The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPP-CUP-EA 16-394 - The Sands ApartmentsRESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 STAFF REPORT COMMU ITY OFPppM DEMENT E E RTMENT � �' merate DATE (1/_ / DATE: April 12, 2018 :ONTINUED TO () /2 PREPARED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner E3 PASSE 2NI1 I NG REQUEST: Consideration of a density bonus, Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, for a 384-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements for an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue. Recommendation That the City Council: 1.) Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No.2018-18 approving a density bonus, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the construction of a 384-unit apartment development with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements at an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue; and 2.) Authorize the use of Housing Mitigation fees up to $180,000 to offset development fees for the units designated for restricted income households, five of which will be made available to qualified households employed within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Palm Desert. Architectural Review Commission Recommendation The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project at their meeting of March 28, 2017, and recommended approval of the project's architecture by a vote of 4-1-2 (Chair Van Vliet voting NO, and Commissioners Lambell and McIntosh ABSENT). Commissioner Vuksic commented on the quality of the architecture and noted that vertical movement and materials used helped to enhance the overall project. The following additional conditions were recommended: • Ensure proper screening of air conditioning (AC) units and gas meters. • Balcony walls shall be 12 inches thick. • Carport roofs shall be gabled with an approximately nine -foot plate on both sides. Planning Commission Recommendation Public hearings with the Planning Commission occurred on June 20, 2017, August 15, 2017, February 20, 2018, and March 20, 2018. At the meeting of March 20, 2018, the G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra I \CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 2 of 11 Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council, subject to Building No. 4, as identified in the project site plan, be reduced from three stories to two stories, as agreed to by the applicant. Commissioner Holt commented that apartment projects are compatible with the surrounding land use and that placing the project close to an elementary school and employment centers has its benefits. At all public hearing meetings, members from the surrounding communities of Venezia and Portola Country Club spoke in opposition to the project. A Carter Elementary School parent spoke in favor of the project and expressed disappointment in residents from Venezia for approaching young students with concerns of the threat of gun violence. Strategic Plan This project achieves several priorities under the Land Use, Housing & Open Space chapter and the Transportation chapter of the Strategic Plan. Land Use. Housina & Open Space • Priority No. 2: "Facilitate development of high -quality housing for people of all income levels." As proposed, the apartment project is a "Class A" apartment development that provides a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and private garages. In addition, the project will reserve 20 percent (20%) of all units for qualified lower -income households. The project has demonstrated its quality by providing community amenities and an attractive architectural style and will provide housing for renters and lower -income households. Transportation • Priority No. 1: "Create walkable neighborhoods and areas within Palm Desert that would include residential, retail, services and employment centers, parks, recreation and open space to reduce the use of low occupancy vehicles." • Priority No. 3: "De-emphasize single/low-occupancy vehicles and optimize multiple modes of travel (bus, carpool, golf cart, bicycle, and pedestrian)." The project achieves the above -mentioned priorities by providing apartment units adjacent to synergistic land uses including City parks, schools, and employment centers. Due to the proximity of these land -uses, it can be anticipated that multi -modal transportation options will be utilized. The existing surrounding road network includes bike paths and sidewalks to encourage those transportation options. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation would approve a density bonus, precise plan, conditional use permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), for the proposed project to move from a maximum density of 17.5 dwelling units per acre to 21.3 dwelling units per G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 3 of 11 acre (du/ac) for the development of a 384-unit apartment project. Density bonuses are permitted by the City's Municipal Code (Section 25.34.040) and by California State Law (AB 2222). Density bonuses allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted density of a zoning district by providing additional affordable housing units. As proposed, the applicant will provide 20 percent (20%) of all units at affordable rents. State law very narrowly restricts the ability of a city to deny or reduce the density of a project with an affordable housing component such as the proposed project. Background Analysis A. Property Description: The parcel is located along the south side of Hovley Lane East, west of Corporate Way and east of Portola Avenue. The parcel is approximately 18 acres in size and is undisturbed with the exception of perimeter block walls to the south, east, and west. Public roadway improvements and a sidewalk exist at the northern property line along Hovley Lane East. 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 15 feet from Hovley Lane East and surrounding properties. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: PR-17.5 — Planned Residential (17.5 du/ac) General Plan: Town Center Neighborhood C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: PR-4 — Marriott Desert Springs Villas South: R-1 M — Portola Country Club East: PR-17.5 — Canterra Apartments West: OS/PR-5 — James Carter Elementary SchoolNenezia Project Description The project is for the construction of 384 apartment units, a clubhouse facility, two outdoor swimming pools, recreational and open space, covered and uncovered parking spaces, and garages. Landscape is provided in all non -parking and non -building portions of the site. Vehicle access into the project is provided at the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court. A new traffic signal will be installed at this intersection as part of the project. To accommodate 384 apartment units, the applicant is proposing a mix of two- and three- story buildings. A one-story clubhouse building is proposed for communal space, fitness center, leasing office, and mail room. The apartment buildings are shown in a contemporary southwest architectural style, while the one-story clubhouse is more California Mission style G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 4 of 11 architecture. All buildings have exterior stucco finishes, clay tile roofs, window trim, and clay and wrought -iron details. Ten (10) two-story buildings are located along the southern and western portions of the project site. Two distinct architectural styles are provided for the two-story buildings. Two- story units are shown at a maximum building height of 29 feet and four inches (29'4"), with tower elements reaching 36 feet and eight inches (36'8"). Five (5) three-story buildings are located in the center and western portion of the project site. Two of the five three-story buildings are located along the northwestern portion of the site along James Carter Elementary School. Two distinct architectural styles are provided for the three-story buildings. These buildings are shown at a maximum building height of 38 feet and four inches (38'4"). The project also provides recreational open space for future residents at the site. Two community pools are located in the center of the project site, along with a half -court basketball court, dog park, game lawn, playgrounds, and gathering spaces. Sidewalks are provided to connect each apartment building to these amenities and shade trees and new landscape is provided throughout the project site. The applicant is proposing to utilize the State's density bonus provisions to allow for additional density above the currently permitted 17.5 du/ac The application of a density bonus is discussed further in this staff report. Analysis A. Land Use Compatibility: In 1989, the City Council approved a development agreement (DA) for the construction of 612 apartment units on 35 acres and the dedication of a 20-acre park. Portions of the agreement have been executed, including the dedication of a 20-acre park, known as Palm Desert Hovley Soccer Park, and 306 apartment units have been built known as the Canterra Apartments. Of the 306 apartments at the Canterra site, 10% or 30 units are restricted to households of low or very low income. Under the current agreement, 306 apartment units remain to be built on the remaining undeveloped 18-acre parcel that adjoins Canterra Apartments. For nearly 30 years, this site has been entitled and envisioned for an apartment project, and the proposal to build this project meets the intent of the original agreement. However, the applicant is utilizing "density bonus" provisions permitted by the State (AB 2222) and the City's Zoning Ordinance (PDMC 25.34.040) to increase the project density from 306 units to 384 units. B. Density Bonus: This project includes the development of 384 apartment units, 78 apartment units above the 306 units entitled for the site. Under California Assembly Bill 2222 (AB 2222), cities are required to provide a "density bonus and other incentives or concessions" for the G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 5 of 11 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 eligible for a "density bonus" and concessions under AB 2222 and Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.34.040. Section 25.34.040 "Affordable Housing and Density Bonus Provisions" of the PDMC provides guidance for the application of density bonuses and eligible incentives/concessions for development. The provisions permit a 35 percent (35%) density bonus to projects that provide 20 percent (20%) very -low income restricted units. Therefore, the density bonus for this project is applied as follows: Base Zone DU/AC 17.5 Total Units Project Maximum 315 Acres 18 Total Units 315 Density Total Units + Bonus* Total DB 111 426 * Density Bonus = 315 dux 35% = 110.25* or 111 du The density bonus provisions allow for a maximum of 426 units for the site. The applicant is proposing a total of 384 apartment units, 42 units less than permitted by AB 2222 and Section 25.34.040 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The total number of units proposed equates to a project density of 21.3 du/ac. Projects denied under the State's density bonus provisions may be litigated under fair housing law and overturned by the courts. In certain circumstances, the courts may impose monetary penalties to cities for failing to approve projects that meet the State's goals for affordable housing. C. Concessions: PDMC Section 25.34.040D.2.iii specifies that by providing 20 percent (20(3/0) very -low income apartments, the applicant is eligible for up to three (3) concessions. Per the Zoning Ordinance, concessions can include a "reduction in the site development standards" such as "reduction in setback(s), and "other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant or the City that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions." For this project, the applicant requests two (2) concessions: a reduction in the required number of parking spaces, and a regulatory incentive that includes a financial contribution by the City's Housing Authority. The first concession requested by the developer is a reduction of the City's parking standards. This concession is discussed below and is part of the review of on -site parking at the project. The second concession requested by the developer is a request to waive certain development impact fees associated with the development of the affordable units. The City's Housing Department has reviewed this request and suggests that the City provide G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra Il\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 6 of 11 assistance of up to $180,000 to offset City imposed development fees on the portion that relates to the affordable units. In exchange, the developer agrees to set aside a minimum of five (5) of the affordable units to persons who work within the City of Palm Desert. Similar requests have been applied to other affordable housing developments such as ARC Village. D. Building Height: This project proposes 15 apartment buildings: ten (10) two-story buildings and five (5) three-story buildings. Originally, the applicant proposed a third concession under the density bonus provisions; increase the maximum building height to three -stories at 40 feet (40'). However, on August 24, 2017, the City Council adopted changes to the development standards of nearly all zoning districts as part of a consistency review with the newly adopted General Plan. As such, development standards in the Planned Residential (PR) zoning district were updated to allow for three-story buildings with a maximum building height of 40 feet (40'), as the General Plan land use designation of "Town Center Neighborhood" allows for three-story buildings. The proposed three-story buildings, shown at a height of 38 feet 4 inches (38'4"), comply with the development standards for the PR zoning district. To minimize view impacts on surrounding single-family residential properties, two-story buildings are placed along the southern and western portions of the site. Four (4) of the five (5) three-story buildings are located near the center of the site or along the western portion of the site near the existing school. Two-story buildings are proposed along the southern and western portions of the site to step down to the one-story condition at Portola Country Club and Venezia. This two-story building condition was envisioned as part of the original project approval in 1989. Existing and entitled apartment developments are approved for building heights up to three stories. Many of these sites are located in the undeveloped northern sphere of the City around the universities. These sites include future apartment projects at The Millennium, Ponderosa Homes, a 24-acre parcel near the Sheriff's station, and parcels within the University Area Specific Plan. An existing three-story apartment, Ariana at El Paseo, was constructed in the 1980's between Deep Canyon Road and Shadow Hills Road. Lastly, many residents in the surrounding communities have raised concerns about the visual impact of the new buildings and the loss of views to surrounding mountains. The Zoning Ordinance does not protect individuals' viewsheds; however, the line of sight studies are provided as part of your packet. E. Parking: The City's Zoning Ordinance requires two (2) parking spaces for each apartment unit. For this project, parking standards are reduced from two (2) parking spaces per apartment unit to 1.77 per unit. The reduction in parking standards by 0.25 spaces per unit is reasonable and matches parking standards for "mixed -use" and residential G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra Il\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 7 of 11 parking standards in the City's Downtown (D) zoning district and for other apartment projects within the City. Staff believes that parking for the site is sufficient. Reduced parking standards have been applied to apartment projects throughout the City, including the existing Canterra Apartments which has a parking ratio just under the two (2) spaces per unit requirement. F. Traffic: The General Plan identifies Hovley Lane East as a "Balanced Arterial" designed to accommodate 30,000 vehicles at a level of service C (LOS C). LOS C provides a stable stream of vehicle traffic that efficiently and comfortably moves vehicle traffic. In 2016, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan was completed. The EIR showed that traffic volumes along this portion of Hovley Lane East are approximately 15,000 daily trips westbound and 12,000 daily trips eastbound. The traffic analysis prepared as part of the MND shows that a total of 2,740 average daily trips are generated by this project. The additional daily trips generated by the project equate to less than a total of 18,000 daily trips along this portion of the roadway. With the addition of the proposed project, Hovley Lane East will function at approximately 60 percent of its designed capacity and will continue to meet the intent and goals of the City's General Plan Mobility Element. G. Zero -Lot -Line Setback: More than 150 garage units are shown along James Carter Elementary School and the Canterra Apartments. Staff supports the placement of garage units at a zero -lot -line along these adjoining uses as a means to provide security, screening of vehicles, and as an additional buffer between the apartments and the surrounding uses. The intent of the PR zone is to provide flexibility in development and, as such, the Municipal Code provides no specific setback standards for side yards as they relate to detached garages or parking facilities. Instead, the Municipal Code allows setback standards to be approved by the Planning Commission through the City's Precise Plan process. Staff was initially concerned about the conversion of these garages into storage space for apartment dwellers and their proximity to surrounding residential properties; however, the applicant believes that on -site management will be successful in limiting conversions of the garages. In addition, the location of the garage units along the property line will further limit visibility of the apartments to surrounding properties and provide additional privacy to existing homes. The applicant has stated that language related to maintaining garages for parking will be part of any rental agreement, and that other apartment developers have similar offerings and conditions to ensure parking remains available. Staff believes that parking is sufficient for the site and supports the zero -lot -line setback along the side property lines. Lastly, the zero -lot -line setback has been applied to similar projects in the PR zone. The Enclave condo/apartments, located at the corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway Drive, was approved with a zero -lot -line setback for garage units along its western and northern property lines. G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 8 of 11 H. School Safety: Many of the surrounding residents have raised concern about two-, and three-story apartment buildings overlooking the adjacent elementary school. Staff is consulting with our public safety experts at the Palm Desert Police Department regarding those concerns; however it is noted that hundreds of schools in California and across the nation, are adjacent to buildings that are taller than two -stories. This project does not introduce an unique safety issue as it relates to the adjacent school. I. Apartment Analysis: Lastly, staff has prepared the following table to compare The Sands projects with other approved apartment projects in the City. The table, on page 9 shows that, historically, the concessions proposed by the applicant have been applied to other apartment projects and that the City has a history of approving "density bonuses" for apartments that provide a level of affordable units. This table indicates that the proposed apartment project is in line with other apartment projects approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council: G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 9 of 11 Name Acres No. of Density Affordable Building Height Affordable % Parking Units Units Ratio The SANDS 18.13 396 21.8 80 38 ft. 4 in. 20% 1.77 Catalina Way Senior Apartments 0.81 20 24.7 4 23 ft. 9in 20% 0.95 Cantera Apartments Phase I 17.00 306 18.0 61 24ft. 10% 1.95 The Enclave 26.40 320 12.1 64 28ft. 20% Shadow Hills Estates Lots 2,3, 8 and 9 1.29 28 21.6 6 25ft. 21% 0.50 River Run One 0.48 10 20.8 2 24ft. 20% 1.00 The Regent 24.70 512 20.7 103 20% Atria 3.00 77 25.7 5 14ft. 6% 1.00 Villas on the Green 13.38 76 5.7 15 25ft. 19% 1.25 Vineyards 15.90 260 16.9 52 28ft.4in. 20% 2.00 WHRA 6.13 103 16.8 21 26ft. 20% 2.09 Candlewood Isle Apartments 30 19.0 4 24ft. 20% 1.50 Carlos Ortega Villas 4.73 72 15.2 72 20f. 20 in. 100% California Villas 8.10 141 17.4 141 12ft. 100% 1.69 One Quail Place 17.85 384 21.5 384 24ft. 100% 1.80 Ariana at El Paseo 2.75 64 23.3 - - - ARC Village 1.84 36 19.6 34 24ft. 95% 0.70 Desert Pointe 64 24.0 - 24ft. 100% 1.50 LasSerenas 7.20 150 20.8 38 18ft. 25% 1.25 Palm Village 36 26.3 36 26ft. 3 in. 100% 1.50 G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 10 of 11 Public Input Many residents of surrounding communities of Venezia and Portola Country Club continue to be in opposition to the project and community correspondences have been provided to the City Council. Most concerns expressed by the surrounding communities are as follows: increased traffic, affordable housing, safety impacts on the adjacent school, and three-story buildings being incompatible with the surrounding single -story neighborhoods. These concerns have been analyzed in other sections of this report. Conclusion Staff supports the proposed apartment project at this site. The approved DA for this property allows for two-story apartment buildings with portions of the units set aside for affordable housing. The Zoning Ordinance also allows for building heights up to three (3) stories and up to 40 feet in height. The developer has made changes to the site plan to address concerns raised by the surrounding neighborhoods and to provide 20 percent of all units at affordable rents. The intent of the original agreement is achieved and concessions related to density bonus are allowed under the City's Municipal Code and State law. The designs of the buildings are attractive and harmonious with the existing Canterra Apartments adjacent to the site and similar multi -family housing within the City. Environmental Review For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposal to develop this site with 384 apartment units and ancillary uses will not result in any potentially significant negative impacts to surrounding properties and the environment. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 20, 2018, recommended adoption of the MND to the City Council. Findings of Approval Findings can be made in support of the project and in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in City Council Resolution No. , attached to this staff report. G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc City Attorney April 12, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 11 of 11 Fiscal Analysis As part of the density bonus applied to this project, the applicant is requesting assistance with certain Developer Impact Fees (DIF) for the 20% of units reserved for affordable rents. The fees estimated for this assistance equate to approximately $180,000 to be paid out of the Housing Mitigation Funds. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER Robert W. Hargreaves Ryan Stendell Director of Community Development et Moore Director of Finance APPLICANT: Mr. Lee Newell New Cities Investment Partners, LLC 1850 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 337 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ATTACHMENTS: Lauri Aylfit p City Manager 1. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2018-18 2. City Council Public Hearing Notice 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2699 4. Planning Commission Minutes: June 20, 2017, August 15, 2017, February 20, 2018, and March 20, 2018 (Draft) 5. Architectural Review Commission Minutes: March 28, 2017 6. City Attorney Response to Comments 7. City Attorney Memorandum on Affordable Housing Projects 8. Public Comment Letters 9. Mitigated Negative Declaration 10. Project Exhibits G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra 11\CC\CC Staff Report - The Sands (4.12.18).doc CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND APPROVAL OF A DENSITY BONUS, PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 384-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT WITH CLUBHOUSE, RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS CASE NO: PP/CUP/EA 16-394 WHEREAS, New Cities Investment Partners, LLC propose to develop 384 dwelling units on an undeveloped 18.13 site, abutting James Carter Elementary School and Venezia to the west with site improvements consisting of new two- and three-story apartments, clubhouse building, and on -site recreational amenities ("Project"); and WHEREAS, vehicular access to the site is provided along Hovley Lane East and street improvements include the signalization of the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court; and WHEREAS, the site's proximity to an elementary school, public park, transit lines, and employment centers is ideal for the development of an apartment project with an affordable housing component; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to provide 20 percent (20%) of all units within the development for very -low income qualified persons, and as such is eligible for a density bonus provided by AB 2222 (Government Code section 65915 et seq.) and Palm Desert Municipal Code Section (PDMC) 25.34.040; and WHEREAS, 20 percent (20%) of the 384 units are reserved or lower -income households; and WHEREAS, under the density bonus provisions of the PDMC, the applicant is entitled to a density bonus of 111 units, for a total of 426 units, which is more than the 384 units proposed for this project. The Code also allows the applicant to request up to three (3) concessions from the City's Zoning Ordinance; the agreed upon concessions incorporated into the project entitlements are: 1) a reduced parking requirement; and 2) elimination of certain development impact fees on the affordable units; and WHEREAS, final approval of the project is contingent on developer entering into a housing agreement (HA) with the City's Housing Department to finalize affordable housing requirements as specified in project entitlements. The HA shall be signed and completed by both the City and the developer prior to issuance of a Building Permit. WHEREAS, the project complies with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan that promote affordable housing, promote a variety of neighborhoods, and promote a mix of housing choice for current and future residents; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15367 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Palm Desert's ("City's") Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the Project and prepared an Initial Study pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15063 to determine if the Project could have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project would have potentially significant impacts but that those impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the City determined that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") should be prepared for the Project, and an MND was prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21064.5 and 21080, subdivision (c), and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15070 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15072 on July 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of June 2017, the 15th day of August 2017, and the 20th day of February 2018, previously hold duly noticed public meetings where members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project; and WHEREAS, the City determined that after public notice of availability of the MND had been given, but prior to its adoption, new information was added to the MND to clarify and amplify the MND, and revisions were added in response to comments on the Project's effects identified in the proposed MND which are not new avoidable significant effects; and WHEREAS, although revisions to the subsequent MND do not constitute substantial revisions as the revisions did not identify any new, avoidable significant effects or require new measures or revisions to reduce effects to less than significant, the City decided to recirculate the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 in an abundance of caution; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, the City recirculated the subsequent MND for public review by distributing a second Notice of Intent to Adopt a subsequent MND pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15072; and WHEREAS, the City provided copies of the revised draft subsequent MND and Initial Study to the public and the State Clearinghouse for at least a 30-day review and comment period beginning on February 2, 2018 and ending on March 5, 2018, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21091(b); and WHEREAS, in order to align the public comment period with that of state agencies and address public comment, the City extended the public comment period through March 14, 2018, and provided notice of the same; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15074(d), the City has prepared a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects (the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program" or "MMRP"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City has endeavored to take all steps and impose all conditions necessary to ensure that impacts to the environment would not be significant, which are attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence before it as a whole; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the MND, Initial Study, and all other relevant information contained in the record regarding the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, at its regular scheduled meeting, the public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project and the MND and the Initial Study, and the Planning Commission discussed and continued the Project, the MND and the Initial Study until March 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission, the public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project and the MND and the Initial Study, and the Planning Commission discussed and considered the Project and the MND and Initial Study; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission took action recommending approval of the project to the City Council subject to Building No. 4, identified in the Site Plan, being reduced from three stories to two stories in height; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council did make the following findings to justify the approval of said request: WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution. SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND, Initial Study, and administrative record on file with the City and available for review at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. The City Council finds that the MND and Initial Study have been completed in compliance with the CEQA (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 SECTION 3. Findinas on Environmental Impacts. In the City's role as the lead agency under CEQA, the City Coucnil finds that the MND and Initial Study contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The City Council further finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City of Palm Desert local CEQA guidelines. The City Council further finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the MND, Initial Study, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts, and that any comments received to date regarding the Project have been examined and determined not to modify the conclusions of the MND or the City Council. Furthermore, the City Council finds that the MND has not been substantially revised after public notice of its availability and recirculation is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5.) The City Council finds that the MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 4. Findinas on Conditional Use Permit. In recommending approval of this project, the City Council makes the following findings in accordance with PDMC Section 25.72.050: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The purpose of the Planned Residential (PR) zoning district is to provide areas flexibility in residential development by encouraging creative and imaginative design for the development of residential projects with densities between 4.0 to 40 dwelling units per acre and allows multi -family developments to be considered through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposal to develop multi -family housing with integrated affordable units at this location complies with the City's goals and the objectives of the zoning designation, and the project's density complies with the density limits established under the PR zoning district. In 1989, the City approved a development agreement for the development of a 55- acre community with an affordable housing component. Portions of the development agreement (DA) have been executed and this portion of that project is undeveloped. Development of the project site complies and exceeds the minimum requirements established in the development agreement by providing additional affordable housing units in compliance with the State's density bonus provisions. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed location and development of this project at this site will be monitored and cared for by an on -site manager. Maintenance issues or resident complaints can be addressed on -site. As designed, and as conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, as the project is designed below the maximum height permitted by the zone, contains 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 significant landscape screening along the southern property line to limit visual intrusion into surrounding communities, and has landscape setbacks along the single-family community bordering the project to the west. Similar multi -family apartments have been constructed in the City and none have been detrimental to public health and safety. Adequate off-street parking is provided at the site and the proximity of the project to employment centers, schools, and City parks encourages walking and non -motorized transportation. Roadway improvements along Hovley Lane East ensure efficient traffic movements near the project site. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. The proposed development complies with the development standards of the PR zoning district, including maximum building height, minimum unit sizes, and setbacks. The City's parking requirements, listed under PDMC Section 25.46.040 requires a parking ratio of two (2) parking space per unit for 768 total parking spaces. The project proposes a parking ratio of 1.82 space per unit, resulting in 699 total parking space. The applicant has requested a modification to the parking standards in accordance with the State and City density bonus provisions. Other apartment complexes have parking standards that are below the required 2 space per unit, including the adjacent Canterra Apartments. To date, staff is not aware of any on -going parking issues at existing apartment sites and the 1.82 ratio is adequate to meet the parking needs of the proposed community. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed development complies with goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, in that it provides affordable housing units in accordance with the City's Land Use & Community Character and Housing Elements. The project complies with the General Plan intent and purpose of the Town Center Neighborhood designation by developing multi -family housing within walking distance of commercial activities and meets several long-range goals of multi- family housing by including the following: mixed affordability, recreational amenities, a pedestrian focus, and affordable housing in proximity to transit and educational facilities. SECTION 5. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council approves and adopts the subsequent MND prepared for the Project. SECTION 6. Adoption of the Mitiaation Monitoring and Reporting Proaram. The City Council approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 7. Approval. The City Council hereby approves the applied density bonus, the Precise Plan, and Conditional Use Permit applications for the Project. SECTION 8. Approval. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Project subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 SECTION 9. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City's office at 73- 510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Rachelle Klassen, the City Clerk, is the custodian of the record of proceedings. SECTION 10. Notice of Determination. The City Council approves the Project, and directs Staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of any Project approval. SECTION 11. Execution of Resolution. The Mayor of the City Council signs this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of April 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN CITY CLERK SABBY JONATHON, MAYOR 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 Section Number 4. Biological Resources Section Number 5. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures BIO-1: The applicant shall ensure that any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February through August) will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are observed, construction activities must be prohibited within a 500-foot buffer around the nest until the nestlings have fledged. All construction activity within the vicinity of active nests must be conducted in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. Construction activity may encroach into the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. Mitigation Measures CR-1: If during the course of grading or construction, artifacts or other cultural resources are discovered, all grading on the site shall be halted and the applicant shall immediately notify the City Planner. A qualified archaeologist shall be called to the site by, and at the cost of, the applicant to identify the resource and recommended mitigation if the resource is culturally significant. The archaeologist will be required to provide copies of any studies or reports to the Eastern Information Center for the State of California located at the University of California Riverside and the Aqua Caliente Tribal historic Preservation Office (TIIPO) for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register. CR-2: The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be required during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the monitor shall notify a qualified archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible for Monitoring Developer Planning Department Qualified Biologist Timing Prior to any ground disturbance Impact after Mitigation Less than significant The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018 Responsible for Impact after Monitoring Mitigation Developer Planning Department Qualified Archaeologist Developer Planning Department Qualified Native American Cultural Resource Monitor Tinting During grading Less than and other ground disturbing activities significant During grading Less than and other significant ground disturbing activities 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 Section Number 16. Transportation Mitigation Measures prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Office and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). The archaeologist will be required to provide copies of any studies or reports to the Eastern Information Center for 'ithe State of California located at the University of Riverside and the Agua Caliente THPO for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register. 'fRA 1: The applicant is responsible for the installation of the traffic signal at Hovley Lane East and the Project's entrance, prior to completion of Project construction. TRA 2: The applicant will participate in the funding or construction of off -site improvements through the payment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (FUME) and City of Palm Desert Development Impact Fees (DIE), or a fair share contribution as directed by the City. These fees, required as standard conditions, assist in alleviating cumulative impacts. the Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018 Responsible for Impact after Monitoring Mitigation Developer Planning Department Developer Flaming Deportment Tuning Prior to project Less than completion Significant Prior to Less than grading and Significant other ground disturbing activities 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the adoption of these Project Approvals for the Project, or the Project Approvals themselves, Developer and City each shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action. Developer, at its sole expense shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City (including its agents, officers and employees) from any such action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City, subject to Developer's approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and at Developer's sole expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify Developer and cooperate in the defense. Developer upon such notification shall deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of City Finance Director to cover the expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of Project Approvals without Developer's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed, unless Developer materially breaches this indemnification requirement. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to the approved development standards listed in the PDMC, and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Housing Agreement (HA) with the City's Housing Department to finalize affordable housing requirements as part of this project. No Tess than 20 percent (20%) of all units within the project shall be available at affordable rents as specified in the HA. The HA shall be signed and completed by both the City and the applicant prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or . structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by the applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 8. The project is subject to the Art in Public Places program. The applicant is encouraged to utilize the fee for installation of an on -site art piece. Please contact Ms. Deborah Glickman at (760) 346-0611 to discuss the Art in Public Place process. 9. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered that require a Treatment Plan, the developer or his archeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. If requested by the Tribes, the developer or archeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition. 10. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with PDMC Section 24.16 for any landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area. 11. A minimum of an eight -foot landscape setback shall be provided along the shared property line with the Venezia community to the west. No carports, garages, or other physical parking structures shall be installed within this landscape setback. 12. All mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Environmental Assessment and Initial Study shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project. 13. Final landscape plans shall be submitted to the City's Department of Community Development and the CVWD for review and approval. The landscape plan shall conform to the landscape palate contained in the preliminary landscape plans prepared as part of this application, and shall include dense plantings of landscape material. All plants shall be a minimum of five gallons in size, and trees shall be a minimum of 24- inch box sizes. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 14. The applicant shall plant a double -row of shade trees in the landscape setback abutting the southern property line of the project. The double row of trees shall be identified on the landscape plan. 15. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations made by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and as specified in the ARC Notice of Action dated March 31, 2017. 16. The applicant shall reduce Building No. 4, as identified in the site plan, from three stories to two stories. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: 17. The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Any changes to the approved civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 18. The grading plan shall identify all proposed and existing utilities. 19. The applicant shall submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of PDMC Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 20. The applicant shall abide by all provisions of City of Palm Desert Ordinance 843, Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance. 21. The applicant shall submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Operation and Maintenance Section of the approved final WQMP shall be recorded with the County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Department of Public Works. 22. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drainage fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 23. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off -site improvements. Improvements shall include, but are not limited to: A. The installation of a deceleration lane on Hovley Lane East. B. The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Lane. This intersection shall accommodate crosswalks. The applicant shall intercept existing fiber optic cable from Portola Avenue to Corporate Way. C. Remove existing median island between The Sands entry and the existing Canterra Apartments entry, reconstruct a pavement section, and install a two-way left turn lane. D. The eastern access to The Sands should provide a stacking distance for a minimum of four exiting vehicles and still maintain adequate circulation for inbound traffic. E. Curb returns on Hovley Lane East must have a minimum radius of 25 feet. F. The width of the exit lane at the eastern access of The Sands shall be a minimum of 24 feet. 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT: 24. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2016 California Residential Code its appendices and standards. C. 2016 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2016 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. E. 2016 California Electrical Code. F. 2016 California Energy Code. G. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. H. 2016 California Administrative Code. I. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 25. Provide building height and area analysis to determine compliance with CBC Section 503. Justify any area increases to height and area as permitted per CBC Sections 504 and 506. 26. Submit an exit plan that labels and clearly will show compliance with all required egress features such as, but not limited to, common path of travel, the required number of exits and separation, occupant load, required width, continuity, travel distance, elevators, etc. CBC 1001.1. 27. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1265. 28. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2013 CBC Chapters 11 A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 29. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1027.5 & 11 B-206). 30. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11 B-705.1.2.5 and 11 B- 705.1.2.2. The degigner is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supersede the State requirement. 31. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Department of Building and Safety. 32. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and then submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Pools and Spas for public use are required to be accessible. 33. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per PDMC, Title 5. 12 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 34. All contractors and/or owner -builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 35. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1265 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.28. Compliance with Ordinance 1265 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from the street, height from grade, height from the street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1265 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. 36. Please contact Department of Building & Safety Building at (760) 776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 37. Fire Department emergency vehicle apparatus access road locations and design shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuances. 38. Fire Department water system(s) for fire protection shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuances. 13 CITY Of HUM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 7 60 3 46-061 I info@ciryofpaimdesert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC, FOR THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; A PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 384 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 Proiect Description: A Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Environmental Assessment applications have been submitted for the development of a 384-unit apartment complex on an undeveloped 18.1-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, ten (10) two-story apartment buildings, and five (5) three-story apartment buildings. Other site improvements include covered parking, garage units, on -site landscaping and recreational areas. A new signalized intersection will be provided at Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court. Twenty -percent (20%) of the apartment units are identified for lower -income households. Planning Commission Recommendation: On February 20, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project and continued the item to their meeting of March 20, 2018, to allow for modifications to the project. At their meeting on March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a Resolution, by a vote of 5-0, recommending approval of the project to the City Council, subject to the reduction of Building No. 4 being reduced from three -stories to two -stories. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the project as recommended by the Planning Commission. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the City Council on April 12, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from March 30, 2018 to April 12, 2018. Public Review: The Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, 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 City Council 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 RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, March 30, 2018 CITY CLERK PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 384-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT WITH CLUBHOUSE, RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS CASE NO: PP/CUP/EA 16-394 WHEREAS, Lee Newell and New Cities Investment Partners, LLC propose to develop 384 dwelling units on an undeveloped 18.13 site, abutting James Carter Elementary School and Venezia to the west with site improvements consisting of new two- and three-story apartments, clubhouse building, and on -site recreational amenities ("Project"); and WHEREAS, vehicular access to the site is provided along Hovley Lane East and street improvements include the signalization of the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court; and WHEREAS, the site's proximity to an elementary school, public park, transit lines, and employment centers is ideal for the development of an apartment project with an affordable housing component; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to provide 20 percent (20%) of all units within the development for very -low income qualified persons, and as such is eligible for a density bonus provided by AB 2222 (Government Code section 65915 et seq.) and Palm Desert Municipal Code Section (PDMC) 25.34.040; and WHEREAS, 20 percent (20%) of the 384 units are reserved or lower -income households; and WHEREAS, under the density bonus provisions of the PDMC, the applicant is entitled to a density bonus of 111 units, for a total of 426 units, which is more than the 384 units proposed for this project. The Code also allows the applicant to request up to three (3) concessions from the City's Zoning Ordinance; the agreed upon concessions incorporated into the project entitlements are: 1) a reduced parking requirement; and 2) elimination of certain development impact fees on the affordable units; and WHEREAS, final approval of the project is contingent on developer entering into a housing agreement (HA) with the City's Housing Department to finalize affordable housing requirements as specified in project entitlements. The HA shall be signed and completed by both the City and the developer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. WHEREAS, the project complies with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan that promote affordable housing, promote a variety of neighborhoods, and promote a mix of housing choice for current and future residents; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15367 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Palm. Desert's ("City's") Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the Project and prepared an Initial Study pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15063 to determine if the Project could have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project would have potentially significant impacts but that those impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the City determined that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") should be prepared for the Project, and an MND was prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21064.5 and 21080, subdivision (c), and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15070 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15072 on July 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of June 2017, the 15th day of August 2017, and the 20th day of February 2018, previously hold duly noticed public meetings where members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project; and WHEREAS, the City determined that after public notice of availability of the MND had been given, but prior to its adoption, new information was added to the MND to clarify and amplify the MND, and revisions were added in response to comments on the Project's effects identified in the proposed MND which are not new avoidable significant effects; and WHEREAS, although revisions to the subsequent MND do not constitute substantial revisions as the revisions did not identify any new, avoidable significant effects or require new measures or revisions to reduce effects to Tess than significant, the City decided to recirculate the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 in an abundance of caution; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, the City recirculated the subsequent MND for public review by distributing a second Notice of Intent to Adopt a subsequent MND pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15072; and WHEREAS, the City provided copies of the revised draft subsequent MND and Initial Study to the public and the State Clearinghouse for at least a 30-day review and comment period beginning on February 2, 2018 and ending on March 5, 2018, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21091(b); and WHEREAS, in order to align the public comment period with that of state agencies and address public comment, the City extended the public comment period through March 14, 2018, and provided notice of the same; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15074(d), the City has prepared a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to 2 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \201 B\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects (the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program" or "MMRP"),which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City has endeavored to take all steps and impose all conditions necessary to ensure that impacts to the environment would not be significant, which are attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence before it as a whole; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the MND, Initial Study, and all other relevant information contained in the record regarding the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, at its regular scheduled meeting, the public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project and the MND and the Initial Study, and the Planning Commission discussed and continued the Project, the MND and the Initial Study until March 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission, the public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project and the MND and the Initial Study, and the Planning Commission discussed and considered the Project and the MND and Initial Study; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission took action recommending approval of the project to the City Council subject to building number four, identified in the Site Plan, being reduced from three stories to two stories in height; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said request: WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution. SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND, Initial Study, and administrative record on file with the City and available for review at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council find that the MND and Initial Study have been completed in compliance with the CEQA (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines. 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 SECTION 3. Findings on Environmental Impacts. In the City's role as the lead agency under CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that the MND and Initial Study contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Planning Commission further finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City of Palm Desert local CEQA guidelines. The Planning Commission further finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the MND, Initial Study, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning Commission further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts, and that any comments received to date regarding the Project have been examined and determined not to modify the conclusions of the MND or the Planning Commission. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that the MND has not been substantially revised after public notice of. its availability and recirculation is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5.) The Planning Commission finds that the MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. SECTION 4. Findings on Conditional Use Permit. In recommending approval of this project, the Planning Commission makes the following findings in accordance with PDMC Section 25.72.050: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The purpose of the Planned Residential (PR) zoning district is to provide areas flexibility in residential development by encouraging creative and imaginative design for the development of residential projects with densities between 4.0 to 40 dwelling units per acre and allows multi -family developments to be considered through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposal to develop multi -family housing with integrated affordable units at this location complies with the City's goals and the objectives of the zoning designation, and the project's density complies with the density limits established under the PR zoning district. In 1989, the City approved a development agreement for the development of a 55-acre community with an affordable housing component. Portions of the development agreement (DA) have been executed and this portion of that project is undeveloped. Development of the project site complies and exceeds the minimum requirements established in the development agreement by providing additional affordable housing units in compliance with the State's density bonus provisions. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed location and development of this project at this site will be monitored and cared for by an on -site manager. Maintenance issues or resident complaints can be addressed on -site. As designed, and as conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, as the project is designed below the maximum height permitted by the zone, contains significant landscape 4 G:\PlanningWonica °Reilly\Planning Commission\2018\Resolutions \Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 screening along the southern property line to limit visual intrusion into surrounding communities, and has landscape setbacks along the single-family community bordering the project to the west. Similar multi -family apartments have been constructed in the City and none have been detrimental to public health and safety. Adequate off-street parking is provided at the site and the proximity of the project to employment centers, schools, and City parks encourages walking and non - motorized transportation. Roadway improvements along Hovley Lane East ensure efficient traffic movements near the project site. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. The proposed development complies with the development standards of the PR zoning district, including maximum building height, minimum unit sizes, and setbacks. The City's parking requirements, listed under PDMC Section 25.46.040 requires a parking ratio of two (2) parking space per unit for 768 total parking spaces. The project proposes a parking ratio of 1.82 space per unit, resulting in 699 total parking space. The applicant has requested a modification to the parking standards in accordance with the State and City density bonus provisions. Other apartment complexes have parking standards that are below the required 2 space per unit, including the adjacent Canterra Apartments. To date, staff is not aware of any on -going parking issues at existing apartment sites and the 1.82 ratio is adequate to meet the parking needs of the proposed community. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed development complies with goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, in that it provides affordable housing units in accordance with the City's Land Use & Community Character and Housing Elements. The project complies with the General Plan intent and purpose of the Town Center Neighborhood designation by developing multi -family housing within walking distance of commercial activities and meets several long-range goals of multi- family housing by including the following: mixed affordability, recreational amenities, a pedestrian focus, and affordable housing in proximity to transit and educational facilities. SECTION 5. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the subsequent MND prepared for the Project. SECTION 6. Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Proaram. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 7. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve and adopt the Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit applications for the Project. 5 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 SECTION 8. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve and adopt the Project subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "B". SECTION 9. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City's office at 73- 510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Ryan Stendell, the Secretary to the Palm Desert Planning Commission, is the custodian of the record of proceedings. SECTION 10. Notice of Determination. The Planning Commission recommends that, if the City Council approves the Project, that the City Council directs Staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of any Project approval. SECTION 11. Execution of Resolution. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission sign this Resolution and the Secretary to the Commission shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 20th day of March 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DE LUNA, GREENWOOD, GREGORY, HOLT, and PRADETTO NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: PH PRADETTO, CHAIRPERSON RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 Section Number 4. Biological Resources Section Number 5. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures BIO-1: The applicant shall ensure that any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February through August) will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are observed, construction activities must be prohibited within a 500-foot buffer around the nest until the nestlings have fledged. All construction activity within the vicinity of active nests must be conducted in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. Construction activity may encroach into the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. Mitigation Measures CR-1: If during the course of grading or construction, artifacts or other cultural resources are discovered, all grading on the site shall be halted and the applicant shall immediately notify the City Planner. A qualified archaeologist shall be called to the site by, and at the cost of, the applicant to identify the resource and recommended mitigation if the resource is culturally significant. The archaeologist will be required to provide copies of any studies or reports to the Eastern Information Center for the State of California located at the University of California Riverside and the Aqua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register. CR-2: The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be required during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the monitor shall notify a qualified archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible for Impact after Monitoring Mitigation Developer Planning Department Qualified Biologist Responsible for Monitoring Developer Planning Department Qualified Archaeologist Developer Planning Department Qualified Native American Cultural Resource Monitor Timing Prior to any Less than ground significant disturbance The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018 Timing During grading and other ground disturbing activities During grading and other ground disturbing activities Impact after Mitigation Less than significant Less than significant 7 G:\Planning\Monica °Reilly\Planning Commission\2018\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 Section Number 16. Transportation Mitigation Measures prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Office and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). The archaeologist will be required to provide copies of any studies or reports to the Eastern Information Center for the State of California located at the University of Riverside and the Agua Caliente THPO for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register. TRA 1: The applicant is responsible for the installation of the traffic signal at Hovley Lane East and the Project's entrance, prior to completion of Project construction. TRA 2: The applicant will participate in the funding or construction of off -site improvements through the payment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and City of Pahn Desert Development Impact Fees (DIF), or a fair share contribution as directed by the City. These fees, required as standard conditions, assist in alleviating cumulative impacts. The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018 Responsible for Impact after Monitoring Mitigation Developer Planning Department Developer Planning Department Timing Prior to project Less than completion Significant Prior to Less than grading and Significant other ground disturbing activities 8 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2016\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartrnents.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the adoption of these Project Approvals for the Project, or the Project Approvals themselves, Developer and City each shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action. Developer, at its sole expense shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City (including its agents, officers and employees) from any such action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City, subject to Developer's approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and at Developer's sole expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify Developer and cooperate in the defense. Developer upon such notification shall deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of City Finance Director to cover the expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of Project Approvals without Developer's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed, unless Developer materially breaches this indemnification requirement. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to the approved development standards listed in the PDMC, and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Housing Agreement (HA) with the City's Housing Department to finalize affordable housing requirements as part of this project. No less than 20% of all units within the project shall be available at affordable rents as specified in the HA. The HA shall be signed and completed by both the City and the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: 9 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission‘2016\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by the applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 8. The project is subject to the Art in Public Places program. The applicant is encouraged to utilize the fee for installation of an on -site art piece. Please contact Ms. Deborah Glickman at (760) 346-0611 to discuss the Art in Public Place process. 9. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered that require a Treatment Plan, the developer or his archeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. If requested by the Tribes, the developer or archeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition. 10. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with PDMC Section 24.16 for any landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area. 11. A minimum of an eight -foot landscape setback shall be provided along the shared property line with the Venezia community to the west. No carports, garages, or other physical parking structures shall be installed within this landscape setback. 12. All mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Environmental Assessment and Initial Study shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project. 13. Final landscape plans shall be submitted to the City's Department of Community Development and the CVWD for review and approval. The landscape plan shall conform to the landscape palate contained in the preliminary landscape plans prepared as part of this application, and shall include dense plantings of landscape material. All plants shall be a minimum of five gallons in size, and trees shall be a minimum of 24-inch box sizes. 14. The applicant shall plant a double -row of shade trees in the landscape setback abutting the southern property line of the project. The double row of trees shall be identified on the landscape plan. 10 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 15. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations made by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and as specified in the ARC Notice of Action dated March 31, 2017. 16. The applicant shall reduce building number four, as identified in the site plan, from three - stories to two -stories. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: 17. The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Any changes to the approved civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 18. The grading plan shall identify all proposed and existing utilities. 19. The applicant shall submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of PDMC Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 15. The applicant shall abide by all provisions of City of Palm Desert Ordinance 843, Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance. 16. The applicant shall submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Operation and Maintenance Section of the approved final WQMP shall be recorded with the County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Department of Public Works. 17. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drainage fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 18. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off -site improvements. Improvements shall include, but are not limited to: A. The installation of a deceleration lane on Hovley Lane East. B. The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Lane. This intersection shall accommodate crosswalks. The applicant shall intercept existing fiber optic cable from Portola Avenue to Corporate Way. C. Remove existing median island between The Sands entry and the existing Canterra Apartments entry, reconstruct a pavement section, and install a two-way left turn lane. D. The eastern access to The Sands should provide a stacking distance for a minimum of four exiting vehicles and still maintain adequate circulation for inbound traffic. E. Curb returns on Hovley Lane East must have a minimum radius of 25 feet. F. The width of the exit lane at the eastern access of The Sands shall be a minimum of 24 feet. 11 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission 12018\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT: 20. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2016 California Residential Code its appendices and standards. C. 2016 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2016 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. E. 2016 California Electrical Code. F. 2016 California Energy Code. G. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. H. 2016 California Administrative Code. I. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 20. Provide building height and area analysis to determine compliance with CBC Section 503. Justify any area increases to height and area as permitted per CBC Sections 504 and 506 21. Submit an exit plan that labels and clearly will show compliance with all required egress features such as, but not limited to, common path of travel, the required number of exits and separation, occupant load, required width, continuity, travel distance, elevators, etc. CBC 1001.1 22. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1265. 23. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2013 CBC Chapters 11A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 24. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1027.5 & 11 B- 206) 25. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11 B-705.1.2.5 and 11 B- 705.1.2.2. The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supersede the State requirement. 26. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Department of Building and Safety. 27. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and then submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Pools and Spas for public use are required to be accessible. 28. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per PDMC, Title 5. 12 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2016\Resolutions\Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 29. All contractors and/or owner -builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 30. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1265 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.28. Compliance with Ordinance 1265 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from the street, height from grade, height from the street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1265 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. 31. Please contact Department of Building & Safety Cherie Williams, Building Permit Specialists II, at the Department of Building and Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 32. Fire Department emergency vehicle apparatus access road locations and design shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuances. 33. Fire Department water system(s) for fire protection shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuances. 13 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission 12018\Resolutions \Res. No. 2699 The Sands Apartments.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 Chair DeLuna remarked that if the subject matter is continued,, there will be a public hearing on July 18. MR. WEINSTEIN clarified that the gentleman not being present tonight will not eliminate him from speaking at the July 18 meeting. Chair DeLuna replied that is correct. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair Pradetto moved to, By Minute Motion, continue Case No. CUP 17-089 to July 18. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION, of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 412-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East, east of Portola Avenue. Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 (Lee Newell, Walnut Creek, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to a date uncertain. He said the Commission received many letters from surrounding developments that are opposed to the proposed project. In addition, staff asked that the applicant update their Mitigated Negative Declaration to reference the adopted General Plan. The continuance of this item would allow the appropriate amount of time for the applicant to update the documents. It would also allow time for staff to review the environmental documents and send out a new notice for the next public hearing. Chair DeLuna understood that she could open the public hearing for public comments. However, the Planning Commission will not discuss or respond to any comments. She asked if that is correct. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. He noted that not only is the public able to comment tonight, the public will have an opportunity to comment at the next public hearing. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. RICK MORAN, Canterra Apartments, Palm Springs, California, stated that Canterra Apartments (Canterra) would be negatively impacted by the proposed 412-unit apartment project. He said the project is over scale, overly dense, and 3 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\6-20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 overly tall. The project would take away the mountain views from most of their tenants that are adjacent to the project. He said that the height of Canterra is 24 feet. He noted that the two-story units for this project have elements that go up to 34 feet and the three-story units go up to 39 feet. Mr. Moran stated that five of the eight three-story units are along Canterra's property line, which would cut out the mountain views. He expressed that people will lose their views and privacy; the project will impact traffic and overcrowd the nearby elementary school. MR. STEVEN SMITH, Palm Desert, California, stated that he is opposed to the scale and size of the proposed project. He said that he had no idea this meeting was taking place tonight until he found out through a neighbor. He also said many property owners in Venezia are part-time residents and others are on vacation. They did not know about this meeting. He suggested that this item be delayed so other property owners have an opportunity to express their concerns. MR. TRAVIS VAN LIGHTEN, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, on behalf of Canterra, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for the consideration to continue the proposed project and the content of a letter their office sent to the City of Palm Desert. He looked forward to reviewing the revisions and the proposals from the applicant. Mr. Van Lighten requested that they are given enough time to adequately review any of the additional documents that might come forward. For a project of this magnitude and with so many residents in an uproar, it deserves a thorough vetting and review from both the Planning Commission and staff. MS. PATTI MC NANCE, Palm Desert, California, communicated that she purchased her home in Venezia about five years ago with the intent of retiring in Palm Desert. They have a beautiful view from the back of their property, which is right against the proposed project. She voiced her concern that there is a zero setback, and as a result, she would see a garage in her backyard. Additionally, there is a huge pile of sand that would need to be moved. The dust will create environmental issues, which would affect all of the residents in Venezia. She knows there are mitigations in place, but they need to go above and beyond the mitigations. Secondly, the density is an issue and she hoped that scaling the project back is considered. She noted that there are three concessions; however, she does see a concession for the zero lot line. It is a fourth concession, which she does not see in the staff report. MS. DIANE WOHL, Palm Desert, Califomia, said that she would piggyback on what others have said. She voiced that she and her neighbors are very upset in which the proposed project has been handled and not communicated to the residents. She felt that their trust for the city and the people that represent them has not been honored. Increasing the density of the development would create significant traffic problems and would adversely affect their health due to the school traffic that is backed up twice a day. In addition, three-story buildings in a residential area are not appropriate. She noted that there are no residential communities in Palm Desert that have three-story buildings and they do not want 4 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 to be the first community. It is not fair and residents in the area felt that they have not been taken into consideration. Ms. Wohl commented that they moved into Venezia as retirees because of the peace, the quiet, the lack of traffic, and for health reasons. They also object to the setback and parking variances being proposed, which they did not know about until a few days before the meeting. Last she quoted the words from the Code Compliance website page, ". . . 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." She stated that she would like the city to do just that. MR DAVID VIDULICH, Palm Desert, California, stated that the proposed project was originally approved for 308 units, which that alone is a high -density project that would create more traffic. He voiced that the applicant is changing the project to three-story buildings and 412 units. He asked if there is an Environmental Impact Report on the project. Chair DeLuna responded that the Planning Commission is not responding to questions, they are only receiving comments this evening. MR. VIDULICH remarked that environmental studies should be looked into because the project is too big for the parcel and for the people that live in the area. He stated he was not notified of the public hearing. He found out about the meeting through one of his neighbors and felt that was not right. He commented that he is not worried so much with the view. He believed that when you purchase a lot, you do not buy it as a view lot. Mr. Vidulich said fire codes could possibly not be met with so much density and no setbacks. He stated there should be more environmental studies done and residents need to be notified of the public hearings. MR. ORRIN WEINSTEIN, Palm Desert, California, stated that he is the vice president for the Venezia homeowners' association (HOA). He had the opportunity to meet the representative for the proposed project. During the presentation to the HOA, he believed that some of the items the representative discussed were glossed over, which are now being brought to light. He noted that he and his wife drove in from Scottsdale, Arizona, to attend this meeting. He is concerned that the project would hurt the value of his property. He has been living in Venezia for 14 years, and his expectation for his property is that the value increases. They will no longer have a quiet neighborhood and there will be dust. He stated that the city is not going to pay a cleaning crew to clean each one of their homes. He voiced that he wants the Planning Commission to think about that since he has been paying taxes in Palm Desert for 14 years. All the residents in their community pay taxes and they all should be heard. He hoped they all come to an amicable decision on moving forward and thanked the Planning Commission for their time. 5 G;\Planning\Monica OHeilly\Planning Commission \2017\Mlnutes\&20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 MS. DIANA ALTORFER, Palm Desert, California, stated that she is married to the Venezia HOA chairman. Her husband was told earlier in the day that the meeting was cancelled. She said she was on the phone for 30 minutes to let people know the meeting was cancelled and the proposed project was off the table. However, they found out that the project is not off the table. She expressed that there were people prepared to talk, who may not be available for the next meeting, are not present tonight to comment. She voiced that the communication for this project has been bad. Residents in the area did not know of the increased density and that it would allow variables. She said they moved to Palm Desert 14 years ago from Connecticut. They bought the house when there were no model homes and bought the home with trust in the community. Ms. Altorfer mentioned that her husband had seen the presentation, and he was planning to give the presentation to the community. It had been a month since the chairman received the presentation. They did not have time to introduce the project to the community because they had a board meeting scheduled for June 21. She said she blasted a newsletter to the community with the little information she had, and thanked her friends at Canterra who were able to supply her with pictures and information. She stated that Ms. McNance currently has a view of the mountains; however, she will have a view of a 13-foot wall if the project is approved. Ms. Altorfer voiced that these are the things that people need to know about. She was very disappointed on how the process works in Palm Desert. MS. TAMMY VILLARINNO, Corona Del Mar, California, communicated that she manages Canterra. She stated that the proposed project will have a negative impact on their residents. She assumed that the additional units (306 units to 412 units) are because the applicant may have agreed to additional affordable housing, which gives them a density bonus. She noted that Canterra has moderate housing that will expire in 2019. She stated that the three-story buildings will impact the views of Canterra residents on the west side. She said they apply view premiums on units with those views and that those will be eliminated by the project. She also said there will be dust and noise for the residents during construction of the project. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair Pradetto asked staff how the residents would be notified and incorporated into the discussions. Mr. Ceja explained that staff notified property owners who were within 300 feet of the project. He stated that some owners were not notified because they were not within the 300 feet of the project. He noted that he received a lot of emails from property owners. As long as he has email addresses, he would be able to notify residents of the next public hearing. Vice Chair Pradetto addressed the audience and asked them to share the information with their neighbors. 6 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission 12017Winutes\6-20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 Commissioner Greenwood moved to, By Minute Motion, continue Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Pradetto and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). Chair DeLuna thanked everyone in the audience for attending the meeting. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapters 25.02, 25.04, 25.10, 25.16, 25.22, and 25.28 of the City's Zoning Map for consistency with the adopted General Plan. Case No. ZOA/CZ 17-105 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja outlined the salient points in the staff report (staff report is available at www.citvofpalmdesert.orat Commissioner Greenwood interjected and asked what the density ratio for PR-22 is. Mr. Ceja replied PR-22 is Planned Residential (PR), 22 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the zone would always be followed by the ratio throughout all the maps. Mr. Ceja responded that there is some flexibility in the PR zones. Staff identified the max densities for PR zones on the map. He continued with his presentation, and noted that staff only updated six zoning sections. He stated that staff will come back to the Planning Commission for other sections that need to be updated. Staff felt that the six sections being considered are the most impacted by the General Plan and recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. He offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair Pradetto mentioned that on page 04-3, Table 25.04-1: Zoning Districts under Overlay Districts, still lists Mixed -Use Overlay and asked if it should be removed. Mr. Ceja replied that Mixed -Use Overly should be removed. Commissioner Lindsay Holt understood that they would go through this process again with additional chapters. For future chapter amendments, she asked if they could receive a redline version of the text changes. Mr. Ceja replied absolutely. 7 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\&20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 412-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for an undeveloped 18- acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East, east of Portola Avenue. Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 (New Cities Investment Partners. LLC. Walnut Creek. California. Applicant). Mr. Ceja recommended that this item be continued to a date uncertain to allow staff to re -notice the public hearing. Staff also received a letter from an attorney representing the Canterra Apartments, and staff would like time to address the attorney's comments. He presented a brief staff report (staff report is available at www.citvofpalmdesert.ora). Staff recommended a continuance and to hear public comments. Mr. Stendell, Director of Community Development, added that staff received significant comments from adjacent property owners. Staff recommends the continuance to allow staff to review the comments. There was also a request from the residents to hold the public hearing during the fall when more property owners are back in Palm Desert. Chair DeLuna invited public comments FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. KATHERINE JENSON, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, California, noted Rutan & Tucker is the counsel for the Canterra Apartments. She highlighted some issues for the Commission's consideration. She requested to re -notice the public hearing and complete a new environmental document. In regard to the 1989 development agreement, she said the zoning would be changed to provide for a total of 612 units, which half have been constructed (Canterra) and the other half are to be constructed on the vacant property. The development agreement is binding and effective as to the Canterra project; therefore, they are surprised there would be a unilateral modification to that agreement. Ms. Jenson said the Canterra Apartments are still a party to that agreement. She also said for 30 years Canterra has been subject to the agreement and have been collecting lower rent on the 31 low income housing units. The development agreement is still in effect and it cannot be modified without Canterra's consent. She communicated that they do consent to the increase in density. It is also double- dipping to give the proposed project a density bonus on top of the density it already received going from zero units to the acre when it was open space to what is now, which is 171/2 units per acre. Lastly, she said an environmental impact report is going to be required given the magnitude of the project. MR. RICK MORAN, Palm Springs, California, noted he is the owner of the Canterra Apartments. He and his business partner have been subject to the development agreement since ownership and they have complied with the agreement. They do not believe the City could unilaterally change the development agreement without Canterra's consent. Additionally, they do not 13 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-15-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 believe that the proposed 412 units could be built without their consent until the development agreement expires. He stated that the proposed project is zoned for 10 percent affordable housing. Therefore, under State code the percentage of affordable housing units cannot be increased. He noted Canterra and all the surrounding neighbors are opposed to the proposed project. The proposed project is grossly overscale, dense, and tall. He voiced the proposed height would block their views to the west and there would be more traffic in the area. MS. GERALDINE DAVIS, Palm Desert, California, pointed out that the first slide Mr. Ceja displayed on the screen was not the same representation of the apartment buildings they were shown at their Portola Country Club community meeting. Mr. Stendell interjected that the Mr. Ceja's presentation was extremely abbreviated. The whole presentation would be given at a future meeting. Mr. Ceja displayed the additional renderings on the screen. MR. ROB BERNHEIMER, Indian Wells, California, noted he is representing the Venezia community. He highlighted and asked that Commission to consider the following concerns with the proposed project: 1) zero lot lines for the garages and suggested setbacks of 10 to 15 feet from Venezia's residents' backyards; and 2) the proposed three-story buildings would be impactful and suggested the buildings be spread out and limited to two stories. MS. DIANE WOHL, Palm Desert, California, stated the density at the proposed location is inappropriate and incongruent. The three-story buildings are too dense for the proposed project site. She noted that some amenities for the project are duplicated with amenities available at the Hovley Soccer Park. She recommended removing some of the amenities being proposed for the project so there could be a bigger footprint for more buildings that are not three stories. MS. ROCIO MARTINEZ, Palm Desert, California, said she lives in Venezia and her property would be most impacted by the proposed three-story buildings that will be almost 40 feet tall. She mentioned that they currently have sand dunes that are approximately 15 feet tall, which she could see from her backyard and could provide Mr. Ceja with pictures. She commented that recently she had coyotes jump over her wall. The coyotes scared her because she has young children and a dog. She shared this story to paint a picture of how close and how greatly impactful it would be to have 40 feet buildings looking over her backyard. Ms. Martinez communicated she chose to live in Palm Desert for the privacy, the quality of life, and for the schools and amenities that are nearby. She did not know what would be a great recommendation, but pleaded for the City to take a look at the proposed project. In conclusion, she supports low income housing, but not at the expense of the quality of life for the local residents. Residents would lose their privacy and schools would be overpopulated. 14 G:\PlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission 12017\Minutes\8-15.17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 MR. ORRIN WEINSTEIN, Palm _ Desert, California, said he is on the homeowners' association for Venezia. He voiced there are 94 homeowners that are very upset about the proposed project. The homeowners knew moving into Venezia that there would be a development; however, they were not expecting a 412-unit apartment project. He asked for the Commission's consideration and possibly have the proposed plans reworked. MR. DAVID NEWMAN, Palm Desert, California, respectfully asked Chair DeLuna to recuse herself from hearing and voting on the proposed project before it goes to the City Council. He was led to believe that Chair DeLuna's primary occupation is in the field of affordable housing and low income, which to him presents an apparent and obvious conflict of interest. He said his strong feeling on this matter is further evidence by the demeanor and tone of voice that he saw during the previous meeting. He felt Chair DeLuna does not possess the attributes to fairly assess the impact that The Sands project will have upon the existing neighborhoods of Portola Country Club, Venezia, and Canterra Apartments. He stated a fair and impartial decision would be influenced by Chair DeLuna sitting on the Planning Commission. He questioned the Chair's personal agenda and loyalties, whether it is for the City Council or to the politicians in Sacramento. He said it does not appear that Chair DeLuna has the citizens of the existing communities' best interest at heart. MS. JUNE ENGBLOM, Palm Desert, California, commented she lives in Portola Country Club. She voiced that The Sands project would look like the Magic Kingdom on Hovley Lane. She asked if students from Carter Elementary School would be uprooted to make room for kids that would live at The Sands, or would class sizes be increased. She pointed out that three members on the ARC expressed concern with the size of the project; however, only one member voted against the project. She agreed with getting rid of some amenities and adding more two-story buildings. If they are trying to accommodate low income housing, she asked why not consider 26 percent of the 306 units, then there would be 80 units for low income housing. She hoped a compromise would be offered. MS. PAULA SCHOFIELD, Palm Desert, California, said she lives in Venezia and her backyard would be backing up to proposed building number 12. She is a single woman living in the home and expressed her concern with garages being built on a zero lot line. She is concerned people would jump over the wall into her backyard. She stated she has serious environmental sensitivities, and also has a concern with auto fumes due to garages being so close to her backyard. With no further comments from the public, Vice Chair Pradetto asked staff how they plan to address comments made this evening for the next hearing. Mr. Ceja responded that staff would meet with the developer to discuss the evening's action and review letters received from the attorneys and adjacent neighbors. 15 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-15-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 Vice Chair Pradetto inquired if the Planning Commission would be provided with a response. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Vice Chair Pradetto requested that the response by staff is broken down issue by issue, so it is easy to follow. He asked staff if the applicant was present. Mr. Ceja remarked that the applicant decided not to attend once he found out that the item was going to be continued. Vice Chair Pradetto also requested discussion regarding Assembly Bill 2222, and whether there is discretion in the concessions. He noted that the staff report indicated there are three concessions, which one concession is the reduction in the parking count and garages with zero setbacks. He felt the concession was counted as one. However, it could easily be categorized as two concessions leading to four concessions, so he requested staff's opinion on that matter. Commissioner Holt commented she has a number of other questions she would like answered at the next hearing. She said she would email the questions to staff. Vice Chair Pradetto moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XIII. COMMENTS Commissioner Greenwood profusely thanked Ms. O'Reilly for the snacks. Commissioner Gregory agreed. 16 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission12017\Minutes\&15-17.dacx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION VI. CONSENT CALENDAR FEBRUARY 20, 2018 A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 2018. Rec: Approved as presented. Upon a motion by Commissioner DeLuna, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 412-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue. Case No. PP/EA 16-394 (New Cities Investment Partners, LLC., Walnut Creek. California, Applicantl. Principal Planner Eric Ceja noted that the applicant met with the owner of Canterra Apartments prior to the Planning Commission meeting and changes to the project were proposed. The proposed changes include: eliminating 12 units (412 to 400 units) and reducing some of the building heights along the eastern property line from three stories to two stories. He continued and presented the staff report (staff report is available at www.citvofbalmdesert.orb). He mentioned the applicant provided sight lines for Venezia and agreed to relocate the garages. The applicant also agreed to plant a double row of trees along the southern property line to limit the visibility from Portola Country Club and the proposed project. Lastly, he said copies of letters from surrounding property owners were given to the Planning Commission before the meeting and the City Attorney would like to address one of the letters. City Attorney Robert Hargreaves addressed a letter from Ms. Katherine Jenson, an attorney with Rutan & Tucker, LLP. He believed the City could address the issues raised in the letter. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the proposed project and make a decision based on a land use planning perspective, 2 G.\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 and not worry about the legal arguments. The City will address the legal arguments as they move forward. Mr. Ceja recommended approval of the proposed project to the City Council. Chairman Pradetto briefly explained the process of the public hearing. He asked that the audience withhold any comments, clapping, boos, or jeers until it is their turn for public comment. He wanted to make sure everyone has a chance to be heard and be respected. He asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner John Greenwood said one of the Conditions of Approval mentions a housing agreement and the dispersion of low-income units. He asked staff to explain the dispersion of low-income units throughout the proposed project and when it is reviewed. Mr. Ceja explained that the applicant is conditioned to enter a housing agreement with the City's Housing Authority. The City's practice is to disperse the affordable units throughout the project site and between different unit types. Therefore, the affordable units would not be concentrated in any single building. Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell added that the City's Housing Authority is not a supporter of restricting low-income units to specific numbers (101, 105, etc.). The Housing Authority prefers that it is a little more fluid. The housing agreement is an instrument in place to guarantee the low-income units are throughout the project. He said the City desires some level flexibility and Housing staff works with the applicant to ensure that happens. Vice Chairman Ron Gregory asked staff to indicate the 12 units that have been eliminated. Mr. Ceja responded that he would let the applicant go into more detail regarding changes to the proposed project. However, he believed the units being eliminated are in Building No. 1. Building No. 1 would be changed to a two -stories, as a result, 12 units would be eliminated. Chairman Pradetto asked when the applicant and staff agreed to the reduction of units. Mr. Ceja replied within the last hour. Chairman Pradetto asked if there is no visual representation of the new changes. Mr. Ceja replied no. Chairman Pradetto inquired if there is a requirement for the garage units. 3 G \Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes \2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Mr. Ceja responded that the City's parking standards for multi -family or apartments are 50 percent of the parking provided shall be shaded such as a carport or garage. He noted that the applicant has provided both options. The property owner could charge more for a rental unit with a garage. Chairman Pradetto asked if the removal of the garage units would affect the sight lines and would the wall still be 9 or 11 feet tall. Mr. Ceja replied no. He said the existing perimeter walls would not change. As proposed with the garages, there would be a six -foot -high wall with a building above the wall that would be visible. However, without the garages, there would only be a six -foot -high wall. Chairman Pradetto said a concern that was previously mentioned is the site location sits several feet higher than the adjoining properties on the east and the sight line visual did not reflect that. Mr. Ceja responded that the grade as shown to staff is within 12 inches of the surrounding properties. He stated there is a lot of sand that would be brought down within a foot. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked how much space there is between the houses and the project site. Mr. Ceja replied that the graphic indicates 97 feet between building faces and pointed to the area. Chairman Pradetto asked what the Planning Commission is being asked to approve. Mr. Ceja responded that staff is asking the Planning Commission to approve a 400- unit apartment project with a density bonus. Chairman Pradetto asked if the Planning Commission would be making any determination on the environmental document. Mr. Ceja replied no. The City Council will make any determination on the environmental document. Chairman Pradetto commented that under the City's code, the setbacks on a Planned Residential zone are set through the Precise Plan application process. He asked how the Planning Commission could recommend a zero -lot -line on the proposed project without going through the Precise Plan process. Mr. Ceja responded that there are multiple application entitlements that staff takes to the final approving authority. With the current project, the applicant is proposing 4 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes\2-20-18 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the density bonus which requires City Council approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission should look at the Precise Plan as part of their decision; however, the project goes to the City Council for final approval. Vice Chairman Gregory clarified that the applicant has proposed garage units because they could charge more money for those units. The garages have nothing to do with the density bonus and carports are allowed. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Chairman Pradetto mentioned that the Findings in the resolution states "the Planning Commission further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts ..." Therefore, the Planning Commission is being asked to say there are no significant findings. He said it might likely be true; however, they are in the middle of the comment period and they have not received or responded to all the comments. He asked how staff expects the Planning Commission to predict in that circumstance. Mr. Ceja responded that staff provided the Planning Commission with a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for review and comment. He said the Commission can discuss anything they are not comfortable within the MND. Mr. Hargreaves made clear that the recommendation to be made by the Planning Commission is based on the record that was provided by staff. He stated the comment period has not closed. The comment period will close before it goes to the City Council. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. LEE NEWELL, New Cities Investment Partners, LLC., Walnut Creek, California, stated that he met with Mr. Ceja, Mr. Moran (owner of Canterra Apartments), and Mr. Moran's attorney before the Planning Commission meeting. He said they have not had an opportunity to meet and discuss the proposed project. He felt they all arrived to a middle ground and a game plan, but have not nailed everything down. He noted that his development team is present to answer any questions. He shared that he started visiting the desert 68 years ago and has had a residence in the desert for 30 years. He bought the project site because he felt it is a perfect property for the proposed use. He believed Palm Desert is in need of affordable housing and somewhat of an epidemic at this time. In addition, he has been doing 80/20 deals which are 20 percent affordable and 80 percent market rate since 1984. He mentioned he did the first density bonus that the State of California approved, as well as, the second school mitigation program. He has been doing mostly family housing bond deals and four percent tax credits for many years, and felt they would do a great job on the proposed project. They plan on 5 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes \2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 building the finest class "A" luxury apartment community in the desert with generously sized one-, two-, and three -bedroom units that include top quality finishes. The proposed project would also include a clubhouse. He said there has not been a market -rate apartment building of any size built in the desert for the past nine years since the recession. He said they are able to make this project economically work because of their financing vehicle that is facilitated by the 20 percent affordable units; therefore, it is a win -win situation and a good thing for the City. Mr. Newell noted that in the last 11 years they have only produced 50 very - low -income units, and there is a remaining 1,051 affordable units that need to be provided to meet State requirements. He also noted that they would have 82 workforce very -low-income units, which would be spread throughout the project. If they reduce the project by 12 units as mentioned earlier, there might be a couple of very -low-income units Tess. Approximately nine months ago, they met with the Venezia homeowners' association president to present the layout of the project. At that time, there was an agreement with the proposed project. However, that has changed and they are now trying to be a good neighbor by moving the garages away. He briefly went over the traffic study and noted that the traffic signal, median, and the turn lane would improve traffic in the area. Mr. Newell disclosed that the project was approved in 1989 and it contributed 20 acres to the soccer park. In regard to Portola Country Club (PCC), he met with the manager and the manager did not feel there were any issues. He let the manager of PCC know that they were proposing a double row of 24-inch box trees so PCC residents cannot see the apartments. He noted face of the building to face of the building is 117 feet from PCC and 97 feet from Venezia. He referred to the General Plan use for a town center neighborhood, which shows three pictures with three-story residential use. Based on discussions with Mr. Moran, they will have 10 two-story buildings and only five three-story buildings. He said one of the three-story buildings will be along the eastern boundary and the other three-story buildings will be at the center of the project. He explained that Building No. 1 would be reduced to a two-story building and noted that the parking ratio changes with the reduction of the 12 units. Building Nos. 6, 7, and 10 will be reduced to two stories. Building No. 11 will remain three stories and Building No. 3 will become three stories with a total of 400 apartment units. He stated after almost 30 years, it is time for the property to be developed and thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Commissioner DeLuna asked staff if there are other projects in the City of Palm Desert with three-story buildings or are planned for three-story buildings. Mr. Ceja replied there is one existing three-story apartment building on Deep Canyon Road near Shadow Hills Road, south of Highway 111. He said there are other sites planned for three-story apartments in north Palm Desert. Chairman Pradetto asked Mr. Moran if he planned on speaking. 6 G \Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes\2-20-18 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. RICK MORAN, Canterra Apartments, Palm Springs, California, thanked Mr. Newell for meeting with him and his attorney. They all put their heads together and felt Mr. Newell made a lot of concessions and appreciated that he has agreed to lower Building Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 10 from three stories to two stories. The changes eliminate view blockage from their project. He believed Mr. Newell is trying to be a good neighbor by removing carports behind Venezia and kept buildings at two stories. He also realized that there is never a perfect solution, but he felt satisfied with the arrangement they have agreed to and hoped the project could move forward. Commissioner Greenwood asked staff to clarify the number of units and the number of buildings going down to two stories and one building going to three stories. Mr. Ceja pointed to the site plan and said Building No. 3 would go from two stories to three stories, which would become similar to Building No. 14. Vice Chairman Gregory inquired if Building No. 3 would then lengthen. Mr. Ceja responded that Building Nos. 3 and 5 would lengthen. MR. LOREN CAMPBELL, Palm Desert, California, commented that he bought a home in Venezia a few months ago. He is concerned with the sight lines and the two-story buildings. However, now there is so much confusion with the changes made before the meeting and he has no concept of what is really going on. He noted that the site plan indicates two buildings that are numbered 14. He would want to look at the MND document to see what the impact will be on the schools. He urged the Planning Commission to not make a decision on the project, defer until the public comments are closed, and staff has had time to address public comments. MR. DAVID NEWMAN, Palm Desert, California, stated that based on the modifications, he would submit his written objection to the original plan for the proposed project. He said he will protect his interest as a resident of Venezia at another time, if necessary. MR. JAMES GUGINO, Palm Desert, California, said he and his brother bought a house in Venezia as a second home because they like the area. The area is beautiful and well kept. However, they discovered that more than 400 apartment units are being proposed which is like a small city. He voiced his concern with the three-story buildings. He pointed to the site plan and asked what are the red boxes. Mr. Stendell responded that the red boxes indicate garages. 7 G \Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. GUGINO stated that 400 apartment units are a large amount. He said the Planning Commission would also be concerned if they had two-story and three- story buildings being built across the street from their home. He mentioned he paid over $900,000 for his home and it does not make sense to have an apartment complex in his area. He understood there is a need for apartments, but there have to be other properties available to build apartments. He felt the homeowners in Venezia should be protected. MS. DIANA ALTOFER, Palm Desert, California, asserted that Mr. Gugino is directly affected by the proposed project. She stated that the garages are being eliminated; however, there is no buffer. She also stated they did not receive a scale model to see the ratio of the project. She said there are going to be 594 homes looking at apartment buildings. She was glad that the garages were eliminated because she felt they are a fire hazard and a perfect place for middle school kids to hang out. She referred to dust removal and noted that the report states it is insignificant. She voiced that the size of sand mounds are big and she does not believe it will not make a difference. In addition, there will be a three-story building overlooking the kindergarten play yard and has notified the school's superintendent. She suggested the building be moved in a different way so it is not overlooking the play yard. Ms. Altofer listed all the proposed amenities, which would be next to their sleepy neighborhood. She stated that the project is contrary to what they thought they were moving next to. MS. SUSAN YOUMANS, Palm Desert, California, shared that the City's core values and moral code include honesty and integrity. So she asked why the project was brought up during the summer when many residents were not in town. She asked why the City and the developer get several months to prepare and residents get three minutes to oppose. She asked why their opinions do not matter. She asked what makes the City think that the project would not affect the residents of Chaparral, Silver Sands, and the other complexes along Portola Avenue. She asked if more could be done than just a small blurb in The Desert Sun and letters to a handful of adjacent homeowners. She asked who is going to be responsible for the cracks in their windows, sheetrock, and brick walls from the excavators and heavy equipment. She asked how will the residents be compensated. Will they need to hire lawyers? The City's website calls Palm Desert a unique, beautiful desert city and a premier resort destination. If the City continues to allow three- to five -story buildings to be constructed, she asked how long will it take residents to decide to move to a different Coachella Valley city. She stated the three-story project will obstruct views and asked the Planning Commission to not vote to change the landscape of Palm Desert. MS. JUNE ENGBLOM, Palm Desert, California, requested a few extra minutes to address the Planning Commission because she already had written her comments, but the facts have changed. She said during the meetings in the summer, residents brought up the following concerns: traffic, the views, noise, and water among other issues. The MND indicates there will be a traffic signal at 8 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Jasmine Court, but there is only the promise of a signal warrant analysis. However, the signal would be installed after post project condition, and after construction and full occupancy of the proposed project so who knows if a signal will ever be installed. There are also painted lines proposed on Portola Avenue to make two right -turn lanes onto Hovley Lane East. The bike lane appears to be gone, which could become a safety issue. Concerning the view, the MND claims their views are already obstructed by trees, carports, or brick walls —so what are a few three-story buildings going to matter. She asked the Planning Commission to take a look at the site and her backyard so they can see for themselves. The noise, the MND predicts there will not be temporary, permanent, or periodic increase ambient noise levels. With bulldozers and 865 new neighbors, the adjacent residents will certainly experience increased noise. In regard to the water, the Coachella Valley Water District told the City there is no problem. If there is not a problem, she asked why are they being told not to flush each time they use the bathroom. The MND mentions that no reptiles or mammals were observed. However, she hears coyotes howling in the morning and lizards on her wall. In addition, she sees hawks, doves, roadrunners, other birds, and hears owls at night. In the MND, Mr. Ceja signs off that the project could have a significant effect on the environment. Supposedly revisions by the developer have been made, she asked what revisions have been done. Over and over again, the MND states "allowed under the General Plan." She voiced that perhaps the real problem is the General Plan. She asked why did the City Council approve multi -story buildings. She asked if the views and overcrowding do not matter to the Council. She asked how were the residents informed of the General Plan. Was there some small tidbit in The Desert Sun? If people were to be polled on how they feel about two- to five -story buildings in Palm Desert, she bet that most people would respond no. She mentioned she received 78 signatures opposing the project. She referred back to the MND which states "allowed under the General Plan," the City could build seven to 40 units per acre anywhere. So on the Hovley Lane East site, there could be a minimum of 126 to 720 apartments. She pointed out that the General Plan would allow up to 720 apartments on a tiny piece of land. She asked that the Planning Commission consider the applicant's request carefully and on how they are impacting the future of beautiful Palm Desert before they vote in favor of three-story buildings. MS. DIANE RICHEY, Palm Desert, California, communicated that she walks her dog at the Palm Desert Civic Center two to three times a week and is always astonished by the beauty of the surrounding area that the City has created for the residents. She shared that the City Council's bios on the website mention that many of them enjoy the outdoors and one day they are going to look out and see three-story buildings. She felt that three-story buildings are not appropriate on the proposed site. She said the developer is from northern California and he might not care what happens in southern California. She stated the City needs to take care of the Palm Desert residents. If the City cares, they need to keep the buildings at two -stories. With the original plan of 306 units, the developer could still provide 60 low-income units. She hoped when it is time for the Planning Commission to vote, 9 G.\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the Commission thinks about all things in question. If the Commission lived next door to the proposed project, she asked how would they vote. MS. COLLEEN HILL, Palm Desert, California, said she became a resident in Palm Desert five years ago. She chose to buy in Venezia because the views were amazing and it was a lovely community surrounded by lovely buildings. She stated that three-story buildings do not fit in the proposed area. She would not have bought a home in Venezia if she knew there would be three-story buildings. She voiced her concern with giving the developer a lot of concessions. She asked why the City is allowing the developer to have zero -lot -line setbacks and three-story buildings. Secondly, if PCC could have a 127-foot separation, why can they not have the same for Venezia. Thirdly, she is concerned with property taxes. There is going to an impact on the schools, police, and fire. So she asked if Palm Desert residents are going to be hit with extra assessments to pay for the additional services. MS. ROCIO MARTINEZ, Palm Desert, California, stated she is a resident in Venezia and one of the six residents that would be impacted by the project. She mentioned that she is a banker and not familiar with terms that have been brought up during the meeting. She shared that she specifically chose to live Palm Desert because she was raised in the Coachella Valley. She attended school at the University of Riverside and moved back to the desert because she now has two kids. She chose Palm Desert to have a good quality of life for her kids. If she would have known about the monstrous project in her backyard, she would not have bought her home in Venezia. Just a year ago, she bought her dream home in a nice and quiet area, and it is quickly turning into a nightmare with three-story buildings being proposed. She mentioned even if the sand dunes are leveled, she would still be able to see the apartments and they would be able to see her. In addition, her children will soon be attending Carter Elementary School, which she has no choice unless she enrolls her children in a private school in Rancho Mirage. With the recent tragedy in Las Vegas and the vantage point that the three-story buildings will have over the schoolyard, she would be scared for her children. She said if she could, she would sell her home. However, she just purchased her dream home and has used every dollar that she had from selling her home in Riverside to be in Palm Desert. She does not understand why the project needs so many amenities. She expressed that the project does not need to be in their backyard, it does not need to be near their children, and it does not need to be in Palm Desert. Ms. Martinez stated she does not think the Planning Commission would vote in favor of the project if it was in their backyard, if they had children, or affect their privacy. MR. JIM KENNEDY, Palm Desert, California, stated his concern is with noise pollution. He said there are going to be more cars around PCC and Venezia. He commented currently there is no noise. He said the MND states the traffic would not have a significant impact; however, he believed ambient noise would be impacted. He noted that PCC has approximately 499 residents and the proposed 10 G \Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes12-20-18 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 project will have an additional 400 residents. He stated the proposed amenities are also going to impact noise pollution; therefore, he is not in favor. MR. DAN STICKELS, Palm Desert, California, said he lives in PCC. He thought the open space would be a golf course or similar; not a high-rise building. He asked if the applicant is prepared to repair cracks to floors and walls for the residents that live next to the proposed project due to the construction. He mentioned when trees were removed along the property line, many homes got cracks in the floors and walls. He had a concern with lights coming from cars and felt the applicant should propose a higher wall. MR. ROBERT AULT, Palm Desert, California, stated he is a resident of Venezia. He does not live next to the affected area; however, he is affected because he lives off Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane East. He communicated that the traffic is already impacted due to the elementary school, and adding the proposed number of units to the area will impact him gravely. He voiced that he does not appreciate the traffic and the proposed two-story buildings. They are not necessary and could be built somewhere else. He is concerned with the density and utilities, and the possibility of increased taxes. He stated concessions have been made to the developer and asked why the residents do not have concessions. Commissioner Greenwood asked staff if Burrtec reviewed and approved the trash enclosures. Mr. Ceja replied that Burrtec did review the plans and approved the project. Commissioner Greenwood commented that the housing density bonus is a matrix by the State of California, known as Assembly Bill No. 2222. He asked staff what are the requirements when someone is applying for a housing density bonus. Mr. Ceja explained that if an applicant is proposing to utilize the State's density bonus provisions and they provide a certain level of low-income affordable units, the applicant can receive a density bonus. In this case, the applicant is proposing 20 percent of their units at a different income level; therefore, they are able to receive a 35 percent density bonus. He said in exchange for the density bonus and the applicant providing additional affordable units, the City can grant concessions for the development which is being proposed by the applicant. In terms of the history of the proposed site, Commissioner Greenwood inquired if it is correct that the site has been zoned and entitled since 1989 for apartment use. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the 1989 development agreement is still in effect for another couple of years. 11 G \Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes \2-20-18 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Mr. Ceja replied that the development agreement expires in 2019. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that he is concerned with the CEQA provision even though the Commission has been advised that it is a technical matter and to not be concerned with CEQA. However, he is concerned with any decision the Commission makes might be impacted later by things they do not know about. He requested clarification. Mr. Hargreaves responded that the comment period on the CEQA document does not expire for another week or two weeks. Therefore, inevitably there is an opportunity for comments to come in that would not go before the Planning Commission. He indicated that CEQA does not require that an advisory body have a completed CEQA document before the advisory body makes a recommendation to the final authority. He stated when the City Council considers the project, staff will have a complete CEQA document. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the 1989 development agreement would have traction in court if the owner of Canterra Apartments were to dispute the proposed project. Mr. Hargreaves answered that the City does not believe the development agreement would have traction in court. Typically, he said development agreements exclusively provide entitlements for a particular piece of property. He said a development agreement is not like Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) where it is promised to a neighboring property. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if one were to assume, because of the relatively updated General Plan, would the General Plan supersede the 1989 development agreement. Mr. Hargreaves responded that it depends on the development agreement. He said the 1989 development agreement was kind of at the beginning of development agreements. In a current development agreement, the City would be very explicit about the entitlements that were grandfathered in. It would provide that no subsequent changes affect the property, etc. The 1989 agreement provides that the developer donate certain property, which is now the soccer park in exchange, the City zoned the property to permit 612 units. He stated that as long as the City has entitlements covering the property to permit 612 units, it is sufficient under the development agreement. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the garages are omitted from the properties abutting Venezia, what type of plantings will be installed to improve the property line. Mr. Ceja responded that a shift in the area would be required to accommodate a new landscaping along the property line. 12 G'\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the driving lane would be okay where there was an opportunity to mitigate the property line. Mr. Ceja said it may require a bend or kink in the drive aisle to accommodate a landscape planter on the property line. Vice Chair Gregory said he is disturbed about the concerns being raised by parents and others regarding the three-story buildings overlooking the schoolyard. The applicant has indicated interest in working with his neighbor to the east. He asked if the applicant would consider not adding a third story to Building No. 3 so it is not overlooking the schoolyard. Mr. Ceja replied it is possible. Chairman Pradetto asked for a quick 101 on general planning and housing allocations. He mentioned that the question has been asked about how the City of Paim Desert could build and plan for multi -story units. His experience has been that there are other jurisdictions struggling with similar constraints of having to plan for more units because of State law. He stated it is not something that the City necessarily chooses to do, but it is coming from the State on how the City must meet housing allocation requirements. The City has to plan the units in the most intelligent way possible and there are people that buy land, which is zoned and planned for apartments. He asked staff if that is accurate. Mr. Ceja replied yes. He explained that regions are assigned an allocation for housing from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) on how many units need to be provided in the City of Palm Desert over an eight -year period. He noted that the units are broken down by income. He stated Paim Desert is required to build approximately 100 very -low-income units in an eight -year period, which the City is not meeting that requirement. With the proposed project, Palm Desert could get closer to meeting the requirement. As far as the General Plan, the proposed project site and other areas of the community have been rezoned to allow for three-story buildings and greater density. Commissioner Greenwood said he is sensitive to the main entry. He noted there is a lot of pedestrian circulation along Hovley Lane East coming from the elementary school. He understood the drawings are preliminary and asked the civil engineer what he foresees so kids are not further out from the main entry. MR. MIKE ROWE, MSA Consulting, Rancho Mirage, California, responded by adding a traffic signal they can control traffic. They also have crosswalks. In addition, existing sidewalks will be moved back to give kids a safer path to travel. With the traffic signal, the traffic level of service increases to a level A. 13 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes \2-20-18 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory appreciated Mr. Moran's effort in working with the developer and coming to some kind of agreement. However, he is curious about the garages that are against the Canterra Apartments property line. MR. MORAN responded that he realized with all the compromises there should be give and take on both sides. He stated the most important thing for Canterra Apartments was to reduce the three-story height to two -stories as much as possible to reduce the view blockage. He commented that they do not like the garages; however, they did not object because the developer was willing to take them out by Venezia. He said they do not like the garages and rather have carports; however, he believed the developer needs the garages for the project to be financially successful. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. MS. ALTOFER interjected that she had an additional comment. Chairman Pradetto reopened the public hearing. MS. ALTOFER commented that she called nearby cities and was told by the City of Indian Wells that they know about concessions; however, they would not allow a zero setback. She voiced her disappointment with Palm Desert. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened at 7:29 p.m. Commissioner Greenwood said he would like to speak to the applicant and requested Chairman Pradetto reopen the public hearing. Chairman Pradetto reopened the public hearing. Based on discussion with Mr. Moran and the revised design, Commissioner Greenwood asked Mr. Newell to walk the Planning Commission through the changes. He is unclear on the number of units. MR. NEWELL responded that the project as revised would have five three-story buildings and 10 two-story buildings. Building Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 will be three- story buildings and Building Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 10 go from three-story buildings to two-story buildings. He said they are eliminating 12 units from Building No. 1, which is the third floor. They are going to try to replace the units in Building Nos. 1 and 3. He noted that they are looking at various options, such as, do they increase Building No. 5 or have Building No. 10 extend to the west. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the garages being omitted are going to be relocated. 14 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes\2-20-18 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. NEWELL replied that the garages will be relocated between Building Nos. 6 and 7. They will also possibly relocate some garages south of Building No. 4. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the Planning Commission has been studying the project for over a six-month period. She has seen a lot of movement on both sides, which is a spirit of cooperation. She said it is a complicated issue and the site has been zoned for apartments since 1989. She also said that the density bonus is an added element that is permitted and is being used throughout the City. She felt the developer has done a sensitive job dealing with the needs of the community and has remained flexible. She is pleased with the revisions and believed the developer has a great project. She welcomed the project to the City. From a land use component, Commissioner Greenwood does not have a concern. He also felt it was a nice project. His only concern is not having a defined plan and would prefer to see a revised plan. He asked the Planning Commission how they felt about continuing the item. Vice Chairman Gregory agreed with Commissioner Greenwood. He was very happy so many compromises were made to allow the project to move forward which is very admirable. However, there were so many changes that he is uncomfortable voting on the project until there is a revised plan. He believed it would also give the applicant an opportunity to address many of the items discussed during the meeting. Chairman Pradetto asked Vice Chairman Gregory if that is a motion. Vice Chairman Gregory replied yes and Commissioner Greenwood said he would second the motion. Commissioner DeLuna asked the Chairman to repeat the motion. Mr. Hargreaves interjected and suggested that the Planning Commission continue to a date certain and reopen the public hearing so staff does not have to re -notice the public hearing. He asked if two weeks was enough time to bring the item back to the Commission. Chairman Pradetto encouraged that the item be continued to the second Planning Commission meeting in March. Vice Chairman Gregory amended his motion to continue the item to the second meeting in March. Mr. Stendell interjected that the applicant is able to bring back plans for the first Planning Commission in March. 15 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes\2-20-18 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Chairman Pradetto remarked that the Planning Commission understands the applicant's request. Vice Chairman Gregory stated he stood by his motion. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there is a reason why the developer is requesting to return to the Commission in two weeks. MR. NEWELL responded that they are requesting two weeks because they need to meet the bond application period with the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC). The Committee meets in May and they need to attend the meeting to qualify for the bonds, which are needed for the financing and tax credits. He said they cannot have impediments to entitlements. He mentioned the application must be submitted two months in advance (March 13, 2018), or they could possibly request an extension subject to the City's action. Commissioner DeLuna remarked that if the applicant feels they could be back in a couple of weeks, she asked why the Commission would deny them to be back in two weeks. Commissioner Greenwood responded that he wants the project done right. He does not want a rush job. A month will give the applicant ample time to make adjustments. Vice Chairman Gregory added that he is concerned with the project being resubmitted to City staff with sufficient time for staff to review. Chairman Pradetto concurred with the two Commissioners. However, there's another concern with the developer's deadline pushing the Commission forward. Additionally, the residents have continually suffered from poor notification. He felt it is not fair that the developer's deadline should preempt their ability to review the project. He stated he understands the pressures; however, he does not want to bend just because they have been dealing with this project for so long and now have to move on it quickly. Therefore, he supported the one -month delay. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the delay would affect the ultimate outcome of the project if the developer is not able to get the application in on a timely fashion. Chairman Pradetto replied probably. He mentioned he has a concern with the zero - lot -line setback being part of Planned Residential as a mechanism to provide flexibility. He said the City has projects that utilize the zero -lot -line setback; however, he does not want that to set the pattern that becomes the default. So he asked if the proposed project is the right project to enact the zero -lot -line setback. He commented that he wants the zero -lot -line setback to be addressed, and continuing the item one month would allow more time to comment on the environmental document. Lastly, he felt it is not fair to the Planning Commission or 16 G \Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission \2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the residents to comment or weigh in on the project without a concrete plan. He repeated that the motion is to continue the item for a month. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that when buildings are lengthened, other issues arise. He felt the additional time will allow the architects an opportunity to take a good look at the long and tall buildings. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the project would be compromised if it is delayed for a month. Mr. Stendell responded that the decision to delay the project for a month is under the purview of the Planning Commission. Based on the timeline indicated by the developer, he believed a delay would get in the way of the project in one way, shape, or form. He stated he does not know what the delay does to the economics of the project; however, he does not believe a two -week or one -month delay is a material change at this point. Chairman Pradetto inquired what is the probability that the Planning Commission recommends a continuance and staff determines the continuance puts the project in jeopardy. He asked if staff would take the project before the City Council without taking it back to the Commission. Mr. Stendell replied no. The Planning Commission has to review the project. Mr. Hargreaves interjected that the motion should include reopening the public hearing. Vice Chairman Gregory amended the motion to include reopening the public hearing. Commissioner Greenwood concurred with the amendment. Vice Chairman Gregory moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. PP/EA to March 20, 2018, and reopen the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0-1 vote with Commissioner Holt ABSENT (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). X. MISCELLANEOUS None 17 G \Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 20, 2018, Rec: Approved as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application to merge two parcels at 48-322 Northridge Trail (APN Nos. 652-350-007 and 650- 350-028). Case No. PMW 18-0001 (The Paolella Trust. Lanalev. B.C., Canada. Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 18-0001. Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Vice Chairman Gregory, and a 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 396-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue. Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394 (New Cities Investment Partners, LLC., Walnut Creek, California. Applicant). Principal Planner Eric Ceja reviewed the staff report with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (staff report is available at www.citvofoalmdesert.ora). He noted there were several comments regarding school safety due to the proposed project being close to James Carter Elementary School ("Carter"). Staff was consulting with public safety officials regarding safety concerns raised around the school. It was mentioned that the placement of tall buildings next to the school does not present any additional security or safety concerns. He acknowledged that tall buildings currently exist near schools in the Coachella Valley, the State of California, and the country. In regard to the density bonus and the need for affordable housing, he noted that the California Department of Housing and Community Development and 2 G:1PfanninglMonica ❑Reilly\ Planning Commission12418\Minutes13-20-1a.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 the Southern California Association of Governments provide an allocation of total housing needs for each city. For the current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle, the City of Palm Desert is required to build 98 low-income units. The proposed project would help meet the affordable housing requirement. Lastly, he stated as intended for the past 30 years, the apartment site still makes sense from a land use and planning perspective because of the close proximity to schools, transportation, businesses, and public services. The site also promotes walkability. Staff supported and recommended approval to the City Council. He made clear there would be another public hearing at the Council meeting. At the completion of his report, he mentioned the City Attorney had additional comments regarding the density bonus. In regard to the legal environment in which the Planning Commission considers the proposed project and due to the significant amount of affordable housing, City Attorney Robert Hargreaves stated there are protections under Federal and State law. The law has come up with a number of standards that constrain the City's ability to deny a project, such as the proposed project. He said the proposed project does comply with the underlining zoning of the General Plan. Furthermore, the legislature has made it much more difficult for cities to deny projects as the one being proposed and increases the liability for the City if such project is denied. He explained that if the City were to deny a project as such, the City would have to make specific findings. The only relevant finding that could be considered is a specific adverse impact upon the public health and safety, which there is no feasible method to mitigate that impact. He defined a specific adverse impact as a significant, quantifiable direct and unavoidable impact based on the objective identifiable written public health and safety standards. He also noted under the law, the City is prohibited from discriminating against people with lower incomes which could become a basis for having a court overturn any decision made by the City. With that said, he advised that during the discussions, they could discuss specific impacts such as school safety or traffic. The one topic that cannot be discussed is any negative references to people of lower -income status. Mr. Hargreaves offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked if the project is denied, what is the developer's recourse and what is the usual outcome. Mr. Hargreaves responded that whatever happens during the meeting, it is only a recommendation to the City Council. Before the Council could deny the project, the City Council would have to make specific findings. The developer would then have the option of addressing the impact or the developer could sue the City, which could be costly to the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Lindsay Holt referred to the MND and asked if there were any impacts that could not be mitigated. Mr. Ceja replied no. 3 G:IPlanninq Monica OReilly\Planning Commissionl2Ot8LMinutes\3-20-t8.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 For impacts that could be mitigated, Commissioner Holt asked if those items would be taken care of by the developer. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. In regard to traffic impacts, Commissioner Holt inquired if the impacts have been outlined in the traffic study. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt clarified that any improvements necessary to infrastructure to sustain a Level of Service (LOS) C for all of the intersections within the vicinity of the project would be taken care of by the developer. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. LEE NEWELL, New Cities Investment Partners, LLC., Walnut Creek, California, stated he would reserve his comments until the end of the meeting. Commissioner Holt asked Mr. Newell if he has worked out his issues with Canterra Apartments ('Canterra"). MR. NEWELL replied he hoped so. Commissioner Holt commented that she would like to hear from Mr. Moran with Canterra Apartments. MR. RICHARD MORAN, Canterra, Palm Springs, California, stated he and his partner own Canterra. He said they were concerned with the three-story buildings adjacent to their property line because the buildings would block the view of the mountains for many of their residents. He stated Mr. Newell agreed to lower four of the three-story buildings adjacent to Canterra. He said they also agreed to the garages along their property line. He mentioned that he talked to Mr. Ceja about Canterra also building garages to mitigate the impact along the property line, which staff did not oppose. He stated nothing is ever perfect, but they are happy with the agreement that was worked out with Mr. Newell. Prior to taking comments from the public, Chair Pradetto asked the Planning Commission for ex parte comments, which means any conversations they had outside the Commission meetings that were not in the staff report or in staff's presentation. 4 G:IPlanningWon ica OReilly+Plan n i ng Commissi on120181Min utes13-20.19.dacx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 Commissioner DeLuna commented that she had a meeting with the owner of Canterra and his attorney to discuss his concerns with the proposed project. The meeting was held at the Palm Desert City Half with staff present at the meeting. Commissioner John Greenwood said he had the same meeting as Commissioner DeLuna but at a different time. The meeting was also held at City Hall with staff present. Chair Pradetto called for public testimony at this time. The following individuals spoke in OPPOSTION to the proposed construction of a 396-unit apartment project for various reasons that included the height of three- story buildings, the three-story buildings adjacent to two single -story subdivisions, the project is not proper at the site location, reduction of parking space standards, zero -lot -line setbacks and not having a buffer, loss of mountain views, loss of privacy, decrease of property value, increased traffic in the area, impacts to the elementary school, school safety due to three-story buildings overlooking the schoolyard, fire safety, environmental impacts associated to dust and wildlife, noise pollution, automobile pollution, concern with damages to adjacent homes due to construction, concern with the sand dunes and sand due to construction, the need for a landscape buffer, concern with the beer garden, lack of proper hearing notification, and the wall between Portola Country Club (FCC) and the proposed project should be at least eight feet tall. MS. NANCY THORP, Angels Camp Road, Palm Desert MS. JUNE ENGBLOM, Angels Camp Road, Palm Desert MS. ANNE HOENE, Zircon Circle, Palm Desert MR. SID TOLCHINSKY, Granite Place, Palm Desert MS. PATTY MC NAMARA, Angels Camp Road, Palm Desert MR. OSCAR MARTINEZ, Via Venezia, Palm Desert MR. ED KNOPF, Via Pellestrina, Palm Desert MS. DIANE WOHL, Via Pellestrina, Palm Desert MS. DONNA KNOPF, Via Pellestrina, Palm Desert MR. ORRIN WEINSTEIN, Via Pellestrina, Palm Desert MR. DAVID NEWMAN, Via Venezia, Palm Desert MR. RICHARD WOHL, Via Pellestrina, Palm Desert MR. JOE MARTINEZ, Via Pellestrina, Palm Desert MR. LOREN CAMPBELL, Via Pellestrina, Palm Desert MR. JAMES GUGINO, Via Garibaldi, Palm Desert, voiced his concern with the items mentioned above. Additionally, he is concerned with the low-income units and people climbing over the wall to steal. He stated that Robin Hood stole from the rich and not from the poor. Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 7:03 p.m. and he reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. 5 GAP lanninglMonica OReiIly1Planning Commiasion120161Minutes13.20.16.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 MR. PAUL BAMBAUER, Via Pellestrina, Palm Desert MS. CARRIE SMITH, Via Treviso, Palm Desert MR. JOHN MODER, Mirage Cove Drive, Rancho Mirage MR. STEVE ZOET, Via Treviso, Palm Desert MS. LAUREEN SAWYER, Zircon Circle East, Palm Desert MS. PAULA SCHOFIELD, Via Garibaldi, Palm Desert MR. STEVE MILLER, Via Vittorio, Palm Desert MS. CHARLENE PETERSON, Zircon Circle East, Palm Desert MR. ED ZAKANYCH, Angels Camp Road, Palm Desert MS. LUCILLE WILLIAMSON, Angels Camp Road, Palm Desert MR. LEE SOUDER, Via Venezia, Palm Desert MS. DIANA ALTORFER, Via Pellestrina, Palm Desert MR. ROBERT AULT, Via Aregio, Palm Desert MS. GERALDINE DAVIS, Angels Camp Road, Palm Desert The following individual spoke IN FAVOR of the proposed construction of a 396- unit apartment project. MR. JIM SCHMID, Daylily Circle, Palm Desert, stated that his daughter attends Carter and a younger son who he hopes will also attend the school. He voiced his disappointment with the sensationalizing of shootings. He said kids are going home from school and mentioning someone at school went up to them and were asked what will you do if there is a shooting. He stated the reality is the odds of a shooting are infinitesimally small and his children should not be thinking of shootings. He believed there is no risk to his children or any of the other children attending Carter from two- or three-story buildings on an adjoining property. As a community member, the proposed project is important for housing. He communicated that eventually, the community will have to face the reality that single-family homes are not going to be enough and housing density will be needed. He felt the City should work with the developer and the community to resolve some of the outstanding issues. Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 7:44 p.m. and he reconvened the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Chairman Pradetto thanked everyone for their comments and being respectful of one another. He believed they covered a lot of ground and they will have a lot of good discussions. He invited the developer to the podium to address the Planning Commission. MR. NEWELL stated he is sorry to disappoint Mr. Steve Miller, but they will be eliminating the beer garden. He explained they really did not know it was there because of the tiny grove of trees. Additionally, they will eliminate the sand volleyball court. He said there would be a 27-foot buffer with two rows of trees to be planted for PCC. There will be 105 feet between the back of PCC homes and the first two-story buildings. For Venezia, they removed the garages and they will 6 G:1PlanninglMonica DReiIly\Planning Commission12O181Minules13-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 add an eight -foot buffer by planting a large hedge. He noted the hedge can grow up to 10 to 15 feet or more. He mentioned the project would accommodate 700 to 800 people; not 1,200 like someone commented. He also mentioned that the elevation would be close to the adjoining parcels when grading is finished. He addressed the comment regarding the rental amounts for the low-income units and noted rent would be $500 to $700. He stated the proposed project is the subject of a 29-year-old development agreement (DA). The DA is a contract between the City and the property owner. The property owner for Canterra and the property owner for the proposed project deeded 20 acres to the City of Palm Desert for the soccer park. It was a joint donation, which was done 29 years ago. He noted that the laws of the State of California and the City of Palm Desert both required density bonuses be granted for projects with a 20 percent affordable housing component, which is all they are requesting. He also noted the City's General Plan mentions up to 40 units of density per acre and three-story buildings. He has been responsive to the Canterra and the adjoining single-family subdivisions by eliminating 40 percent of the three-story units. Mr. Newell referred to traffic and noted Portola Avenue is a LOS C, Hovley Lane East in the morning is a LOS B and in the evening is a LOS A. With the proposed traffic signal on Hovley Lane East, the LOS will be A on Hovley Lane East in both the morning and evening. He communicated the LOS traffic study was done independently for the City. Commissioner Greenwood asked Mr. Newell if he would consider changing Building No. 10 to a three-story building and Building No. 11 to a two-story building to create a greater buffer between the communities. MR. NEWELL responded that originally Building No. 10 was a three-story building and had the building changed to two stories. With all the changes, the project changed from 412 units to 396 units. Commissioner Greenwood said he appreciated the considerations made with Canterra. He asked if Building Nos. 10 and 11 are changed, would there be an adverse effect on the agreement made with Canterra. MR. NEWELL replied that he would not have an issue changing Building No. 10 to a two-story building and Building 11 to a three-story building. However, Mr. Moran may want to comment on the proposed change to the buildings. MR. MORAN stated he would be opposed to the changes proposed by Commissioner Greenwood. Commissioner Greenwood asked Mr. Newell to explain the requirements that are put in place for property management. MR. NEWELL responded that they would use Alliance Property Management ("Alliance"), which is the same property management company that Mr. Moran uses. He said Alliance is a large property management company and very familiar 7 GAP lanningWonica OReiIly\Planning Commission120181Minutes13-20-16.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 with affordable housing increments. Alliance would do background checks (criminal and civil) and verify income. He noted the affordable housing tenants are not exempted from the same process. He also noted that leases will state that garages cannot be used for storage and they have the right to inspect garages under the terms of the lease. Chairman Pradetto said Mr. Newell noted that he does 80 percent market rate and 20 percent low income. He asked what would be the market rate for the proposed development. MR. NEWELL replied that the market rates would be similar to Canterra. He said market rates would probably be in the $1,200 to $1,600-$1,700 range. Chairman Pradetto inquired if he would charge an additional amount for garage space. MR. NEWELL replied yes. Chairman Pradetto asked if covered parking would be on a first -come, first -served basis or will there be assigned parking. MR. NEWELL replied that covered parking would be assigned. Chairman Pradetto asked for the depth of the landscape buffers to surrounding communities. MR. NEWELL answered the buffer would be eight feet on the side of Venezia and 27 feet on the side of PCC. Chairman Pradetto asked what type of trees would be used as a shrub. MR. NEWELL replied a ficus tree. Chairman Pradetto asked how tall ficus trees grow. MR. NEWELL said he has some ficus trees in his backyard and they are approximately 12 feet. Chairman Pradetto commented that he looked at the grading plans and it appears the grade would be at the same level as the nearby residents. He inquired if the City inspectors and/or engineers inspect and verify the pad height. Mr. Ceja replied yes. He mentioned that the grading plans indicate buildings being within a foot of the Venezia and PCC communities to the southwest, as well as, 18 inches from the school. He noted the City Council approves a grading plan, and the final grading has to be within a tolerance of six inches (6") of what is approved 8 aLPlanningWonica ❑Reilly\Planning Commis sionT0181Minutesl3-20-16.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 on the grading plan. Once the grading plan is approved and finalized, grading is inspected by City inspectors. In regard to the sand, Chairman Pradetto asked if the developer would have to comply with Air Quality Management District (AQMD) dust control standards. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna commented that across the street from the proposed project are the Marriott's Desert Springs Villas ("Villas"). She asked how tall are the Villas buildings and how tall from street level along Hovley Lane East. Mr. Ceja responded that the Villas are two stories and sit approximately eight to nine feet above the street. The height is an excess of 34 feet. Commissioner DeLuna clarified that there would be trees planted between PCC and the proposed project. Mr. Ceja replied yes. He pointed out two Conditions of Approval relating to the landscape buffer. In addition, carport structures are not allowed along Venezia. Chairman Pradetto asked Mr. Ceja if he meant no carport structures along PCC because he sees carports along Venezia. Mr. Ceja responded that the applicant has indicated carports along Venezia. However, City staff has recommended no carports along Venezia. Commissioner Holt asked if staff considered an eight -foot -high masonry wall opposed to a six -foot -high masonry wall along Venezia. Mr. Ceja replied no due to an existing wall. He said the wall may have to be removed to build a higher wall, which could be cost prohibitive. He stated the City's code is strict on wall heights, with six-foot high wall heights being the maximum. Chairman Pradetto asked where in the staff report does it state that staff is recommending not having carports along Venezia. Mr. Ceja responded that the condition is in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2699. Mr. Stendell interjected that the condition is on page 10 of the resolution, Condition No. 11. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that all proper notifications have been adhered to starting from ARC to the Planning Commission. 9 a1Planning\Monica OReillyPlanning Commission120181Minutes13-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood commented that it was mentioned at the previous meeting that Desert Sands Unified School District was notified. He understood there was not an issue. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the proposed project is consistent with State laws and AB 2222. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the proposed project is in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct, with the exception of the parking requirement. Chairman Pradetto stated a concern was mentioned relating to electricity and water. He asked staff to explain how water is provided for this type of project. Mr. Ceja responded that when the City receives a development proposal, the proposal is transmitted for review by the different utilities, the school district, and other service providers in the area. He noted the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Southern California Gas Company, and Southern California Edison (SCE) responded that there is electricity, gas, and water to supply the proposed project. Chairman Pradetto said if CVWD were to determine that they do not have the water supply to service the proposed project, he asked if it is their determination and they would not issue a letter suggesting they could not adequately service the project. Mr. Ceja stated that the City received a "Will Provide Service" letter from CVWD that commits the district to providing water and sewer to the project. Chairman Pradetto inquired if staff considered a traffic circle. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Staff discussed a traffic circle with the City's Transportation Engineer. However, with the existing geometry of the street, a traffic circle was deemed infeasible. Chairman Pradetto asked Mr. Newell if the project would be affected if Building No. 4 was reduced to two stories. Mr. Newell replied that it would be a reduction of 12 units. 10 G:1PlanninglMonica ORailiy\Planning Commission120181Minutes13.20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 In terms of economics, Chairman Pradetto asked if the reduction of 12 units would make or break the proposed project. Mr. Newell replied no. Vice Chairman Ron Gregory commented he was going to ask the same question. He appreciated Mr. Newell's candor. He mentioned his concern when someone is driving eastbound on Hovley Lane East, and the buildings will loom and impact on the neighborhood. He said the other three-story buildings are tucked within in a way that it tiers upward. Unfortunately, they have a collision of expectations on the part of the neighbors which he could sympathize with. Additionally, the City has the General Plan and there are changes that come about and are unfortunate for people that live in the area. If they could all mitigate and compromise to some degree to minimize the impact, it would be very helpful. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the proposed project is a complicated and complex issue, with many opposing points of view. She believed on behalf of the developer, the developer has compromised and he does seem to be vested in the community. The developer has responded to requests such as eliminating the beer garden, reducing three of the three-story buildings, compromised with the owner of Canterra, compromised in terms of removing garages, and agreed to landscape buffers. She understood how change could be difficult after seeing nothing but unobstructed sand dunes and mountain views. She noted the project has always been planned at that location and given the density bonus laws the City has to deal with; no one is ever going to be completely happy. However, she felt there were good compromises that were reached. She said the Commission could further discuss reducing Building No. 4 to two stories, but she felt the developer has done a good amicable job of being sensitive and giving back where he could to accommodate the neighborhood. Commissioner Holt believed that the project comes down to aesthetics. She said in reality, the traffic study shows that the project would improve the traffic conditions in the area. She mentioned planning studies that she has read recommend locating schools near high -density residential developments. She could not find any studies in regard to safety issues relevant to high -density residential developments next to schools. She said there would be short-term construction activities, which would all be mitigated. She mentioned she would rather live next to a site that is developed than a site that has sand blowing and pest issues that comes from vacant desert land. She appreciated the setbacks and landscape buffer, which is a lot more than she has seen some other developers give. She noted she missed the last meeting and does not know about items that were negotiated. At the end of the day, she believed the project comes down to building height, aesthetics, and obstruction of viewsheds. She said the one issue with the proposed project was Building No. 4. All the other three-story buildings 11 G:IPlanning\MoniCa QReiIIylPlanning Comm ission120181Minutes13-2a18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 have been internalized on the site so she does not see how those buildings could be an issue. She would not want to take away amenities from the residents that would live in the proposed project. She felt residents should have access to amenities regardless of their income. She made clear that no one on the Planning Commission is on the take and they do not get paid. They all volunteer their time and care about the City and the residents. She said she looked at the grading plan, and she agreed that the pad elevations are going to be similar to the adjacent properties. She also said the City is honest about the grading plan that has been presented to the Commission. Therefore, she does not have an issue with the elevations at the site. She communicated that the United States is going to add 100 million people by 2050 and they need places for people to live. People are going to locate where there are jobs and that means there will be higher -density developments. She stated she does not see any way around that, and from a planning perspective, it makes a lot of sense. She noted that the Villas and the proposed project are going to be the same height with the proposed project being three stories. She also noted she is sensitive to the viewshed issue and three-story buildings are difficult to stomach. Vice Chairman Gregory noted there is the line of sight drawings in the agenda packet. He said it is a shame that they are having a collision between what was and what the City wants to do and work with the problems that they have, such as an increase in population and people having to drive in from out of town to work. He stated he has been in Palm Desert for over 40 years. He remembered when two-story buildings were being proposed in large quantities, there was a lot of concern and rage about the loss of viewsheds. He requested staff to display the line of sight drawings. For the people that do not understand the line of sight diagrams, Vice Chairman Gregory stated the diagrams could be confusing. He explained that when the taller element is pulled further away from the point that the view is taken from (the back of homes), the three-story building does not really loom over the homes as many residents fear that it would. He believed the removal of the carport structures on the Venezia property line will be helpful. The suggestion of Ficus benjamina, which would grow much taller than 12 feet if not controlled, there is a tradeoff because it is a very dense shrub or tree material planted along the property line. He stated the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council, and he felt that the Council would be able to make changes with respect to addressing the General Plan. The Commission could only make a recommendation based on what the Commission is given. He said there could have been workshops with the adjacent communities so the project would not be so frightening; however, that did not happen. Commissioner DeLuna moved for approval and asked Mr. Stendell if the Commission needs to discuss reducing Building No. 4 to two stories or make the recommendation to the City Council. 12 G:1Planning\Monica QReiliyAPlanning Commission120181Minutes13-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 Chairman Pradetto interjected that he would like the Planning Commission to move forward with the motion and if the Commission wants to recommend changing Building No. 4 to two stories, it should be included in the motion. Commissioner DeLuna moved for approval with Building No. 4 becoming a two- story building and asked if that is how the motion should be structured. Staff replied yes. Chairman Pradetto commented that in terms of notification, he asked staff to put together a memorandum on how the notification of the CEQA document was advertised. He stated it was not advertised on the website and he felt it was a cop- out. He expressed to staff that it is a good public service to have everything on the website as a default. He also felt the Planning Commission has come a long way, with the first meeting being disastrous and could understand why the meeting was disastrous. They have had a few meetings so he is less sympathetic to the notification because the Commission has post phoned the meeting a month from the previous meeting, and there has been a lot of good public input. Therefore, he felt comfortable voting on the project after having heard the residents' input and called for the vote. Commissioner DeLuna moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2699, recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16-394, subject to conditions; and subject to Building No. 4 changing from a three-story building to a two-story building. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMISSION MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Mr. Stendell reported that the Art in Public Places Commission considered the update to the El Paseo art exhibition. B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS Commissioner DeLuna requested for an update on the progress of the San Pablo Avenue corridor project. 13 G:IPlanninglMonica OReiIlylPlanning Commission '20181Minulesl3.20-18.docx ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: None B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 16-394 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: NEW CITIES INVESTMENTS PARTNERS, LLC, 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd Suite 337, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval for construction of a 412-unit apartment project with clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements at an undeveloped 18-acre parcel. LOCATION: South side of Hovley Lane East, east of Portola Avenue ZONE: P.R. 17-5 Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, stated this proposal was for a Precise Plan and Development Agreement for the Sands Apartments located on Hovley Lane East (Hovley). The project includes the construction of 412 apartment units, with a clubhouse facility, two outdoor swimming pools, recreational and play space, covered and uncovered parking spaces, and 220 garages. Landscape is used in all non -parking and non -building portions of the site, and a new project entry is provided at Hovley Lane East. To accommodate 412 apartment units, the applicant is proposing a mix of two- and three-story buildings. A one-story clubhouse building is proposed for communal space, fitness center, leasing office, and mail room. The apartment buildings are done in a contemporary southwest architectural style, while the one-story clubhouse is more of a California Mission architectural style. All buildings have exterior stucco finishes, clay tile roofs, window trim, and clay and wrought -iron details. Seven (7) two-story buildings are located along the southern and western portions of the project site. Two distinct building types are proposed for the two-story buildings. Two-story units are shown at a maximum building height of twenty- nine feet and four inches (29'-4"), with tower elements reaching thirty-six feet and eight inches (36'-8"). Eight (8) three-story G.PlanningVanine Judy \ARC\1 Minutes\2013-2017\2017\170328min.docx Page 2 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 buildings are located in the center and eastern portion of the project site. One of the eight three-story building is located along the northwestern portion of the site near James Carter Elementary School. Two distinct building types are provided for the three-story buildings. These buildings are shown at a maximum building height of thirty-eight feet and four inches (38'-4"). As mentioned, the project includes the development of 412 apartment units, which is above the 306 units remaining to be built on the site. However, the applicant has opted to reserve 20 percent of all units at the project site for very -low income households, which makes the project eligible for a "Density Bonus" under AB 2222 and the City's "Affordable Housing Density Bonus" Ordinance (Section 25.34.040). For their part in providing 82 affordable housing units, the applicant is eligible for development concessions. In this instance, the developer has requested an adjustment to the City's parking standards, an increase in maximum building height, and a reduction of certain side -yard setbacks. He stated there will be modifications to Hovley Lane to signalize this intersection, and new configurations to the median. Staff has been very supportive of these concessions as the project site is ideal for affordable housing and meets the intent of the original agreement. Commissioner Levin asked about the grading for the entire site. MR. LEE NEWELL, New Cities Investments Partners, LLC, said they will be grading the entire site and putting all the on -site improvements in during the first phase. Commissioner Levin was concerned with the school located next to this project and mentioned the dust created from grading, as well as safety concerns while kids are walking to and from school and passing the construction site. MR. MIKE ROWE, MSA Consultants, said in the PM10 process they will make special provisions during the school year to take extra precautions to alleviate those concerns. Commissioner Levin discussed the curb adjacent sidewalk along Hovley and said he would like to see a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the curb to get the kids farther from Hovley. Mr. Ceja stated this is a current condition and pointed out that the City is moving away from meandering sidewalks on arterials and are now looking for straight curb adjacent sidewalks. Commissioner Levin didn't have a problem with the architecture of the building but was concerned with the three-story. He felt it was just too much for that area. G:\PlanningUanine JudyWRC\1 Minutes\2013-2017\2017\170328min.docx Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 Commissioner Vuksic and MR. VINCE CHUTCA, Humphreys Architects, discussed the thickness of the walls and shadow lines. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the balconies and recommended they be thickened to 12". Commissioner Brewer was concerned with the dimensions of the tube steel perimeter fencing and said the columns appear small compared to the overall massing of the fencing. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the plans. Commissioner Brewer recommended the columns be increased to 24" square. He asked about the tower element and the line of sight. MS. VELY ZAJAC, MSA Consultants, said the tower is purely an architectural element and they are trying to create massing reliefs. Commissioner McAuliffe said the architecture is very handsome and thinks it's a very nice project particularly the community building. He agreed with the comment regarding the thin walls on the balconies and said it's really easy to thicken those to one side and not negatively impact the usability of the balconies. He expressed that it is something important to take a look at. Commissioner McAuliffe and MR. NEWELL discussed the containment of the construction site. MR. NEWELL said for the short term it will be cyclone construction fencing. He expects the construction going on into the 24th to 30th month and stated there will definitely be a wall to separate both sites. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if solar was being considered and MR. NEWELL said solar will be located on the garages and the carports. Commissioner McAuliffe asked to see where and how the panels will be integrated in the exhibits and not be an afterthought to the project. Commissioner McAuliffe asked where the individual ground mount NC condensers would be located and concealed and how does it relate to the site plan. MR. ROWE said they are tucked hard up against the building. Commissioner McAuliffe said because of the tight nature of the site how they will be treated will be important because they will influence the space between the buildings. He asked if the units would have gas and if so, how would the meters be addressed. MR. NEWELL said they will be in a cabinet of some sort. Commissioner McAuliffe said at this level this Commission often times have seen this get left to a later time and they end up with 40 gas meters at the front of the project. G:\PlanningUanine Judy \Af 1C\1 Minutes12013-2017\2017\170328min.docx Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 Chair Van Vliet shared the concern about the three story units and said they will be quite visible where they are located. He was concerned with the neighbor's visibility of the 13'. high garage wall and the long wall mass planned for each garage. He and the applicant reviewed and discussed the plans. MR. ROWE suggested they pitch the roof in both directions. They discussed the pitch of the garages, the eaves, as well as the property line of the fence and garages. MR. ROWE said it would actually be better to have a center pitched roof because it will look like a smaller building and be visually better for the neighbor. The only negative would be where they mount the solar. Commissioner Van Vliet also pointed out the same issue on the east side of the project. He recommended they restudy the separation between the back of garage and neighboring wall. MR. ROWE said instead of a single shed pitch it could pitch to the center that way instead of having a 9' plate on one side and 13' on the other there will be 9' on both sides. He said they would have to put a gutter on there and then take a down spout back to their side to keep from dumping water onto the neighbor's property. The Commission and the applicant discussed trash enclosures, the number of parking spaces in the complex, the three story buildings, line of site studies and signalizing the project. Commissioner Vuksic moved for preliminary approval with conditions and seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe. Chair Van Vliet asked for comments. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the location of the solar panels and the pitch of the roofs. He asked if the Commission has any control over the aesthetics of the solar. MR. NEWELL said their intention was to place the panels on the garages and the carports. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the western property line because now the neighboring property will not only see a 9' wall and roof, they will also see solar panels. MR. NEWELL stated he would not put panels on the west side. G:\Planning.Janine Judy1ARC\1 Minutes\2013-201712017\170328min.docx Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved for preliminary approval subject to: 1) balcony walls shall be thickened to 12"; 2) masonry columns at the gates shall be increased to 24" square and plastered; 3) roofs on carports shall be gabled with an approximate 9' plate on both sides; 4) the fencing that separates phase 1 and phase 2 development shall be more than construction fencing; 5) replace the tube steel with wrought -iron on the exterior fence; and 6) NC units and gas meters shall be screened. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 4-1-2, with Van Vliet voting NO Lambell and McIntosh absent. 2. CASE NO: PP/CUP/EA 15-223 and TTM 37292 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MARY HSU, Mi Casa Property, LLC, 2275 Huntington Drive, Suite 518, San Marino, CA 91108 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval of architectural and landscape plans for a proposed six (6) unit tract map located on a vacant 0.42 acre parcel. LOCATION: 45-734 Highway 74 ZONE: R-3 18,000(3), S.P. (Residential Multi -Family, Scenic Preservation Overlay) Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, said the applicant is seeking approval of a six -unit subdivision and the construction of six (6) two-story detached single-family homes on a vacant 0.42 parcel in the City's R-3 18,000(3), SP zoning district. The project includes the development of six (6) detached single-family homes, perimeter block wall, two guest parking spaces, and new landscape. A single 1,800+ square -foot floor plan is provided for all single-family units. The first floor of each unit consists of a kitchen, pantry, living and dining areas, a half bathroom, and a two -car garage. The second floor of each unit consists of three (3) bedrooms each with its own bathroom and walk-in closet, and laundry room. The units are contemporary southwest architecture that includes an exterior textured stucco finish, stone, iron accents, exposed beams, and "s" tiled roofs. Trim details are added above and below windows and along the first floor of the units for additional detailing. Windows are also recessed to create additional shadows on the units. The roofs of the units are pitched at a 3:12 slope and are broken up by valleys and ridges. Architecturally, the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding properties located on this portion of Highway 74. The landscape design and plant materials are G:;Planning'Janine JudyWRCt1Minutes12013-2017120171170328min.docx Page 6 of 10 To: Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert Date: March 20, 2018 Re: Sands Apartment Project — Responses to Public Comments on CEQA A number of issues related to the proposed Sands Apartments (Canterra II) (the "Project"), have been raised by the public through oral comments provided at the Planning Commission's prior public hearing on February 20th, and through written comments submitted to the City. Copies of those written comment letters have been provided to the Planning Commission for consideration. Staff has carefully listened to and reviewed the comments and believes that the majority of the comments are already fully addressed through the existing Project application documents and through the analysis provided in the City's publicly circulated Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"), the review period for which closed on March 14th. Nonetheless, Staff would like to provide the following summary, which provides topical responses to a number of items as well as a few clarifications in order to ensure a complete and transparent record. I. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN A number of the public comments asked if the proposed Project would be compatible with surrounding uses, particularly due to the fact that the Project proposes to include three story structures, a concession for parking, and more overall units due to the provision of additional low income units than those originally proposed in the Development Agreement for the site. First, the Project site is flanked by existing residential development, as shown in Aerial Photograph 3 within the MND. Additionally, the Project is consistent with existing General Plan land use designations and the existing zoning designations. (See MND pp. 1, 55-57.) Second, the Project originally proposed to construct 412 apartment units, a clubhouse facility, two outdoor swimming pools, recreational and open space, covered and uncovered parking spaces and 220 garages. However, in response to public input, the applicant has agreed to reduce the number of requested units to 396 units and has made other changes to address concerns through the submission of a revised Site Plan. Additionally, the revised Project maintains the 27' landscape buffer along the southern edge of the property, separating the Project from the Portola Country Club residences. Further, the revised Project removes enclosed garages from the boundary with the Venezia residences and adds a landscape buffer along the western border along the Venezia community. Third, the majority of commenters opposed to the Project expressed concerns regarding the height of the buildings and that three story structures were proposed. The applicant has taken steps to address these concerns by reducing the height of three of the structures to two stories and redistributing the three story structures. Specifically, the number of three story buildings within the Project has also been reduced from eight to five, and the majority of the three-story buildings are now concentrated in Project areas farthest away from the adjacent residences in Venezia, Portola Country Club, and Canterra I. The elimination of most of the three story buildings along the eastern property line, adjacent to Canterra, addresses concerns regarding obstruction of views as well as privacy concerns. Further, in order to be consistent with the General Plan, which allows for three story buildings in areas designated Town Center Neighborhood, the City previously adopted changes to the development standards of the Planned Residential zoning district to allow for three story buildings with a maximum height of 40 feet. Accordingly, the Project's tallest buildings, proposed at 38'4", are consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. By revising the Project, the current layout allows for two story structures along the south and southwestern portion of the Project site to step down to the one story condition of adjacent single family residences, while stepping up from the two story Canterra buildings to three stories in the northwestern portion of the Project site along Hovley Lane. By providing an additional setback along the southwestern portion of the site, concerns regarding views from the adjacent Venezia community are better addressed. Fourth, as relates to the density of the Project, while the original site plan proposed 22.7 dwelling units per acre ("du/ac"), the revised Project proposes 21.8 dwelling units per acre. This density is below the General Plan maximum density of 40 du/ac. Although 396 units constitutes an approximate 20% increase in the base zoning requirement of 17.5 du/ac, such an increase is permissible under the State Density Bonus Law and the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, and even with the density bonus, there is not a significant impact due to increased Project density and the additional reduction in density by the applicant alleviates some public concerns. Finally, the revised Project also includes 699 parking spaces. With 396 units, this equates to a 1.75 ratio, which is slightly less than the Municipal Code's 2.0 per unit requirement. However, the reduction in parking standards, a concession under the Density Bonus Law, is consistent with parking standards for mixed use and residential parking standards in the City's Downtown zoning district, as well as for other apartment projects throughout the City. Commenters expressed concerns that residents would have to find parking in private residential developments to account for the lack of parking on site. However, no complaints were cited regarding Canterra's residents seeking additional parking, and that site also has a parking ratio of under 2 spaces per unit requirement. Accordingly, the 0.25 spaces per unit reduction is reasonable and the site provides adequate parking, especially given the proximity to the existing Sunline Transit stop approximately 1000 feet west of the Project and existing services located at the intersection of Cook Street and Hovley Lane. In conclusion, while the Project is more dense, it is designed to be compatible with the surrounding multi -family as well as single-family residential uses. It is consistent with General Plan policies, particularly Policy 3.4 regarding Balanced Neighborhoods, as the Project promotes a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood in order to accommodate diverse ages and incomes, and no potentially significant impacts are anticipated. II. NOTICE AND PUBLIC REVIEW The public review period for a proposed mitigated negative declaration shall be not less than 20 days. If the proposed negative declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review, the review period shall be at least 30 days. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091(b).) The public review period and the state agency review period may, but are not required, to begin and end at the same time. Day one of the state agency review period is the date that the State Clearinghouse distributes the -2- CEQA document to state agencies. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091(c)(2).) Further, if a proposed mitigated negative declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review and the period of review by the State Clearinghouse is longer than the public review period, the public review period shall be at least as long as the period of review and comment by state agencies as established by the State Clearinghouse. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091(c)(1).) The City filed and posted the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("NOI") with the Riverside County Clerk's Office on February 1, 2018, which provided the public review period for the Project would run from February 2, 2018 through March 5, 2018. However, the State Clearinghouse did not submit the NOI to the state agencies until February 12, 2018. Thus, in an abundance of caution and to ensure that all agencies receive the full 30-days to review the MND, the City voluntarily extended the public review period through March 14, 2018 in order to align the public review period with that of the review period by state agencies. With the extension of the public review period, both members of the public as well as state agencies have been provided with the full required comment period (or more) under by CEQA. A commenter also raised concerns that the City did not post the NOI or Notice of Public Hearing on its website in accordance with CEQA Guideline section 15202(e). To be clear, CEQA Guideline section 15202(e) provides that "to the extent that the public agency maintains an Internet web site, notice of all public hearings should be made available in electronic format on that site." [emphasis added.] CEQA Guidelines section 15201 contains similar language as to procedures for public involvement. That section provides "such procedures should include, whenever possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the public agency." [emphasis added.] The language in the CEQA Guidelines is permissive, not mandatory. The City therefore did not violate CEQA by failing to post the NOI or Notice of Public Hearing on its website prior to the February 20, 2018 Planning Commission hearing. Nonetheless, the City sent notice of the MND's available to the public, published noticed in the local paper, posted the notice at the County Clerk's Office, and had the document available for public review at all times at City Hall. Accordingly, the City' s noticing process fully complied with CEQA. III. NOISE The public expressed concerns regarding noise which may result from parking lot activities near adjoining residential communities. The noise element of the General Plan discusses noise sources in the City of Palm Desert, calling out freight rail service, and airports as substantial noise generators, and industrial operations, construction activities, special event noise, commercial activities that include live music, and lawnmowers and leaf blowers as other noise generators in the City. (Palm Desert General Plan, pp. 101-102.) Parking lots connected with residential uses were not identified in the General Plan as substantial noise generators within the City. The General Plan Noise Element Goal 1.1 addresses noise compatibility between differing types of land uses and provides "apply the Noise Compatibility Matrix, shown in Figure 7.1, as a guide for planning and development decisions. The City will require projects involving new development or modifications to existing development to implement mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce noise levels to at least the normally compatible range shown in the City's Noise Compatibility Matrix shown in Figure 7.1. Mitigation measures should focus on architectural features and building design and construction, rather than site design features such as - 3 - excessive setbacks, berms and sound walls, to maintain compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses. (Palm Desert General Plan, p. 105.) Thus, the fact that the City is not providing setbacks between the Project and adjacent residences is consistent with the General Plan's goal regarding noise compatibility. Further, the Noise Compatibility Matrix shows that low density single family, duplex, and mobile home residential land uses and multifamily residential land uses have the same level of conditionally acceptable community noise exposure levels — 70 dBA CNEL. The same applies for schools. Schools and multifamily residential uses also have the same level of normally acceptable community noise exposure (65 dBA CNEL), while single family residential uses have a normally acceptable CNEL of 60 dBA with 65 dBA being conditionally acceptable. (Palm Desert General Plan, p. 103.) As such, no potentially significant noise impacts are anticipated from the Project. Further, enforcement of the City's Noise Control Ordinance would minimize impacts from private developments and residences. (See Palm Desert General Plan Noise Element Goals 2.1, 2.2, p. 106.) The General Plan EIR found noise from stationary sources and land use conflict noise impacts less than significant with adherence to General Plan policies, including those discussed above. (Palm Desert General Plan EIR, p. 4.12-25.) Based on the above, a multifamily residential use is compatible with both surrounding school, multifamily, and single family uses. The applicant will comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and the Sands Apartments will impose noise controls via activity restrictions within the complex. As the Project adds a residential use adjacent to other residential uses and a school, it will generate similar noises and is compatible with surrounding development from a noise perspective. IV. AESTHETICS The public raised concerns related to garages directly abutting five single family residences and a portion of a sixth in the Venezia community as it relates to views and privacy. As stated above, the revised Project removes enclosed garages from the boundary with the Venezia residences and adds a landscape buffer along the western border along the Venezia community to address this issue. Concerns were also expressed regarding lighting from the proposed shade structures replacing the garages, reflections from the structures themselves, as well as car headlights pulling into the structures. As stated, there will be a landscape buffer, as well as a solid wall separating the Venezia community from the Project, which would reduce any impact from headlights. The City would also condition the Project so that any lighting would be shielded and angled away from the residences and there would not be any spillover onto adjacent property. Finally, the structures will be constructed out of non -reflective material, eliminating any potential issues with glare in that regard. Impacts to views was also previously raised by Canterra as a concern. As set forth above, the revised Site Plan addresses this concern by reducing the number of three story buildings from eight to five, and concentrating those buildings farthest away from existing residential developments. Accordingly, view shed renderings submitted by Canterra do not depict the current Project as revised, which addressed the view shed issue by reducing the number of units, decreasing the height of three of the buildings, and relocating the majority of three story structures away from the Canterra complex. 4 Commenters are concerned regarding impacts to their property values as a result of the Project. While such potential impacts may be of importance to neighbors, economic or social effects are not treated as significant effects on the environment under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15131.) The MND adequately analyzes the physical impacts of the Project, including how those impacts may affect surrounding residences. Accordingly, the analysis is not flawed due to a failure to discuss any changes in property values of the surrounding residences. V. THE REVISED SITE PLAN REDUCES UNITS IN A MANNER THAT DECREASES POTENTIAL IMPACTS, THUS RECIRCULATION IS NOT REQUIRED Finally, the Project applicant has agreed to make certain minor revisions to the Site Plan in response to comments from the public. Overall, these revisions reduces the number of residential units, moves proposed garages away from adjacent residences, and decreases the height of several of the buildings, all of which will further reduce potential impacts as compared to those set forth in the publicly circulated MND. For example, fewer units means a smaller construction footprint, fewer air quality and GHG emissions, smaller energy and domestic water demands during operations, and fewer traffic trips. Further, these changes in the site layout do not exceed the original footprint of the site, nor do they add additional impacts. A lead agency must recirculate a mitigated negative declaration only when the document has been substantially revised after notice of its availability has been given, but prior to its adoption. (CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5.) A substantial revision includes a new, avoidable, significant effect is identified and new mitigation measures are required. (Id.) Recirculation is not required where new project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed MND which are not new avoidable significant effects. (Id.) That is the case here. The Site Plan modifications were made to address public concerns and further the goals behind CEQA, but do not create any new significant effects. Further, the mitigation measures identified in the MND are adequate to mitigate any effects from the revised site plan. Therefore, the MND has not been substantially revised as to require recirculation. 72500.00904\30624867.2 5 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palm Desert From: Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney; Best Best & Krieger, LLP Date: April 2, 2018, 2018 Re: State and Federal Law Regarding Denial of Affordable Housing Projects INTRODUCTION In an effort to solve California's housing crisis, the State Legislature has made it increasingly difficult and risky for the City to deny affordable housing projects, like the Sands project. It is my understanding that the Sands project is consistent with the City's General Plan and is entitled to a density bonus under the Palm Desert Municipal Code and State Law. The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss legal hurdles to and exposure from denying an affordable housing project. Denial of the project could implicate the following State and Federal laws: • California zoning and housing laws, including California Government Code Sections 65589.5 (the Housing Accountability Act), 65008 (regarding income discrimination), and 65915 (regarding density bonuses); • The California Fair Employment and Housing Act; and • The Federal Fair Housing Act. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS 1. THE HOUSING CRISIS In the last few years, the State Legislature has had an intense and continuing focus on solving California's housing crisis. The Legislature describes the crisis as follows: "California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, 72500.00904\30758824.1 4/3/18 robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives."1 The Legislature points to California's current 2,000,000 housing unit deficit and the fact that 180,000 new housing units must be built each year to meet demand by 2025.2 On September 29, 2017, Governor Brown Jerry Brown signed a package of 15 new housing bills, which intend to streamline and incentivize housing development, but also ratchet up enforcement and penalties for cities that improperly deny affordable housing projects. For example, SB 167, discussed further below, strengthened the review and enforcement provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. 2. POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA ZONING AND HOUSING LAWS A. California Government Code Section 65589.5 — HousinQ Accountability Act California Government Code Section 65589.5, known as the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), specifically prohibits a city from denying low income housing projects, unless it makes certain written findings. If a city denies a project in violation of the HAA, the city could be subject to substantial monetary penalties. SB 167, effective January 1, 2018, amended the HAA to make it tougher to for cities to deny projects and imposed harsher penalties for those that violate the HAA. Given the recent amendment, courts and state agencies may be more vigilant in enforcement of the HAA. To deny an affordable housing project, a city must make at least one of the following findings: 1. The city exceeded its regional housing need allocation ("RHNA"); 2. The project would have an unavoidable "specific, adverse impact" to public health or safety; 3. The denial of the project is required to comply with state or federal law; 4. The project is proposed on land that is zoned for agriculture, neighboring agriculture on two sides, or has insufficient water or wastewater facilities to serve the project; or 5. The project is inconsistent with both the city's zoning and the city's general plan land use designation.3 These findings must be "based on a preponderance of the evidence,"4 which typically means more likely than not. Before SB 167, the standard was "substantial evidence," which is generally the standard for land use decisions. SB 167 heightened the standard to the more exacting "preponderance of the evidence." These findings are also required should a city "condition approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development" of affordable housing.5 The HAA defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a I Cal. Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(A) 2 Id. § 65589.5(a)(2)(D). 3 Id. § 65589.5(d). 41d. 5 Id. 72500.00904\30758824.1 4/3/18 reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors."6 SB 167 significantly increased the penalties for any violation of the HAA. If a city improperly denies an affordable housing project, then: • A court could compel compliance with the HHA within 60 days;7 • If a court finds that the denial was in bad faith, the court could compel the city to approve the project;8 • If the city fails to comply with the court's order, then the court must fine the city a minimum $10,000 per unit9 or, if the denial was in bad faith, up to $50,000 per unit;10 and • A court will award attorney fees to a successful plaintiff." Further, at least one federal case has interpreted housing statutes that restrict the ability of cities to deny or condition projects (like the HAA) as creating an entitlement to the land use approval, such that the denial of a project or the imposition of an onerous condition would be a due process violation under the federal constitution and could be considered a taking of property.12 B. California Government Code Section 65008 — Income Discrimination California Government Code Section 65008 generally provides that a city may not take an action that discriminates based on income. If a city takes such action, the action is deemed void. For example, a city may not prohibit or discriminate against any residential development because the development is intended for individuals or families of low or moderate income.13 Similarly, a city may not discriminate against a residential development because the development includes a multifamily residential project that is consistent with a city's zoning ordinance and general plan, as they existed on the date the project's application was complete.14 Any action taken by a city is deemed void if it denies an individual or group the ability to reside, own or rent in a proposed development because they are persons or families of low, moderate or middle income.15 Further, the discrimination prohibited under California Government Code Section 65008 includes the denial of a residential development because occupancy will be by minorities and/or persons and families of low and moderate income.16 Therefore, a city may not impose 6 Id. § 65589.5(h)(1); Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Ca1.App.4th 704, 714-715. 7 Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A); 8 Id. 9Id. § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i). 10 Id. § 65589.5(1) 11 Id. § 65589.5(k)(1)(A). 12 See North Pacific LLC v. City of Pacifica (2002) 234 F.Supp.2d 1053 (2002) 13 Cal. Gov. Code, § 65008(b)(1). 14Id. at § 65008(b)(1)(D). 15 Id. § 65008(a)(3). "Persons and families of middle income" means persons and families whose income does not exceed 150 percent of the median income for the county in which the persons or families reside. § 65008(c). 16 Id. § 65008; See also Keith v. Volpe (C.D. Cal. 1985) 618 F.Supp. 1132, 1157 ("The California Supreme Court has taken the position that a showing of discriminatory impact on a racial minority is sufficient to prove a constitutional violation." 72500.00904\30758824.1 4/3/18 different requirements on a residential development that is intended for occupancy by persons and families of low and moderate income. C. California Government Code 65915 — Density Bonuses Density bonuses are required to be provided by cities pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 whenever an applicant makes a percentage of units available for rent or sale to low- income residences. In addition, cities are also required to provide developers of density bonus projects with certain concessions and incentives, as well as waivers and modifications of zoning standards. In other words, a city is required to provide zone variances to development standards. One to three "concessions or incentives" may be requested on a sliding scale, depending on the amount of affordable housing provided. 3. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT The California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") also makes it unlawful to discriminate based on race and color (to name a few bases). Specifically, it is unlawful to: "...discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, source of income, or ancestry. Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants, zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law...that make housing opportunities unavailable."17 Income is not a protected class under the FEHA. However, the same analysis (in regard to a discriminatory impact and effect) that applies to an FHA claim, as discussed below, could also apply to an FEHA claim. 4. VIOLATION OF FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT The Federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") makes it unlawful to make unavailable, deny, or discriminate in selling or renting housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or familial status, known as "protected classes."18 To establish a violation of the FHA, a proponent must show that a city discriminated against one of these protected classes. For example, a proponent could allege that in denying an affordable housing project, a city intended to discriminate against persons of a certain race or color. However, under case law, proof of intentional discrimination is not necessary — a showing of a discriminatory impact or effect against a protected class would be enough to establish a potential violation of the FHA.19 17 Cal. Gov. Code, § 12955(I). 18 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (a)-(b). 19 Keith, 618 F.Supp. at 1147-1148. 72500.00904\30758824.1 4/3/18 Income level isnot a protected class under the FHA, but race is considered a protected class. For example, in Keith v. Volpe (C.D. Cal. 1985) 618 F.Supp. 1132, various citizen groups sued Hawthorne for refusing to allow the construction of replacement housing for individuals displaced by a freeway project planned in an urban area.20 The groups alleged unlawful discrimination against minority and low-income persons. The court agreed that Hawthorne had discriminated against those groups, based on evidence of the disproportionate impact of the denial on those groups. RECOMMENDATION Any decision to deny an affordable housing project needs to be very carefully considered in light of the strong legal protections for affordable housing projects and against discrimination. If the City chooses to deny such a project, it must base its denial on non-discriminatory justifications and written findings based on strong evidence in the record. The City will likely face a legal challenge if it denies the project. The consequences of an improper denial include having a court overturn the City's decision, significant penalties, and payment of attorney's fees and potentially damages. 20 Id. 72500.00904\30758824.1 4/3/18