.kennedy@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 6:12 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Fwd: Proposed Project- The Sands Apartments ( Canterra II ) Mr. Ceja, (ant a resident of Portola Country Club that is on the south boundary of the proposed project. The Sands Apartments (Canterra 11) would add 412 dwelling units consisting of a one story recreational building, seven (7) two story apartment buildings, eight (8) three story apartment buildings, 220 garage units, covered parking, and recreational areas. These apartments will result in forever increased and significant noise pollution for the residents of Portola Country Club. Can you advise if the initial study regarding the California Environmental Quality Act took into account for the significant effect of noise pollution on Portola Country Club, and, if so, how they were able to determine the future noise impact? I am also requesting an electronic copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully, Jim Kennedy 42180 Sutters Mill Rd Palm Desert, CA 92260 425-239-8823 1 Ceja, Eric From: fivers2@aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:51 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Please allow only 2 stories in PD residences Please no more 3 story residences constructed and allowed in Palm Desert. Thank you, Margo Dragoo Ceja, Eric From: Clerkin, Ruairi M - INDIAN WEL CA <ruairi_clerkin@ml.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:51 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: CASE NO: DA/PP/EA 16-394 "New Cities Investment Partners, LLC" Attachments: July 14th.pdf; July 27th.pdf Dear Eric, In reference to the proposed development under consideration at Hovley Lane East, between Canterra Apartments and Carter Elementary School. I cannot attend the Public hearing on February 20th 2018 so I'd like to submit this statement while the public comment period is open. As a longtime resident of Palm Desert, since 2004, I appreciate the need for responsible development and growth. However in the case of this project I object to its approval as proposed on the following grounds: 1. The project is architecturally out of character with the surrounding developments — the fact it is proposing eight (8) buildings at 3 stories high, (each with an elevation of 38'4") means it will tower over the existing buildings in the area. I've attached Mr. Ryan Stendell's comment from July 27th that you are recommending in favor of the development because "we believe this is a good project that fits in well with existing uses" I strongly disagree. 2. I believe there is an issue with the size, scope and location of this project as currently laid out. It is being inserted into an area of the city that already has high traffic. It is also located in an area of the city that already has a healthy concentration of low income housing — including to the south east of this project (Hovley Gardens) and south west (Palm Desert Mobile Estates). In your email to me dated July 14th 2017, you reference a proposal for an apartment complex with 3 stories at Gerald Ford and Dinah Shore, this area of Palm Desert does not have the same traffic and elevation issues as Hovley Lane East and I don't see this as an equal comparison. 3. Finally I believe there is the issue of "conflict of interest" or at the very least the perception of such a conflict. This relates to the city's desire to meet California State quotas for low income housing (as discussed in the email from 7/14 and 7/27 2017). Clearly there is an incentive to approve any project that advances you achieving the quota number. Originally the vacant land was approved for a maximum development of 306 units, at two story height. Since the passing of AB 2222 in 2014 requiring cities to "provide density bonuses and "other" incentives or concessions for the development of lower income housing" the development has now morphed into 412 units at 3 story height — with 110 garage units abutting the perimeter west wall of the Venezia neighborhood, (there is no buffer zone and the garages peak at 11.5 feet whereas the perimeter wall is just 7 feet). It is not unreasonable to think New Cities Investment partners are skillfully manipulating the new law to maximize the size of their project (and potential profits) and the city of Palm Desert is happy to approve as it helps reach your quota goals. Missing in this equation is the needs of the existing community members at Canterra Apartments, Venezia, & Portola Country Club, and anyone who uses Hovley lane east during school pick up/drop off times. In conclusion, I am not against responsible development in Palm Desert, on the contrary I welcome it. However in this particular case I think there is a capacity issue with the size, scope and location of the proposed project. It is going to materially change the landscape of Hovley Lane East, which is already a heavily trafficked area. I see more negatives than positives in moving forward with this project as planned, and would like to see the planning commission work with the developer to create a more suitable alternative — less units and lower elevation still achieves all the points laid out in the final paragraph of Mr. Stendall's 7/27 email. Sincerely, Ruairi M. Clerkin, CRPC®, CPFA® 1 Vice Pi es, S ' N;MLSID?6334 4 Merrill Lynch, Pie,;:e, Fenner & Smi`'r� Ir3c 7-1$0O Hwy 111, Indians, CA92210 T 'I (760) 862-14 ! (760) 760-15:8 ruairi clerkin@ml.com This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. 2 Ceja, Eric From: Deena Fernandez <deenanjoe@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 11:27 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Proposed apartments on Hovely Please reconsider building these apartments at a three story level. It's going to crowd the area and deprive us of a lot of privacy. A two story is more than enough. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Deena Fernandez 74-620 Azurite Circle East Palm desert 1 Ceja, Eric From: Geri Johnston <gerijohns@shaw.ca> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:02 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Portola Country Club - Building Proposal Next Door Hi — I just wanted to weigh in on the proposed multi -unit dwelling proposed for the lot beside the Portola Golf and Country Club. Please — for the sake of our wonderful neighborhood and owners, do not approve a 3 story unit being built next door. We need to see nothing taller than a 2 story unit being built next to our complex. Thanks so much for your time! Geri Johnston 74618 Zircon Cir E Palm Desert, CA 442-666-8013 1 Ceja, Eric From: Joan FitzGibbon <fitzi@nwlink.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:58 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Apartments Eric I have written before and heard there was a meeting coming up on the 20th. I don't have an issue with apartments being built. We do need affordable housing in Palm Desert. My objection is to having 3 stories. I live right on the other side of the east wall to Canterra. As it is, from the front of my property and on Angels Camp Rd, you can see directly into the 2nd story apartments behind me. I understand the 3 stories will be in the center of the complex however that will be way too tall given that the elevation is several feet higher that the Portola properties. Also the wall behind Canterra is 8 ft hight directly behind me and starts heading down shorter as it continues west along the back of the Angels Camp homes. I believe the wall is 6' in quite a few places and with the elevation being higher at the Sands it will be too easily accessible for access to Portola. (of course you could put barbwire up O). I have security concerns with this. Please give consideration to these 2 issues. Joan FitzGibbon 74384 Angels Camp Rd Portola Country Club Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-413-0519 Virus -free. www.avast.corn 1 Ceja, Eric From: John Evanoff <evanoffj8@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 9:22 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: [SPAM] - Hovley Projects Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 Attachments: Hovley Projects Case No DAPPEA 16394.docx We oppose the three story construction on the Hovley Projects Case No. DA/PP/EA 16/394 and cramming 412 apartments in a spot earmarked for just 306 without an entirely new review process brought forward by the city council and voted upon with the understanding that many people living in the area will be severely impacted. We would also like to ask the city council for a new project analysis by all departments, the planning department and the Community Development Department included, including a new traffic impact statement done during the height of the season, the school district impact statement, the infrastructure impact statement (sewer, water, gas, electricity), the Palm Desert Police and Riverside County Sheriff statements, the fire department statement, the health department statement, environmental impact statement, and any other impact statements you may have on file for this project. None of these have been done except for a cursory traffic study done more than a year ago for a few days during the lowest residency summer days We have nearly 4,000 home owners in the nearby country clubs (Chaparral, Monterey, Silver Sands, Park Palms, Sands Racquet Club, Chatham Court, Casablanca...just to name a few) who will be directly and/or indirectly impacted by the building of these apartments in an area already burdened by heavy traffic because of its proximity to the post office, a highly populated industrial complex which includes Waste Management and it's heavy trucks, an elementary school, a boys and girls club, a soccer park, a resort and several apartment complexes (one with 420 apartments -Canterra- on the same street right next to the proposed project which also has had higher than normal crime rates and other problems). The safety of all Palm Desert citizens depends on these studies to be brought up to current code regulations and attention to them should be a priority of the Palm Desert City Council and Staff. http://statisticalatlas.com/tract/Cal ifornia/Ri verside-County/044929/Population John and Sharon Evanoff Palm Desert, CA 92260 i We oppose the three story construction on the Hovley Projects Case No. DA/PP/EA 16/394 and cramming 412 apartments in a spot earmarked for just 306 without an entirely new review process brought forward by the city council and voted upon with the understanding that many people living in the area will be severely impacted. We would also like to ask the city council for a new project analysis by all departments, the planning department and the Community Development Department included, including a new traffic impact statement done during the height of the season, the school district impact statement, the infrastructure impact statement (sewer, water, gas, electricity), the Palm Desert Police and Riverside County Sheriff statements, the fire department statement, the health department statement, environmental impact statement, and any other impact statements you may have on file for this project. None of these have been done except for a cursory traffic study done more than a year ago for a few days during the lowest residency summer days We have nearly 4,000 home owners in the nearby country clubs (Chaparral, Monterey, Silver Sands, Park Palms, Sands Racquet Club, Chatham Court, Casablanca... just to name a few) who will be directly and/or indirectly impacted by the building of these apartments in an area already burdened by heavy traffic because of its proximity to the post office, a highly populated industrial complex which includes Waste Management and it's heavy trucks, an elementary school, a boys and girls club, a soccer park, a resort and several apartment complexes (one with 420 apartments -Canterra- on the same street right next to the proposed project which also has had higher than normal crime rates and other problems). The safety of all Palm Desert citizens depends on these studies to be brought up to current code regulations and attention to them should be a priority of the Palm Desert City Council and Staff. http://statisticalatlas.comltract/California/Riverside-County/044929/Population John and Sharon Evanoff Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ceja, Eric From: Linda Holland <Iinnie8108@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 8:33 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Cramming 3stories in small space You must reconsider a three story apartment complex in on Hovely by school, soccer field and one story residential. Two story doable. Lina Holland, Palm Desert resident Sent from my iPad 1 Ceja, Eric From: Geri Johnston <gerijohns@shaw.ca> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:02 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Portola Country Club - Building Proposal Next Door Hi — I just wanted to weigh in on the proposed multi -unit dwelling proposed for the lot beside the Portola Golf and Country Club. Please — for the sake of our wonderful neighborhood and owners, do not approve a 3 story unit being built next door. We need to see nothing taller than a 2 story unit being built next to our complex. Thanks so much for your time! Geri Johnston 74618 Zircon Cir E Palm Desert, CA 442-666-8013 1 RICHARD & DIANE WOHL Au q str,L4.,2017 "11V avrrll.t PALM DESERT. rt, To: Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, Attn. Eric Ce1' 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. ?NT AUG 14 PH b: 09 Palm Desert, CA 92260 We are very concerned about the proposed variances for The Sands Development and how it impacts our quality of life. The proposed increase in density from 306 to 412 units on the East Hovely site does not take into account the traffic increase on an already busy Portola/E.Hovley entrance and exit from Carter Elementary. The air pollution from the many idling cars waiting to drop off students on E. Hovley and Portola is already a noise and air pollution issue for Venezia residents that will only increase with such a major addition to the traffic. We are also concerned about the proposed eight 3-story buildings in the center of The Sands development, which will add a discordant element to the aesthetics of the surrounding area and will be incongruent with the character of our residential neighborhood. As retired residents who selected Palm Desert and the Venezia community because of the quiet neighborhood(s), relatively low traffic and the health benefits of living in the desert, we request that you reject the variances being proposed for The Sands development. Significantly increased traffic, more noise and air pollution and the increased health risks for those of us with respiratory issues, all detract from the very quality of life issues that brought many of us to live in Palm Desert. We request more study of the issues and more public discussion before any decision is made, as the quality of life in Palm Desert is and needs to continue to be a priority for all of us who live here, as stated in the City of Palm Desert's web site. One of our Venezia residents is a retired fire captain with 30 years experience, and has pointed out safety issues as well as unacceptable burdens on our nearest fire station, which is already one the busiest in the county. An alarm from a 3-story building will require 3 engine companies and a ladder truck, which would be a logistical problem in the Sands project as it is now planned. Canterra Apartments, which adjoin the proposed Sands development, has 306 residents and 2-story design, the prior zoning for the Sands parcel, which is the same size. Canterra included 10% affordable housing units, which would be more appropriate for this neighborhood, rather than the very high density being proposed, which would result in a radical change to the nature of our community. There is a large and excellent recreational area very close to the proposed development, with soccer, basketball, playground, picnic areas and tables. If the basketball and volleyball courts were deleted from the development, and the density brought down to a more livable and reasonable level, it might then be possible to plan the entire development with 2-story buildings. Sincerely, Diane H Wohl „i/hdAzweike_ Richard H Wohl 74175 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone (303)618-2962 rhwohl(aDgmail.com dianewohlggmail.com Ceja, Eric From: Karen Woolworth <dwoolworth@dc.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:36 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sand Thar Planning C'ommisaioncrs, In 2003. we bought our home in Venezia at a time when the models had only been framed. Canting from Connecticut, we bought in good faith, walking to our sand hot and trying to imagine our home. 'rite vacant lot next door was vacant, but %NC knew eventually there would be a 30fi-unil apartment complex, much like Canierra on the other side, The soew cr park was a great resource for our two grown children who loved soccer, basketball hoops, and later the frisbee golf. les 14 years later. In January, unbeknownst to any at' us, the Town Planning and Zoning Regulation, were being revised. In ?starch. a development design for nc`it door was pteseated to the Architectural Res kw Committee. Chair Van Vlict voted against i1 for its out, of•characwr height. The plan is to build EIGIIT 3•stoy133`4` and SEVEN 2-stony apartment buildings (with 36'1I" lowers). Nowhere else in Palm Desert north of Hwy 1 1 1 is there a development like this one. Only four of the adjacent homcowncrs in Venezia received nonce of the Open Ikanng in June. Flow slid this esohvc without our knOwlcdgc'? In addition to the 412 apartments, the. plans include a tc+v extras: • 9,100•square foot clubhouse • TWO outdoorswintming pools • Spa :utjaa-m to otic of those !owls • A half basketball court • A volleyball court • A "game lawn" • A "playground" • A"rield" • And "OPEN space" 11 becomes OBVIOUS why the developer bad to build liP. and not OUT. This is not a "Cantina" Apartment. This looks like a IIOTF.I., with all the anunil ies but restaurant and golf course. Please consider the impact you will make. not just on our community. but any single-family Invite neighborbiwd.'eSe bought here. made an investment in the City of Palm Desert. and c are the scapegoats ro having a giant development of rental units move right next door. Please EXAMINE, these plans carefully. p tying close attention the "extras' in the Technical Site Plan. 1V4; will have 2.3% of Palm Desert's total population living, next door. Our exterior +► Its are only 7 ! : feet tall. We certainly had no expectations of a rile of this density. extreme height and proximity' 1Valter & Diana Altorfer 74139 Via Pcllcstrina The letter you reed is very nice from the Altorfers. Since I cannot be at the meeting I ditto its contents and all other letters and emails recd from Portola Residents, Canterra Residents and Venezia Residents. Its pretty clear that the bugaboo is the height that you all aspire to, either in the height of the buildings or the height the boards egos aspire to. Guarantee you..... This would not be happening in their back yards. Has even 1 Board member come over to Portola CC and looked at how visible Cantera is No Now Add 30 feet to that —III .Note that the elevation of the land is 7-10feet higher that Canterra! ! ! There is no doubt the Board will do what is expedient for them> Voting them out of office will be too late. We are not a big enough voter pool to ruffle their feathers. Thank you, Karen and Don Woolworth Portola CC, 74468 Angels Camp Road. PDCA!! To Whom it May Concern: I have one request of those who are tasked with making a decision on the Sands Project as it is currently proposed: One morning take a drive from Dinah Shore down Portola towards Highway 111. You will see beautiful palm trees, the tops of some tile roofs, cacti and other plants and, of course, the stunning mountains that give Coachella Valley its beauty and appeal. At Country Club, notice how the scene changes as you approach the new two-story construction on the right. The mountains and trees are blocked from view. The building's shadow encroaches on the road. Now imagine that this type of construction continues to be approved and built throughout the City. Imagine the devastating change of character that would occur to Palm Desert. Approval of three-story residences would create a precedent that would markedly change the appeal of the City for those seeking to visit or reside here. My husband and I chose to purchase a home in and permanently move to Palm Desert specifically to escape the increasingly oppressive nature of Orange County with its overbuilt areas, heavy traffic and overall congestion. I urge you to consider what makes Palm Desert so special and the importance of fighting to preserve its nature and beauty for the benefit of those who chose to live here and for those who spend their vacations here. Sincerely, Carrie Smith August 14, 2017 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission: Nancy DeLuna, Chair; Joseph Pradetto, Vice Chair Commissioners Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: The Sands Dear Planning Commissioners, In 2003, we bought our home in Venezia at a time when the models had only been framed. Coming from Connecticut, we bought in good faith, walking to our sand lot and trying to imagine our home. The vacant lot next door was vacant, but we knew eventually there would be a 306-unit apartment complex, much like Canterra on the other side. The soccer park was a great resource for our two grown children who loved soccer, basketball hoops, and later the frisbee golf. It's 14 years later. In January, unbeknownst to any of us, the Town Planning and Zoning Regulations were being revised. In March, a development design for next door was presented to the Architectural Review Committee. Chair Van Vliet voted against it for its out -of -character height. The plan is to build EIGHT 3-story (38'4" and SEVEN 2-story apartment buildings (with 36'8" towers). Nowhere else in Palm Desert north of Hwy 111 is there a development like this one. Only four of the adjacent homeowners in Venezia received notice of the Open Hearing in June. How did this evolve without our knowledge? In addition to the 412 apartments, the plans include a few extras: • 9,100-square foot clubhouse • TWO outdoor swimming pools • Spa adjacent to one of those pools • A half basketball court • A volleyball court • A "game lawn" • A "playground" • A "field" • And "OPEN space" It becomes OBVIOUS why the developer had to build UP, and not OUT. This is not a "Canterra" Apartment. This looks like a HOTEL, with all the amenities but restaurant and golf course. Please consider the impact you will make, not just on our community, but any single-family home neighborhood. We bought here, made an investment in the City of Palm Desert, and we are the scapegoats to having a giant development of rental units move right next door. Please EXAMINE these plans carefully, paying close attention the "extras" in the Technical Site Plan. We will have 2.3% of Palm Desert's total population living next door. Our exterior walls are only 7''/ feet tall. We certainly had no expectations of a site of this density, extreme height and proximity! Walter & Diana Altorfer 74139 Via Pellestrina Ceja, Eric From: Patricia McNamee <Ipmcnamee@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 8:53 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Nearest Neighbor Input - Sands Development Dear Mr. Ceja, I own the home at 41918 Via Garibaldi in Venezia. I am writing to you concerning the new Palms Development. 1 am one of the 5 homeowners in Venezia that are up against the Sands proposed development on the West side with proposed garages built up against my property. I wrote before the first hearing, as well as made a special trip into PD for the hearing which was basically a "no questions answered" session. It seems my suggestions from my first letter were not even considered, the plans continue to include garages up to the property line against my back wall as well as I did not see any additional dust mitigation measures included int he last City Planning documents. 50 here are my concerns: 1. My backyard is NOT deep. The wall is stepped (3 feet then 5 feet) so I really can not plant any trees along the back wall to protect my privacy. The development's view is that setbacks potentially allow for more problems related to unmonitored activity behind garages (REALLY?). There certainly could be gates that would preclude residents from accessing the 5 foot setback that we are proposing. The setback will minimize crime risk from climbing on the garage and hopping into our property (remember the wall on our side is stepped down!). I am also concerned with the potential for a garage fire in a connected garage spreading to my property. Lastly, A setback would also minimize some of the noise of cars going in and out and locking doors(honk honk). 2. My property value is at risk. I believe my property will be a lot Tess desirable if abutted to a garage. It will also will be impacted by 3 story buildings peering into my single story house. I understand the need for affordable housing but 3 stories is excessive (eight of them!). Additional units can be accomplished by minimizing some of the proposed amenities in the development. Additionally, there is a 27 foot setback proposed for the Southern end of the lot, I believe this space can be used for development as well as provide a 5 foot setback behind my property as well as the south end. The development is next to a soccer park and a school - give me 5 feet along the west wall to offset those intrusive garages and please don't allow a 40 foot 3 story building ( wait 40 feet of building is equivalent to 4 ten foot tall rooms! Why 40 feet??? ). 3. Dust mitigation - so NOTHING other than standard dust mitigation was included in the final proposed plan. That is unacceptable to me, being one of the near -most residents to the development. If I had children in the school I would probably pull them out. As a health care professional I understand the impact of breathing micronized dust particles over an extended period of time. There could be health issues for everyone living and playing near this development as the 2 development phases are likely to stretch not just months but years. Where are the plans to protect us residents and children? Standard is not good enough! Wish I could be there tomorrow. Some questions I would like addressed are: FINAL PLAN FOR DUST MITIGATION FINAL PLAN FOR GARAGE HEIGHT FINAL PLAN FOR GARAGE SETBACK PLAN TO PROTECT RESIDENTS PRIVACY from a 40 story building 1 Thank you, Dr. Patricia McNamee, 41918 Via Garibaldi Palm Desert, CA 92260 2 Ceja, Eric From: Papillon Graphics <trish@papillongraphics.com> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 4:33 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands Development Dear Eric, My basic thoughts are that this is much too dense for the area...We were prepared for the 312 units coming someday. But to add 412 units + story building is just overkill. Chairman Chris Van Vliet's voiced his opposition to this concern by voting NO. You are totally overpopulating the area - The 3 story will be towering over us will just look out of place within the community. There is already soccer, basketball and other recreational facilities within proximity so why not use that space to keep the buildings to two story. I believe that our basic services.... fire, ambulance, police will be in jeopardy by adding so many additional people to the area. This makes the area unsafe for the existing residents. Another point is that area has been vacant for well over the 14 years I've been at Venezia and I'm sure rats, snakes and other critters have taken up residence there. Is there going to be a rat abatement program or safeguards in place so they won't be escaping to neighboring communities? Thank you, Trish Pierce, Venezia resident 74-122 via Pellestrina I. Ceja, Eric From: Earl Santos <esantos@dc.rr.com> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 2:58 PM To: Ceja, Eric; Diana Altorfer Subject: Sands Project I am Earl Santos, Jr and reside at the community of Venezia and live on Via Garibaldi, one of the houses being impacted by the Sands Project. am a retired Fire Capt with 30 years experience. My wife and I moved here after retirement checking out other cities in the area we chose Palm Desert because of it being a good quiet retirement community. No one has discussed the public safety issues that this project will have on the city. It will increase emergency calls to the area. Fire station #71 on County Club and Portola is one of the busiest companies in Riverside County. If they are out on a call elsewhere, the closest units would have to come from fire station #33 on Town Center, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms or Bermuda Dunes with no initial backup. With a 3 story building, initial response requires 3 engine companies and a ladder truck and that parcel does not accommodate road access for Fire Dept. It will also increase Police Dept responses and more personnel will be need for both Fire and Police Depts. We will be at Tues nights meeting. Thank you, Earl and Karen Santos i Eric Ceja City of Palm Desert July 10, 2017 Dear Mr Ceja: My husband and I are writing you regarding the proposed real estate development project called "The Sands" that is currently under consideration by the Palm Desert Planning Commission. Currently, the Planning Commission has postponed future meetings on this matter until possibly August due to community outrage expressed at the last meeting. My husband and I are writing this letter to also express strong opposition to this development. We live in the Venezia development adjacent to the proposed project. At a previous meeting with the Planning Commission where homeowners were allowed to speak, many issues were expressed, the most important of those being the density of the project, the noise implications, the potential traffic congestion on Hovely, the negative impact on Carter Elementary School, and the environmental impact study. My husband and I supported and continue to support those views expressed by homeowners at that meeting. This project is overreach in the community and serves to only benefit the developers who stand to extract significant profits if it is approved. Our concerns, however, go beyond the obvious negative impacts should this project be approved. Our concerns involve the City of Palm Desert, what it was and what it has become over the past 35 years. I moved to the desert in 1978 and initially lived in Palm Springs. I worked at Eisenhower Medical Center where my ex-husband was a general surgeon on staff. In 1981, we decided to move closer to the hospital. In our search for a new home, Palm Desert was not an option. Why? At the time, Palm Desert seemed to be dominated by mobile home parks. There was little ambience to the community. Palm Desert was basically avoided as a place to live. Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and even the fledgling city of La Quinta were considered preferable options to Palm Desert. Although I knew little about Palm Desert City politics at the time or the future planning for the City outside of El Paseo and the desire to make it the Rodeo Drive of Palm Desert, with the advent of the opening of the J.W. Marriott in the mid 1980's and the opening of the Big Horn, Palm Desert seemed to begin to experience a renaissance. Since that time, the city planners have done an amazing job transforming Palm Desert into a sought after destination resort community with beautifully landscaped avenues, exceptional architecture, and a community feel that is upscale and inviting. Today Palm Desert epitomizes desert chic as a city. This bring us to "The Sands" proposed development. Why would the City, in all that it has become, even consider such a densely populated community? Why would the City even consider three story structures? Why would the city approve a project that goes so against the look and feel of the entire City? Where in Palm Desert are there other three story residential structures? I've not found any. Why would the City want to destroy the look, feel, and beauty of Palm Desert with such a project? It has taken Palm Desert over thirty years since the Marriott opened to become what it is. To consider such a project such as "The Sands" flies in the face of what Palm Desert has become over the past 30 years. My husband and I realize that this project will be fought on different terms than those I have mentioned. It will be about density, traffic, noise, school overcrowding, and environmental impacts, as it should be. But for someone who has seen this City go from an undesirable place to live to the most desirable place to live in the Coachella Valley, the proposed "Sands" project is a travesty and will do nothing but destroy the beautiful ambiance previous city planners worked so hard to achieve. This project makes no sense other than to the developers who can increase profits by building high population density structures. The developers don't have to live here. They develop and go home. What impact they leave is not for them to consider. They don't have to worry about a $700,000 home being reduced substantially in value because their back yard abuts a three story apartment structure; they don't have to worry about a $700,000 home being reduced substantially in value because the garbage bins are backing up against properties and flies and stench invade the back yards; they don't have to worry about a $700,000 home being reduce substantially in value because of noise coming from a housing project that has a population of 800 residents or more; and they don't have to worry about the $700,000 home being reduced substantially in value because no one wants to live next to a community that is not representative of the City at large. The developers simply make their money and go home. We realize you are not the only person making city planning decisions for Palm Desert but we do hope that our input might stimulate thought and discussion with your Planning Commission on what they are considering doing. They too just go home. This project will not affect them but it will affect all the residents in Venezia and it will affect the City of Palm Desert as a whole. This is bad for the City and it is especially bad for all the residents in Venezia who stand to lose substantial value in property values. Sincerely, Beverly and Richard Ricci 74102 Via Venezia Palm Desert, CA 92260 310-980-0671 cc: Palm Desert City Planning Commission Ceja, Eric From: Loris Clark <loris_clark@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 6:40 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: August 15th council meeting re: proposed new residential development on Hovely Lane East Councilman Ceja: I am a resident of the Canterra Apartments next to the proposed development on Hovley Lane East. The development should not be allowed at this location. Reasons: 1. There is plenty of open land elsewhere in Palm Desert. Just drive north on Cook, Portola, or Monterey to see it. Why is necessary to to place an overcrowding development on the one piece of open land in the area? 2. Sand dunes are wonders of nature. Leave it alone. 3. The traffic on Hovley Lane East is already over -congested. When the schools are back in session (this week) and the "snowbirds" return, it is almost impossible for the residents of Canterra to get out of the driveway. I have seen too many near accidents in the mornings from children darting in front of cars (on foot and bikes) without looking, causing drivers to have to slam on their brakes and risk being rear ended. I have also seen way to many parents, driving their kids to school, break multiple traffic laws (and the laws of common sense) in order to get their kids to school on time. Will it take the death of a child to make someone say, "Oops. Maybe this wasn't a good idea?" The road cannot take more congestion and the schools my not be able to handle the problem. 4. I realize that the city council is most likely interested in more tax dollars, but I, as a voting constituent, am someone you should be serving, not developers. These are the major concerns I have. There are more, but I'm sure others will address them at the meeting. Normally I would be there to address these in person, but I travel on my job, and I will be in Riverside. If you have ever tried to leave Riverside at 5:00 PM, you know it is futile. Please don't turn Palm Desert into Riverside. Sincerely, Loris E. Clark, Au.D. Doctor of Audiology. i ROBERTA. BER HEIVER A PROFESS!*' AL LAW CORPORATION WW.R OBB4RNHEIMER COM August 13, 2017 Nancy DeLuna, Chair Joseph Pradetto, Vice Chair John Greenwood, Commissioner Ron Gregory, Commissioner Lindsay Holt, Commissioner City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: The Sands 45-025 Mann_ou Drive, Sue 3 - 'V eiis, CA 92210 Phon? 760.360.7666 Fax 760.262.3957 Dear Planning Commissioners: This firm has the privilege of representing Venezia Homeowners Association ("Venezia"). Venezia directly neighbors the proposed project called The Sands on Hovely Lane in Palm Desert. Therefore, the development of The Sands project will directly impact Venezia. Venezia supports reasonable development of the adjacent vacant property. Many of the homeowners in Venezia purchased their homes with the understanding that there was an approved project on the vacant site that mirrored the Canterra project east of The Sands site. The Canterra project is significantly less dense, has greater setbacks and is limited to two stories. Venezia has four main concerns with The Sands project as proposed: 1. Zero lot lines/no setbacks for the garages, particularly adjacent to the five homes in Venezia that border The Sands; 2. Three story/massive buildings; 3. Parking; and 4. Overall project density. 1. Zero Lot Line Garages. The Sands proposes garages to be built at 11'2" in height on its property lines with no setback whatsoever. This issue impacts Venezia in a way that other neighbors of The Sands project are not as impacted. There are no garages proposed to the north or south of the project. Therefore, the Portola Country Club neighbors are not impacted by the garages. Neither is Hovely Lane. Adjoining the Canterra project to the east, the proposed garages abut existing carports in Canterra the length of the project. On the northern half of the western edge of The ROBERT A. BERNHCIMER Palm Desert Planning Commission August 13, 2017 Page 2 Sands project, the garages abut the adjoining Carter Elementary School. However, along the southern half of the western edge of The Sands Project the garages abut existing single family residences in Venezia. Placed immediately next to single family homes, the garages will crowd existing residents, which is why developments usually require minimum setbacks. Venezia requests a minimum ten -foot setback between the proposed garage buildings and the property line, at least where those garages abut single family residences. 2. Three Story Buildings. The Sands proposes eight of its fifteen main buildings at three stories that are 38'4" in height. There is very little articulation in the height of these buildings. Therefore, nearly all of the massing of each three-story building stands at the 'maximum height. This is incredibly irnpactful. Moreover, it is unprecedented in this area of Palm Desert. Venezia to the west and Portola Country Club to the south of The Sands are each one story. Chaparral Country Club to the west of Venezia is also a one-story development. The highest adjoining projects are Canterra to the east and the Marriott Vacation Club to the north, which are each two stories. The Sands proposal for three stories with over 38 feet in height is out of character for this location. Venezia requests The Sands project be limited to two stories. 3. Parking. One of the concessions the project seeks is a reduction in parking. The staff report indicates the project is parked at 1.75 spaces per unit when the standard is 2.0. This amounts to a deficiency for the project of 103 spaces, which is not specifically indicated in the staff report. While concessions may be appropriate for projects under AB 2222, the City is not required to approve projects that may fail from a planning perspective. There has been no parking study performed for this project to demonstrate that the reduced number of spaces will be sufficient for this type of use. Rather, the staff report references the City's other uses and concludes the proposed parking will be sufficient. This is not a true analysis of parking. Moreover, what happens if parking is not sufficient once The Sands is constructed? The surrounding neighbors will bear the burden. A true analysis of the proposed parking should be performed to determine if sufficient parking is provided on -site. 4. Overall Project Density. The Canterra project has 306 total units constructed. The original plan was to mirror this with 306 units on the site proposed for The Sands. The Sands proposal is for 412 units. The density of The Sands is 35% greater than Canterra with exactly the same size of land. This means ROBERT A. BERNHEIMER Palm Desert Planning Commission August 13, 2017 Page 3 35% more traffic, noise and neighborhood impacts than what people contemplated before purchasing their homes next door and nearby. There is no development anywhere near this project that has nearly 23 units per acre. This is also the last piece of land in the area do be developed. In fairness to the existing residents, the project density for The Sands should be in keeping with the surrounding area. Thank you for considering the concerns of Venezia residents when reviewing the proposed project. We urge you to require changes to the The Sands that meet the concerns of neighboring impacted homeowners. Cors ially, obert A. Bernheimer cc: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Associate Planner July 31, 2017 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 City of Palm Desert AUG 0 9 2017 Ryan Stendell, Secretary Community Development Palm Desert Planning Commission and to all Palm Desert City Council Members RE: LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. DA/PP/EA 16-394 To all people listed above: Received notice on July 27, 2017 for a planning commission meeting for August 15, 2017. My concerns listed below: 1. Did the planning commission consider how The Sands Apartment 15 tall building project would impact the Portola Country Club community of retired residents? Did the Planning Commission apply time to view our community in person to visualize the effect these tall apartments will have on our senior citizens? 2. The elevation specs detail taller buildings. A LOWER ELEVATION of ALL the buildings considered a nice gesture of good will for the privacy of Portola Country Club residents. 3. The plans of this development will not protect our community from loud noises, car horns and lack of privacy. 4. There have been complaints about noise and lack of visual privacy from the Canterra Apartments on east back side of Angels Camp Road. 5. The 300 feet requirement of notifications to an area affecting 500 homes is not adequate to give all Portola Country Club residents the opportunity to voice objections to the project. 6. Senior citizens seek calm, peaceable pleasure activities to enjoy playing golf, swimming and walking with our dogs. We do not want noise from car alarms, loud voices, and lack of privacy that these apartments will eventually bring to our quiet neighborhood. 7. Portola Country Club residents must be 55 years or older. Many of us purchased our homes for the beautiful surrounding views, we enjoy the quiet serenity of our "retirement home." We have invested in improving our homes, anticipating property values would increase. 8. Traffic before and after Carter Elementary School hours is a difficult drive on Portola and Hovley Streets. Parking for school special events is even more difficult. 9. Traffic to the Hovley Post Office during peak mailing and pick up hours is difficult. 10. Why did the planning department plan this meeting for a time when most of our residents are on vacation. Is this the intention of the city to pass a building project for the benefit of the BUILDER? To: Planning Department and City Council Members Notice No. DAP/EA 16-394 11. The Sands Apartments may be an asset for the city of Palm Desert, at what cost in decrease property values for Portola Country Club homeowners? 12. The Desert Sun newspaper article of June 24th: Mr. Ceja mentions a 20 acre city park. The park's name is "SOCCER PARK" used by children and adults participating in Soccer activities. 13. How many employment jobs will be available on Cook, Corporate Way and adjoining Streets? 14. The 2nd notice dated June 1„ 2017, mailed May 31, without postage, returned to Palm Desert, re -mailed with postage on June 2„ with a response due before June 20. I received on June 5th. 15. The 3rd notice dated July 27„ 2017 and mailed on July 26. with response due by August 15, I received this notice on July 27th. Many of our residents will not receive this notice in time to give a response. 16. Question, "Why are these notices dated after the posted mailing date?" Is this the city's new efficient concept of correspondence to residents? To date a notice AFTER the Post Office mailing date is not an correct time frame and confusing? Oma Jean Harris, Retired widow of Carl Donald Harris 74336 Angels Camp Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 djharris37@earthlink.net June 7, 2017 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Driive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RYAN STENDELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission and to all CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS tl I received your Legal Notice Case No.DA/PP/EA 16-394 on June 5, 2017. Mailed by your office on May 31, 2017; returned to your office for postage and re -mailed on June 2, 2017. I did receive a May notice of interest regarding construction of the property located on Hovley Street behind Portola Country Club residents on Angels Camp Road. As I remember NO MENTION of immediate construction for this project of eight (8) three (3) story apartments and seven (7) tw0 (2) story apartments. When Ms. Harnik and Mr. Stendell attended our May Meeting, discussion was the street and the proposed wall for Portola Country Club. Never was there a mention of the approval of an apartment complex behind Angels Camp Road in Portola Country Club. Was this apartment complex deliberately not mentioned during our meeting? When my husband and I purchased our Modular Home we were informed that future buildings would be homes. Veniza Homes was a welcome addition. We did not expect the massive cracks settling in our home from the heavy equipment moving dirt from the Veniza home builders. Nor did we expect huge dirt piles taller than our home carelessly left by the builders. Complaints to builders, the comment to us, "well you knew this was being built." "There is nothing we as builders can do for you." A complaint to a former city council member, the huge pile of dirt moved towards Hovley Street. Now, developers have designed and have approval for development of eight (8) three (3) story apartment buildings and seven (7) two (2) story apartment buildings. Public comments must be received by your office prior to June 20, 2017. You have given us less than 20 days to respond to a building project that the Planning Commission and City Council have already approved! Our responses not considered as appropriate understanding of the project as the notice has protected the Investment people of this complex. Our residents must be 55 or older to reside in Portola Country Club and many residents leave for the summer in May, returning in October. To receive this Notice in June 2017 is unfair-te Perto a CountuClub Residents_ who will rot receive this notice in time to respond. Many of the remaining residents do not approve the structure of eight (8) three (3) story apartment buildings and wonder why the city would agree to three story apartments so close to our community. Did you consider our financial Toss to our property when we attempt to sell when a buyer sees the 8 story apartments adjacent to the Portola Country Club? What consideration have you given for the privacy of Portola Country Club Residents? Many of us use our back patios and have sliding glass doors opening to our patios. We have landscaped our beautiful back patios for our privacy and enjoyment, not for renters of apartments to peek as the Canterra Apartments have done. Oma Jean Harris Widow of Carl Donald Harris 74336 Angels Camp Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 RUTAN RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP August 15, 2017 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 E-mail: eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org M. Katherine Jenson Direct Dial: (714) 641-3413 E-mail: kjenson rA rutan.com Re: Comments re: Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Prepared for the Sands Apartment Project (Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394) and regarding the Planning Commission's August 15, 2017 Consideration of the Project Dear Chairman Greenwood, Members of the Planning Commission, and Mr. Ceja: Rutan & Tucker, LLP ("Rutan") has been retained as legal counsel for Canterra Apartments, LLC ("Canterra"), the owner of the neighboring apartment complex that would be immediately adjacent to the proposed Sands Apartment Project (the "Project"). The proposed Project is legally deficient and the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study ("MND") remains seriously flawed and out of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines. Our office submitted detailed comments regarding the Project and the prior MND on June 20, 2017. The objections and comments have not been addressed. We note that while the staff report purports to include the "public comment letters" in the second attachment to the report, ours was not included. In addition, the MND processing is in violation of CEQA, and the noticing of the August 15, 2017 Planning Commission is flawed. As explained below, Canterra, our office and the general public were deprived of the required notice and opportunity to review the MND. Further, as explained below, the staff report contains numerous errors. The Planning Commission should not take action on the proposed Project and should instead direct that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") be prepared for the Proposed Project. Given that the legally required public review and notice has not been provided, the following is based upon our abbreviated review of the available documents. Inadequate Notice and Public Review Period. Rutan's letter of June 20, 2017 specifically requested that Rutan be notified of all further hearings and actions relating to the proposed Project. (Attachment 1.) Despite this request, the City failed to notify Rutan of this hearing or of the City's intent to adopt the MND. This violated Public Resources Code § 21092(b)(3) and CEQA Guideline 15072(b). Rutan & Tucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa. CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa. CA 92628-1950 714-641-5100 j Fax 714-546-9035 Orange County Palo Alto www.rutan com 1I9/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/15/17 RUTAN RUT,. ,UCN[N LLV Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 2 Similarly, after not having received timely notice of the June 20, 2017 Planning Commission meeting or of the City's intention to adopt the prior proposed MND, Canterra took several steps to ensure that it would receive timely notices relating to the Project in the future. On June 20, 2017, it notified the City of the correct mailing address for Canterra's owners. (Attachment 2.) At the hearing on June 20, 2017, Rick Moran specifically requested that Mr. Ceja add him to the notification list, and handed Mr. Ceja his card. On July 28, 2017, after hearing a rumor that the matter was being scheduled for hearing by the City Council on August 15, 2017, the Business Manager for Canterra (Judy Savage) sent Mr. Ceja an e-mail inquiring about this purported hearing before the Council and providing a list of e-mail addresses to add to the notification list. (Attachment 3.) Rather than informing Ms. Savage of the Planning Commission hearing that was scheduled for the date Ms. Savage had referenced, August 15th, Mr. Ceja stated there was no City Council meeting on that date, that the next Council meeting was on August 241h, and the Sands Project was not on the agenda for that meeting. (Attachment 3.) Despite these efforts, Canterra was not given proper notice of the August 15, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, and has not received a Notice of Intent to adopt the MND. Instead, the City sent an untimely notice to the wrong address despite the correction that had just been provided the month prior. (Attachments 4 and 5.) The City has violated CEQA by failing to issue and distribute a Notice of Intent ("NOI") to adopt the MND. If the public hearing notice for the August 15th meeting was intended to serve as an NOI, it was defective because it was not dispatched in a manner that provided the public with the mandated 20-day comment period. While the notice indicated that the 20-day comment period started on July 25, 2017, the envelope containing the notice demonstrates it was not even mailed (to the wrong address) until one day after the period had already started. (Attachment 4.) It was not received (by the wrong recipient) until August 1, 2017, and not forwarded to Canterra until August 2, 2017. Moreover, the notice indicates it was not to be published in the newspaper until July 27, 2017, two days after the start of the comment period. It is an abuse of discretion under CEQA to provide the public with less than the mandated period to review the MND and submit comments. (Attachment 5.) Canterra and the general public have beer prejudiced by the City's failure to provide timely and adequate notice. This prejudice was compounded by the fact that the City has not posted the MND and technical studies on line, or otherwise made them readily available. By way of example, air quality and climate change are significant issues for a project of this scale. Despite the fact the Mr. Moran had requested all of the technical reports on July 28, 2017, Rutan was only able to obtain the technical support for the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis on August 9, 2017, just 6 days before the close of the comment period. The other updated studies, including the actual updated MND, were not made available to Canterra until August 2, 2017, just 13 days before the 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/15/17 RUTAN RUT/.M L itcmra lLR Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 3 expiration of the comment period. This is insufficient time to obtain the necessary technical review of the various reports. Canterra objects to the Planning Commission taking any action on this matter until a proper NOI is reissued and a legally compliant review period is provided. An EIR Is Required for the Project As an initial matter, CEQA requires a governmental agency to prepare an EIR instead of a negative declaration (mitigated or otherwise) whenever there is "substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment." (Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1332.) The "fair argument standard" is a "low threshold" test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (Id. [citing Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928].) As explained below, given the obvious likelihood that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment by disturbing pristine natural landscaping and obstructing the views of literally hundreds of individuals with an overly dense mega -project, an EIR is required. The Amended Development Agreement Is Not Valid Unless Canterra Approves It. The original Development Agreement ("DA") that is purportedly amended by the proposed Amended Development Agreement ("ADA") is void on its face because it does not comport with the terms of the original DA. Specifically, the DA, in Section 13, requires that any amendments to the DA be made with the mutual consent of the all the parties. The successors in interest to the original development expressly "inure to the successors in interest to the parties." (DA p. 4, Section 5.) Since Canterra is not a party to the ADA, it can have no force and effect. Development Exceeding the 17.5 unit per acre standard violates Canterra's Rights under the (:), Existing Development Agreement. Y' As stated in the ADA in Recital F, "Under the Original Agreement a maximum density for the apartment projects was set at seventeen and one-half (17.5) dwelling units per acre." As a successor in interest to the DA, Canterra has the legal right to insist upon adherence to that standard throughout the term of the DA. The DA remains in effect for two more years. Any effort by tie City and the applicant to exceed fie 17.5 unit per acres standard would violate Canterra's contractual rights under the DA. Canterra has the right to ensure that the area governed by the DA is developed in accordance with the density level established by the DA, especially in light of the fact that the subject property had previously been designated as open space. The DA itself acknowledged that the City was giving up open space to allow for development on the site, and noted that, even at the 17.5 unit to the acre level, the City and its citizens were going to "suffer various impacts [from rezoning the property from open space] including, but not limited to, increased density of development, increase traffic, noise and other impacts." (DA, p. 6.) The City and the applicant have no right to compound these impacts by exceeding the agreed upon density. 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/I5/17 RUTAN Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 4 Please be advised that if Canterra must enforce its rights under the DA, it will be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees. (DA, § 16.) The Amended Development Agreement is Not Adequately Analyzed In the MND Rutan had previously noted that the prior MND did not address the ADA. In response, a cryptic and inaccurate description of the ADA has been added to the Project description as follows: "....project processing includes a Development Agreement Update and Precise Plan, 20% of the Project's units will be reserved for low income housing resulting in a 35% density bonus. Development Impact Fees for affordable units will be offset by the City's housing mitigation fund. The applicant will pay the larger remainder of the fees." This insert does not accurately describe the DA or its effects. The DA requires the development of 82 units affordable to very low income units, not low income units. There is a substantial difference between these categories. Further, the reduction in parking standards and increase in building height permitted as a concession in the DA are omitted from the MND. Finally, the payment by the City of a portion of DIF fees is misrepresented. The payment by the City of $180,000 in DIF fees is being made specifically to require that the developer assign 5 of the 82 affordable housing units to people who work within the City. Such a large contribution to assure that 5 of the 865 people who will reside at the complex be employed in the City hardly will improve the jobs/housing balance, or help to reduce vehicle miles traveled (also see discussion under Greenhouse Gas emissions below). More fundamentally, the analysis contained in the MND never mentions or considers the DA. None of the concessions being agreed upon by the City are analyzed anywhere in the document (please see further discussion under Land Use and Planning, below). The staff report is also misleading regarding the A'DA. On page 4, the staff report fails to acknowledge that the Project as designed is seeking four concessions, not three: reduction in parking, reduction in setback requirements, a financial incentive of $180,000 from the City and = - modification in the height limit. Moreover, Palm Desert Municipal Code § 25.34.040.D.2.iii does not identify the waiver of 'height limits as one of the available incentives. The Aesthetics Analysis Remains Flawed and Violates the General Plan Policies til< The MND continues to ignore the impacts of three-story buildings on views from the existing Canterra Apartments. View protection is a key planning concern in the City. In Chapter 6 (Environmental Resources) of the General Plan, Goal 2 is stated as follows: "Visual Resources. A city with stunning views of hillsides and mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley." As demonstrated in the photograph below, there are clear, uninterrupted views of the San Jacinto mountains from the Canterra Apartments. The very first policy under Goal 2 states: "2.1 View 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/15117 RUTAN Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 5 corridor preservation. Protect and preserve existing, signature views of the hills and mountains from the city." When one compares this picture to the cross section shown on page A-3 of the applicant's design package, one can clearly see that those views will be completely obliterated by the second and third stories of the proposed Project. Yet the MND continues to state that the "...design aesthetic will be visually complementary to the adjoining Canterra Apartment Homes." Not only does this not address the CEQA issue, i.e., whether the proposed Project will have a "substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista," it also attempts to justify the impact by implying that the similar architectural styles of the two projects solves all problems associated with the issue. That is simply not the case. The analysis must consider the impacts of mass and scale on all surrounding development, and not discount Canterra simply because it is occupied by renters, rather than owners. All of the three story buildings adjacent to Canterra are proposed to be 15 feet higher than the roof ridgeline of the Canterra Apartments. None of this analysis is contained in the MND. The MND must consider height increases requested by the Project in excess of the City's standards, and whether that excessive height is justifiable in the context of lost views and impacted quality of life for all residents in the neighborhood. We also note that the staff report is misleading on this point. On page 5, the report states that seven of the eight three-story buildings are located near the center of the Project. However, as shown on the site plan, only two are located near the center. Five of the three story buildings are located on the east ( Canterra) side of the Project, effectively blocking all the mountain views from Canterra and shading and cutting off the sunlight to Canterra in the afternoons. 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/15/17 RUTAN 90,0,4 Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 6 The MND continues to downplay the importance of the existing condition by stating that the sand dunes on the site are significantly impacted and serve no purpose (page 8-9) because they are inaccessible to people. Contrary to the document's implications, the enjoyment of passive desert features does not require direct access or use. Further, with the exception of a shallow area on the east side of the property, and contrary to the statements in the MND, the dunes are intact, and represent a scenic feature that must be considered in the analysis. Indeed, as the staff report correctly notes, "The parcel remains in a natural desert -like condition that includes blow sand and sand dunes, as well as some natural shrub vegetation. Sand dunes in the middle and south portions of the Project site range up to a height of over fifteen (15) feet from Hovley Lane and surrounding properties." Despite this acknowledgement, the aesthetic value of the sand dunes is ignored in the MND. As it relates to lighting on the site, the MND continues to state that impacts will be less than significant, but provides no explanation or evidence that this is, in fact, the case. There is no photometric plan provided in the design drawings for the proposed Project submitted to the Planning Commission. There is reference to this photometric plan in the MND, but it is not provided to the public. Rutan specifically inquired as to whether any further technical analysis was available relating to the proposed Project and was informed by Mr. Ceja on August 10, 2017, that no additional technical analysis or reports were available. There is no quantification of the lighting levels at property lines. The City's requirements are that lighting levels must be 0 at adjacent property lines. There is no evidence provided that this massive Project will be able to comply with this standard. We also find the staff report very misleading in its description of the March 28, 2017 review by the Architectural Commission. The staff report fails to mention that both Chair Van Vliet and Commissioner Levin were concerned with the three story height. Commissioner Levin thought the three story height was "too much for the area". Chair Van Vliet voted against the Project. The Air Quality Analysis is Based on Incorrect Assumptions and is missing key analysis Rutan was not able to obtain the Air Quality calculations until August 9, 2017. Thus, we have only had a very limited time to study the calculations. However, numerous flaws have been noted. The modeling assumptions and results of the air quality analysis, which were not provided with the earlier air quality analysis, clearly show that air quality has been improperly analyzed. It is important to note that neither the MND nor the Planning Commission materials include a grading plan. It is therefore impossible to determine, and the MND does not quantify, the amount of earth moving needed for this Project. In addition, construction assumptions include no haul trips, indicating that the analysis assumes that there will be no export of material from the site. Given the size and mass of the dunes on the property, such an assumption is ludicrous. As is clear from the pictures, the dunes rise above the flat grade of the site, which is level with the street and 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/15/17 r RUTAN PUTAN, TUCMCP LlP Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 7 surrounding development. It is clear, therefore, that the dune sand will require export. CEQA requires that the analysis of air quality include all the impacts of the Project, including those involved in export. Yet the modeling assumptions include no haul trips whatsoever. These trips involve long distances to approved dump sites, which generate significant heavy equipment emissions. None of this is analyzed in the MND. 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/15/17 RUTAN RUTS!. i TUCKER LLP Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 8 Furthermore, if one were to concede that there will be no export of materials, which we do not, the assumptions in the air quality model show that default equipment assumptions have been made for grading activities. Given the amount of sand that will need to be moved on the site, it is not possible for this limited amount of equipment to grade all 18 acres of dunes in 30 days. Since the amount of equipment used ties directly to the likely emissions, including PM 10 and PM2.5, assumed in the model, the air quality analysis severely underestimates the impacts of the Project as they relate to construction emissions. Regardless of whether the Project will implement dust management plans, the analysis must correctly disclose the level of impact associated with the Project. This is currently not the case. The MND continues to include no analysis of the concentrations of pollutants resulting from construction activities immediately adjacent to the sensitive receptors located on all sides of the Project. According to the SCAQMD, "It is recommended that proposed projects larger than five acres in area undergo air dispersion modeling to determine localized air quality." (htto://www.aamd.sov/home/resulations/ceaa/air-auality-analvsis-handbook/IocaIized- significance-thresholds.) Despite the massive scale of the Project, no analysis of localized analysis was conducted, nor did the analysis even assess address the default Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) that can be used for projects under five acres. The MND states that because the Project does not exceed "mass" thresholds, it will not exceed LST standards. This is a false statement. The "mass" thresholds are regional in nature. It is entirely possible for a project to have significant localized impacts when the overall project does not have a significant regional impact, simply because the impact analysis is intended to look at the concentrated results of construction adjacent to sensitive receptors, not the "mass" regional thresholds. Without a localized analysis, the MND is flawed and does not disclose the impacts of the Project on adjacent sensitive receptors. The air quality calculations also reveal some significant assumptions that cause the impacts to be underestimated. By way of example, the analysis assumes — without justification, that the residents of the proposed Project will cut their vehicle usage by approximately 40% due to phantom mitigation measures (euphemistically referred to as "Mobile Land Use Mitigation") including the summer months. (See Ca1EEMod, p. 25 of 31, Summer model, showing annual vehicles miles from the Project going from over 6 million to only 3.7 million through unnamed mitigation.) I fact, no mitigation measures to reduce vehicle tripshave been imposed. As explained further below, that assumption that such measures would be of ective at this location is seriously flawed. The Cultural Resources Mitigation Remains Contradictory The conflict previously pointed out in our letter of June 20, 2017 has not been addressed. Either the Project is required to monitor during all earth moving activities, or a monitor is to be called if resources are uncovered. The first mitigation should be eliminated, and the second should remain, to assure that the site is properly protected from the potential for impact. 119/034059-0002 11261401.2 a08/15/17 RUTAN NUT. t 14uCN[w ll� Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 9 Greenhouse Gas Impacts are Improperly Reduced We note that Mobile Land Use Mitigation was assumed in the air quality and GHG model. (Ca1EEMod, p. 2 of each model run). The output note states that the "...project frontage is located on a public transit route (SunLine Route 53). The project is located within 0.75 miles of park, post office, commercial and light industrial facilities." Annual VMTs went from 6,020,027 to 3,728,622 (page 25 of 31) as a result of this assumption. Mobile operational trips produced GHGs of 208 CO2e metric tons per year (MTY), but as a result of this assumption, were reduced to 152 CO2e MTY (pages 7 and 8 out of 99). The outputs also state that mitigation was assumed including increased density, increased diversity, improved destination accessibility, increased transit accessibility, and improved pedestrian network. The use of this mitigation assumption is inappropriate in this case. First, the accepted distance to transit, shopping and schools for pedestrian or bicycle access is 0.5 miles, not 0.75 mils. In the Coachella Valley, from May to October, the practical reality is that this distance is even less. In addition, the MND stretches the definition of access to commercial (shopping) and industrial (jobs) in this case. As shown above, 0.75 miles from the Project site provides absolutely no access to shopping, and barely reaches the industrial land uses along Cook Street. Obviously, no true mitigation has been imposed upon the Project. For these reasons, the use of this "mitigation measure" to reduce the impacts is inappropriate. Moreover, the GHG analysis completely overlooks the emissions that would occur during the construction period. These emissions should be taken into account, amortized over the life of the Project, and added to the operational emissions consistent with SCAQMD protocol. 119/034059-0002 11261401.2 a08/15/17 RUTAN Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 10 The reference to the City's Environmental Sustainability Plan does not provide the justification for the finding of no significance. Our research shows that finding was adopted without any sort of CEQA clearance, and it does not provide any opportunity for tiering for GHG analysis. Nor did it otherwise provide any clearance for project specific development. Moreover, there is no substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that this massive project will not have significant GHG emissions. The MND relies upon the fact that there is no statewide adopted threshold of significance. That does not excuse the City from conducting meaningful analysis on this impact. As noted above, the estimate that the Project will produce 5,375 metric tons of CO2E annually is severely understated due to taking credit for the unwarranted trip reduction and failing to take construction emissions into account. Even putting this issue aside, what is the substantial evidence to support the position that permanently adding 5,375 metric tons of GHG emissions is not significant? When the SCAQMD Board took up this issue on December 5, 2008, a threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2E per year per year was recommended, though not formally adopted by the Board. See Board Package at htto://www.aomd.ov/does/default-source/cega/handbook/s?reenhouse-eases-(ah2)-cena- significance-thresholds/ehwboardsvnopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2. See specifically Interim GHG Significance Threshold, Staff Proposal, Chapter 3, p. 3-13. The materials considered by the SCAQMD Board in 2008 included a worksheet that stated that a development of 175 apartments would produce 3,086 CO2E per year, an amount that was considered significant. See Board Package, Interim GHG Significance Threshold, Staff Proposal, Chapter 3, Table 3-3. The proposed Project involves development that is 2.4 times larger than what was considered a significant GHG producing apartment complex. What is the justification for finding that it does not have the potential for causing a significant impact? Why is mitigation not required? The Water Resources Analysis Continues to be Insufficient The MND still concludes that there will be a less than significant impact to groundwater, but still provides no quantified basis in fact for this conclusion. The water demand of the Project, including interior domestic water and exterior landscaping demands, must be quantified and compared to the capacity of the water purveyor. Furthermore, the MND provides absolutely ho analysis of the fact that the proposed Project includes 106 more units, and the associated demand on groundwater supplies, than would have been permitted on the site. Since CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was last updated in 2015, a year before the City updated its General Plan, the UWMP cannot possibly have considered the proposed Project's density. The MND must quantify the water demand for the Project, and demonstrate how this demand will be a less than significant impact on water supplies. It is also necessary to consider the cumulative impacts of the water usage. For example, the water impacts of the proposed additional development should be considered in the context of 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/I5/I7 RUTAN Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 11 what is already developed as part of the originally proposed 35 acre development. Thus, instead of considering the 412 units in a vacuum, the analysis should consider those impacts, combined with impacts associated with the related past project on the site (306 apartment units), for a total of 718 units. The Land Use and Planning Analysis Remains Deficient The MND continues to ignore any analysis of the impacts of the concessions being granted by the City in the proposed ADA. Question (b) of this section specifically requires the analysis of "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 zonin2 ordinancel..." (emphasis added). The proposed Project includes reductions in parking, and increased height. No analysis considers the impacts of these concessions. Neither is any analysis provided in the Planning Commission staff report, which simply states that staff believes that the parking reduction and height increase is appropriate. The MND must consider how 865 residents and their guests will park in 724 parking spaces. This is particularly critical because the Project has absolutely no access to on -street parking on Hovley Lane. Even if 20% of residents have only one automobile, 742 parking spaces are required for residents alone, not including guests, visitors and tradesmen. There is also no assurance, in the form of mitigation or conditions of approval, that the garages will not be converted to storage space, further reducing parking availability. All of this needs to be considered in the MND, and mitigation measures need to be identified to ensure that the Project provides sufficient parking. The MND must also consider the impacts of granting a 15-foot increase in maximum height in the context of the zone and the neighborhood in which the Project occurs. No such analysis has been conducted. It may be acceptable to grant such a concession, without impact to the City's standards, in an area where surrounding development is or is planned to be of greater mass, such as Monterey Avenue, for example. To ignore the context of this Project, and simply state that the Project is consistent with its land use designation is a failure under CEQA. Without adequate analysis, the MND fails to demonstrate that the ADA will have no impact on the environment. The Density Bonus/Concessions Are Not Consistent with State or Palm Desert 's Zoning Code. The proposed density bonus, and the related incentives/concessions, are inconsistent with state law. Pursuant to Government Code § 65915(c)(3), an applicant is ineligible for either a "density bonus or any other incentives or concessions under [that section] if the housing development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel or parcels on which rental dwelling units are or, if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application, have been subject to recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/I5/17 RUTAN Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 12 levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income ...." (Emphasis added.) In other words, a project is ineligible to receive a density bonus or any incentives, where it is attempting to receive such a benefit or incentive for developing a property that is already required to provide a set amount of affordable housing. Here, the applicant's property is already subject to that original DA, which acts as a recorded covenant that was adopted via ordinance pursuant to the City's development agreement law. Further, it is our understanding that the 35 acres that is subject to original DA, is already subject to the requirement of providing a certain amount of affordable housing. As such, any dwelling units that would be built on the property are already subject to a covenant requiring affordable housing. Therefore, the entire Project is ineligible for a new density bonus or incentive pursuant to Government Code § 65915, as it is currently proposed. Additionally, the Commission should also be aware that the staff report's commentary and recommendations regarding the density bonus and associated incentives are inconsistent and incorrect. First, the applicant and the City have not complied with the City's own municipal code or state law, because they have not entered into the required regulatory agreement to support this type of bonus. Per both local and state law, the City can only provide a density bonus and incentives in circumstances where the applicant commits the Project to provide the required amount of affordable housing to warrant the density bonus and incentives, likely in the form of a regulatory agreement. (PDMC§ 25.34.040(C)(7); Government Code § 65915.) Here, no such regulatory agreement has been approved, and the ADA does not appropriately limit the developer to providing units to either low, or very -low income families. For this reason alone, neither the density bonus nor the requested incentives should be awarded to the applicant. Second, the staff report includes various inaccuracies. For instance, the staff report claims that the Project guarantees 20% of its units for very -low income families/individuals (as explained above, the applicant has failed to guarantee anything), but the math is incorrect. Twenty percent of412 is 82.4 units, not 82. However, the states that the applicant "intends" to create 82 units with affordable rents (again not meeting the requirements of the City's code, state law, or federal law), which is only about 19.9% of the 412 units. Instead, the City's municipal code requires that "all fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number." (PDMC § 25.34.040(C)(1).) This means that the applicant would be required to provide 83 affordable units to qualify for any benefits resulting from allowing 20% of the Project to be developed as affordable units. Additionally, without citation to authority, the staff report assumes that the density bonus should be applied on a per acre basis, as opposed to the entire Project. For instance, the staff report claims that a maximum of 432 units may be developed on the property, because the staff report claims that the density bonus allows the applicant to build 24 units per acre, as opposed to 17.5. This is not the manner by which the density should be calculated. Instead, "density bonus" means a "density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density as of the date of the application . . . ." (Gov't Code § 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/15/17 RUTAN Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 13 65915(0.) Accordingly, the proper calculation would be to multiply the 18 acres by 17.5 du/acre to determine what is allowed as the base project, which is about 315 dwelling units. Assuming the applicant then qualified for a 35% density bonus (which it does not), the density bonus would allow for 410.25 units, not 423. The Noise Impact Analysis Remains Deficient The noise impact analysis has been modified to state that there is no data on current noise levels on Hovley Lane, and goes on to state that this is because noise levels are not elevated. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Hovley Lane is an arterial roadway with four travel lanes. It carries substantial traffic to the school, the park, and the post office which all surround the proposed Project. To simply state that, because Hovley Lane is not included in broad General Plan noise analysis, there is no noise impact is completely inadequate. Since the MND concedes that it has no way to quantify the existing noise levels on Hovley Lane, the appropriate solution is to conduct noise measurements and determine the current and future noise levels on this roadway. Only when armed with facts can the noise analysis conclude that the noise impacts will be less than significant. Without these facts, the MND does not adequately address noise impacts. Further, the analysis continues to state that noise impacts associated with construction will be less than significant because construction hours will be limited. A number of unquantified, unenforceable General Plan policies have been added to the text to try to justify high noise levels. However, there is still no quantification or analysis of what the noise levels from construction will be adjacent to sensitive receptors including the school or the residences, or of how these noise levels will be mitigated. It is not sufficient to rely on construction hour limitations to reduce noise levels, as has been determined by the courts. Noise levels associated with construction equipment can exceed 90 dBA. The Project must first demonstrate what the noise levels will be in the back yards of the residences, and in the school yard, and then propose feasible mitigation to reduce these noise levels. As currently written, the impacts associated with construction noise remain significant and unavoidable. The MND still includes no analysis of the impact of continuous rows of parking stalls and garages immediately adjacent to the sensitive receptors located to the west, south and east. The noise created by these vehicles will far exceed the typical noise levels of rear yards and open space found in typical residential development. A sentence has been added that states that the regulations to be imposed by the Project management on tenants will limit noise levels. There is no evidence that such restrictions exist, let alone that they address noise levels. The MND simply waves a magic wand and determines that noise levels will be less than significant, without a single quantification to demonstrate the validity of the conclusion. 1 I9/034059-0002 11261401.2 a08/15/17 RUTAN Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 14 The Public Facilities Discussion Remains Insufficient The MND does not consider the increased density of the proposed Project, and how this will impact these services. [f one assumes that fire, police and parks and recreation services have been scaled to accommodate 306 units on this property, what will be the impacts to these services from a 33% increase in units? This analysis must be considered in the MND. The Traffic Analysis Remains Incorrect Unlike the earlier draft of the MND, the "Traffic Operations Assessment" was provided for review with this version of the MND, allowing us to consider the validity of the analysis. First, it is important to note that the "Assessment" was not conducted as a Traffic Impact Analysis would be, and includes no analysis of any intersection other that the Project's access to Hovley Lane. There is no basis to assume that is the geographic scope of the Project's impacts. The standard of review for traffic analysis is that an intersection must be studied if it will contribute 50 or more trips to that intersection in the peak hour. The traffic "Assessment" discloses that the Project will generate 210 morning peak hour trips and 255 evening peak hour trips. It further states that trip distribution was projected to be 50% to the Hovley/Portola intersection, and 50% to the Hovley/Cook intersection. Since there are no significant intervening roadways on which traffic can be diverted, it can therefore be assumed that there will be 105 additional trips at the two intersections in the morning peak, and 128 additional trips at the two intersections in the evening peak. Therefore, these intersections should have been analyzed. This is particularly true of the Hovley/Portola intersection, which is significantly impacted by school traffic in the morning peak hour. Therefore, the Project failed to meet the City's standard requirement for traffic impact analysis in not considering any intersection other than its access point. The assumptions made in the traffic "Assessment" are based on traffic counts taken in October of 2016. Although school would have been in session at that time of year, October is not "high season" in the desert, and cities throughout the Valley, including Palm Desert, would normally require that an off-season count be increased by a set percentage to account for high season volumes. There is no evidence that any factor other than an annual growth rate of 2% was applied to the traffic counts. As a result, the calculations of existing and future trips are under- counted, and do not represent a true picture of winter season activity in the area. Since seasonal residents occupy all of the surrounding existing projects, the lack of a seasonal increase in the traffic counts is a significant deficiency in the analysis. The traffic "Assessment" simply states that it did not study the impact of the Project on the afternoon school peak hour because the Project's contribution was too small. There is no quantification of what that is, and no consideration of what the added congestion of a traffic signal and Project turning movements will have on Hovley Lane. Therefore, the analysis is insufficient, and no fact -based evidence is provided in either the traffic report or the MND to disprove a potential impact. 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08!15/17 RUTAN Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 15 The analysis still excludes from consideration the extremely shallow access provided for the Project, which will allow no stacking of vehicles, and during peak travel times will result in inbound vehicles clogging the intersection, particularly if children from the adjacent school are crossing the Project entries. The impacts associated with design feature safety still remain unaddressed. The MND indicates that certain "planned roadway improvements" were assumed in the analysis. (MND, p. 47.) What improvements were assumed and what is the basis for assuming they will be in place by the opening year of the Project? On page 49 of the MND, a traffic signal is recommended as a mitigation measure for the Hovley Lane/Jasmine Court intersection. This is a recommendation from the traffic assessment. However, it has not been imposed. (See MND, p. 50.) Instead, TRA-1 consists of an open-ended fee measure that does nothing to ensure that any needed traffic improvement is actually constructed. This does not qualify as valid mitigation. Fair -share contributions to a mitigation fund are adequate mitigation only if they "are part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing." (See Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1187.) Tribal Resources do not Address the Requirements of AB 52 The analysis still provides absolutely no information regarding the results of the City's mandated AB 52 consultation. The law requires that this consultation be concluded prior to approval of a CEQA document. There is no evidence in the MND that consultation by the City was undertaken, let alone concluded. The tribal consultation conducted by the Project's consultant does not satisfy the requirement, and cannot be used as de facto government -to -government consultation. Cumulative Impacts Remain Unaddressed The MND still contains no analysis of cumulative impacts, particularly considering that the density proposed for the Project is 33% greater than that allowed under the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the Project will have a greater impact on everything from circulation to water demand to sanitary sewer use at build out of the General Plan. Yet the 1�1ND still does not consider this, let along analyze it. Given the substantial increase in intensity proposed by the Project, this must be corrected. Conclusion As demonstrated above, the MND for this Project remains significantly deficient and incomplete. The MND was also not properly circulated for comments for the full 20-day period. As explained in this letter, we feel an EIR is warranted. In addition, the proposed ADA is in violation of the original DA, and the proposed density bonus and concessions would violate both 1191034059-0002 11261401.2 a08/ l5/ 17 RUTAN Palm Desert Planning Commission & Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 16 state and City laws. As a result, the Planning Commission should request that the Project be revised to comply with the applicable density restrictions, and that an appropriate CEQA review be completed for the revised project. Very Truly Yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ie M. Katherine Jenson MKJ:Ir cc: Ryan Stendell, Community Development Director Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney Attachments: 1. Portion of Rutan & Tucker, LLP letter of June 20, 2017 requesting notification 2. Notification of corrected address dated June 20, 2017 3. E-mail of July 28, 2017, requesting notifications regarding Project 4. Envelope postmarked July 26, 2017 5. Public Hearing Notice for August 15, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting 119/034059-0002 11261401 2 a08/15117 Attachment 1 F U TA N Tray is Van l.igten Direct Dial: (714) 641-3435 RUTAN & TUCKER, LL.P E-mail: tvanligtcn arutan.com June 20, 2017 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Eric Ceja Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 E-mail: ecejacityofpalmdesert.org Re: Comments re: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Prepared for the Sands Apartment Project (Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 Dear Mr. Ceja: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and IS/MND ("IS") prepared by the City of Palm Desert ("City") for the proposed Sands Apartment Project (the `Project"). I write on behalf of the neighboring apartment complex Canterra Apartments, LLC ("Canterra") to highlight the significant deficiencies found in the IS!MND. The IS/MND repeatedly refers to the incorrect environmental and land use documents, and as such, fails to adequately analyze the Project's impacts and violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). For the reasons discussed herein, Canterra requests that the City's Planning Commission reject the IS/MND and direct staff to conduct a full and correct environmental review in accordance with the comments herein, which will likely require the preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR"). As an initial matter, CEQA requires a governmental agency to prepare an EIR instead of a negative declaration (mitigated or otherwise) whenever there is "substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment." (Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of/Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Ca1.App.4th 1323, 1332) The "fair argument standard" is a "low thrclshold" test for requiring the preparation of an FIR. (Id. [citing Pocket Protectors v. City ofSacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928].) Given the obvious likelihood that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment by disturbing pristine natural landscaping, and at the same time obstructing the views of literally hundreds of individuals, as well as the numerous other impacts discussed below, an EIR is required. These comments arc given with the caveat that Canterra only received notice of this hearing last Wednesday, June 14, 2017, and only received partial copies of the proposed IS/IVIND, Staff' 611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 I 714.641 .5100 I Fax 714.547.9035 598.0'39999-0(91 Orange County I Palo Alto I Greenwich I www.rutan.com 1105147S 1 3O6 ?0/1' Attachment 2 RU TAN TAN 6 TUCMER LLP Mr. Eric Ceja June 20, 2017 Page 2 Report, and other materials related to Project over this last weekend. As such, the discussion below NNhighlights the major concerns that Canterra has been able to address thus far, but Canterra reserves the right to supplement these comments at a later date. In light of the lack of information to date. please consider this letter to also act as a formal request for any and all technical reports, records, and/or studies that have been utilized by the City in considering this Project. Furthermore. this office requests that it also receive notice of any and all future actions that will be taken in connection with this Proiect. Last, please distribute copies of this comment letter to the members of the City's Planning Commission prior to tonight's hearing. A. The IS/MND Does Not Apply the Appropriate Standards. and Relies On Antiauated Studies and Reports In addition to the more detailed discussion below, there are several key problems that cripple the IS/MND's analysis. First, the Project does not meet the density limitations of the City's municipal code, even if the City were to apply the appropriate density bonus. For example, the property is zoned PR- 17.5, allowing 17.5 units per acre. The City's Municipal Code allows up to a 25% increase in density for a Project providing 20% affordable housing. (City of Palm Desert Municipal Code § 25.34.040(D)(1)(i) [Ten percent plus 1.5 percent for each percentage point over 10 percent, or 25% total]). This would allow a density of 22 units per acre at an absolute maxitnum. However, here, the applicant proposes 412 units on 18.13 acres. This is equivalent to 23 units per acre) The applicant is therefore exceeding the base zone, even when the density bonus provision is considered, and properly applied. As such, the City cannot make the requisite findings to approve the Project. Second, the IS/MND generally relies on the incorrect General Plan, and other related environmental documents. For instance, the IS/MND repeatedly cites the City's 2004 General Plan. However, the City recently adopted a new general plan in 2016 ("2016 General Plan"). As such, much of the analysis found in the IS/MND is predicated on assumptions and various elements that are no longer in effect. For this reason alkne, the IS/MND should be rejected so that the City may adequately consider the City's governing documents as it relates to the proposed Project and its impacts. Lastly, the IS/MND does not address the new development agreement, referred to as the "Amended Agreement," at all. Nor does it address the previous 1989 Develop Agreement, which Notably, the Staff Report, IS/MND and Development Agreement describe the size of the Project site as different sizes, with 18.13 acres being the largest. As such, if the other dimensions hold true instead, the density would be even further off. 698/099999-0091 11061478 3 a06/20/17 Friday, August 11, 2017 at 12:01:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Change of address Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 4:34:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Jenny Davies To: info@palm-desert.org Hello, I need to change the mailing address for a property we own in Palm Desert. Recently, a mailing went out to business owners regarding a proposed rate increase for waste disposal. Ours was mailed to an old address. Please update our mailing address to reflect this new information: NEW ADDRESS Canterra Apartments C/O Jennifer Davies 2939 Bresso Dr. Livermore, CA 94550 OLD ADDRESS C/O Mary Luddy PO Box 910 Bodega Bay, CA 94923 Thank you, Jewwtj, Davies Financial Controller O 925.292.8305 F 925.215.2202 E jdavies45@icloud.com Page 1 of 1 Attachment 3 Jenson, Kathy From: eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 4:23 PM To: Judith Savage Subject: RE: The Sands Development Notifications Hi Judy, I will add the emails as requested. I am not aware of the mayors schedule or that there is a meeting at the Joslyn Center for the dates below. The next City Council meeting is on August 24, 2017. The Sands is not on that agenda. Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Judith Savage [mailto:jsavage@allresco.comj Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 4:01 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands Development Notifications Hi Eric, I was hopeful you add the following email addresses to any discussions/meetings that involve the new development right next door to us, The Sands: marin-moran@mindspring.com isavage@allresco.com cmcmanus@allresco.com tvillarinho@allresco.com iwiding@allresco.com idavies45@ icloud.com wellsha vahoo.com msiaueiros@allresco.com tperkins@allresco.com Christine.nickersonPwng.com I have learned that there is a meeting with the Mayor on 08.01.17 at the Jocelyn Senior Center at 9 am and another City Council meeting on 08.15.17 at 6 pm; if you could please let me know if this is accurate so I can share the proper information with my colleagues so they can adjust their schedules and make appropriate travel plans. Thank you, Judy Judy Savage I Business Manager Canterra Apartment Homes 1 74401 Hovley Lane East Palm Desert, CA 92260 cr 760.340.5000 I (f) 760.341.3896 1 (Maint. Emergency) 760.219.5127 www.CanterraAots.com lJsavagec allresco.com 2 Attachment 4 1 1 CC co ECr >; 0 n Z_ 1 7 or 3 0 ao�� io LJ n o I 0 _— O Z 0 N W 0 1- )- Q1 p u Q p Ocn Q J > cc cc O O: < _ O w 44- Z p 0 N Q \ to U U CO 0 0 1 Attachment 5 CITY HF PHIA 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346--0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 .. info@palm-desecc.oig CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. DA/PP/EA 16-394 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC, FOR THE APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND --CONSTRUCTION OF 412 APARTMENT UNITS, CLUBHOUSE FACILITY, AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES LOCATED AT 74-351 HOVLEY LANE EAST The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that any potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level and a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for this project. Project Location/ Description: Proiect Location: 74-351 Hovley Lane East Protect Description: A Development Agreement, Precise Plan, and Environmental Assessment applications have been submitted for the development of a 412-unit apartment complex on an undeveloped 17.5-acre parcel located along Hovley Lane East, west of the Palm Desert Hovley Soccer Park and east of James Carter Elementary School. The project consists of a one-story recreational building, seven (7) two-story apartment buildings, and eight (8) three-story apartment buildings. Other site improvements include covered parking, 220 garage units, on - site landscaping and recreational areas. A new signalized intersection will be provided at Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court. Eighty-two (82) of the 412 apartment units are identified for lower -income households. - Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on August 15, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date. The public comment period for this project is from July 25, 2017 to August 15, 2017. Public Review: The Development Agreement, Precise Plan, and Environmental Assessment applications and related documents are available for public review daily, at City Hall. Please : submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, the issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, Secretary July 27, 2017 Palm Desert Planning Commission atY of Pain) Desert GPrnent JUN Y 2017 E.R1c cEsP- use bt).*► i ��LL s�ca�y 1'ePCLTMETIT S oa o[Z M\Iv\A\fR, ��pNT�Fv� i-\AM�.eT aF qa�M eE502.1: -0\) Lq f Ro,wC7s SASE "D* 1 PP l EA lb — 35 `} �SY�GT�UI.I,y ) 0.- 0O cc- 'K,s t bk.,)--1 Ceja, Eric From: Rocha, Grace Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:42 PM To: Harnik, Jan Cc: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric; O'Reilly, Monica Subject: FW: Telephone Message for Jan Harnik The message below is for Jan Harnik. It relates to an item on the Planning Commission this evening. Please note, the couple wants to be on the record that they are in opposition. Grace L. Rocha Deputy City Clerk Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6487 grochacityofpalmdesert.org From: Avery, Ann Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:57 PM To: Rocha, Grace Subject: Telephone Message for Jan Harnik Hi Gracie, As we discussed, I received a call from a couple wanting to leave a message for the Mayor, regarding their opposition to the planned apartment complex on Hovley. This subject will be discussed in the Planning Commission meeting, scheduled tonight in the Council Chambers. The couple: Cheryl and Joe Marinko 760.469.3721 Residents who live in gated community called Venezia The couple want to be on record, stating their opposition. Ann Avery City Clerk Office Assistant Qr: 760.346.0611 Direct 760.776.6300 aavery°.4 cityofpalmdeserf,org www.cityofpalmdesert.org t Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, Re: case # DA-PPEA 16-394 New City Investment Partners, LLC • Th tr L_�_ ' " of Palm Desert JUN 2 6 2017 Community Development 1. As Palm Desert homeowners in the Venezia subdivision directly contiguous to the above -proposed development ("The Sands",) we, along with our neighbors, are both upset and disappointed regarding the uncommunicative manner in which the Palm Desert city council has handled the matter of the above -proposed development. We believe the city has an ethical responsibility to clearly notify residents and explain variances in the code that directly impact the neighbors of a major building project. In this instance, we feel that our representatives in our city government have betrayed their duty and our trust. 2. Increasing the density of the development so far beyond what was dictated by the normal code ignores the character of this area and the rights and welfare of the nearby residents. Major traffic increases on East Hovley and Portola, where we already have significant congestion, given that there is an elementary school, a soccer park and post office in the immediate vicinity, will result in further hardship to the areas residents. The school traffic during weekday mornings and afternoons already obstructs an entire lane on both East Hovley and Portola for some time. The increased pollution from the many additional cars poses a health issue, particularly for those of us with respiratory issues. 3. We feel that three story buildings in a residential area are inappropriate and unfair to adjacent homeowners. As retirees, we selected the Venezia community because of its low density, and the ambience and tranquility of ours and neighboring communities, all of which will be adversely affected by the increased density, traffic and three story buildings of the proposed development. 4. We also object to the setback and parking variances, which are not in keeping with the character of the area. Had we wished to live in a crowded area with traffic congestion and tall buildings we would have chosen to live in a city rather than the desert, where there is adequate open land for further development, and where we had trusted our representatives to protect the environment and the welfare of Palm Desert residents. Palm Desert's City Council states on its website that the mission of the Code Compliance Division: "ensures that all of the City's neighborhoods are consistent with community standards... Recognizing the importance of protecting Palm Desert's wonderful quality of life." Negating the codes with the proposed variances would defeat this important goal. In summary, we request that the City of Palm Desert return to the original conditions for approval to build at this site, i.e., 306 units with no buildings higher than two stories and with appropriate setbacks, CC: Palm Desert City Hall Respectfully, /c4u/otlet-e Richard H. Wohl, M.D. Diane H. Wohl 74175 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 The Sands Project Proposal Background: Diana Altorfer 7419 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 Zoning Residential Golf Course & Resort Neighborhood Existing easements from wall for homes with exterior walls to other developments Venezia Opened in 2004 Well -constructed homes Quality Builder (GHA) High ceilings, tile floors, granite counters, fireplace, etc. all included Residents own homes; few rentals (min 30 days) Fully Landscaped yards Each home has Swimming pool Surrounded by Exterior wall 6-8 feet, depending upon location 1. Area next -door known to eventually build 2. Sand piles have increased in size over past 13 years, exceeding the height of the exterior wall, creating dust and sand issues over the years for nearby Venezia residents. Nothing done to accommodate Venezia residents on the other side. Proposal conflicts: • No easements from exterior wall. Garage building to be flush with the wall • Garage wall is over twice the height of backyard wall; "walled -in" feeling. • Huge wall contains no breaks to allow any view for residents • Changes value of the property SIGNIFICANTLY (dense housing/walled in) • Violates City codes for easement between property • Trash enclosure also adjacent to wall, high possibility of rats which can climb over wall Comments: Venezia, a development that has existed for 14 years, will be most impacted with this densely populated, high walled project! These are quality homes, in a quiet, gated community. They are well maintained. As a community, we have complied with desert landscape, in lieu of the original array of flowers in our entrance, and exchanged palm trees for low water trees. June 13, 2017 Diana Altorfer 7419 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 There is no impact on the opposite side of this development. it is an apartment complex, and NO living areas are up against the wall, so there is no impact (sight line or otherwise) for those residents. There's an existing easement before the long driveway along that side. There is no impact with the area in the exterior of the development, as there is a 27-foot distance between developments. Apart elf-1 GARAGE FLOOR PLANS Families have invested a significant amount to buy into Venezia. Several homes WILL experience a decrease in property values by the unsightly appearance of a SECOND wall, 18- foot-high garages. These will lie directly behind the homeowner's wall, and will be double the height than what exists now. Walled in! NO exception to an easement should be granted. Also, why the density? Is 400+ appropriate for a "Golf Course & Resort Neighborhood"? The City of Palm Desert needs to preserve the integrity of the development and most importantly, the value of these residents' pre-existing homes! • Q. PROMO --.1 IOUNDAN, 1 124-042.001 T *1 -aa a •oaa IIsaoaerw EX. ar LAND We. GOV COURSE & RESORT *MH 01KlOd *x. ZOOM ..R. i 1J 11 I I I TILL11 I TM 1114III i f1 l Q* _._. Ly w 11 Yt t11 i I T�j:.lit IWLI w June 13, 2017 Ceja, Eric From: Cathy Butero <clbutero@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:26 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Case No: DA/PP/EA 16-394 "New Cities Investment Partners, LLC" Dear Sir: I can understand the Sands developer moving forward on their proposal for 306 apartments, made so many years ago. And, I can understand the responsible community planning on the part of Palm Desert. However, to approve of the developer taking advantage of AB 2222 and adding additional LIH, thereby increasing the density of apartments to 412 in order to gain 35% tax consideration is egregious to the integrity and good faith of the surrounding neighborhoods. Why? 1 have been a good steward in my community of Palm Desert for eleven years. I was a hardworking, dedicated teacher at Palm Desert High School, retiring in 2010. I am a responsible community member and my husband and I live here full time. Who looks after our best interests as solid middle class taxpayers, in addition to the LIH? I certainly understand and support a reasonable number of LIH in the area; hopefully it is balanced with the rest of Palm Desert. But the proposed 412 apartments with 20% LIH doesn't make sense to the residential balance in our surrounding community. I believe, perhaps foolishly, that my city has a fiduciary responsibility to all residents, not just the high paying developers. As one of my neighbors said, "This feels like an avalanche and we are helpless in its path." Really? I am disheartened by this cavalier proposal to increase the apartments from 306 to 412, but 1 sincerely hope that you and the Planning Commission will reconsider this proposed increase, and hold the developer to 306 apartments per the original proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Cathy Butero 1 Ceja, Eric From: Karla Lewis <karlalewis1373@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:33 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 Dear Mr Ce_la. I am writing you in response to a letter we received from the city regarding CASE NO DA!PP!EA 16-394, The Sands Apartments, located at 74-351 Hovley Lane East First of all, 1 understand the need for affordable housing in our city. Too man} people who work here have to dnve long distances because they can not find affordable housing in Palm Desert. I understand that the proposed project was approved over 20 years ago, but with a much smaller footprint as far as the number of units The redesigned project has been increased to 412 apanments with some being three stories high. I oppose three story structures so close to housing developments. Currently the Canterra Apartments border our community, Portola Country Club, and at two stories they are much higher than our homes. 1 also oppose the planned signalized intersection at Hovley Lane East and Jasmine. An additional traffic light in such a short distance between Portola and Corporate Way would change the flow of traffic. As it ts, we are never impeded by traffic at the Canterra Apartments. 1 sincerely hope that you will reconsider this new design and not allow three story units. Furthermore. I would hope that the protect would take into consideration our community and heighten the block wall so that it is the same as what is behind Canterra to block the view and help with noise. The developer should also be required to make landscape plans three feet from the border wall and with trees and hedges tall enough to block the apartments from viewing our homes Respectfully yours, Karla Lewis 74232 Zircon C'ir. W. 1 Ceja, Eric From: Dr. Lo <dr.lo1943@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:50 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: protesting THREE STORY APTS please STOP this three story apts variant request. Everyone knows its not right. Residents were assured that two stories is what was agreed. there will be serious repercussions to building three stories. property values will go down. SES will take a dive for palm deserts future. This is bad for palm desert. Sent to eceia@citvofoalmdesert.ore, From Dr. Lopez, a concerned resident Sent by Tim on his iPad mini i Ceja. Eric From: alanandlindac <alanandlindac@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 6:08 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Hovley Projects Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 Please accept this email and add it to the Public comments for the development noted above. As a fairly new resident to Palm Desert I want to register my opposition to the Hovey projects case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394. Having come from a town that has an abundance of apartments and low income residents I request you review this proposal very carefully. I would hate to see Palm Desert turn into a place like El Cajon. I am strongly opposed to a 3 level apartment complex. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal and listen to my comments. Alan and Linda Clendenon 74060 Mercury Cir W Palm Desert, CA. 92260 i Ceja, Eric From: Kelly Hill <km.hill@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 5:11 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Re: 412 Apartment Community Development, The Sands, right next door to Carter Elementary - City Meeting June 20th at 6 pm @ City of Palm Desert CASE NO: DA/PP/EA 16-394 "New Cities Investment Partners, LLC" Dear Eric, We are unable to attend the June 20th hearing at 6pm on the above referenced case #, however we would like to voice our grave concerns on this development. As residents of Venezia in Palm Desert since 2012, we have truly appreciated the ways Palm Desert city personnel have assisted us in making our property better. Until this development, city efforts to grow and develop responsibly were remarkably smart. This development however harms existing property owners and developments in a myriad of ways without equalitative benefits to the tax base versus excessive additional city costs for schools, roads or services as a result of building it. It appears to be a huge giveaway of many city standards for questionable upside, it retracts longstanding promises to existing property owners and is actively harmful to several. The proposed 412 apartment project under consideration at Hovley Lane East between "Canterra Apartments" and Carter Elementary School causes the following concerns: 1. For the last 13 years Venezia owners were told that the lot next door was zoned for the same kind of apartments that Canterra has 306 total units, two story max. We bought our homes with this knowledge. There was no notice to all the homeowners about the severity of the change except the four homeowners immediately adjacent on Via Garibaldi. Even then it wasn't detailed. Only word of a hearing. This is an enormous reversal of standards without enough public involvement. It massively increases (by 1/3) costs to nearby city residents for schools, roads & city services. This density will impact everything from water to trash to road repair to police & fire services. This would not only overwhelm existing services it could cause a massive decline at unknown cost. 2. Every nearby development will be dwarfed and uglified by 8 three story buildings, the increase in number of apartments from 306 to 412 seems like a poorly thought out giveaway without tangible benefit to existing nearby city residents. Venezia especially will be facing a hideous development with zero set back along Via Garibaldi — There is no need to throw out all city building standards like zero setbacks or 8 massive three story towers to accommodate a development here. These are things we would not expect a thoughtful City Planning Department to be giving away to a developer of low income housing in a non -urban location. Typically a new low income housing development tries to minimize harm to nearby residents not escalate the harm. 3. It is inexplicable that Palm Desert would be promoting urban level density and in this particular location versus the downtown area? High rise apartments off 10 or 111 makes sense, but next to Marriott resorts is an active harm to existing tourist business that brings in valuable tax revenue as well. 4. This project is not only architecturally unattractive compared with the surrounding developments it also devalues the surrounding developments, resulting a lower surrounding property values. Sincerely, Andrew & Colleen Hill 74137 Via Venezia 1 Ceja, Eric From: Hutcheon <bhutch4@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 2:25 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands Development We are homeowners in Venezia in Palm Desert who will be affected by The Sands development on Hovely Lane East. Our biggest concern is the inclusion of affordable housing and the problems it brings. There already is a large development of affordable housing behind the soccer park. It seems like a terrible idea to increase that and have so much of it in one area of Palm Desert. There is an elementary school right next door that would be affected by the problems that brings. Traffic is already a concern on Hovely by the school and adding so many more residents will just create more issues and safety concerns. Please take the time to consider how you would feel if you had invested your money into a beautiful home to see it devalued by adding a huge development with more low end housing right on your perimeter. Development is inevitable but current Palm Desert homeowners should take precedent over a developers desire for greater profit. Current Palm Desert homeowners should matter! Thank you. I really hope the opinions of we Venezia homeowners is considered. Bruce and Tricia Hutcheon 1 Ceja, Eric From: Sent: To: Subject: Reiss J. DuPlessis 74218 Zircon Circle West Palm Desert, CA 92260 June 19, 2017 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, R.J. Duppy <wahid1937@yahoo.com> Monday, June 19, 2017 12:39 PM Ceja, Eric building projest@74-351 Hovley Lane East This is to express concern about the project to construct 412 apartment units, clubhouse and recreational facilities on the land located at 74-351 Hovley lane East. The first of the many concerns is the impact this project will have on the school adjacent to the land, the safety hazards this will add for the students, who are a major concern for all of us and the additional traffic this will bring to a street that experiences major traffic issues when parents take their children to and from the school. The addition of untold cars to this situation will raise major concerns for the safety of our children, the staff and the parents who must contend with, already difficult, conditions on school days. Secondly, it will add horrific traffic conditions for residents, most of them senior citizens, who reside in the surrounding country clubs. We are acutely aware of the traffic concerns when school is in session and plan our outings accordingly to respect, protect and care for the children and parents as they go to and from school. The addition of untold numbers of cars will destroy the manner in which we are now handing this situation and will become a nightmare for Local residents, children, parents and teachers responsible for their protection. Those of us in country clubs nearest the proposed project will suffer the Toss of open space and views we have enjoyed for years because of the plan to construct THREE STORY buildings in the complex. Why must there be three story buildings in this area known for its respect for the views nature has provided and the open skies all residents and visitors to the area enjoy? This is part of what makes desert living what is it, why it has been inviting, beautiful and desirable. Where will this end... five, six, seven story buildings? Another concern is the impact this will have on service providers, hospitals, fire departments, police and other service agencies. We are hoping supreme care and concern for our children, parents and seniors will be taken into full consideration when you meet to discuss this project. Sincerely R.J. DuPlessis 74218 Zircon Circle West 1 11111111111 Ceja, Eric From: Walter Altorfer <waltorfer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 12:17 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: CityhallMail Subject: The Sands project on Hovley Ln. Dear Mr. Ceja, It is my understanding that you have received a letter from Jacque Wright at Albert Management citing the Venezia HOA's support of the abovementioned project. I want to correct that letter. The Venezia HOA has learned much more about the project than originally noted in our meeting with the developer. As of this moment, we do not support the project in its entirety. We have long known about the potential development of the property, but understood it would be at a level of 306 units. Please do not use the letter from Albert Management as our indication of support of the project. Walter R. Altorfer President, Board of Directors Venezia HOA 1 Ceja, Eric From: Ted Turrentine <ted_turrentine@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:40 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Opposition to 412 unite apartment Dear Mr.Ceja: We wish to express our opposition to the proposed 412 unit apartment complex to be located at 74-351 Hovley Lane E in Palm Desert. Our HOA community, Portola Country Club, which will abut the complex, already experiences regular incidents of burgurlary and theft originating from surrounding neighborhoods known by law enforcement to harbor criminal elements. Having an additional 412 rental units, which are other than the single family, owner occupied housing (whose collective value will potentially decrease as a result of the project) which is typical of this area will, we believe, only increase the likelyhood of crimes against our association members. How could it be otherwise? Additionally, our two closest eastbound access roads, Hovley Lane E, to our north, and Deep Canyon Road, to our south, are already snarled with elementary school student drop and pick-up traffic twice daily for most of the year, in addition to normal congestion, particularly on Hovley. This can only get dramatically worse when potentially the children of another 412 families join this mix. Finally, regarding the additional seats, classrooms, and facilities which will be needed to educate the children from this complex will mean overcrowding in already stressed schools and/or additional taxes to build more of them- poor options, both for the schoolchildren affected, and the citizens of Palm Desert, many with fixed incomes(as will be our families' situation when I retire) who do not need additional taxes, and who, in any case, have no direct stake in local education. Thank you for your serious consideration of our, and many other citizens' concerns about this matter. Theodore Turrentine 74096 Mercury Circle W Portola Country Club Palm Desert Ted Turrentine Yahoo.com 1 Ceja, Eric From: Ardee <akgifts@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 4:50 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Development We are Homeowners in the Venezia Homeowners Association and have some concerns over the proposed Sands Development Project. The concerns we have are: the height of the two- story buildings and the three- story buildings, the Increase the traffic congestion that this will cause, over crowding at the already crowded school which means enlarged classes and the limited visual impact it will have on the existing neighborhood. Another main concern are the garages that forms a wall that extends over 5 feet above the exterior wall of Venezia HOA. THERE 15 NO SETBACK from the wall; which usually is a consideration in most planning blueprints of a development. Please consider the surrounding neighborhood's when making these decisions. Plans that looked good 20 years ago don't necessarily work in the NOW. Maybe compromises could be considered. Very truly yours, Jerrold and Ardee Warshai i Ceja, Eric From: David Viduulich <dgvidulich@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 4:35 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Community Development 412 units w (8) 3 story Blds. Way too much Density for this lot size. No setback from Venezia property line. Fire Hazard/over saturation. Are will be overbuilt/overcrowded not to mention Traffic Congestion.Carter School already creates too much Density/Movement in this same area. Planners should know this through their Experience and cut this project to a reasonable size. David Vidulich Venezia Original Homeowner. i Ceja, Eric From: Trish Pierce <trish@papillongraphics.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 2:11 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: New proposed Apartments on Hovley Eric, thank you for taking the time to read my concerns about the proposition to build 412 units between Venezia and The Canterra apartments. As a full time resident of Venezia, I already have issues getting into my own development because of the traffic due to Carter school... parents picking up their children lined all along Hovley and Portola. Can you imagine the increase in classroom size, traffic and safety issues? Adding approximately 1,200 + people probably means there will be at least that many more cars. This area is already congested and I feel it's irresponsible for the CPD to approve such a large scale project at this location. As residents of Venezia, we'll have buildings towering over us, less privacy, more noise, security issues and decreased home values. Our development has here for 14 years and when we first bought, our developer assured us that any future building next to us would be single story housing. I understand 20% is required to be low income housing and that is needed, but you are overpopulating this area. Surely we are at 20% as there is a low income community behind the soccer field and low income within Canterra. I urge you to NOT to approve this project. Concerned resident of Venezia, Trish Pierce 74-122 via Pellestrina 760.776.874 i Ceja, Eric From: Tim Kopf <violintimkopf@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:43 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: protesting THIRD story apartments I am protesting the THIRD story construction on the apartments on Hovley. Since leasing in PCC, I was planning to purchase a home in portola. If this third story development is approved, i will look elsewhere. keep future development two stories and i will move to Portola and invest my money in Palm Desert. from Tim Kopf, a retired Indiana school teacher Sent by Tim on his iPad mini 1 Ceja, Eric From: June Engblom <juneengblom@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:22 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Diane Richey; juneengblom@yahoo.com Subject: Hovley apartments I have been a desert resident for 12 years. I moved here because a vacation in the 1980's convinced me it is a very special place. I have lived in apartments in Palm Springs, my own home in Cathedral City and my own condo in Rancho Mirage. I moved to Portola CC in March 2011. My backyard backs directly up against the proposed development. When I purchased my home I knew someday something might get built there. Never in my wildest dreams did I think it would be a 3 story anything. At this point, even the original 2 story project will block my views. 1 am showing up to your meeting to protest the 3 story portion because I feel so strongly about protecting Coachella Valley's views. Would I rather something over than apartments be built there? Sure, who wouldn't want more lovely homes like Via Venezia. How about a library, there's nothing safer or quieter than a library, but I wouldn't want a library if it was 3 stories tall! Have you seen the multi story building in PS ? It looks so out of place! I'd like to make sure that doesn't happen here. There are 3 story apartments on Gerald Ford, but they are built into the existing slope and don't appear to be three stories..then there is the two story construction next to our fire station that swallows the entire intersection and feels more like 4 stories! I've been reading the General Plan of PD which I learned existed when a neighbor forwarded your reply to his email. When I clicked on the "give us your feedback" link it said it was a closed topic. This document, which obviously took countless hours to prepare, had only 167 views and only 14 comments. Clearly out of 50,000 residents more than 167 would be interested in reading the plan for their city, especially if they knew it includes 3 to 5 story construction and multi level parking garages between el paseo and 111. The entire Cook corridor from Hovley to the high school is designated three stories! The city needs to get this message out again, open this topic for discussion and we, as citizens, need to participate. I know cities in general, like density, but in the desert where water is a precious commodity, couldn't we encourage Tess density, less water use? Haven't we learned our lesson from the golf industry which overbuilt here? I love living in Palm Desert. There are so many upsides. When visitors come, the thing love the most is how different it is from where they live. If we start building multi story office buildings, parking garages and apartments, it won't feel different for them at all. let's keep the feel and look that put Coachella Valley on the map in the first place. The feel and look that makes each of us proud to call Palm Desert home. Thanks for your time and all your hard work.I hope you will reconsider the construction of 3 story apartments on Hovley. Sent from my iPad 1 Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, Re: case # DA-PPEA 16-394 New City Investment Partners, LLC 1. As Palm Desert homeowners in the Venezia subdivision directly contiguous to the above -proposed development ("The Sands",) we, along with our neighbors, are both upset and disappointed regarding the uncommunicative manner in which the Palm Desert city council has handled the matter of the above -proposed development. We believe the city has an ethical responsibility to clearly notify residents and explain variances in the code that directly impact the neighbors of a major building project. In this instance, we feel that our representatives in our city government have betrayed their duty and our trust. 2. Increasing the density of the development so far beyond what was dictated by the normal code ignores the character of this area and the rights and welfare of the nearby residents. Major traffic increases on East Hovley and Portola, where we already have significant congestion, given that there is an elementary school, a soccer park and post office in the immediate vicinity, will result in further hardship to the areas residents. The school traffic during weekday mornings and afternoons already obstructs an entire lane on both East Hovley and Portola for some time. The increased pollution from the many additional cars poses a health issue, particularly for those of us with respiratory issues. 3. We feel that three story buildings in a residential area are inappropriate and unfair to adjacent homeowners. As retirees, we selected the Venezia community because of its low density, and the ambience and tranquility of ours and neighboring communities, all of which will be adversely affected by the increased density, traffic and three story buildings of the proposed development. 4. We also object to the setback and parking variances, which are not in keeping with the character of the area. Had we wished to live in a crowded area with traffic congestion and tall buildings we would have chosen to live in a city rather than the desert, where there is adequate open land for further development, and where we had trusted our representatives to protect the environment and the welfare of Palm Desert residents. Palm Desert's City Council states on its website that the mission of the Code Compliance Division: "ensures that all of the City's neighborhoods are consistent with community standards... Recognizing the importance of protecting Palm Desert's wonderful quality of life." Negating the codes with the proposed variances would defeat this important goal. In summary, we request that the City of Palm Desert return to the original conditions for approval to build at this site, i.e., 306 units with no buildings higher than two stories and with appropriate setbacks. ? Respectfully, 1 l� Richard H. Wohl, M.D. Diane H. Wohl 74175 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 CC: Palm Desert City Hall 'a — 1 B Page 1 of 2 Ron St Pierre From: "Karen Woolworth" <dwoolworth@dc.rr com> Date: Friday, June 16, 2017 1:03 PM To: "St. Pierre Melinda" <mrstp(Ogreencafe.com> Subject: Fwd: Hovely Honing Project Case no. DA/PP/EA 16-394 see email for city of palm desert for letter regarding 3 story apartments - must be sent pronto thanks please include the project case detailed in the subject line. :) k Begin forwarded message: From: <eceiaacitvofDalmdesert.orq> Subject: RE: Hovely Housing Project Case no. DA/PP/EA 16-394 Date: June 15, 2017 at 1:18:32 PM PDT To: <dwo©lworthc dc.rr.com> Hi Karen, Thank you for your letter. I will forward it to the Planning Commissioners. Yes, Planning Department staff supports this project as it provides additional apartment units, and affordable apartments units, in close proximity to an elementary school, parks, and jobs. This is an ideal site for the proposed project and in fact, apartment buildings have been planned at this site since the late 1980's. We have not considered a higher wall along Portola Country Club and the maximum wall height allowed in the City is six (6) feet. Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmclesert.org From: Karen Woolworth Fina 'o:dwootwarth .rr.a7rn1 Sent: Monday, 3une 05, 2017 8:18 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Hoveiy Housing Project Case no. DA/PP/EA 16-394 QUESTIONS IN GENERAL 1. The city is actually considering an Apartment complex consisting of apprx. 400+ units next to and comprising of the same acreage as Cantata Apartments on Hovely? 2. And the City is willing to accept that high a concentration and that much more traffic next to a grade school? 3. And the City is willing to allow 3 story apartments to achieve this higher concentration of people and cars? QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO PORTOLA COUNTRY CLUB As a Portola Country Club (Angel Camp Road resident): 6/17/2017 Page 2 of 2 1. Are you going to build a higher wall between the complex and our community? How high can you go for safety and privacy. 2. Are you willing, as a City, to help us stop the people and kids that lump that wall and use our community as a thoroughfare. TO AND FROM the high school etc. on the other side of the wash!! (as they do now with the existing wall- and even at the higher portion of the wall behind Canterra?) 3. Are you willing to patrol the new area with necessary frequency to alleviate: noise, mischief makers, PCC residents safety concerns,etc. that will occur when you are willing to accept that dense of a population. Thank you for your consideration in rethinking or amending this project with its current requirements. Karen and Don Woolworth. �'--I 7--,-4 / 7 6/17/2017 June 7, 2017 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Driive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RYAN STENDELLM Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission and to all CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS City of Palm Desert JUN 202017 Community Development I received your Legal Notice Case No.DA/PP/EA 16-394 on June 5, 2017. Mailed by your office on May 31, 2017; returned to your office for postage and re -mailed on June 2, 2017. I did receive a May notice of interest regarding construction of the property located on Hovely Street behind Portola Country Club residents on Angels Camp Road. As I remember NO MENTION of immediate construction for this project or three story apartments. When Ms. Harnik and Mr. Stendell attended our May Meeting, discussion was the street and the proposed wall for Portola Country Club. Never was there a mention of the approval of an apartment complex behind Angels Camp Road in Portola Country Club. Was this apartment complex deliberately not mentioned during our meeting? When my husband and I purchased our Modular Home we were informed that future buildings would be homes. Veniza Homes was a welcome addition. We did not expect the massive cracks settling in our home from the heavy equipment moving dirt from the Veniza home builders. Nor did we expect huge dirt piles taller than our home carelessly left by the builders. Complaints to builders, the comment to us, "well you knew this was being built." "There is nothing we as builders can do for you." A complaint to a former city council member, the huge pile of dirt moved towards Hovely Street. Now, developers have designed and have approval for development of eight (8) three (3) story apartment buildings and seven (7) two (2) story apartment buildings. Public comments must be received by your office prior to June 20, 2017. You have given us less than 20 days to respond to a building project that the Planning Commission and City Council have already approved! Our responses will not be considered as appropriate understanding of the project as the notice has protected the Investment people of this complex. Our residents must be 55 or older to reside in Portola Country Club and many residents leave for the summer in May, returning in October. To receive this Notice in June 2017 is unfair to Portola Country Club Residents, who will not receive this notice in time to respond. Many of the remaining residents do not approve the structure of eight (8) three (3) story apartment buildings and wonder why the city would agree to three story apartments so close to our community. What consideration have you given for the privacy of Portola Country Club Residents? Many of us use our back patios and have sliding glass doors opening to our patios. We have landscaped our beautiful back patios for our privacy and enjoyment, not for renters of apartments to peek as the Canterra Apartments have done. 7 Oma Jean Harris Widow of Carl Donald Harris 74336 Angels Camp Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ceja, Eric From: Randy & Larry <Ilrcb50@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:26 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: OUR VOICE AGAINST - The Palm Desert Planning Commission Supported High Density Housing Project! > Mr. Mayor and Palm Desert Planning Commission, > With regard to the letter sent to "Some" Residents of Portola Country Club (PCC,) from the Planning Commission, City Of Palm Desert, on the topic of a Proposed High Occupancy Apartment Complex, we live in PCC, at 74193 Zircon Circle W., Palm Desert, and did not get the letter! After discussing and meeting with other PCC residents, there was apparently no rhyme or reason for who got the letter! > We believe that the timing of the letter and the scheduled June 20, 2017, meeting is an attempt to limit the voices against this project. As evidence, both the letter and meeting were sent and scheduled after peak season making it easy for the City to point to an apparent lack of interest or implied agreement with this ill conceived project. From our perspective, the timing is highly suspect behavior of the Planning Commission, City of Palm Desert, who supports the proposal. Additionally, we believe the timing is a low, back room way of pushing this project forward without facing the citizens of Palm Desert to get "real" feedback. If this is true, it would sting in a way the citizens of Palm Springs must have felt after hearing about how projects were pushed through without "proper and above -board" vetting of projects there! > We are asking our PCC Friends to make their voices heard via letters and we ask that they attend the June 20th meeting. We also asked that if they cannot be there, please email the City of Palm Desert, Mayors Office to make their voice heard! However, our grass roots, neighbor -to -neighbor voice is not adequate, appropriate, fair or businesslike litmus test that the City of Palm Desert should gauge citizen feedback for support or opposition for this project! > Regardless of Planning Commission support of this project, the construction of a three story building in Palm Desert, is in direct contradiction to the Mayor's assurance made to PCC Residents during his recent visit here. During that meeting, the Mayor told our community that there will be no new 3 story buildings in Palm Desert. What about that? > This Proposed Project now becomes a disclosure issue by anyone who plans to sell their home. This is because of our collective community knowledge and the formal informational letter sent to some PCC residents by the City of Palm Desert. The letter is packed with disclosable information about the proposed high density, low income housing project in the backyard of PCC. > As residents of Portola Country Club, who looks forward to an improved housing market and growing property values over time, we do not like nor do we appreciate the apparent "pick -and -choose" nature of the mailing of this very important informational letter by the City of Palm Desert, Planning Commission. As stated above, we believe it is an effort to prevent my Portola Residents and other Palm Desert voices from being heard! > Future impact to environmental, aesthetic, privacy and property values of PCC homes will surly follow when potential buyers arrive to personally inspect the community and are surprised to see an intrusive three story high density complex in their back yard! It will surly be a factor in making their personal assessment of the properties in PCC, the current and real property values, growth potential and long term value in their overall pros and cons list of living in Portola Country Club and in Palm Desert at all. > In preparation for the June 20th meeting, we drove to the proposed building site on the Hovely property to do a visual comparison of the existing two story complex and how a three story building might look next to it. In our opinion, a three story, high density residential complex will have significant impact on PCC. It will intrude on the privacy of nearby PCC residents, on the feeling of open space, and overall quality of life in PCC. Along with these are the associated environmental impact to our community which are attendant with high density occupancy, are the obvious; vehicles, trash storage & collection, and service vehicles which all will significantly and directly impact Portola CC not to mention noise from families crammed into the high density project, crime and congestion at intersection of Hovely and Portola and further clogging schools in the area. > After we viewed the Proposed Project Site, we drove down Angel Camp in PCC and were surprised to view over the back fence of one Portola Resident, that more than half of a van parked in the parking lot of the two story building in the adjacent property behind Portola CC. This is in the parking lot of the existing two story building and it was as if the van was parked on top of a hill looking over into PCC. What a surprise it was to find that the existing housing is already intruding on the privacy and quality of life in PCC. > This high density, three story project is unsightly, will directly impact the quality of life in PCC, it will directly affect the real and perceived values of homes here and have a direct impact on your long term real property values and financial security of PCC Residents. > We have asked our PCC friends to please contact Palm Desert City Mayors office to encourage him to stay true to the message he shared with PCC, to reject the Planning Commissions "Pet Project," to include the voices of all of the people who are being affected by this project and mostly importantly, to protect our environment and financial future here in Portola Country Club, Palm Desert, Ca. > Sincerely concerned, > Randy Burden & Larry Barnes > 74193 Zircon Circle W. > Palm Desert, Ca 95670 > (916) 565-3063 2 .1111.1 111 111111111.14111111111* Palm Desert Hovley Projects Case No.,DAIPP/EA 16-394 _John Evanoff, Concerned Citizen Regarding: Recommendation to delay completion of the development's construction until further studies and evaluation is completed. The proposed development consists of a total of 412 residential apartment units, 276 3-story units and 136 2-story units. Phase 1 of construction is planned to be completed by February 2018. Phase II is planned to be completed by April 2019. I believe we as a community in Palm Desert should insure our future real estate values and our safekeeping by completing further studies regarding this project. Only one study has been done since this project vas first planned 25 years ago. As part of a large concerned group at Portola Country Club, \ve insist other studies and reviews by Fire, Police, Sewage, Water, School, Parks and Recreation and all other departments' city and county wide should be modernized to reflect the current infrastructure needs of the area. Otherwise, we may end up paying the consequences if developers are allowed to bring forward old plans without current regulations and required assessments being brought to the table. We are already overwhelmed in this area of the city with traffic congestion on an already busy Hovley Lane. More traffic could put children in harm's way at the school and the nearby soccer park off of Hovley Lane. Studies should be done on crime in the arca resulting in how to best evaluate and control additional problematic crime and rental issues resulting in possible loss of property which could lower the price of all our properties in all the immediate surrounding communities. We acquired a few answers from city planning staff on 6/5/17, but all they had vas a traffic study for the area completed on one day (Thursday, October 27, 2016). The traffic study should have been done over the course of 30 clays on two different months and then evaluated. One day does not give a proper summarization of total traffic evaluation. It seems like this is a fairly new issue because the developer has made a decision to ask the city for more rooms on the same piece of land they originally wanted to build -out with just 303 rooms. Now they want to go to 412 rooms \vith a third of them going into two story buildings at 35 feet high from pavement to peak and two-thirds going into three story buildings at up to 45 feet high from pavement to roof peak. That kind of elevation will impair resident's views and allow residents of the apartment complex to look down into our neighborhoods. Also, a full 20% of the apartments will be going to low income housing to comply with mixed residential apartment regulations. This concerns us because if the city moves to change the zoning laws to allow apartment buildings over three stories throughout the city, we will be faced with many more issues not unlike projects in troubled inner cities elsewhere throughout the country. I'm giving the city council the benefit of the doubt that they will of course be against any kind of move to rezone apartment buildings throughout the city to allow multiple story buildings over two stories. Concerned citizens are worried not only that it will cause an eye sore but it will stand as a precedence to allow other developers to build 3, 4, 5, or 6 story apartment buildings all over the city. We believe you may regret changing the current zoning laws to vote for a zoning change to allow apartment buildings to be built this high. We do not want what happened in Palm Springs and other municipalities to happen to us. We all suffer when that happens. But it happens. So, it's important that the City of Palm Desert takes more time to reevaluate all the studies and bring them up to date as well as drop the three story plan back down to two stories only. We hope the city council has the foresight to understand anything less than responding positively to the citizen's request to delay the project until the developer modernizes the project is ill advised. The developer should be made to modernize all studies paid for by the developer to reflect a project which enhances the area and does not end up putting more demands on our already stressed neighborhood. Any other unqualified uninformed proposal at this time would be a major mistake. I think we can agree we have no problem with people needing a place to live. What concerns us is they started with a plan 25 years ago to build out 303 apartments in two story buildings in that area. Now they are going to have 276 in three story buildings and 136 in two story buildings for a total of 412. No other demands have been made by planning or the city council concerning the developers or staffs review of the project as it applies to current modern standards for Palm Desert. In fact the city planning department has not seen or done any other tests of the project since it was originally designed for 303 apartments more than 25 years ago. A lot has changed in that time. The infrastructure in that area is very frail now (consider the massive sewer break which closed Portola for a week and the many underground power lines which have broken in the area from wear and tear over the years). No tests have been put forward other than a traffic report. So, the Palm Desert planning department has asked for no new project analysis with regard to the rezoning of this apartment complex project including Community Development, a more extensive traffic impact statement, a school impact statement, an infrastructure impact statement (sewer, water, gas, electricity), the Palm Desert Police and Riverside County Sheriff statements of approval, the fire department statement of approval, the health department statement of approval, environmental impact statement, and any other impact statements for this project. 2 We have nearly 4,000 home ovvners in the nearby country clubs (Chaparral, Monterey, Silver Sands, Park Palms, Sands Racquet Club, Chatham Court, Casablanca..just to name a few along with Portola Country Club) \vho will be directly and/or indirectly impacted by the building of these apartments in an area already burdened by heavy traffic because of its proximity to the post office, a highly populated industrial complex which includes Waste Management and it s heavy garbage trucks, an elementary school, a boys and girls club, a soccer park, a huge resort and several apartment complexes. The sister property with the same developer to this project, the 420 apartments at Canterra on the same street right next to the proposed project has had higher than normal crime rates and other problems in the past. My wife and 1 have only been here five years and can attest of people jumping over our back wall hoth directions and the many noisy parties they have there. Remember, apartments do come under some regulation in Palm Desert for short term rentals but in many cases, managers look the other way so they can fill vacant rooms for a month or less during festival months to make money. Have the police drive by on Angels Camp during the Coachella festival and look at the two story buildings of the sister property already there called Canterra behind some of our houses. You can add another 15 feet of elevation to that view then measure your displeasure with the people on their little apartment patios yelling and screaming at parties or the many disturbances which can he heard all the across the arca. Please review the project and ask the developer to add all the more modern studies to their plan if they wish to go to three stories or if they wish to continue with the original proposal of 303 apartments, have them analyzed again using the new studies to bring them up to measure against the old studies for required changes necessary to comply to the area's infrastructure and safety needs. Thank you, John and Sharon Evanoff 74420 Angels Camp Rd. Palm Desert, CA 92260 760- 399-7922 evanoffiSP.T,mail.com Hovley Projects Case No.,DA/PRIA 16- 394 3 Ceja, Eric From: Clerkin, Ruairi M - INDIAN WEL CA <ruairi_clerkin@ml.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:10 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: CityhallMail Subject: CASE NO: DA/PP/EA 16-394 "New Cities Investment Partners, LLC" Dear Eric, I am unable to attend the June 20`h hearing at 6pm on the above referenced case #, however I would like to voice a few thoughts on the proposed development. As a longtime resident of Palm Desert since 2004 — my family currently reside in the Venezia development — I appreciate the efforts that our city has made to grow and develop responsibly. However in the case of the proposed 412 apartment project under consideration at Hovley Lane East between "Canterra Apartments" and Carter Elementary School my concerns fall into two broad categories: 1. Increased Traffic volume 2. This project is architecturally out of character with the surrounding developments. The immediate residential buildings being located at Venezia to the west, Portola Country club to the south, and Canterra Apartments to the east (which peak at 2 story) - are all of a much lower elevation. I feel that the new development, as currently proposed which includes the following: (Eight (8) three-story buildinas ore located in the center and eastern portion of the project site. One of the eight three-story buildings is located alona the northwestern portion of the site near James Carter Elementary School. Two distinct building types are provided for the three-story buildinas. These buildinas are shown at a maximum building height of thirtv-eiaht feet and four inches (38'4") In my opinion is not complimentary to the immediate residential communities. In reading the planning commission report it seems the developer is attempting to increase his project size using "low income housing" (LIH) as a vehicle. This project includes the development of 412 apartment units; 106 apartment units above the 306 units entitled for the site. However, AB 2222, passed in 2014, reauires cities to provide a "density bonus and other incentives or concessions" for the development of "lower income housing." For this particular project, the applicant will reserve 20 percent (20%) of all units at the project site for very -low income households, making the project eliaib/e for a "density bonus" and concessions under AB 2222. I question the need for more LIH: And would like to know, in the immediate area (including the Hovley gardens neighborhood to the south of PD Soccer complex, and the neighborhoods at the junction of Portola Ave/ Magnesia Falls Drive), how many "LIH/Affordable Housing units already exist? I am concerned about a high concentration of Low Income housing in one area. Other concerns I have include: • Traffic volume at the junction of Hovley Lane E. and Portola is already very high at certain times during the day (typically school drop off and pick up) an additional 1,200 residents would add to this greatly. • As a parent of small children about to start school we plan to send our son to Carter Elementary, in talking to a number of the educators at the school they have concerns (valid in my opinion) that the increased population will negatively impact their classroom size, and ability to deliver quality education. In conclusion, I am not against responsible development in Palm Desert, on the contrary I welcome it. However in this particular case I think there is a capacity issue with the size, scope and location of the proposed project. It is being inserted into an already crowded and heavily trafficked urban area, with a number of existing LIH units already in place. I see more negatives than positives with this development going forward as planned, and would like to see the planning commission work with the developer to create a more suitable alternative. Sincerely, Ruairi M. Clarkin, CRPC® This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at fulh: a hank flA 1eri,:i .csoire eniaiildi cl. role . if you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. 2 Ceja, Eric From: kilipo1947@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 12:54 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Fwd: building projest@74-351 Hovley Lane East Subject: building projestt 74-351 Hovley Lane East Cliff Hunt 74218 Zircon Circle West Palm Desert. CA 92260 June 19, 2017 Eric Ceja. Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, This is to express concern about the project to construct 412 apartment units, clubhouse and recreational facilities on the land located at 74-351 Hovley Lane East. The first of the many concerns is the impact this project will have on the school adjacent to the land, the safety hazards this will add for the students, who are a major concern for all of us and the additional traffic this will bring to a street that experiences major traffic issues when parents take their children to and from the school. The addition of untold cars to this situation will raise major concerns for the safety of our children, the staff and the parents who must contend with. already difficult. conditions on school days. Secondly, it will add horrific traffic conditions for residents, most of them senior citizens, who reside in the surrounding country clubs. We are acutely aware of the traffic concerns when school is in session and plan our outings accordingly to respect, protect and care for the children and parents as they go to and from school. The addition of untold numbers of cars will destroy the manner in which we are now handing this situation and will become a nightmare for local residents, children, parents and teachers responsible for their protection. Those of us in country clubs nearest the proposed project will suffer the loss of open space and views we have enjoyed for years because of the plan to construct THREE STORY buildings in the complex. Why must there be three story buildings in this area known for its respect for the views nature has provided and the open skies all residents and visitors to the area enjoy? This is part of what makes desert living what is it, why it has been inviting. beautiful and desirable. Where will this end... five, six, seven story buildings? Another concern is the impact this will have on service providers, hospitals, fire departments, police and other service agencies. We are hoping supreme care and concern for our children, parents and seniors will be taken into full consideration when you meet to discuss this project. Sincerely Cliff Hunt 74218 Zircon Circle West Palm Desert, CA 92260 2 Rancy E3urden & Larry Barnes 760 565 3063 LLRCB50@ya-loo corn 74193 Z,rcort C,rc.e West oaf•r Desert Ca 92260 Mr. Mayor and Palm Desert Planning Commission, With regard to the letter sent to "Some" Residents of Portola Country Club (PCC,) from the Planning Commission, City Of Palm Desert, on the topic of a Proposed High Occupancy Apartment Complex, we live in PCC, at 74193 Zircon Circle W., Palm Desert, and did not get the letter! After discussing and meeting with other PCC residents, there was apparently no rhyme or reason for who got the letter! We believe that the timing of the letter and the scheduled June 20, 2017, meeting is an attempt to limit the voices against this project. As evidence, both the letter and meeting were sent and scheduled after peak season making it easy for the City to point to an apparent lack of interest or implied agreement with this ill conceived project. From our perspective, the timing is highly suspect behavior of the Planning Commission, City of Palm Desert, who supports the proposal. Additionally, we believe the timing is a low, back room way of pushing this project forward without facing the citizens of Palm Desert to get "real" feedback. If this is true, it would sting in a way the citizens of Palm Springs must have felt after hearing about how projects were pushed through without "proper and above -board" vetting of projects there! We are asking our PCC Friends to make their voices heard via letters and we ask that they attend the June 20th meeting. We also asked that if they cannot be there, please email the City of Palm Desert, Mayors Office to make their voice heard! However, our grass roots, neighbor -to -neighbor voice is not adequate, appropriate, fair or businesslike litmus test that the City of Palm Desert should gauge citizen feedback for support or opposition for this project! Regardless of Planning Commission support of this project, the construction of a three story building in Palm Desert, is in direct contradiction to the Mayor's assurance made to PCC Residents during his recent visit here. During that meeting, the Mayor told our community that there will be no new 3 story buildings in Palm Desert. What about that? This Proposed Project now becomes a disclosure issue by anyone who plans to sell their home. This is because of our collective community knowledge and the formal informational letter sent to some PCC residents by the City of Palm Desert. The letter is packed with disclosable information about the proposed high density, low income housing project in the backyard of PCC. As residents of Portola Country Club, who looks forward to an improved housing market and growing property values over time, we do not like nor do we appreciate the apparent "pick - and -choose" nature of the mailing of this very important informational letter by the City of i uunui ii„oul1111 nuwu 1 111111II.1Ni 1111111111111 tll111111111111 uuwil lill0111111111111111111011111111111 111111111111110iiiiiii1111111 11 11111111111 Palm Desert, Planning Commission. As stated above, we believe it is an effort to prevent my Portola Residents and other Paim Desert voices from being heard! Future impact to environmental, aesthetic, privacy and property values of PCC homes will surly follow when potential buyers arrive to personally inspect the community and are surprised to see an intrusive three story high density complex in their back yard! It will surly be a factor in making their personal assessment of the properties in PCC, the current and real property values, growth potential and long term value in their overall pros and cons list of living in Portola Country Club and in Palm Desert at all. In preparation for the June 20th meeting, we drove to the proposed building site on the Hovely property to do a visual comparison of the existing two story complex and how a three story building might look next to it. In our opinion, a three story, high density residential complex will have significant impact on PCC. It will intrude on the privacy of nearby PCC residents, on the feeling of open space, and overall quality of life in PCC. Along with these are the associated environmental impact to our community which are attendant with high density occupancy, are the obvious; vehicles, trash storage & collection, and service vehicles which all will significantly and directly impact Portola CC not to mention noise from families crammed into the high density project, crime and congestion at intersection of Hovely and Portola and further clogging schools in the area. After we viewed the Proposed Project Site, we drove down Angel Camp in PCC and were surprised to view over the back fence of one Portola Resident, that more than half of a van parked in the parking lot of the two story building in the adjacent property behind Portola CC. This is in the parking lot of the existing two story building and it was as if the van was parked on top of a hill looking over into PCC. What a surprise it was to find that the existing housing is already intruding on the privacy and quality of life in PCC. This high density, three story project is unsightly, will directly impact the quality of life in PCC, it will directly affect the real and perceived values of homes here and have a direct impact on your long term real property values and financial security of PCC Residents. We have asked our PCC friends to please contact Palm Desert City Mayors office to encourage him to stay true to the message he shared with PCC, to reject the Planning Commissions "Pet Project," to include the voices of all of the people who are being affected by this project and mostly importantly, to protect our environment and financial future here in Portola Country Club, Palm Desert, Ca. Sincerely concerned, Randy Burden & Larry Barnes 74193 Zircon Circle W., Paim Desert, Ca 95670 Klassen, Rachelle From: Stanley, Jane Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:46 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FW: New Construction - The Sands Apartments Eric, Each Councilmember received an individual email the same as this one, which I forwarded to them. Jane Jane Stanley Secretary to the City Council Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6315 jstanley@cityofpalmdesert.org From: David Dalton [mailto:midada1966@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:34 PM To: CityhallMail <Cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: New Construction - The Sands Apartments Dear Mr. Mayor, I'm writing this email to express my opposition to the plans of the Sands Apartments. The vacant property is going to be developed, and it should be developed. However, the developers of that vacant piece of property should not be given the opportunity to build higher than two stories. If special concessions were made to allow this developer to build three stories by past council, I suggest you find a way to reverse that. Offer some other incentive. It appears the developer managed to get the upper hand in this deal. I hold the City Council responsible for that. The jobs of city council are to protect the constituents from aggressive development. Why does this little patch of Palm Desert get three stories for apartments? Why? Why does this developer not need to provide a landscape barrier between the new and existing properties that surround the lot. Are not all developers held to the same standards and regulations? I strongly encourage you to deny the three story buildings. Kindest Regards, David Dalton Portola CC Palm Desert, CA i Klassen, Rachelle From: Hermann, David Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 5:57 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Hi Eric, Please see the message below regarding the proposed Sands project. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760.776.6411 Direct: 760.776.6380 dhermann@cityofpalmdesert.org From: webmaster@cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:webmaster@cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:30 PM To: Information Mail <info@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 04/03/2018 3:30 PM Response #: 953 Submitter ID: 11473 IP address: 67.49.82.76 Time to complete: 50 min. , 28 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Walter Last Name Altorfer Email Address waltorferPgmail.com Phone Number 760-779-5936 Address 74139 Via Pellestrina Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92260 I am a: 1 (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: Ladies and Gentleman of the City Council: I am writing regarding The Sands project which is slated to begin construction next to Carter Elementary School. It has come to my attention from several sources that the Venezia HOA, of which I am President, has approved the project. I want to assure you that that is not the case. Our Board met with Mr. Newell on May 17, 2017. This meeting was arranged by Mr. Newell through our management company, Albert Management. At that point of time, our Board knew little or nothing about the project or the context in which it was proposed. The Board listened to Mr. Newell and his consultant, reviewed plans presented, and were courteous throughout. However, we did not say that we would approve the project. We did agree to send a letter to the town, but said nothing about what that letter would say. Our management company took it upon themselves to submit a letter on our behalf without consulting us first. Like you all, we have constituents to whom we must report, our residents. When we delivered the word, many of the residents were outraged, not only because of the project itself, but because they were not notified about the project our its pending presentation to the Planning Commission. All of 4 residents were advised of the meeting. The town seemingly forgot about the notification required to residents within 300 feet of the perimeter of the project. Or your staff has a very short measuring tape. After pretty exhaustive research, we were finally able to determine what is going on next to the Canterra apartments. I am an investment advisor and have a fiduciary duty to my clients. As President of the HOA, I have a fiduciary duty to the residents of Venezia. As council members, you have a fiduciary duty to the residents of Palm Desert. In this regard, you let down many residents with the cramming down of this project into the space next to Venezia, Portola County Club, and Carter Elementary School. So for the record, Venezia HOA does not support the building of 3 story buildings next to its development. We were fully aware of the potential of a new apartment complex next to us, but that did not include three story buildings. We understand the need for affordable housing, but you can provide it without three story buildings. Time to rethink the plan. Thank you for your time. Walter R. Altorfer cc: Eric Ceja Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management SystemTM. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 Klassen, Rachelle From: David Dalton <midada1966@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:38 PM To: weber Subject: New Construction - The Sands Apartments Dear Mayor Pro Tem Weber, I'm writing this email to express my opposition to the plans of the Sands Apartments. The vacant property is going to be developed, and it should be developed. However, the developers of that vacant piece of property should not be given the opportunity to build higher than two stories. If special concessions were made to allow this developer to build three stories by past council, I suggest you find a way to reverse that. Offer some other incentive. It appears the developer managed to get the upper hand in this deal. I hold the City Council responsible for that. The jobs of city council are to protect the constituents from aggressive development. Why does this little patch of Palm Desert get three stories for apartments? Why? Why does this developer not need to provide a landscape barrier between the new and existing properties that surround the lot. Are not all developers held to the same standards and regulations? I strongly encourage you to deny the three story buildings. Kindest Regards, David Dalton Portola CC Palm Desert, CA 3rrn ▪ mX3m ▪ cryc ro laNm -1QC� 4J >C7, uO m 1