The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPP-CUP-EA-CZ 16-280 - McFadden Architets - PDCCTo: CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Lauri Aylaian, City Manager Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney From: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Date: May 10, 2018 Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Change of Zone Request On April 12, 2018, the City Council considered a request for a Change of Zone (CZ) to the former Executive Course at Palm Desert Country Club. At that meeting, the Council continued the request and asked staff to research and provide responses to the following: 1. Provide examples or definitions of community amenities e.g., gazebos, exercise equipment, etc... The applicant has provided examples of the equipment to be installed within the project areas. Examples of the proposed amenities are attached to this memorandum. Staff supports the proposed equipment and believes these examples represent the minimum standard of quality for amenities at the site. As conditioned, all equipment will be reviewed by the Community Development Director to ensure a minimum quality of the amenities proposed at the site. 2. Provide details on how to address properties that have encroached on to the golf course property. Staff has worked with the applicant to identify a suitable solution to address properties that have constructed improvements on the golf course property. Originally, it was proposed that these areas could be deeded over to the homeowner, which would allow continued use of the improvements. However, many homeowners expressed concerns that redefining their property boundaries would trigger a property tax reassessment and, therefore, it was not a suitable solution. Instead, staff and the applicant are proposing that a "use and access" easement be recorded on the tract maps for those specific property owners. Staff believes this is a workable solution that does not trigger the reassessment of property taxes and allows the owners of those properties that encroach into the golf course continued use of their improvements. Palm Desert Country Club Change of Zone Page 2 of 2 May 10, 2018 3. Review and provide information related to the agreement between the applicant and the Palm Desert Country Club homeowners' association (HOA). Staff has reviewed the "Settlement Agreement" between the HOA and the applicant and notes that this is a private agreement to which the City is not a party. In summation, the agreement commits the remaining nine (9) holes (back nine holes) of the Championship course to be preserved as a golf course. The condition already applies to the front nine holes and, with the inclusion of the back nine holes, the agreement reserves the entire Championship golf course for golf purposes. This agreement was recorded with Riverside County on November 6, 2017. 4. Review legal commitments of the Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Operation and Maintenance Agreement (OMA) from 2005. The applicant's attorneys have prepared a response supporting the position that the CC&Rs and OMA are not applicable to the project as the agreement only applies to the operation of a golf course so long as one is operated. Since the Executive golf course has ceased operations, the attorneys argue that the OMA does not apply. Their determination is attached to this memorandum. The City Attorney's office also conducted a review of the CC&Rs and OMA and their response is attached to this memorandum. The City Attorney agrees that the CC&Rs do not impact the proposed project; however, the OMA is a bit more ambiguous. Because of the uncertainty outlined in the City Attorney's memorandum, staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to work with the applicant to amend the OMA and clarify that the OMA applies specifically to the Championship course only and only so long as it is operated as a golf course. Staff makes this recommendation with the recognition that the previous two owners of the course filed for bankruptcy, that there are significant changes occurring in the golf industry, that the sustained economic viability of this golf course has not been demonstrated in more than 15 years, and that requiring private businesses to operate at a loss is outside the scope of the City's authority. ERIC CEJA, PIPAL PLANNER /ec Attachments: 1. Amenity Exhibits 2. Applicant's Attorney Memorandum 3. City Attorney's Memorandum Ids BEST BEST & KRIEGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of Palm Desert City Council From: Robert W. Hargreaves, City Attorney Date: April 30, 2018 Re: Palm Desert Country Club Documents Pursuant to Council direction, I reviewed the following documents that pertain to the current Palm Desert Country Club project, case number 16-280. I also received the attached letter dated April 19, 2018, from the attorney for PDCC that presents PDCC's position on the documents. 1. Development Agreement. Entered into in 2004: The Development Agreement expired by its own terms in 2011. 2. Operation and Maintenance Agreement. Entered into in 2005: This Agreement does not have a termination date, was not discharged in bankruptcy, and remains enforceable. Recital "C" provides that the Owner will maintain the Property pursuant to the Agreement's standards "for so long as Owner operates a golf course on the Property." "Property" is defined to include all 29 -holes of the golf course. The City could take two positions: (1) that as long as any portion of the Property is operated as a golf course, all of the Property must be maintained to the Agreement's standards; or (2) any portion of the Property that is no longer operated as a golf course is not required to be maintained to the Agreement's standards. The Owner takes the second position. The City could justifiably take either position. If the City decides to agree with the Owner's position, the Agreement should likely be amended to reflect that agreement. 3. CC&Rs. Recorded in 1963 against Tract 2283 as document number 24645, and subsequently amended: The only portion of the Project covered by the CC&Rs is the westerly portion, nearest to the clubhouse. There is an anomaly in the drafting of the document so that it is not clear whether or not the CC&Rs expired in 1992. This issue was disputed at length by the Owner and the HOA. They eventually entered into a settlement agreement in which they acknowledged the dispute and agreed that: (1) the HOA would not oppose the current project; and (2) the Owner would record a new "Declaration of Restrictions" committing it to continue to maintain the portion of the 18-hole golf course within Tract 2283. The remainder of the 18- hole course, in Tract 2137, is covered by a different set of CC&Rs that has not expired. I recommend that the City recognize the HOA/Owner settlement and not concern itself with the enforcement of the original CC&Rs for Tract 2283. enclo sure 72500.00858`31037536.1 4/30/18 A T TOR NE Y S ROBERT L. PATTERSON patterson@sbemp.com ADMITTED IN CA April 19, 2018 WA EMAIL AND MAIL Robert W. Hargreaves, City Attorney City of Palm Desert c/o Best Best & Krieger 74760 Highway 111, Suite 200 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Re: Palm Desert Country Club Dear Mr. Hargreaves: REPLY TO: Palm Springs, California This letter is provided to the City of Palm Desert on behalf of our client PD Holdings, LP which owns a nine -hole golf course and an eighteen -hole golf course commonly known as the Palm Desert Country Club. PD Holdings, LP has applied for certain entitlements including Tract Maps 37240, 37241 and 37242 ("Entitlements") allowing a portion of the nine hole executive golf course to be developed as single family residential housing. You have asked for our opinion about whether there are any covenants or restrictions that would prohibit the construction of the single-family residential housing project ("Project") contemplated by the Entitlements. It is our unequivocal opinion that there are no covenants or restrictions that restrict or prohibit the entitlement and construction of the Project. Therefore, the City Council must consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Entitlements without any reference to this potential issue. In fact the issue has been raised by members of the public who are opposed to the development strictly for political reasons. In short, the covenants are a red herring that must be disregarded. PRIVATE CC&Rs There are two sets of CC&Rs that potentially could affect the Project. However, neither one of these CC&Rs contains a restriction applicable to the area of the Project. The overall project known as Palm Desert Country Club is covered by Tract Map 33195. Tract 33195 is a remapping of two previous smaller tracts, Tract 2137 and Tract 2283. The Project is located on Lots 12, 26 and 29 of Tract 33195 (APNs 637-19-27, 637-19- SLOVAK BARON EMPEY Y MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP 1800 E l ahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 (760) 32 2-2275 • 0 (760) 322.2107 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 1' 714) 435-9592 • P (714) 850-9011 2240 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 92101 T (619) 501-4540 103 Carnegie Center Blvd , Suite 101 Princeton, New Jeisey 08540 T (609) 955-3393 • P (609) 520-8731 Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 26' Floor New York, New York 10174 'f (212) 829-.1399 www.sbemp.com Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. April 19, 2018 Page 2 21 and 637-19-'24). On April 12, 1961, a Declaration of Restrictions containing a golf course requirement was recorded as Instrument Number 31032, affecting certain Lots within Tract 2137, as amended on November 19, 2004 by Instrument Number 2004-0929679 (collectively the "2137 Declaration"). Paragraph 1 of Declaration 2137 states that it covers only lots within Tract 2137. Section 1 says that a golf course must be maintained on the property. Attached to this letter is a diagram showing the coverage of the 2137 Declaration. The 2137 Declaration covers the area commonly known as the front 9 holes of the Championship Golf Course. ("Front 9 Holes"). However, more notably, the 2137 Declaration does not cover anv part of the Project. On March 12, 1963, a Declaration of Restrictions was recorded as Instrument Number 24645 affecting certain lots within Tract 2283 as amended on November 19, 2004 as Instrument Number 2004-0929681 (the "2283 Declaration"). The 2283 Declaration covers the area commonly known as the "Back 9 Holes" and requires that a golf course be maintained on the subject property. While the 2283 Declaration requires maintenance of golf course it has expired and is no longer of anv force or effect.(See Section 2) In any event the 2283 Declaration covers only a small part of the Project as shown on the attached diagram. The 2137 Declaration does not cover the Project and the 2283 Declaration has expired. No private covenants affect, restrict or prohibit the Project. CITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The only other covenant that could affect the Project is the Operation and Maintenance Agreement between the City and Dahoon Investment Company, Inc. dated August 31, 2005 and recorded as Document Number 2005-0780948. This document states that so long as a golf course is maintained it will be maintained according to the standards set forth in the agreement. However, the City Covenant is clear that the owner is not mandated to operate a golf course. The standards provide that so long as a golf course is operated on the property it must be maintained in a manner consistent with the operations of an average golf course facility allowing members of the public and private members to play. As mentioned above, there were initially two golf courses on the overall project known as Palm Desert Country Club —the Executive Course and the Championship Course. PD Holdings, however, shut down the Executive Course —the area at issue —several years ago. The Championship Course remains in operation and PD Holdings intends to continue to operate and maintain that course. The development project applies only to the former Executive Course. Therefore, PD Holdings will continue to maintain the eighteen -hole course in full compliance with the City Covenant. The language in the City Covenant states that "for so long as Owner operates a golf course on the Property, Owner agrees to operate and maintain the Property according to the standards set forth in this Agreement, as required under the Development Agreement". Nowhere does the City Covenant state that the owner must operate a golf course or golf courses on the entirety of the project. The City Covenant does not state that the owner cannot take one of the golf courses out of play because that Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. April 19, 2018 Page 3 was never the intention of the agreement. The City Covenant was entered into at a time when a concern existed because the turf and landscaping was dying and unsightly. The purpose of the City Covenant was to assure that the grass did not dry up and create an eyesore. The purpose of the City Covenant was definitely not to mandate that the property not be developed for another use such as single family residential. Had that been the intent, the City could have stated that as it its intent. Our client strongly opposes any interpretation of the City Covenant as prohibiting development of single family residential housing as this is not supported in any way by the City Covenant. In conclusion, the covenants affecting the property do not in any way restrict or prohibit our client's development. In fact the Palm Desert Country Club Association has provided its prior written support to the project as it is not inconsistent with the CC&Rs. We request that you present this letter to the City Council members so that they can make an adequately informed decision. In making their decision, the issue of the City Covenant or a private covenant prohibiting or restricting the Entitlements would not be within the reasonable discretion of the City Council. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to present this opinion and information for your review. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if you need any further information or documents referred to in this letter, Sincerely, SBEMP LLP Rd2zikj-0) Robert L. Patterson enclosure n -t o a Q s�� *4 n! 4 J lie r 11 i! •�. � C. �- 0 n � � � � � ; M . ,� �----- �.- i *� . � , �".. � . f � r � �� 4� � , L „ <�' � ,7` � — � � E _' `": �\1. 9 + ' .• . . � � aF � � �� l �''k 1�;+ �11 x�- � 1� ; ..} � �. � ' `� 1.s ` �. ° �� : �� • � . •'� t 4 •T .�r .. . . � � �� • � . r �1/{,,� , . t I Pr� � . "r � '� t �_ � [r t� � ! � ' 1'�� + � . ; + ,,. . � 'i� � � � � . � -•:.i ._ � �' � #+ :.� ' `� � � �� t^? .�., .; � , _ .. � � i' � A - �y I A' � � �'r. - � . y �{ ,1�'u• [ ` � �r .: �I� � � k ` �� e �/� l , 3 . {.,. �5 � F r� 7 !. �{ � x . �./f7 � . i �' . . . � �4'' . . .. ' � � � � ' . � I.. '�.... � i.. . +, I ^ � � s �J / �� . l �t`%� :. , ' 1 r--- � _� - �`� �: � � �; , � # '. ��_ � : '�'` � �� ; {-� ► a�_ � }� � .,�� ;� �� ,� � � � � ;�� , �� 1� ,. . � �� I � � �':� : �, � ��;;�;� �:� Y S � -� r r 3� ��,� � ? � � .� '� � � J '� _ � .�, e ' -. I ' .' � � � ., � �• ; F , � —_. �� .} � �R� L`� i� y ' �r� � , `- �r �' ' �]� ' r -�" �� , ,,. ,�'� , J ::� � '--, � � R . �� ` - � � � \ ,if f x ��' y �� "� � �-.,w ` � 4. � F } r � i ' �+� I , . � �, y .., r16.i 'h ��1. n[ �, ► .� + � . � � I � I �"r' ��, � " ��:�. • � � - � � � _ � �. � f� ; k. : � �� i _.� �,,,�; . , �. � 1 . ` '+ ' . �~"' �1��. e�� . �•*' � � � •; � � � �. • .... .y � � i �� * r .� i�al r CA CA CA CA CA N LA C1sG7G70416) A G X A A N70 77 N O N N N NO N SD T V' J m m CO OS mn�� Ci a a n N N a)0C �0 N 0 Cr ozz X fD •C n m 3 w v 0 � ( cr co al c crl 0cry a v 0 0 N 0 eL a a3i v = co a C. 0 aN = ni 0 Cr) [D 0 z 03 0 0 D 03 0) 0 5' 0 0 0 Cl CD m N 5 co) ueowi dews It ;pH ssalipA Joop1r16 splayuaaJ9 • ao IV 0 ! Fk co -r r cn r m m T pedw! a6 ei `;uudpa; news Cn 30V)I3dd 3IdWVS 318 C£86-SIE-888 I w03 ssauyyspRyuaa13n1~11 I ssaulH Joopinp spiayuaaxy ssauyd 1uQPT O sgeyuaag L LOZ m Accessible Chest Press GR2005-1-48A-W Cxaenfields OuWnar Fitness. Inc 'Jul '9594J1!i isoplao Splast.,Gue 6 UQQ M-381--SOOZ2ID . AH esianam g RIIJaAn9 ogwop •aLkI ssLXJ]!d Joapula splsnijuaao0 V 6 uoo M-3917-1-Sooaaj AIj asienaa g Alpagng ogwop CD // w to -sup'swopi .aawnp sgeyt,ee40 MLv-I.-SouzH .ssaJd Iea!P A alglssaooy '>vl Isauui Joan1n0 s01a,,pouJO M917-VSOOZel0 uncap-IInd 1E1 algissaoay Ju! '%.a4.4 i mQMNo sDlaUUe 5O L- 4•-5ooz60 pieog 3uawoounouuy ipirt OO, I! W S ! �oapino snap aai9 LF06-SSE-888 1 wm'ssaulyspIay These 6 units may serve up to 1i people at a time. 0 20 / 7 G reernfielus Ouldoa r Fdness g 0 0 w Y 0 y I-� CO 3 ✓ ✓ Z m any m '�'w C r- (1) r m 0 0 0 m �� 1 �_ , �� ; °° m � H '� �. n 7 A � tl N A m � e � N "a . f� t `{.l L�f'�. �'^*G�' :•� - �r: !�. . � tD N � � a a � C `C 7 O � � �a �a m �° a� I11 N � �� ` R„�'' : �� i �_�� ^ _ F ;.Y 1�� • J.�f � �_ y.', •.� . �'=�= � �� 1 _ �'7 � 4� -- �� - . t �4t'` ; � +'� � _ ��` � � � - r� 4 �i"{. �� ••`. � � �� ' i. .a �.. . '�.yff �� ! 1 ,* � , 1 p�` �. �...:�i� Y . � � }' �• �.. . ��.: .r' a. 1 _. . , es s '' �,+ +�A ! � � a�i � � �,��` � � - s.�: ' +� � �� - �' .,.�, .��._ � ��. � _ — �,� _ A�, ; , �n :{ e; - ��.�� -- , -- � �,, ,- ,�� L-y � : ��:� - �T '4� �' � � ,��,��-�-��-� ��ti k � �, � . r•• r � .. �� :. �+ - n.i •� yl� � '� 11 � ry�.: �� .�:��+. w � r C�p p �S �'�� W �' A7 m � � y �m N �Q j � � � x m N � � ' � � m � � � .� i 1 s� "� ; ^� .�+�■ � ��.:s��. MAGLIft MLB 1200E SERIES MATERIALS: Bench ends are made from solid cast aluminum. The seat employs Ipe Slats or High Density Paper Composite (HDPC). FINISH: The Maglin Powdercoat System provides a durable finish on all metal surfaces. Wood slats are treated with penetrating sealers. INSTALLATION: The bench is delivered pre -assembled. Holes (0.5) are provided in each foot for securing to base. MLB1200B-W TO SPECIFY: Select MLB1200B Choose: - Ipe - M LB 1 Z00B-W HDPC - MLB1200B-PCC (Charcoal) -MLB1200B-PCB (Dark Brown) - Powdercoat Color DIMENSIONS: Height: 17.00" (43.2 cm) Length: 70.00" (177.8 cm) Depth: 16.13" (41.0 cm) Weight: 751bs (34kg) 1 Vaad .=• BENCHES T 800-7 I 8.-5508 F 877.2009303 WWW.MAG LIN. COM SALE S��:�MAOLIN. CO MLB1200B-PCC •R]1 drawings. specifications. design and details on this page remain the property ofMaglin Situ Furniture Inc. And mry not be used without Magri authorization. -details and specifications may vary du to continuing improvements of our products. ' MAGLIN is a rep Stared Irma mark o} Mecitln Sae Furtliture Inc 210 SERIES MLPT21O-S-R MATERIALS: Horizontal support beams are used for superior stability and structural integrity. Surface material is recycled plastic Table frame is made from 3" x 2-3/S" structural 1-Beam with mitered corners. FINISH: All steel components are protected with E•Coat rust proofing. The Maghn Powdercoat System provides a durable finish on all metal surfaces. INSTALLATION: The table is delivered pre -assembled. Holes (0.5" j are provided for securing to base. TO SPECIFY: Select MLPT210-S-R Choose: - Powdercoat Color OPTIONS: - Gaming board (GB) -Wheelchair accessibility (WCA) - IPE Wood (WI - Surface Mount (5) dd 117• 1139tTnn] }. 31 1/2" f ao hind ,v r MAG LI N - all drawings, speciFlutions, design and detaras on this page remain the property ar Magi In Site rumiture Inc. and may not be used without MaSIIn authontation. • Detai Is and s petlRcations may vary doe to continuing improvements of our prnductr. DIMENSIONS: Height: 29.75" (75.6 cm) Length: 70'{;77.8cm) Width: 66.5" 0.68.9cm) Weight: 385.39Ibs 1174,8kg) T eoo-7I n-tseoe F 977.260•03O3 vm i.MML!N.COM SALCS@MAOLIM.CCM wo, -v.41*** *1* MERICA PARRS*COMPANY Building Better Parks for Children of all ages 1-800-381-4491 London Tower PC.860o3 44 Ages: 2-12 r`. Use Zone: 28' x 25' fr Child Capacity: 30 t Fah Height: 4'0" a* Activities: 8 Accessible p Lahr 1 6 P 2 2 cotL CUMYER APC CURVED SPEEDWAY SLIDE b Transfer Ground ■PE% CL/MSING ATTACHMENT Lre TELPESCOPE ANEL a WHISTLE tl APC MOON PNASR PANEL MINI A-MA21 PANEL APC SINGLE SPEEDWAT SLIDE RETURN. STEP TRIANGLE TRANSFER POINT W HANDMOLO Scan the QR Code for a 360L Panoramic View 1-800-381-4491 Am er is anParks Compa ny. c om Model: Steelworx Hexagonal Shelter, 24' Model # HX-24-SW Manufacturing Mission: To provide all prefabricated components and installation instructions for a 24' hexagonal (measured from eave to eave) free standing bolt together, tubular steel constructed shelter kit. Design Criteria: Structure is typically designed for a 25 lb live load and a 90 mph wind load capacity, but can be designed based on specific site requirements upon request. All structural members are ASTM A-500 U.S. grade B steel. Welded connection plates shall be ASTM A-36 hot rolled steel. All fabrication performed to latest AISC standards by AWS Certified welders. All framing connections are done using A325 grade bolts within concealed access openings from above and will later be concealed by the roofing. All roof framing shall be flush against the roof decking to eliminate the possibility of bird nesting. Tubular Steel Columns and Beams: Standard column dimension shall be 5' x 5" x 3116" tubular steel welded to 5/8" base plates for surface mounting. Main support beams are 7" x 5" x 3/16" and purlins are 5" x 3" x 1/8". Steel sizes are preliminary and may change due to ongoing review and final engineering. Roofing: 24 Ga. pre-cut steel Multi -Rib panels with Kynar 500 finish in a variety of colors with white underside. Standard roof slope is a 4/12 pitch with a eave height of 8`-0". Attached to structural framing with exposed self tapping screws painted to match roof color. Matching 24 Ga. trim included. Frame Finish: All steel framework will receive a corrosion protective TGIC Polyester powder coat, etectro-statically applied and cured at 400°F. A large selection of standard colors are available. Foundation: All columns need to be anchored to concrete footings (footing design provided separately). Columns can be surface mounted to footings with anchor bolts at or below finish slab elevation or they can be embedded directly into the footing without base plates upon request. Anchor bolts and bracing templates are included. Optional base plate covers are available at an additional cost. Hardware: All structural hardware and roofing fasteners shall be provided. Warranty: 10 years against manufacturer defects. Not Included: Concrete work of any kind, unloading of product and iinstallation. Additional Options: ■ Flexibility of Design • Provisions For Electrical Such as: Height and Pitch • Lexan Wind Screens ■ Additional Engineering • Tongue & Groove Roof Decking • Variety of Colors ■ Asphalt Shingles, Standing Seam, • Decorative Railings, Lattice, Cedar Shake, or Clay Tile Roofing Braces, Trim, etc. • Composite Finished Ceiling • Cupolas and Rooftop Accs. • Solar Panels & Solar Lighting • Column Style Variations • Site Furnishings and Accs. 12 41- 24'-0" 24 GA, PRE-CUT STEEL PANELS & TRIM ELEVATION SCALE: NTS -4110°)L11- COVERWORX Recreation! Arrhlrertur I1tr t'.ee i# 8u . & Harr In,. 11800 East 9 Mile Road Warren, MI48089 Office: (586) 759-5490 Fax: (586)754-9130 Toll Free: (800} 657.6118 Email: info@coverwore.net www.CoverWorx.net 1'-6" 5' x 5' TUBE STEEL COLUMN (TYP) 7" x 5' TUBE STEEL HIP BEAM (TYP) 5' x 3" TUBE STEEL PURL IN )TYP) 21'-0" 24'-0" FRAMING PLAN SCALE: NTS Steelworx Hexagonal Shelter - 24' Model: HX-24-SW DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS STEEL PLATE COMPRESSION RING 1'-5" ~�� r � , � �� ., ��'a+lG,. �►'�iwt.� . � ws,. . ,�r, � 7i� --� �'-�, �� _ �� . ' ' �� • � � �. �� , �'�� `�� ` �,y � _� `,,,. , � i � � � � ' �� . i _ � � �� i' , �� t +�lt a: � �' �� `*r. . v. FI I� I w il1 � �.wi�W -,-,v, � � ' � .. . t..�� . "�Wa r � �.,;.� �' 11�. F , � }r F�� . ' +� .�'�, ��`�;# � I . � 4 � ! y + i � h � F* - , '' d ""� . � �i � ` "��. • �': �' k � s �"`"�' �s. .. ' � �. �•t� •�� '{ � +� w � � �.. : ��, � �� f i � �� • �.,,,� �-.�- r . � "�� . � � � '. 7 +, :t . � .. 'fi � .x a 1 Y• '�e � 4 r �� i 1 �' t. �` f.i� t ' �it � �� , '� �Y �' i � �� ! . . �� : _ {-�.� 4� �, � � � * at � �. . �� — . i � � .� _� A ' ' . � . � �� ,�, �"i r :�- ,� �� .� . i �_.. t � � ��• ' Y �� ! � � ! M a � •�. i � �f� � � �"�a.. :��1 � .�=��"*�"'_ �` � •� � , d + rs �., � � � , � � ! � R� t �+i�' �, � � � � �1 � � � � � � Y F V � i :� ! f I I ! i � . � �°_ � �'g�a, .. , w4a �€f """��M y $ .;:I Product data have been exported from - TerraBound Solutions Inc. Export date: Thu Apr 26 15 12:13 2018 / +0000 GMT TerraBound Mini Dog Waste Station Price: $119.00 SKU: 44-dogstationsma I I Product Page: httos://www.terraboundsolutions.com/product/terra bound-m in i-doa-waste-station/ Product Summary Our Dog Mini Waste Station is available with ❑NEPuI® or Roll Bag dispenser system. This waste station is constructed from commercial grade aluminum and powder coated in forest green. Product Description Our ❑og Mini Waste Station is available with ❑NEPuI® or Roll Bag dispenser 11!'!i!r G,r% hrci,/P nit+r!hl WooCunuxc•rce PDF & Prirrr I Page 112 roduct data have deep I exported from - TerraBound So!Altions Inc. port date This Apr 26 13•1.1:.1. 2018 ! •r0000 GMT system. This waste station is constructed from commercial grade aluminum and powder coated in forest green. All TerraBound Mini Dog Waste Stations come standard with the following equipment: - U Channel Post - Sign - Bag Dispenser - Hardware - 400 Pet Waste Bags - Installation Instructions Product Attributes - Weight: 28 Ibs 1 LA/Novi pr+,ihrr•r,h•r,rih :4, !'!+! I+Ic h,e, b,•rrr pr,+rcrr ? hr !J'uoL7rsarrcrt-c PI]I' & Prirrl 1,1,ev+r+. IFage 2/2I n ❑ n `1 W3-b£Z8-2i '�I��2i a1i S. h L LION nod 3DNV113. Luiz; _Kgtna giis a 6uiDed5 aal!9 _ 40 HHIII A 111 � pg I!h ;if w N ?m3L? , Rig EEdd8. c i a o 0 5-4 -I O'N5ZkiRei m ak gE :uolldlfsaq lejauaj W3-frEZ8-'1 ')p I aMEI RELIANCE FOUNDRY BIKE PARKING I �� ` ; �� -�4. �� +• , 1 '' - -4.� �� y� �tel � , I'�' � :�7 ; _ � i�=�' � ��rt` i ; �� 1�.: � �.. ��• .#� .�. _.� �. . . `� - �, f �� , �' ',-�-'. _� • - .� � . I� � , . �, ` �'' N . 14 `i �� " 4 - .. � - t �- . � �� . -/ . • � y . � �y;,�,,� �'...T�lr..r�~ _ ,.. . . '�"k�.�. . ��.L.-�.,� ��r�� r. _.1.w� ��` ■ The modern commuter has placed new demands on streetscapes. Cycling has become a major form of traffic and it continues to grow. At Reliance Foundry, we've recognized that it is necessary for businesses and communities to take steps to ensure that their buildings and communities remain accessible. We offer a wide array of bicycle storage solutions that promote "green"awareness and increase access for all commuters. With a catalogue that includes innovative, commercial bike racks, bicycle lockers and bike stands, we have the bike storage system that will cater to your customers and complement your streetscape. www.reliance-foundry.com/bike-storage 1 Ductile Iron Bike Bollards Create a classically inspired visual perimeter while providing the modern convenience of bicycle storage with bollards that feature secure bike locking arms. BIKE BOLLARDS Our distinct line of bike bollards are not simple bike stands. They are architectural devices that combine traffic management with secure bicycle storage. Whether your site's architecture is classic or modern, bike bollards by Reliance Foundry provide the perfect enhancement. Our bike bollards guide vehicular traffic and increase accessibility by providing parking for the modern commuter. Reliance Foundry's proprietary mounting systems make installing our bike bollards a breeze and all of our bike bollards are composed of top -grade material that is fully recyclable. Steel Bike Bollards Bring a modern and functional feel to the architecture of your business or community with sleek steel bike bollards. (Also available in stainless steel) Removable Bike Bollards Experience the convenience of a bike parking solution that provides ultimate flexibility in access control. BIKE LOCKERS Quality and design are what make our Bike Parking Lockers the industry -leader in extended bicycle storage, and we design our bike lockers to provide the highest standard in bicycle protection. We use top quality materials and an expert design to create the perfect solution for extended bike -parking. Perfect for areas where there may be a heightened need for additional security, their box -like construction protects cycles from the elements and thwarts the efforts of would-be thieves and vandals. Bike Lockers Provide worry -free bicycle storage at your business or in your community with the top line of defense against theft and vandalism. Our bike lockers combine a secure construction with a stylish design that will complement modern streetscapes.They feature the perfect mix of functional security and architectural form. BII<E RACKS Commercial bike racks provide businesses and communities the opportunity to showcase their commitment to the environment and healthy lifestyles. At Reliance Foundry we understand that they are a crucial element of modem streetscapes and we have designed our bike storage racks to enhance the environments in which they are installed. Our bike racks are available in stainless steel or with a powered -coated finish. With a catalogue that features both innovative and functional models, our bike racks can be used to compliment every architectural approach. Wave (Serpentine) Bike Racks Provide functional bike storage with the quintessential, serpentine bike rack that combines an efficient use of space with a modern aesthetic. Innovative Bike Racks Showcase your business` bike -friendly outlook with stylish bike storage racks that make a bold statement on streetscapes. 0 Racks Add stylish definition to your streetscape with the durability and appeal of o-racks that can be installed alone or in groups to provide the exact level of bicycle storage you require. GIVE SECURE BIKE PARKING A WHOLE NEW MEANING... {r�� . .._ . y { � . ... .. 1�' r _ � � r : _`'� h �� . ,. �s � #�:-t� � v � ' *. a; '�r'{��. :`r ��- - i� 'l -f..j t� .�a . � i[[4 "� ��;�.s - y �. . t� . ' . . r��k . :�. F r � � � �... �� : • � .� .., �f ~ ! . � . R... . + � .. � � � �y_ � ' . . , 5 r . � ' . ..c. .. . ... ~~ y � . ` � / ' . .' .:�;' , �` _. /�.- , � w �K �lrr - - 'ti"�+' "� _ i � . ��} . � � ',' � r, i��l� �� l � � � � �. � . . . - , � .� _ --- � � � � � rr+wy1111i11l1 �I V i .�,�• ' '�., ,�.� , ��. � , ..... i� r� � . ��ii3�l �y�y,x � � 1 COMPANY OVERVIEW At Reliance Foundry, a commitment to innovation has allowed us to adapt to the changing needs of our customers for over 85 years. With a catalogue that currently features bollards, bike racks, industrial wheels and custom steel and iron castings, this commitment has allowed us to grow from limited manufacturer to global supplier. Reliance Foundry's storied history began in 1927 and today we remain committed to delivering the products that meet the evolving needs of contemporary businesses and communities. We search the globe to source the most innovative and economical metal solutions. As our product offering continues to grow, we're quickly becoming your all in one source for decorative and functional bollards, site furnishings and castings. With the support of foundry professionals and industry -leading online resources, we're available to guide you through your bollard, bike parking, industrial wheel or custom casting project from the design to the delivery stage. At Reliance Foundry, we strive to provide the highest level of product support and customer service. Contact us today to see how we can help? SUSTAINABILITY Sustainability is a core business value at Reliance Foundry and we've made producing environmentally -friendly products a top priority. Wherever possible, our bollards, bike stands, castings and wheels are created from recycled material and almost every product in our catalogue is fully recyclable. We design our products to provide exceptionally long service lives and we continue to seek out new ways to lessen their environmental impact. At Reliance Foundry, we recognize that supporting "green" initiatives and environmentally -friendly practices contributes to the success of both our business and yours. To: CITY OF PALM DESERT METING DATE _0T `Sla0 60NTINUED TO � /D - a10/ e PASSED TO 2ND READING _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Lauri Aylaian, City Manager Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney From: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Date: April 26, 2018 Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Change of Zone Request Staff recommends that the City Council continue the public hearing to May 24, 2018, to allow additional time to review the Operations and Maintenance Agreement. PREPARED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner ORDINANCE NO. 1337 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ❑EPAR TENT DATE: March 22, 2018 CONTINUED TO, oq • A u. ;10R, C3 PASSED TO2NDREADING REQUEST: Consideration of a request to rezone three parcels from Open Space (OS) to Mixed Residential (R-2), and approve a Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres located on the former Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course. * Continued the matter to the meeting of April 26, 2018, with staff Lc; pL )Y iGG 4LLG f.f ' . g. 1) aJ...mm y ►,I L4.= -- _ si ►1 Ynao Recommendation legal documents; 2) general confirmation of the amenities to be provided; 3) assurances for encroachments; 4) review by the City Attorney of the 18-hole golf course covenant document between the 1. Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 2018-16, Applicant and approving Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Environmental the HOA. 5-0 Assessment (PP/CUP/EA) 16-280, subject to conditions. 2. Waive further reading and pass to second reading City Council Ordinance No. 1337 , approving Change of Zone 16-280 to rezone approximately 30 acres from Open Space (OS) to Mixed Residential (R- 2) as shown in Exhibit A. Architectural Review Commission On July 25, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), by a vote of 6-0-1 (Commissioner McIntosh absent) recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission after continuing the proposed project at their meetings on February 28, 2017, March 14, 2017, and May 23, 2017. At the request of the ARC, the applicant made several revisions to the site grading plans, lowered building pad heights for homes and pool buildings, provided sections through several portions of the project site, and made refinements to the building architecture for more details and finishes. Commissioner Vuksic referenced that the quality of the buildings' architecture is handsome and well done. Planning Commission The City's Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request for a Change of Zone, Precise Plan, and Conditional Use Permit at their meeting of December 19, 2017. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Commissioner Holt voting no) in adopting a resolution recommending approval of the project and zone change to the City Council. Commissioner Holt stated that the project is interesting, but she hopes to see more imaginative and innovative designs as other golf courses redevelop. Commissioner Gregory noted that more courses are likely to close in the future and that the applicant did a good job accommodating the neighborhood's concerns by providing a less dense project and providing open space amenities for the community. March 22 2018 — Staff Report Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course Page 2 of 9 Strategic Plan The Land Use, Housing & Open Space chapter of the Strategic Plan contains the following priority: • Priority No. 5: "Utilize progressive land use policies and standards to support ongoing and future needs." Under this Priority, an "Action Step" is listed for the repurposing of golf courses. The specific step includes all parties, residents, the developer, and the City working together for the repurposing of golf course facilities. This project executes the Strategic Plan by repurposing the golf course to a residential use that may support the future golf course operations and that is compatible with the surrounding land uses within the Palm Desert Country Club. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation would authorize a change of zone to allow the development of 69 condominium units on three separate parcels totaling approximately 30 acres formerly used as the Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course. The existing zoning designation is to be changed from Open Space (O.S.) to Mixed Residential (R-2). Nearly half of the existing open space will be preserved and enhanced with new trails and active and passive recreational amenities. Background Analysis A. Property Description: The project is located on three separate parcels consisting of 30 acres formerly used as the Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course (Executive Course). Parcel A consists of 13.5 acres and is bounded by Oklahoma Drive (Oklahoma), Kentucky Avenue (Kentucky), California Drive (California), and Tennessee Avenue (Tennessee.) Parcel B consists of 6.15 acres and is bounded by California, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Parcel C consists of 9.7 acres and is bounded by Tennessee, Utah Circle (Utah), Indiana Avenue (Indiana), California, and New Mexico Drive (New Mexico). Currently, nearly 200 detached single- family homes and two-story senior apartments back up to these parcels. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zoning: O.S. - Open Space General Plan: Golf Course & Resort Neighborhood C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: South: R-1 - Residential Single-Family/Single-Family Homes R-1 - Residential Single-Family/Single-Family Homes G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC Staff Report (3.22.18).doc March 22 2018 — Staff Report Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course Page 3 of 9 East: R-1/R-2 - Residential Single-Family/Single-Family Homes and Senior Apartments West: R-1 - Residential Single-Family/Single-Family Homes Proiect Description The project includes the placement of new streets, the construction of 69 single -story condominium units, recreational amenities, and installation of new landscape located on three separate parcels, totaling 30 acres, previously occupied by the Executive Course. The Executive Course has been closed since 2013 and the course is slowly returning to its original untouched condition; native desert. Topographical movement in the land is still present; however, turf is nearly completely gone from the course and very few landscape plantings remain. Condominiums A single floor plan is provided for all condominium units and units are designed to be detached or arranged into clusters of two or three units. Each unit comprises three bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen and living area. All units are 1,435 square feet in size, with a 553-square- foot garage, and a 402-square-foot covered patio to the rear. In addition, a walled -in front courtyard is provided for additional private outdoor space. Two different elevations are provided for the condominiums as shown on pages PEL1 and PEL2 of the provided exhibits. The elevation for PEL1 consists of a plaster finish with control joints to break up the facade, a wood trellis at the main entry and over the back patio, a pitched roof with a concrete tile finish, and aluminum doors and windows. PEL2 consists of the same types of finishes; however, the pitched roof design is replaced with a rectangular massing for a flat roof design. Varying vertical elements and heights are provided to enhance the quality of the units. Recreational Amenities Several recreational amenities are provided throughout the project site, including a perimeter walking trail, new pool areas, tennis courts, tot lot with playground, pocket parks, and potential exercise stations. Architecture is provided for the typical pool building and details regarding some of the recreational amenities are provided on sheets MP -EL and L4-L7, respectively. Perimeter Wall and Site Landscape New six -foot -high perimeter walls are provided at the edge of the property backing onto existing single-family homes. The wall design, shown on page L-8 of the exhibits, provides three potential options for property owners to choose from: wrought -iron fence, solid block wall, or a combination of the two materials. The fence and columns are shown as a neutral beige color. The landscape plan consists of new ground cover, limited turf, and new tree and shrub G:\Planning\Eric Cela\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC Staff Report (3.22.18).doc March 22 2018 — Staff Report Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course Page 4 of 9 plantings throughout the 30-acre project site. Several new tree species will be dispersed throughout the site including Palo Verdes, Tipuana, Shoestring and Willow Acacias, and Mediterranean and Fan Palms. Several shrubs will also be planted including Senna, Yellow Bells, Red Birds of Paradise, Sage, Texas Rangers, Ocotillos, Desert Spoons, Red Yuccas, and Lantanas. Ground cover will predominately consist of 3/8" minus Desert Gold decomposed granite and 2" to 6" rubble and cobblestones. Turf will also be used in limited areas to provide open recreation space. Community Meetings & Public Input Since 2014, numerous community meetings have been held regarding the potential repurposing of the Executive Course. Meetings have been initiated by the developer and the community alike; especially by the Open Space Action Committee (OSAC), a non-profit organization founded by Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) residents. Staff has attended the following meetings: • June 22, 2015 • November 15, 2015 • April 7, 2016 • September 15, 2016 Each meeting provided the opportunity for the applicant or OSAC to make a presentation and field questions from the residents in attendance. Many of the questions posed by residents included concerns about the loss of mountain views, privacy, traffic, noise, short-term rentals (STRs) and density. Staff also observed that the majority of residents in attendance vocalized their opposition to the proposed development; however, a smaller, less vocal, contingency of residents did voice support for the project. Background Analysis Development History In -fill residential development at PDCC has occurred in several phases over many decades. Most recently, in 2004, the City Council approved a Change of Zone application to allow the construction of 95 new single-family residences around the golf course perimeter and over the former driving range. To date, all units have been constructed and sold. At the time of approval, a condition was proposed to record an "open space" easement over the remaining portions of the golf course; however, no condition was adopted and subsequently never recorded on any portions of the golf course. In 2011, the current owners purchased the golf courses out of bankruptcy. In 2013, the City explored the formation of a Landscape and Lighting District (LLD), which would be assessed on properties within the Country Club for support of the golf course. The LLD would have resulted in a $25 monthly assessment on PDCC property owners. Those funds would have been used to support the golf course. However, this process stalled due to a lack of response and follow- through by the owner, and a lack of support from PDCC residents. G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC Staff Report (3.22.18).doc March 22 2018 — Staff Report Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course Page 5 of 9 In May 2013, the executive golf course ceased operation. Since the closure of the course, the course has slowly reverted towards its previous natural condition. Loss of surrounding views and privacy A major concern raised by residents that abut the former golf course is the Toss of open space and the loss of views to the surrounding mountains. The project will require grading of the former golf course and placement of new condominium units up to a height of 18 feet. The building height of 18 feet is permitted by the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) and is comparable in height to existing homes within PDCC. It is credible that the new project will not afford the historic views property owners have previously enjoyed; however, the height and spacing of the new condominiums are sensitive to preserving view corridors to the surrounding mountains to the south. Many homeowners have also raised concerns over the loss of privacy, stating that new neighbors will have the ability to peer into their rear yards. Staff will note that this condition previously existed when the course was open and golfers and walkers had the same visual access into private rear yards. As proposed, there is a 20-foot building setback provided along all perimeters with the majority of homes far exceeding this setback standard. Below is a table that shows the minimum and maximum setback standard for each of the three site areas: Planning Area Min. Setback Max. Setback Lot Setbacks (min./max.) Site A 43' 81'-9" A-23/A-8 Site B 33'-4" 60' B-3/B-9 Site C 35' 63'-9" C-14/C-18 By nearly doubling the 20-foot minimum setback, the applicant has demonstrated sensitivity to the privacy issues expressed by surrounding single-family homeowners. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a new six -foot -high combination block wall or wrought -iron fence along all properties that abut the project. This new fence/wall provides additional security and privacy for many of the surrounding property owners. Traffic A focused Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the project and reviewed by the City's Transportation Engineer. The findings of the report conclude that the project will not cause any significant impacts to the studied roadway segments and intersections. The study shows that the project will generate an additional 657 daily trips at build -out and that the surrounding roadway network can accommodate the additional traffic demands. In addition, the study looked at the following 14 specific intersections and concluded that there is no significant impact to those intersections: • California Drive/Fred Waring Drive G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC Stott Report (3.22.18).doc March 22 2018 — Staff Report Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course Page 6 of 9 • California Drive/Tennessee Avenue • California Drive/New York Avenue • Tennessee Avenue/Fred Waring Drive • Kansas Street/Hovley Lane • Elkhorn Trail/Fred Waring Drive • Project Access A/B/Kentucky Avenue • Project Access A/Colorado Street/Tennessee Avenue • Project Access C/Kentucky Avenue/Tennessee Avenue Noise and STRs Noise impacts associated with the construction project are anticipated as the project includes significant grading and residential construction. The applicant will be limited to the City's construction hours and noise impact associated with the construction of the project and will be enforced by the City's Code Compliance Division. Noise associated with the use of the condominium units, pool areas, and recreations amenities is not expected to exceed the City's noise standards. The City Council recently adopted revisions to the City's STR ordinance and prohibited STRs from operating in the City's R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. As proposed, the project will be zoned R-2 and STRs will not be permitted within the project site. Density & Open Space The overall density for the project is 2.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The overall density for the existing PDCC neighborhood is 5.0 du/ac. When compared to the surrounding neighborhood, the project density is approximately one-half the density of PDCC. A breakdown of the density for each planning area is provided in the table below. Planning Area Number of Units Acres Density Site A 32 13.56 2.3 du/ac Site B 19 6.15 3.0 du/ac Site C 18 9.74 1.85 du/ac TOTAL 69 29.45 2.34 du/ac With the overall project density at 2.3 du/ac, much of the existing open space is preserved and enhanced. Although the site will be developed with new condominiums, roadways, and recreational amenities, nearly 50 percent of the existing open space remains. A breakdown of the project open space is provided below: Planning Area Site A Site Size (sq. ft.) 590,743 Open Space (sq. ft.) 340,551 % of Open Space 57.65% G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC Staff Report (3.22.18).doc March 22 2018 — Staff Report Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course Page 7 of 9 1 Site B 267,945 133,295 49.75% 1 Site C 424,320 160,902 37.92% TOTAL 1,283,008 634,748 49.47% The project density and preservation of nearly one-half of the former golf course open space ensures that adequate open space remains for visible access to surrounding areas, and ensures that limited impacts associated with the development of the site will occur. Condominiums As a condominium development, a single floor plan is provided for uniformity and consistent design. The floor plans provide sufficient space for owners to enjoy cooking and living facilities. Outdoor courtyard spaces located at the front and rear of each unit provide sufficient private outdoor space. Each unit is 1,435 square feet in size. The size of the units exceeds the City's minimum unit size of 1,000 square feet. In addition, each unit is provided with a two -car garage totaling 553 square feet, which meets the City's off-street parking requirements and exceeds the City's minimum of 400 square feet of garage space. The floor plan, unit size, and parking availability meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for condominium units. The City's ARC reviewed the architecture for the condominiums and recommended approval of the buildings' architecture as the exterior finishes, the use of materials, and building elevations are appropriate for this type of development and are compatible with residences in the surrounding neighborhood. Recreational Amenities At this time, architecture is only provided for the three pool building facilities located on the project site. The pool buildings are nearly 500 square feet in size and the building height is shown at 15 feet and 6 inches, with the main building massing shown at a height of 12 feet. The architecture of the buildings matches the architecture of the condominium units by using similar forms and exterior finishes. This consistent and uniform design is commonly used in planned condominium developments. Staff is recommending conditions on the project to include a perimeter path/trail that is open to the public, and to provide the open recreational amenities shown in the plans. As mentioned, nearly 50 percent of the open space remains and is enhanced with new walking trails, gazebos, tot lots, pickleball courts, seating areas, and exercise stations. Landscape The landscape design and plant material are consistent with newer residential communities. Plant materials, variation, and placement are appropriate for the desert environment and meet the City's standards for landscape design. The turf is also used in appropriate locations to break up the design and the use of turf is limited to active areas, which is also consistent with City landscape standards. In addition, the landscape design includes the use of shallow G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC Staff Report (3.22.18).doc March 22 2018 — Staff Report Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course Page 8 of 9 • retention basins and small hills throughout the project area. These undulations in the design provide interest and movement and enhance the landscape design. The overall landscape design is consistent with City landscape standards. Staff is recommending a condition on the project that the project's landscape architect meet with homeowners abutting the project site to determine final tree location. Zoning and Land Use Compatibility The repurposing of the golf course requires a change of zone from OS to R-2. The R-2 zoning district permits condominium development subject to a conditional use permit, for which the applicant has applied. The R-2 district allows for denser and varied housing products, including single-family homes, duplexes, condominiums, and small multi -family developments. The predominate zoning at PDCC is R-1 and the majority of development at PDCC consists of detached single -story single-family homes. However, several areas within PDCC are zoned R-2, R-3, and planned residential (PR). These areas of PDCC have a greater density and housing products and are inclusive of the Villas on the Greens, a two- story senior apartment complex immediately adjacent to Site C of this proposal, Michigan Apartments, and California Villas which is a City -owned affordable housing complex; and various two-story apartment buildings located along Michigan Drive near Avenue of the States. The proposal to add single -story condominium development at PDCC is similar to the mixed community and housing product that exist in the area. The lower density and single -story nature of the units are similar to the immediately adjacent single-family homes and the increased perimeter setbacks of the new condominiums are respectful of the existing homes in the area. In addition, the preservation of nearly 50 percent of the open space helps to preserve some existing views and ensures an adequate transition between the existing homes and the new condominium development. Environmental Review For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that, as mitigated, the proposal to repurpose the former Executive Course with 69 condominium units and ancillary uses will not result in any potentially significant negative impacts to surrounding properties and the environment. At their meeting in December, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purposes of CEQA. 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 Ordinance and Resolution attached to this staff report. Fiscal Analysis There is no financial impact or public funding associated with this project. G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC Staff Report (3.22.18).doc March 22 2018 - Staff Report Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course Page 9 of 9 LEGAL REVIEW N/A DEPT. REVIEW Robert W. Hargreaves Ryan Stendell City Attorney Director of Community Development VENDOR: Mr. Christopher McFadden McFadden Architects 75-145 St. Charles Place Palm Desert, CA 92211 FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER N/A Janet Moore Director of Finance ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Ordinance No. 1337 2. City Council Resolution No. 2018-16 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715 4. Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2017 5. Public Hearing Notice 6. Community Correspondence 7. Applicant's Architectural and Landscape Exhibits 8. Wall Exhibits: PSW1 and PSW2 9. Grading Plans Lauri Aylaian City Manager G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC Staff Report (3.22.18).doc ORDINANCE NO. 1337 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATLEY 30 ACRES FORMERLY OPERATED AS THE PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB EXECUTIVE COURSE LOCATED AT 77- 200 CALIFORNIA DRIVE CASE NO: CZ 16-280 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 191h day of December, 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Chris McFadden Architects, for approval of the above -noted and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2715, recommending approval for the Change of Zone and development proposal for the former Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course, to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day of March 2018, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Chris McFadden Architects, for approval of the applications for a 69-unit condominium project and above -noted Change of Zone application; and WHEREAS, said applications have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a mitigated negative declaration can be adopted; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of said request: 1. The Change of Zone and the associated development proposal, are consistent with the goals and policies of the Palm Desert General Plan including that: the in - fill project is an adaptive reuse of a closed golf course that demonstrates good design and connectivity by providing passive open space and trails and provides a compatible density and scale to the surrounding developments, that the new development balances open space preservation while providing high -levels of community amenities, and the project provides additional housing variety that ensures housing types are dispersed around the City. 2. The Change of Zone and the associated development provides land use compatibility within the boundaries of the planning area and to adjacent properties as the proposed units and development standards are similar to, or exceed, the development standards of the surrounding single-family and apartment land uses within Palm Desert Country Club. ORDINANCE NO. 1337 3. The Change of Zone and the associated development is suitable and appropriate for the reuse of the former golf course in that the property has been designated for mixed -residential and that development will comply with applicable City standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Change of Zone 16-280, as shown in Exhibit A, as proposed. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SABBY JONATHON, MAYOR ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC - Change of Zone Ord (3.22.18).docx 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1337 .CNC 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 11 L 1 1 1 1 1 1.) TE 1111(.11`]II11IiI!I11l.11 110. % 1 1111 111111/111111111111111111110 .40111111111111111 1 � �1rr1111111111i1111i ■■*,��` • ..� �M111111111i11111#I�■ ram, o_� sr 4014 q 11 RIM -__-R� !•`tUrHl[lrrn1 HiI 1.14004116 4 FAD NM PIG OR' - City of P3Im Desert Case Na. CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT A Proposed Zoning Change D.S. To R-2 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. Date: MARCH 22, 2018 G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\Palm Desert Country Club\CC\CC - Change of Zone Ord (3.22.18).docx 3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE REPURPOSING OF THE FORMER PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB EXECUTIVE COURSE TO ESTABLISH 69 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB CASE NOS: PP/CUP/EA 16-280 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of December 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by McFadden Architects, for approval of the above -noted, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2715 recommending approval of the project to the City Council; and WHEREAS, said applications have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been adopted; and WHEREAS, the Executive Course at Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) ceased operations in 2013 and since that time, the course has reverted back to its natural condition; and WHEREAS, the Executive Course is independently owned and not subject to the voting, legal, or financial assistance of the PDCC homeowners' association (HOA); and WHEREAS, the City cannot require the continued operation of a private business venture, such as the operation of a golf course, and that all property owners are afforded the ability to formal review procedure with the City for development proposals; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of said request: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Palm Desert General Plan including that the project will provide adequate transition between the surrounding neighborhood and new development, preserves open space, provides on -site recreational amenities, and provides a variation in housing type for the existing Palm Desert Country Club. 2. The project and development intensity provide land use compatibility within the boundaries of the planning areas and with adjacent properties as the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 development standards and uses are similar to existing uses in the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The project sites and proposed development intensity is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the property provides additional residential units within an existing predominately single-family neighborhood and preserves and enhances half of the existing open space. 4. That the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or materially injurious to the surrounding properties or improvements in the City of Palm Desert. Findings for Approval: 1. That the density of the proposed project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The project is for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres of land formerly operated for the purposes of a golf course. This density, which is approximately 2.3 dwelling units per acre, is nearly half the density of the existing surrounding single-family neighborhood. This type of in -fill development is promoted in the General Plan under the following Land Use Element policies: • LU 1.2 — Open Space Preservation — the project balances the development of the former golf course by preserving 49 percent of the existing open space and creates both a quality built environment and enhanced and recreational open space. • LU 1.6 — Community Amenities — the project provides both private and public amenities available to the entire PDCC neighborhood. Private pools and sports courts are provided for use by residents of the condominium project. New pedestrian paths, community gardens, gazebos, and exercise equipment are provided for the broader community. • LU 2.3 — Landscaping — the project preserves and enhances the existing open space afforded by the former executive golf by providing an open green space network. • LU 2.11 — Roadway Scale — the project provides curvilinear roadways that are 24 feet wide and are connected into the existing surrounding roadway network. The roadway scale is appropriately sized to slow vehicle movements in the project site. In addition, some roadways portions are broken up to eliminate through traffic within the Sites and to promote pedestrian connections. 2 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 • LU 3.3 — Variety of Neighborhoods — the condominium project contributes to a varied housing product and price point for PDCC. • LU 3.10 — Shared Driveways — the project provides for several opportunities for shared driveways for groupings of condominium units. These grouping and share driveways reinforce the pedestrian scale of the roadways. • LU 3.17 — Gated Communities — similar to the existing PDCC, this project is not gated. • LU 3.21 — Infill Neighborhood — this project achieves the goals of this policy by providing additional community amenities, providing destinations for recreational space, and providing pedestrian connections internal to the project sites and to the broader surrounding neighborhood. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The design and improvements of the project have been reviewed by the Planning Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Department for consistency with the General Plan and emergency services. The lot sizes, street and utility improvements, circulation patterns, and drainage improvements meet all requirements of the General Plan. All existing perimeter streets are in conformance with the General Plan and new streets will be designed and constructed to City standards. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. The development of the former Executive Course at PDCC contains approximately 30 acres and is suitable for the development proposed. Existing utilities and roadways serve the surrounding area and can accommodate the additional development of 69 condominium units. Environmental, cultural, and other special studies were prepared for lands within the project area. No environmental issues were identified that would indicate that development in this area would be unsuitable. In addition, existing commercial operations and residential developments have successfully constructed similar types of development in the immediate vicinity. No obstacles to the development of surrounding subdivisions were experienced and, due to the proximity and similarity of the proposed development, it's reasonable to conclude that the site is physically suitable for condominiums. The property is suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described in the Initial Study and MND. 3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The project density is 2.3 dwelling units per acre; approximately one-half the density of the existing single-family neighborhood. Utilities are in place and can accommodate the additional development of condominiums. Public safety services and schools are adequately staff and can accommodate the additional residential units. The sites can accommodate the proposed density of the project and can achieve a 49 percent preservation of open space. 5. That the design of the project and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a MND of Environmental Impact has been prepared. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat since the surrounding area has been developed with similar densities and limited wildlife is present at the site. Environmental studies performed at the site did not identify any endangered or sensitive species. In addition, the project will pay into the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Fund for the development of the project. 6. That the design of the project or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design and layout of the 69 condominium units and the improvements for new roadways, grading, and drainage, are in compliance with all grading requirements and the properties will be developed in accordance with the Uniform California Building Code. Grade changes in the community are accommodated by the street layout, retaining walls, drainage swales, and open space provided throughout the subdivision. Pedestrian access is provided to adjoining land uses and surrounding roadways, which decreases the need for vehicular traffic between adjoining properties. 7. That the design of the project or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed project will construct new drainage improvements within the project boundaries, including drainage swale, retention basins, curbs and gutters. The improvements related to drainage will be provided to ensure the project area accommodates 100 percent of the 100-year storm. Surrounding perimeter City streets are built -out to the General Plan designation and the developer will complete roadway connections into their project at intersections with existing streets to their ultimate build -out. Pedestrian connections will also be provided throughout the project area. 4 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby resolve and approve PP/CUP/EA 16-280, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 22nd day of March 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA SABBY JOHNATHON, MAYOR 5 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. PP/CUP/EA 16-280 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The applicant shall receive approval of Tentative Tract Maps for the condominium development within one (1) year of project approval or all applications approved under this Resolution shall be null and void. 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 Precise Plan and future Tentative Tract Maps and all Palm Desert Municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. A cultural resources inventory shall be completed by a qualified archeologist prior to any development activities within the project area. 6. Should human remains be discovered during the construction of the proposed project, the project coordinator will be subject to either the State law regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains or the Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance, all destructive activity in the immediate vicinity shall halt, and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City and developer will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. 7. The project shall remain ungated and shall continue the street naming theme present within PDCC. All street names shall be named for States of the United States of America. 6 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 8. Perimeter walls shall be placed on the developer's side of the abutting property line. The developer shall meet with and discuss the property wall design options with abutting neighbors and offer a choice between the three options approved by the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission. 9. All recreational amenities shown in the approved plans shall be installed and maintained by the applicant, or established HOA, including, pool areas, gazebos, pavilions, pathways, and exercise equipment. Changes to the play areas and exercise equipment shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development. 10. The project shall not exceed the density approved by the Planning Commission. All buildings shall be single -story and shall not exceed a height of 18 feet with the exception of architectural elements, which shall not exceed the heights permitted by the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC). 11. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 12. Each Planning Area shall be subject to all applicable fees at the time of issuance of building permits for improvements within that Planning Area. 13. The developer agrees to pay an in lieu affordable housing fee not to exceed $12.50 per gross square foot of livable space per unit for the entire project. The fee shall be paid at building permit issuance on a per unit basis. 14. The developers and their landscape architect, agree to meet with individual homeowners regarding final tree placement within the site area. Tree quantities shall not be less than those shown in the preliminary landscape plan. 15. Final landscape plans shall be prepared by a registered and licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Department of Community Development for review. The plan shall be consistent with the preliminary landscape plans reviewed by the Planning Commission, unless changes are requested by the Planning Department staff. Changes shall be limited to plant quantities, sizes, types, and phasing of landscape improvements at the project site. Landscape plans must meet the following criteria: A. Must be water efficient in design and meet the City of Palm Desert's Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. B. Planting plans must show the location of proposed and existing utilities. C. Must match approved civil plans. D. All specifications and details must be site specific. E. Applicants must have the Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) approval of their irrigation plans prior to City approval. F. Applicants must have a stamp or signature from the County Agricultural Commissioner before City approval. 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 G. Plantings shall be shown at a minimum size of five gallons. H. Trees shall be shown at a minimum size of 24-inch box with a minimum one - inch caliper. 16. The applicant shall pay into the City's Public Art Fund. It is recommended that this fee is used for an on -site public art project within the project site. 17. 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. 18. 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. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Prior to recordation of any Tract Maps and any permits for this project: 19. The tract maps shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. 20. If applicable, record a Declaration of Annexation incorporating the new lots/owners into the existing homeowners' association and Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) concurrently with the final map, unless the existing CC&R's have provisions for such annexation, then proof of which shall be submitted prior to tract map approval. 21. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55. 22. Drainage fees shall be paid in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 23. Park fees in accordance with PDMC Section 26.48.060 shall be paid prior to the recordation of the tract map. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall: 24. 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. 25. 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 8 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 with County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Department of Public Works. 26. Provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 27. Submit a PM10 application to the Department of Public Works for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of PDMC Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 28. Identify all proposed and existing utilities on the precise grading plan. 29. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 30. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the PDMC. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT: 31. Development of 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 and 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. Title 24 California Code of Regulations. I. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 32. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1265. 33. 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. 34. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1027.5 & 11B-206) 9 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and then submitted to Department of Building and Safety. Pools and Spas for public use are required to be accessible. 38. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per PDMC, Title 5. 39. 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. 40. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1265 (PDMC 15.28. Compliance with Ordinance 1265 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from 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 PDMC Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. 41. Please contact Building and Safety Technician II Cherie Williams at the Department of Building and Safety at (760) 776-6420 regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 42. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 43. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the construction of all residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a two-hour duration for single-family dwellings and 4,000 PGM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a four-hour duration for multi- family projects. The developer shall also provide a water system capable of 10 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 delivering 4,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a four-hour duration for all commercial land developments. 44. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" 2 1" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart at each intersection, and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for single-family dwellings and 350 feet apart at each intersection, and shall be no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for multi -family projects. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 45. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC Chapter 5). 46. Fire apparatus access roads and driveways shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 60,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1 prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. 47. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent. All access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet for commercial and 20 feet for residential with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet and six inches. 48. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1,320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 37 feet for single-family developments and 45 feet for multi -family developments. 49. Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. 50. The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation of all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop for the underground water system. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flows standards. The hydraulic calculation will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on -site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued. 51. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to issuance of building permits. 11 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 52. Alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to issuance of building permits. 53. A "Knox -box" shall be provided and shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of fire riser sprinkler rooms. 54. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access road or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. 12 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2018-16 ET LN E EriTI ,LOM/ avl .,R Ra>,C= Lk R.RLays..Erwar "0.WIC OR - ; �( ox9 _L CLIFTON ro..l R 1Ii k11 E 11I1 11 L.ii I' Hlo_a• .1�0' .0318'N't. CALIFORNIA AVE :a-........ . Proposed rya ■ • Zoning Change R.R.M.ML NOVLEY LNE I i I! I j IRICADIAR DR �u- City of Palm Desert : r 1 FWARING pR o. S. To R-2 Case No. CZ 16-280 PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 2715 EXHIBIT A Date: Decemberr 19, 2017 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A CHANGE OF ZONE, PRECISE PLAN, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE REPURPOSING OF THE FORMER PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE TO ESTABLISH 69 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB CASE NO: CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of December 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by McFadden Architects, for approval of the above -noted; and WHEREAS, said applications have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) can be adopted; and WHEREAS, the executive course at Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) ceased operations in 2013 and since that time, the course has slowly reverted back to its natural condition; and WHEREAS, the executive course is independently owned and not subject to the voting, legal, or financial assistance of the homeowners' association; and WHEREAS, the City cannot require the continued operation of a private business venture, such as operation of a golf course, and that all property owners are afforded the ability to formal review procedure with the City for the development proposal; 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 find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of said request: 1 The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Palm Desert General Plan including that the project will provide adequate transition between the surrounding neighborhood and new development, preserves open space, provides on -site recreational amenities, and provides a variation in housing type for the existing Palm Desert Country Club. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 2. The project and development intensity provide land use compatibility within the boundaries of the planning areas and with adjacent properties as the development standards and uses are similar to existing uses in the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The project sites and proposed development intensity is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the property provides additional residential units within an existing predominately single-family neighborhood and preserves and enhances portions of existing open space. 4. That the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or materially injurious to the surrounding properties or improvements in the City' of Palm Desert. Findings for Approval: 1. That the density of the proposed project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The project is for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres of land formerly operated for the purposes of a golf course. This density, which is approximately 2.3 dwelling units per acre, is nearly half the density of the existing surrounding single-family neighborhood. This type of in -fill development is promoted in the General Plan under the following Land Use Element policies: • LU 1.2 — Open Space Preservation — the project balances the development of the former golf course by preserving 49 percent of the existing open space and creates both a quality built environment and enhanced and recreational open space. • LU 1.6 — Community Amenities — the project provides both private and public amenities available to the entire PDCC neighborhood. Private pools and sports courts are provided for use by residents of the condominium project. New pedestrian paths, community gardens, gazebos, and exercise equipment are provided for the broader community. • LU 2.3 — Landscaping — the project preserves and enhances the existing open space afforded by the former executive golf by providing an open green space network. • LU 2.11 — Roadway Scale — the project provides curvilinear roadways that are 24 feet wide and are connected into the existing surrounding roadway network. The roadway scale is appropriately sized to slow vehicle movements in the project site. In addition, some roadways fl i PLANNING COMMISSION RtSOLUTION NO. 2715 portions are broken up to eliminate through traffic within the Sites and to promote pedestrian connections. • LU 3.3 — Variety of Neighborhoods — the condominium project contributes to a varied housing product and price point for PDCC. • LU 3.10 — Shared Driveways — the project provides for several opportunities for shared driveways for groupings of condominium units. These grouping and share driveways reinforce the pedestrian scale of the roadways. • LU 3.17 — Gated Communities — similar to the existing PDCC, this project is not gated. • LU 3.21 — Infill Neighborhood — this project achieves the goals of this policy by providing additional community amenities, providing destinations for recreational space, and providing pedestrian connections internal to the project sites and to the broader surrounding neighborhood. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The design and improvements of the project have been reviewed by the Planning Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Department for consistency with the General Plan and emergency services. The lot sizes, street and utility improvements, circulation patterns, and drainage improvements meet all requirements of the General Plan. All existing perimeter streets are in conformance with the General Plan and new streets will be designed and constructed to City standards. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. The development of the former executive golf course at PDCC contains approximately 30 acres and is suitable for the development proposed. Existing utilities and roadways serve the surrounding area and can accommodate the additional development of 69 condominium units. Environmental, cultural, and other special studies were prepared for lands within the project area. No environmental issues were identified that would indicate that development in this area would be unsuitable. In addition, existing commercial operations and residential developments have successfully constructed similar types of development in the immediate vicinity. No obstacles to the development of surrounding subdivisions were experienced and, due to the proximity and similarity of the proposed development, it's reasonable to conclude that the site is physically suitable for 3 (( (� PLANNING COMMr��SION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 it. The property is suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described in the Initial Study and MND. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The project density is 2.3 dwelling units per acre; approximately one-half the density of the existing single-family neighborhood. Utilities are in place and can accommodate the additional development of condominiums. Public safety services and schools are adequately staff and can accommodate the additional residential units. The sites can accommodate the proposed density of the project and can achieve a 49 percent preservation of open space. 5. That the design of the project and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a MND of Environmental Impact has been prepared. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat since the surrounding area has been developed with similar densities and limited wildlife is present at the site. Environmental studies performed at the site did not identify any endangered or sensitive species. In addition, the project will pay into the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation fund for the development of the project. 6. That the design of the project or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design and layout of the 69 condominium units and the improvements for new roadways, grading, and drainage, are in compliance with all grading requirements and the properties will be developed in accordance with the Uniform California Building Code. Grade changes in the community are accommodated by the street layout, retaining walls, drainage swales, and open space provided throughout the subdivision. Pedestrian access is provided to adjoining land uses and surrounding roadways, which decreases the need for vehicular traffic between adjoining properties. 7. That the design of the project or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed project will construct new drainage improvements within the project boundaries, including drainage swale, retention basins, curbs and gutters. The improvements related to drainage will be provided to ensure the project area accommodates 100 percent of the 100-year storm. Surrounding perimeter City streets are built -out to the General Plan designation and the 1] PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 developer will complete roadway connections into their project at intersections with existing streets to their ultimate build -out. Pedestrian connections will also be provided throughout the project area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approve of CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 to the City Council, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 19th day of December 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DE LUNA, GREENWOOD, GREGORY, and PRADETTO NOES: HOLT ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: J .SEPH PRADETTO, CHAIRPERSON RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The applicant shall receive approval of tentative tract maps for the condominium development within one (1) year of project approval or all applications approved under this Resolution shall be null and void. 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 Precise Plan and future Tentative Tract Maps and all Palm Desert Municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. A cultural resources inventory shall be completed by a qualified archeologist prior to any development activities within the project area. 6. Should human remains be discovered during the construction of the proposed project, the project coordinator will be subject to either the State Law regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains or the Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance, all destructive activity in the immediate vicinity shall halt, and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City and developer will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. 7. The project shall remain ungated and shall continue the street naming theme present within PDCC. All street names shall be named for States of the United States of America. 6 i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 8. Perimeter walls shall be placed on the developer's side of the abutting property line. The developer shall meet with and discuss the property wall design options with abutting neighbors and offer a choice between the three options approved by the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission. 9. All recreational amenities shown in the approved plans shall be installed by the applicant including, pool areas, gazebos, pavilions, pathways, and exercise equipment. Changes to the play areas and exercise equipment shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development. 10. The project shall not exceed the density approved by the Planning Commission. All buildings shall be single -story and shall not exceed a height of 18 feet with the exception of architectural elements, which shall not exceed the heights permitted by the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC). 11. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 12. Each Planning Area shall be subject to all applicable fees at the time of issuance of building permits for improvements within that Planning Area. 13. The developer agrees to pay an in lieu affordable housing fee not to exceed $12.50 per gross square foot of livable space per unit for the entire project. The fee shall be paid at building permit issuance on a per unit basis. 14. The developers and their landscape architect, agree to meet with individual homeowners regarding final tree placement within the site area. Tree quantities shall not be Tess than those shown in the preliminary landscape plan. 15. Final landscape plans shall be prepared by a registered and licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Department of Community Development for review. The plan shall be consistent with the preliminary landscape plans reviewed by the Planning Commission, unless changes are requested by the Planning Department staff. Changes shall be limited to plant quantities, sizes, types, and phasing of landscape improvements at the project site. Landscape plans must meet the following criteria: A. Must be water efficient in design and meet the City of Palm Desert's Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. B. Planting plans must show the location of proposed and existing utilities. C. Must match approved civil plans. D. All specifications and details must be site specific. E. Applicants must have the Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) approval of their irrigation plans prior to City approval. F. Applicants must have a stamp or signature from the County Agricultural Commissioner before City approval. G. Plantings shall be shown at a minimum size of five gallons. 7 PLANNING COMM SION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 H. Trees shall be shown at a minimum size of 24-inch box with a minimum one - inch caliper. 16. The applicant shall pay into the City's Public Art Fund. It is recommended that this fee is used for an on -site public art project within the project site. 17. 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. 18. 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. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Prior to recordation of any Tract Maps and any permits for this project: 19. The tract maps shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. 20. If applicable, record a Declaration of Annexation incorporating the new lots/owners into the existing homeowners' association and Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) concurrently with the final map, unless the existing CC&R's have provisions for such annexation, then proof of which shall be submitted prior to tract map approval. 21. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55. 22. Drainage fees shall be paid in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 23. Park fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.48.060 shall be paid prior to the recordation of the tract map. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall: 24. 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. 25. 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 County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Department of Public Works. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 26. Provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been 'filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 27. Submit a PM10 application to the Department of Public Works for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 28. Identify all proposed and existing utilities on the precise grading plan. 29. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 30. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the PDMC. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT: 31. Development of this project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2013 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2013 California Residential Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2013 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2013 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. E. 2013 California Electrical Code. F. 2013 California Energy Code. G. 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. H. Title 24 California Code of Regulations. I. 2013 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 32. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1265. 33. 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. 34. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1027.5 & 11B-206) 35. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11B-705.1.2.5 and 11B-705.1.2.2. The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where 9 PLANNING COMMi-sSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supersede the State requirement. 36. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Dept of Building and Safety. 37. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and then submitted to Department of Building and Safety. Pools and Spas for public use are required to be accessible. 38. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert' Municipal Code, Title 5. 39. 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. 40. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1265 (PDMC 15.28. Compliance with Ordinance 1265 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from 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 PDMC Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. 41. Please contact Building and Safety Technician II Cherie Williams at the Department of Building and Safety at (760) 776-6420 regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 42. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 43. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the construction of all residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a two-hour duration for single-family dwellings and 4,000 PGM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a four-hour duration for multi- family projects. The developer shall also provide a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a four-hour duration for all commercial land developments. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 44. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart at each intersection, and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for single-family dwellings and 350 feet apart at each intersection, and shall be no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant for multi -family projects. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 45. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC Chapter 5). 46. Fire apparatus access roads and driveways shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed Toads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 60,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1 prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. 47. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent. All access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet for commercial and 20 feet for residential with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet and six inches. 48. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1,320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 37 feet for single-family developments and 45 feet for multi -family developments. 49. Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. 50. The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation of all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop for the underground water system. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flows standards. The hydraulic calculation will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on -site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued. 51. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to issuance of building permits. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 52. Alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to issuance of building permits. 53. A "Knox -box" shall be provided and shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of fire riser sprinkler rooms. 54. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access road or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 "Ira aAnc• .E1r Ul 404171-11. } f C1 mama r ... �. _ 4T• l l _►MamaTaa I liwwiy we�raa ale T1?II L?n:1 TH T1I.1717Mr _I i Ti I.TIEFinIor.1 niffirI11' 1{-W_r�ll_I11l.1iJ_'iTI J I-- rme }} awaa.7..r1 �earwN Li 1 I1 �. RI :C rr 1 is .I. `�--—rru.ar 1 MI I IL 17[ Iran 71I?ZI I! -1 II [ t ?it 1-17t r11141Uri ltTlfl!II'�I'4 _ d.. fir_ L EI I LI L[ ra 1 I I Lf f 11 LIIUhil-i L; 1�1 '- EI1_1-11I]1Ill 1-fu 1 IT-1 MITI iEHI [PL I IJIrrnnL1a1_LI r1TLIT1 L i U IfflL 11) CriIl7 Tin= FRED WARING OR City of Palm Desert i Case No. CZ 16-280 CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT A Proposed Zoning Change ❑.S. To R-2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2715 Date: Decemberr 19, 2017 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Commissioner DeLuna asked if the public would be able to use the fitness center. MR. SWANK responded that only registered guests staying at the Residence Inn by Marriott or the adjacent Courtyard by Marriott will have access to the fitness center. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenwood commented that the fitness center appears to be a nice project and a nice additional amenity for the hotel and moved for approval. Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2714, approving Case No. PP 17-173, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to rezone three parcels from Open Space (OS) to Mixed Residential (R-2) and approve Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242 for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres located on the former executive golf course at Palm Desert Country Club; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, and 37242 (McFadden Architects, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja reviewed the staff report with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (staff report is available at www.citvofpalmdesert.orq ). He noted that staff recommended two conditions regarding the landscape: 1) the applicant must submit final landscape plans for review to the Planning staff; and 2) the applicant must meet with the homeowners abutting the project site to determine final tree location. He emphasized that landscape is part of the proposed project and in no way should the applicant or homeowners look at eliminating trees from the area. Mr. Ceja made clear that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council and understand that the Planning Commission does not make the final decision on this project. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission remove the approval of Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242 as part of the proposed project. He noted the maps need further review, which would come back to the Planning Commission under a separate action. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there are homeowners' associations (HOA) or assessment districts with the governing of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or any kind of provisions for financial participation for the maintenance or upkeep of the current Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Executive Course (Executive Course). Mr. Ceja responded that there is an HOA in PDCC; however, he did not believe there are association members on the Executive Course. 5 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 A person from the audience interjected that there are association members on the Executive Course. Mr. Stendell interjected that the correct answer to Commissioner DeLuna's question is no. He made clear there is no financial instrument between the homeowners and the Executive Course for the maintenance and upkeep of the course. In terms of any governing documents or any bodies with an HOA, Commissioner DeLuna asked if that is not applicable. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. He explained that there is an HOA which governs the homes, but they have no purview or connection to the actual golf course. Commissioner Greenwood asked staff to elaborate on Conditions of Approval No. 8 in regard to the option for the perimeter walls. Mr. Ceja responded that during some of the community meetings that were held, the privacy and Toss of views were a major concern for many of the property owners. Therefore, at an Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting, the applicant offered three design options for the wall. The options were essential to accommodate the concerns made by the property owners. He further explained that if a property owner was concerned with privacy, the owner could opt for the six -foot - high wall. If a property owner would want to maintain their views, the property owner could opt for a wall that is more open. Commissioner Greenwood commented that many of the current owners have lower planter walls between their property and the golf course. He said individual homeowners on the existing course could request a property wall and asked if the walls on the adjacent property line will be at full height. He also asked if there would be a six -foot -high wall where the adjacent neighbor might not have one. Mr. Ceja replied that staff recommended the walls be placed near the property line so there is not a significant offset between both walls. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that there could be a possibility where two homes have a wall and three homes do not have a wall based on the three options. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. He said there would be some type of fencing in place, whether it is wrought iron or a wall. He noted that the intent is to have fencing installed for those homes. Commissioner Greenwood asked if there would be a continuous wall being placed along the entire project perimeter. Mr. Ceja replied yes. However, the design would change home to home. Vice Chairman Gregory inquired if there is a concern with the patchwork quilt appearance of the linear wall with people wanting different types of fencing or walls. He commented it is very unusual. 6 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\12.19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Mr. Ceja agreed it is unusual. He said staff did have a concern with the patchwork appearance. He mentioned staff contemplated a condition for three homes to have a consistent form. However, staff felt that would be difficult to do with property owners dictating their neighbor's wall design options. Vice Chairman Gregory said there has to be a concession of sorts by the developer to not have a continuous aesthetic appearance of the wall or fence. He noted that landscaping could help mitigate the appearance to some degree. He inquired how the chronology would work with the landscape architect meeting with each homeowner to determine the type of trees the homeowner would prefer. He asked if the landscape architect would show a design indicating where a tree might go, then meet with the homeowner to determine what specific tree might work for each case. He said there are times it does not work well because trees are different sizes. He asked how it would work so ARC and staff can review the plans when they are final. Mr. Ceja deferred Vice Chairman Gregory's questions to the applicant or the landscape architect. If the project is approved, Commissioner Greenwood asked what the timeframe for the development is. Mr. Ceja deferred the question to the applicant. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. CHRIS McFADDEN, McFadden Architects, St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, noted the landscape architect, the civil engineer, and MSA Consulting are present to answer any questions. He mentioned the owner is also present and may want to speak as well. As they proceed forward with the infill project, he said they have come to the realization in a lot of areas in their lives where time has come to embrace change and change could be difficult. He communicated the golf industry is not as robust as it has been in previous decades. With the PGA National Golf Club moving to Florida, and the previous drought concerns and continued conservation efforts in California will continue to impact the viability and sustainability of all existing golf courses. He said the owners of PDCC are confident that they could continue to enhance and maintain the PDCC Championship Course (Championship Course) for years to come. Unfortunately, the Executive Course is no longer feasible to operate regardless of the outcome of the proposed project and the Executive Course will not operate as a golf course again. He stated one benefit of the project's former existence as a golf course is that they have reclaimed water available for all the landscaping for the new project. Mr. McFadden explained that when they first started working on the project, they looked at the largest parcel of land (Parcel A) and utilized the current small lot size in Palm Desert of 7,000 square feet. They introduced a current standard residential street width and they came up with a 67-lot solution at five units per acre for Parcel A. He said the information was shared with the current ownership and their response was swift. He was told by the owner that 7 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 they are looking for something with half as.much density and lots of open space. After a few more reiterations and input from the community, they settled on the 69 condominiums on nearly 30 acres (2.34 units per acre). He stated the ARC solidified their approval of the units, the amenities, the circulation, landscape concepts, and entry points. He mentioned they still have some lingering items with the neighbors, which primarily focus on view encroachments. He believed they had viable solutions and a process to alleviate some of the concerns and deliver a wonderful project. However, they are not naive to believe that they would be able to satisfy every concern. Mr. McFadden explained that they adjusted the pad heights of the buildings to maintain a four-foot pad height relative to the lower resident pad heights. He noted they have self-imposed excessive setbacks at a 35-foot minimum, which far exceeds the requirement in the municipal code. Regarding the trees, he said their idea is to stake the trees 30 to 60 days prior to placement. This will allow them to meet with individual owners who have concerns and adjust locations as needed to maximize views. The landscape plans will have a palette of three or four trees that would work in various locations. In addition, they considered dedicating a five-foot buffer to the adjacent residences to help with the encroachments that have been made over the years onto the golf course. They also considered dedicating a buffer to the adjacent property owners to facilitate some of the substandard lot sizes, which would simplify the mishmash of the rear yard conditions. As the voice of resistance to that idea got louder and louder, they rescinded the dedication. Therefore, they have a five-foot buffer at the perimeter edge and proposing to locate a 24-inch square or 24- by 48-inch decapped split face pilaster at every property corner and at the midpoint on the majority of the lots. He briefly described the other two designs and other improvements. He noted that all of the designs have been included in the renderings. Mr. McFadden stated they would like to start on the project in the summer of 2018. He hoped concerns by the residents could be addressed tonight through the conditions of approval. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Greenwood asked if there would be an intermediate space between the new wall and the existing property. MR. McFADDEN replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the space would be maintained by the developer. MR. McFADDEN replied that is correct. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the existing walls or fences would remain. MR. McFADDEN replied yes. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if there is an offset of one to five feet, and would people have the option to extend their landscaping. 8 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 MR. McFADDEN responded that they would ask the homeowner if they would like their fence removed and use the new fence instead. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the homeowner elects to have the fence removed and maintenance has access, will there be enough gates to get around someone's property. MR. McFADDEN replied that they could install the gates at each location and provide locks for those gates. If a homeowner does not want maintenance to go through their property, the homeowner could put the lock on the gate. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if a gate is installed at every fence, could a homeowner elect to go into the condominium property to access the trail. MR. McFADDEN replied yes. Vice Chairman Gregory wondered if condominium owners would be reluctant to have strangers accessing the property so easily. Commissioner Greenwood inquired why a wall is being installed. Was the wall wanted by the developer or the residents? MR. McFADDEN said City staff pointed out to them that there are substandard lots so it was his idea to have a wall along with the five-foot giveaway. Commissioner Greenwood wondered if a wall was necessary. MR. McFADDEN remarked if the Planning Commission wants the wall removed, they will remove the wall. He noted for safety reasons, the pool areas would be enclosed and not open to the public. Commissioner Lindsay Holt asked if amenities are available to the PDCC residents. MR. McFADDEN replied no due to liability issues. Commissioner DeLuna asked how many acres is the proposed project. MR. McFADDEN replied that the project is approximately 29.45 acres. Commissioner DeLuna pointed out that there is a 50 percent density, which leaves 15 acres of open space. MR. McFADDEN said it would be approximately 15 acres of unimproved open space. However, the five-foot area at the perimeter is not included in the calculations. Commissioner DeLuna asked if that would increase the amount of open space. 9 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 MR. McFADDEN replied yes. Vice Chairman Gregory asked the landscape architect how the selection of trees would be handled. MR. CHUCK SHEPARDSON, HSA Design Group (landscape architect), La Quinta, responded that they are treating the proposed project like a golf course project because there are a lot of open views to the open space that is no longer golf space. Typically, they tend to place the trees close to the property lines so it preserves their views and not in the middle of their lots. If the project is approved and they prepare the working drawings, they will come up with a design that would be presented to the City. As Mr. McFadden mentioned, they will stake the location of the trees and work with the homeowners on the locations and the tree species. He noted that they cannot remove trees because it will change the density and the look of the plan. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if plans would be submitted to the City without knowing what trees are being planted along the perimeter. MR. SHEPARDSON responded that if they have to make changes, there is a possibility the plans could get approved over the counter. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that some of the letters they received from homeowners said they are concerned with large or tall trees. He asked Mr. Shepardson if they are open to considering some smaller growing trees on the palette to meet those concerns. MR. SHEPARDSON replied they are receptive to considering smaller trees. Vice Chairman Gregory stated the City would probably make an approval based on the palette. Therefore, a palette is something that should be understood and agreed to by everyone. MR. SHEPARDON remarked that should happen prior to submitting the palette to the City. Commissioner Holt asked the Planning Commission if they completely understood how they arrived at the proposed project. For example, from the time the golf course was closed until today's actions to rectify the situation prior to considering medium density residential on the Executive Course. Chairman Pradetto clarified if they have questions beyond what is in the staff report. Commissioner Holt replied yes. She commented that she is not as familiar with the project as everyone else in the audience. She understood there was the Executive Course on the proposed project site and for whatever reason funding was no longer available to continue as a golf course. She asked how long the 10 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 developer has owned the property, who owned the property before the cUrrent owner, and how did the transition of ownership take place. Mr. Stendell believed in 2011 the current owner took possession of the property (Executive and Champion Courses) from a previous private owner. He noted that the City has been engaged in the Executive Course in hosting community meetings, discussions regarding a possible assessment district, and private party purchase by the adjacent homes. At one point, there were also discussions about charitable donations, but the receiving entity was not in a position to take donations. Mr. Stendell expressed that the City has tried a lot to help this process along. Commissioner Holt clarified that there was an attempt to form an assessment district to be paid by the property owners within PDCC. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt asked why it did not get approved. Mr. Stendell responded that staff looked at a Proposition 218 assessment district, and the City also looked at taking some form of an easement over the parcel. The community seemed to have an interest in it; however, the property owner did not put the information out to the community. He said there has been a lack of trust between the two entities. When the Planning Commission considers this application, Commissioner Holt asked what are the implications of viewing the existing conditions of the project site as a decommissioned golf course as opposed to a golf course. The reason she asked is that she knows this is not going to be the first project of this type in the valley. She also asked what would stop a developer from purchasing a golf course and letting it sit for a couple of years to revert into its desert natural state, then using that as the baseline condition in the environmental to do the assessment. Mr. Stendell replied that it is not necessarily trying to revert back to its natural state. After one year of inactive use, in his opinion, you revert back to unentitled land. He communicated that it was previously a golf course, but its entitlement as a golf course has since sunset. There is nothing to stop from this happening again. Commissioner Holt commented that she would hate for residents in the valley to sit and watch a golf course die so a developer could submit a plan to develop the land. She mentioned a resident commented that a previous development was completed by D.R Horton Homes and the developer created additional amenities for the PDCC members as a quid pro quo for the zone change. She asked staff to speak to that. 11 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Mr. Ceja responded there was a development agreement attached to the D.R. Horton Homes development. As part of the agreement, the developer made upgrades to a maintenance facility and the clubhouse. Commissioner Holt asked if there were discussions between the developer and the residents to get something in return for the loss of their viewshed. She voiced that the issue here is the loss of the residents' viewshed. Mr. Stendell responded that a developer could propose a different way to gain support for their project; however, it is not a requirement. In regard to the D.R. Horton project, the developer offered to upgrade the two facilities. MS. SERENA ILLK, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, stated that one of the most compelling reasons to stop the proposed development of the former Executive Course, no matter how well designed, it is a conflict with their existing community. Such development would destroy valuable open space and the residents' quality of life for the sole purpose of enriching the PDCC ownership. She said to approve a development based on the determination that it may temporarily resolve the problem area and assume there is no other alternative would be a major policy error. She stated there has to be a better way than to further destroying lifestyles and the property values of concerned residents and property owners. She said 188 property owners are directly affected by the development and may seem like a small number. However, they deserve to have the City protect their remaining quality of life, which already have been degraded by the actions of the PDCC ownership over the past four years. Ms. Illk said many of them are seniors living on fixed incomes, but they should not be overlooked in favor of the avarice, which is proposing a development. They are citizens of the City of Palm Desert and their interest should be protected by their City officials. She ended by reading an article by Sherry Barkas from The Desert Sun and noted that she a notebook with 678 signed petitions opposed to the project. MR. JACK FORNEY, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, stated he is opposed to any construction on the former Executive Course. Open space that is developed is open space that will be lost forever. He mentioned that he gave the Planning staff a written statement of his concerns and compromise suggestions for the proposed project. He said he is not an architect, an engineer, or a contractor so he cannot comment on the structural integrity of the proposed units. However, as a homeowner, his property abuts the course. He believed the proposed project could be made more community friendly by some compromise adjustments. Mr. Forney stated PDCC is a community of single-family homes that are primarily occupied by retired senior citizens who purchased their homes with majestic mountain views and the open area of the golf course. The citizens take pride in their community, maintain their property, respect their neighbors, and are an asset to the City of Palm Desert. He voiced that this project should be revised to comply with Article V of the City's project application development standards. He said compromises should be made to protect views, minimize noise and pollution, and provide privacy and security for the surrounding residents. He 12 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-t9-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 believed his written suggestions for the overall propos�d project for the design, location, height, elevation, walls, fences, and landscaping would help to achieve the above-mentioned objectives. Mr. Forney said the proposed road is 16 feet from his rear property line. The attached sketches show the proposed and requested 90-degree relocation of unit numbers B8, B9, B10, and B11 to allow the units and the road to be moved 30 feet or more towards the south property. In applying for a change of zone, he listed several amenities that were provided by the former owners of PDCC on the former driving range and other areas of the course. MS. CINDY STEVENSON, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, pointed out that the City's General Plan for 2020 states increasing the amount of open space land in Palm Desert. She said by approving the proposed project would be contradictory to the plan. The ban on short-term rentals (STRs) within the R-1 and R-2 zones would also be contradictory because in PDCC there is a 60/40 split between permanent and absentee residents. She said a majority of the permanent homeowners sometimes use their homes for vacation rentals or long-term rentals. With the proposed condominiums, there are going to be transient people even with the ban of STRs. She also felt the different ideas for fencing is crazy; it should be uniform. She voiced her concern with privacy and is opposed to the project. She said the demise of the Executive Course could have been prevented with more marketing and utilization of proper resources, which is something the owners did not want to do. MS. SHARON LASKIN, California Drive, Palm Desert, stated she is opposed to the project and believed the owners had the idea to develop the property when they bought the property for a low price. She backs the golf course and one day she was in her home with the doors closed and heard a sound. She went outside and saw a remote toy roaming up and down the course, which did not bother her. However, she cannot imagine being home and listening to the sounds of conversation and noise coming from the proposed project. She stated she purchased her home to be on the golf course not to be surrounded by noise. MR. DOUG BISHOP, California Drive, Palm Desert, said he has been a resident of PDCC for 31 years and a business owner in Palm Desert for 20 years. He was upset that the City scheduled the public hearing when many of the PDCC residents left to be with their families for the holidays. He felt public agencies schedule meetings when they think there will be lower attendance. Therefore, any decision should be delayed until January or February 2018. In regard to the proposed project, he believed it was some sort of railroad job "let's get it done attitude." He has heard from several City employees that the project is a done deal, which makes his stomach turn. He stated he had attended the ARC meetings, now attending the Planning Commission meeting, and plans on attending the City Council meeting. He also stated the mixing of condominiums with established residential buildings makes no sense. Adding pickleball courts to a residential community is stupid in his opinion. He encouraged the Planning Commission to read a book from the Historical Society, which goes against the plan for open space. He is proud to say he is a resident of Palm Desert. It would 13 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�201TMinutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 be great for the Commission to postpone their. decision 40 or 50 years from now, and the future will probably be the proper time for the proposed project. MR. FRED KENT, California Drive, Palm Desert, agreed with Mr. Bishop regarding the scheduling of the public hearing. He said the giant staff report was available towards the end of last week, which he felt was intentional and residents only have three minutes to comment. In his opinion, he stated that the cart is before the horse. He voiced that the proposed site is not designed for homes. There is not enough room to add a street down the middle and homes on both sides. He stated it is obvious the project was a shoe-horn operation from the beginning. He said there are a lot of homes that have certain lot sizes, a certain look, and certain traffic patterns. The proposed project would give the community a different look with narrower homes and maybe a fence. He noted he has written many letters to the City of Palm Desert, which does not seem to make much of a difference. MR. BOB LUDWIG, Indiana Avenue, Palm Desert, said he has lived in PDCC since 1961. During that time, they have never needed a pool or additional amenities and the proposed site should stay as open space. The area is not designed for homes. He stated his home is going to have a road right outside the fence with parking on the street. He declared that the area is supposed to be open space in perpetuity and never to be developed. He voiced his concern with noise, pollution, and transients. He stated no one is going to pay $400,000 to $450,000 for a 1,400-square-foot box. If approved, he complained the construction would go on for a long time. He stated there is no quid pro quo. He voiced the developer will be making $35 to $40 million for the development and the adjacent residents get their necks stepped on. He also voiced his concern with the loss of equity of his home. He pleaded for the Commission to not approve a change of zone. MR. DONALD BOLAS, California Drive, Palm Desert, commented that his home is in PDCC and occupied by his adult son. He has lived in Palm Desert since 1974. He mentioned he had attended meetings in the past where City bodies struggled with issues to preserve the desert and make it a special place. He said Palm Desert is not short of people. Therefore, they do not need to pack people in, which will happen with the proposed project. He stated that the project is the start of an error. He quoted what a wise man once said, "an error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct the error." He believed the people present tonight want the Planning Commission to correct any error that might have been made in getting the application this far. He asked if the use is relevant and does it do justice to the existing property owners and the City of Palm Desert. He mentioned a city knocked down a 5,500-room hotel to give its people livable open space downtown. He stated Palm Desert does not have to knock down a big hotel; all the City has to do is preserve the open space and not give it away. Mr. Bolas said the project is a bank bailout. The golf industry suffers and the developers gain; however, the property owners lose. He vented that the people deserve something better and the Planning Commission has the power to deliver it. 14 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�201TMinutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 MR. MICHAEL HER.REL, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, said he purchased his home in PDCC more than three years ago and the proposed project would not work for him. He asked that the Planning Commission to require the developer to pay 10 percent to each affected homeowner of their current home value if a zone change is approved. He voiced that they have an attorney on a retainer; the residents do not plan to go away regarding this matter. MR. ROBERT BRENNAN, Oklahoma Avenue, Palm Desert, thanked Commissioner Holt for asking questions that he felt all should be asking. He said at every meeting he has attended and every homeowner, except for one, commented that the project would not work in PDCC. He asked the Planning Commission if they have looked at the site; the site is surrounded by homes. He opposed the project in the proposed area. MS. KATHLEEN BISHOP, California Drive, Palm Desert, stated the proposed project brings public development into a private single-family residential neighborhood. She said the main concern is environmental such as pollution, noise, and increased water usage. She expressed that the homeowners have the right to protect their property values. The project will block their views with buildings and walls, which will decrease their property value and change the aesthetics of their yards and infringe in their privacy. She proposed to leave the zone as open space. She does not believe golf is a dying sport and noted there are schools offering physical education in golf. She thanked the Planning Commission for their time. MR. NED WILMOT, Tennessee Avenue, Palm Desert, stated he is opposed to the project. He mentioned he was recruited to undertake the planning, design, and development of a new town on 15,000 acres of land between Baltimore and Washington D.C.; a pre-planned city of 100,000 people. His concern with the proposed project, it breaks the integrity of the original planning of the PDCC community. He said it constitutes a planned unit development and mixed-use retail. However, the PDCC was planned as a golf community built on the surrounds of 27 holes, a clubhouse, a practice range, and acres of open views of their magnificent mountains. Over the last 19 years, they have resided in PDCC and have seen the community dismantle piece by piece; pieces that come from open space land. He communicated that the integrity of the original good planning is being lost. He stated that the golfing lands were not only for golf, they also served to provide residents with amazing views. MS. TARA FRASER, California Drive, Palm Desert, stated she is speaking on behalf of her father, a homeowner in PDCC, who could not attend the meeting. She stated that their whole family is opposed to the project. She said the renderings look nice, but the developer is proposing too many buildings in a small space. Her father purchased his home in 1999 and had peace in his backyard. The former Executive Course has changed to a natural state and still is beautiful. She said their family is troubled because they will lose the natural beauty of their backyard. She thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to share her family's extreme displeasure. 15 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 MR. JUSTIN JONES, California Drive, Palm Desert, commented that he has spent 17 years in PDCC, and plans on buying a home on the golf course for him and his son. He noted that not only are there elderly and retired people that live in PDCC, there are also new parents. He currently rents a home on California Drive and likes to take his son for a walk. However, it is not safe to walk on the street due to speeding cars and prefers walking his son in the backyard, which is the golf course. He mentioned the golf course owner has neglected to maintain the property, and the property owner has not reimbursed homeowners for pest control services due to the poor maintenance. Lastly, he voiced his concern with sitting in his yard and have to listen to domestic disturbance or noise that would come from the proposed condominiums. MR. JOSEPH MEDEK, California Drive, Palm Desert, stated he is highly affected by the proposed project and strongly opposed. He stated that the Planning Commission is not listening to the people as human beings. He said the developer bought the property for a very cheap price and let it go in order to develop the parcel for a profit. He stated the project would ruin the lives of the retired people living in PDCC. The homeowners bought their homes for the views and the open space. He asked the Planning Commission how they would feel if a developer were to build condominiums in front of their view. He pleaded for the Commission to not allow the developer to build on the proposed site. MR. BRAD TAYLOR, California Drive, Palm Desert, noted that there is a covenant agreement that runs with the land for the Villas on the Greens. He noted that the Planning Commission did not ask for comments in favor of the proposed project. He said the property owner of the former Executive Course has been accommodating with the agreement, except for the maintenance of the grass and land. He mentioned that he has talked to the property owner concerning one particular unit (C-18), which is part of the agreement. He asked the Planning Commission or City staff look at unit C-18 to make sure it is within the plan. In addition, the property owner has agreed to relocate or reposition C- 18 and would like to have that on record. He pointed out that there is open space within Site Plan C, which is also part of the agreement. The agreement states that nothing is to be built on or lower than the existing tree line or to the west of the tree line. He noted that one tree has already been removed from the tree line. He feared there are plans to build on the open space noted in Site Plan C. He mentioned the property owner has said there are plans in the future for recreational activities and Villas on the Greens would be involved in those decisions. He said if the zone is changed to mixed residential, the zone would not be correct for the tree line on the west as agreed to in the recorded covenant. MS. BARBARA POWERS, Kentucky Avenue, Palm Desert, on behalf of her husband Chuck Powers, stated he purchased their home in 1983. He had 30 years in law enforcement when he retired, and there were 14 retired law enforcement officers who lived within the PDCC streets. That is no longer the case and only a few of them left. Since 1992, they had a neighborhood watch on three streets (Tennessee Avenue, Oklahoma Drive, and Kentucky Avenue). Therefore, they know who belongs on the golf course and currently have clear 16 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�201TMinutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 views of neighbors' backyards. According to Mr. Powers, that is very important during the summer since many of the homeowners are snowbirds. If the project is approved, the ability to have clear views will disappear. According to the National Neighborhood Watch, they recommend harding homes through environmental design. That means no trees or bushes blocking the view of the homeowner to protect their homes from predators. Mr. Powers asked that the Planning Commission not approve the proposed project. Mrs. Powers mentioned they recently had a coyote on her back porch so she called and warned her neighbors. She saw the coyote try to jump a fence in an attempt to get to her neighbor's cats. She stated she was able to contact her neighbors since she had their contact information through the Neighborhood Watch Program, which she said the program works. MRS. POWERS stated that the golf course went through eight owners and provided a brief history of all the owners. She noted there are 18 holes on the Championship Course and nine holes on the Executive Course. The Executive Course consists of approximately 30 acres and she listed the number of homeowners in the HOAs; however, there are 111 homeowners on the Executive Course who are not in an HOA. She noted there are not a lot of people at the Planning Commission meeting tonight because the HOA made some type of arrangement with PDCC and are remaining neutral. The HOA also had a meeting scheduled the same evening. She requested a new traffic study to be done. When the current study was completed, it was done on a weekday and only for one day. In addition, she felt the mitigation of wildlife is the biggest mistake. She said there are hundreds of different birds in the trees. If the developer tears down the trees; they are going to have a rodent problem. She thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. With no other comments from the audience, Chairman Pradetto asked the applicant to address some of the concerns made by the residents of PDCC. MR. McFADDEN said they have heard the comments and they have been working through the issues. He believed a lot of the issues have been addressed and mitigated to some concern; however, people are just plain opposed to the project. He also believed the OS designation in the General Plan was slightly altered so the project is more conducive to what the City would like to see done with these types of projects. He felt this decision needs to be made at a higher level. He said they have not heard any comments in favor of the project, but not everyone is opposed. He also said people are afraid to say they are in favor of the project because of the way they would be vindicated or ostracized and they were asked to remain anonymous. Mr. McFadden stated it is the first time he has heard of the 667 opposed petitions. He does not know how the petitions were solicited and not sure what the process for petitions is. He said they are always taking in a lot of concerns and criticism on the project and they try to adjust where they can. He commented that Commissioner Holt had a lot of good things 17 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�201TMinutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 to say about the project considering the history. He noted that the owner would like to speak regarding the history from a developer's perspective. MR. MOE SIHOTA, PD Holdings L.P., New Mexico Drive, Palm Desert, stated that he is not present to be some kind of voice of reason; he has his biases. He conveyed to the Planning Commission that the moderate methodical approach they have taken since entering this journey in dealing with an asset called the golf course. The owners bought it out of bankruptcy and it was a mess. The golf course was neglected, property values decreased, and the owners thought they could make a go of it. As mentioned, the golf course has a history of bankruptcy, so the owners were not immune to considerations around its past. Nonetheless, they thought they could make a go of it and they bought the golf course. Prior to buying the property, the owners met with City staff and discussed what it would take to rehabilitate the golf course. Staff pointed out to them that there were preexisting commitments made by the previous owners such as a maintenance building, water, and other infrastructure the City wanted them to honor. Notwithstanding the fact that there was nothing that would oblige them to do so; they carried out those commitments. He stated they invested approximately $4 million in the course, and they bought the property with the intent to run it as a golf course. He said to run a golf course you need seed, fertilizer, water, and labor; it is pretty straightforward. He said the fee for the Championship Course fetches approximately $50 to $60 per round, which makes it somewhat marginally viable. As the previous owners, they were burdened with the uneconomic capacity of the Executive Course at $30 to $40 per round which did not make sense to them. Consequently, the owners were faced with that reality and they looked at what they could do. He said they first approached charities to see if they were prepared to take the golf course over. They looked at options from soccer to golf for kids and trust arrangements, which none made sense because no one was prepared to take it on. At that point, they sat down with City staff to look at another option to save the Executive Course. The option was to establish a Landscape and Lighting District fee in the amount of $25 per resident that were situated on and/or contoured the Executive Course, which would make up for the economic deficiency. However, the people that spearheaded the PDCC open space committee were the same people who opposed the Landscape and Lighting District fee. Mr. Sihota stated they were met with significant community anger and resistance because of the proposal. With that said, they were left with the current option of proposing to develop 69 condominium units on the former Executive Course. He said they did not get involved in the current option to generate rank within a community so the approach they decided to take was to engage residents on a committee and ask them to assist in coming up with a sensible urban planning plan for the Executive Course area. He also said they invited the PDCC open space committee to participate in the process and the committee indicated they would not support or engage in any discussion or dialog with the owners of the Executive Course. They worked with a subset of residents and City staff. The end result of that process was to come up with a modest proposal that does not speak of a developer looking for a windfall. He said it is 2.3 units per acre and 50 percent of the land is set aside for open space. The net result required constant 18 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�201TMinutes\12-79-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 attentiveness to what the community, City staff, and residents who wanted to participate had to say after several iterations they arrived at a 6-0 vote at the ARC meeting. He said they arrived at a situation where the PDCC HOA has withdrawn their opposition. He reiterated that the Planning Commission has a recommendation before them that is supported by staff. He communicated that the proposal is not perfect and reaffirmed they did not develop the proposal to generate a rank within the community. He pointed out that the land is not being used for a useful purpose if it is degraded into a desert. He mentioned between the Executive Course and Championship Course they have come up with 75 percent of residents between the two courses still having green space in terms of the homes that back up to the course. He said they also have restored significant vibrancy back into the community by bringing life back to the clubhouse. They have enhanced property values by reestablishing the Championship Course. He stated they understand the economics of golf and they made a commitment, which they would covenant to protect the entirety of the Championship Course. However, he is sorry that the same cannot be done with the Executive Course. He declared that this is the journey they have walked and how they have arrived at this point. He understood the situation the Planning Commission is in. It is difficult when one is faced with the wrath of a community and the sole voice of a developer. He conveyed to the Commission with every shred of whatever he has in him that they have tried to do this methodically, rationally, and sensitive to urban planning principles with the engagement of staff and residents who were prepared to participate in the process. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna commented that she is a prior property owner of a home on the Executive Course. She owned the home when the condominiums were being built along California Drive. At that time there was considerable opposition to that development with the same concerns she has heard from the residents this evening. However, the D.R. Horton project actually enhanced the value and improved the neighborhood. She felt the PDCC owner has been extremely sensitive in dealing with the community and pointed out that the owner is offering 50 percent open space. She also pointed out that the owner has worked with the neighbors and worked on addressing their concerns. She commented that 69 one-story condominiums do not seem to be an egregious encroachment into the neighborhood. She voiced her concern with the current condition of the Executive Course with insects, rodents, snakes, and coyotes. The proposed project is one way to address and improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Greenwood mentioned that it was said earlier that the Planning Commission would most likely be presented with another case like the proposed project. He stated he is sensitive to the homeowners and their concerns. However, from an open space standpoint, the Executive Course is being neglected and it is not being utilized and looks blighted. He felt that the neglected area weighs on the decrease in the property value. He said the proposal presented is sensitive and noted that the proposal could have come in with a 19 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2077�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 much higher density or mixed-use commercial. He mentioned the archit�cture is consistent with the neighborhood and a nice addition. He said it is a decent proposal and reasonable. Commissioner Holt asked what the maximum density for the PDCC neighborhood is. Mr. Ceja replied that the maximum density in an R-2 zone is eight units per acre. Commissioner Holt asked how many units per acre the proposed project is. Mr. Ceja replied the proposed project is 2.3 units per acre. Chairman Pradetto asked how many units per acre in an open space. Mr. Ceja replied zero. Chairman Pradetto clarified that the current zone is open space. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt stated that she read all the comments submitted to the City from the residents. She and staff are listening to them. Staff has been working diligently with the developer and staff has attended community meetings. She pointed out that staff did not have to attend the community meetings. Staff attended because they do care and are invested in the PDCC community. She commented there will always be a change and sometimes change can cause conflict and that is where they are at today. Unfortunately, many golf courses were designed and constructed to sell homes with very little due diligence done to determine whether the golf courses could survive or thrive on their own, and she felt this project is one example. She stated she knows for a fact that this is not going to be the last case the City would hear. She also stated this is something going on all over the nation and all over the Coachella Valley. She said it would be nice for the City to do a study on the repurposing of golf courses so they could have some other alternatives. She mentioned a project in Palm Springs plans to repurpose a golf course to an olive tree grove and harvest the olives. She thought that was a great idea. She stated it is unfortunate that the residents, the developer, PDCC HOAs, and City staff could not all work together to get on the same page. She also understands the current situation they are in, which precludes them from allowing the golf course to remain a decommission golf course. She stated that the conversion of open space to residential in an area where it is undesirable does not sit well with her. She asked where they go from here. She felt it is not her place to tell the residents of PDCC or the City what to do with the subject property. She stated she does not have an issue with the proposed development and applauded the developer for the low density, for the incorporation of open space, and the recreational amenities. However, the location of the proposed project gives her a little heartburn. She also is concerned about the precedent it may set. Lastly, she cannot recommend 20 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 approval of . a zone change to the City Council without the accompanying condominium maps. She preferred to approve the zone and the maps at the same time and asked if that is correct. Senior Engineer/City Surveyor Ron Moreno responded that the tentative tract maps would come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Due to the overlap of the previous City Surveyor and him taking over, he did not feel comfortable recommending approval of the maps since he has not had the chance to review them. He stated staff will review the maps with the applicant. Commissioner Holt inquired if the applicant would have to return to the Planning Commission. Mr. Moreno replied that is correct. The applicant would need to return to the Planning Commission with the maps. Commissioner Holt asked if the Commission recommends continuing the case, would it be a delay for the applicant. Mr. Stendell responded that there are plenty of steps left in the approval or non- approval process of the proposed project. He explained that maps are often separated from the precise plan of design and come back later for approval. He made clear that staff is recommending excluding the tentative tract maps from the project approval or the Commission could recommend that it all come back together as one. Commissioner Holt mentioned that some cities are not comfortable with allowing a zone change to go forward before a development plan is approved, which would be her preference for the proposed project. She liked the proposed project, but maybe if the residents were given some time, they could come up with some other solutions. In any case, something does need to happen with the property. She said it would be great to know what other golf communities are doing with golf courses. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that he was on the ARC for 32 years and graduated to the Planning Commission. Through all the years on the ARC, projects like the one being proposed or similar situations would come up. He mentioned his landscape architecture firm worked on designs for golf course communities. He said golf courses were built to create a lifestyle and enhance the value of the homes in the community, which was nice as long as the band was playing. However, starting at the beginning of the recession in 2008, the band stopped playing. He stated his firm has not worked on a golf course in years. They knew it would be a matter of time before some of the weaker courses would start failing, and unfortunately, that is the case with the Executive Course. He mentioned that he played golf on the Executive Course with his son and enjoyed it very much, and he was rather envious of the people living around the course. The views were great and a great place to live, but it is now being challenged. However, after being on the ARC, he had the opportunity to look at a 21 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017\Minu[es\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 lot . of different developments. He referred to a comment made by Mr. Forney regarding "why can't compromises be made." He believed the developer had made compromises. He stated he has never seen a project with over 50 percent open space, which is made available to the neighbors. He also referred to the comment made about walking on a busy street like California Drive and said there is an opportunity to walk on very safe trails within the development that is open to the neighbors. As he looked at the architectural design of the project, he saw a lot of sensitivity towards making it possible for someone to live in one of the small units and not exceed height where the buildings are taller and in the center. Those are all hallmarks of good design that the City looks for. He felt sorry that change has to come and change is painful; however, the project is a very sensitive designed development. Chairman Pradetto asked the City's attorney and staff if the Commission were to recommend denial, the Commission is only recommending denial to the City Council. However, the applicant would have the opportunity to appeal or would staff move forward with a different recommendation. Mr. Stendell responded that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council. The ultimate approval lies with the Council and the Planning Commission's recommendation whether it is an approval or a denial would move before the City Council. Chairman Pradetto commented that he feels for the developer, but thinks about why he feels the way that he does. He said it is because of the idea of concessions for the limited density. He explained that the developer has given a little something and it is human nature to have it reciprocated. He said it is a tactic in which there is no entitlement; therefore, there is no concession so you can't concede something you don't have. He said by saying you have less density, one automatically feels the developer is giving something. He felt that not to be true. However, on the other side, there is fear of change. On one hand, he wants to help the developer because of the human nature of that idea, but he also wants to help the community due to their concerns about their loss. Ultimately, it comes down to they have a problem and it is a golf course that continues to get worse and the developer knows that it is getting worse. He noted Commissioners Greenwood and Holt made great points, but the proposed project might be the best option. He stated that studying future proposals and options is a great idea. He communicated that the proposed project comes down to risk in which they have a problem and no good solutions. He noted that if the Commission continues the item to wait for the maps to be reviewed, it might give them a couple weeks of time. He asked the Assistant City Attorney if they wait for the maps, does the Planning Commission have to re-open the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Jill Tremblay replied yes. Chairman Pradetto stated that the proposed project is pretty good, but Commissioner Holt made some good points. He said he would support a continuance unless there is a different motion. 22 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there is a continuance and the tentative tract maps come back to the Planning Commission for approval, does it change anything that the Commission has already discussed. To put it simply, moving the item forward to the City Council would not affect anything that happens with the maps. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. He said it does not matter if the maps are separated from the project. However, if the Commission prefers the project and the maps stay together, staff is comfortable with that as well. Commissioner DeLuna stated it would not make a difference. Commissioner Holt interjected that her concern is if they recommend a zone change and there is no map tied to the change. With the zone change, the property value increases significantly. She is not saying the developer would do it, but the property owner could turn around and sell the property without any additional entitlements. In theory, she asked if that is correct. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. However, there is no financial ability to sell the homes until maps are approved. Commissioner Holt voiced her concern moving forward with a zone change without a development plan tied to the change. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that if the Commission were to move the project before the City Council with an approval, then the Council deliberates and makes the final decision on whether the OS zone is changed to an R-1 zone. Commissioner Holt interjected and said what if something happens to the developer and sells the property, then someone else comes along and picks up the property and they submit a plan that is not as generous as the one being presented. Chair DeLuna asked if the project were to move forward, would the map be completed before going to the City Council. Mr. Stendell responded that the maps could be completed. There are a number of ways to handle the approval of the maps. Commissioner Greenwood asked if it is correct that the project they are moving forward is based on its merits presented during this evening's public hearing. In addition, if the maps are brought back to the Commission and the density changed to seven units per acre, he asked if it would require a new public hearing. Mr. Stendell remarked that the map is only the instrument by which the developer could sell the individual condominium units. He stated that an action could be taken on the Change of Zone, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and the 23 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Environmental Assessment. However, if the Planning Commission felt that approving the above-mentioned items is too challenging, then they could slow it down and keep it all together with the maps. Commissioner Holt clarified that it is only the condominium map that is not ready. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. So Commissioner Holt could have a better understanding, he explained that the Precise Plan includes the preliminary grading, architecture, landscape, etc. Mr. Moreno interjected that the condominium map would be over the entire open space parcel. Therefore, there are no boundary changes to the open space. It is merely a condominium map on top of the original parcel. He made clear there are no lot line adjustments, no parcels being created, and no change to the original space other than a condominium map on top. Commissioner DeLuna understood if they moved the project forward with the condition that the map needs to be completed before it goes to the City Council, she asked if that is a viable path. Mr. Stendell replied no. He said the map has to first go to the Planning Commission for an action. The map could be separate and on a concurrent path. Commissioner DeLuna complex, and sensitive. she moved for approval. commented that the proposed project is complicated, However, at this point and given what she has learned, Vice Chairman Gregory said he would second the motion. Commissioner Greenwood referred to a comment made by Commissioner Holt. She mentioned a concern with this type of project being echoed on future developments. He pointed out that every proposal is based on its own merits and the Planning Commission is going to weigh each case based on the proposal; therefore, it would not create a precedent. For clarification purposes, Mr. Stendell asked if the motion includes staff's recommendation to strike the reference to the tentative tract maps. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes. Vice Chairman Gregory is aware and agreed to the motion. 24 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 Commissioner DeLuna moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715, recommending to the City Council approval of Case No. CZ/CUP/EA 16-280 for the repurposing of the former Executive Course to establish 69 condominium units within PDCC; and strike the approval of Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242. Motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gregory and carried by a 4-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; Noes: Holt; ABSENT: None). X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS None XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. JOSEPH PRADETTO, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 25 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2017�Minutes\12-19-17.docx CIIY Of PHL�I DESERI 73-5�0 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CntiFoatau qzz6o—z578 TEL: ]60 346—o6�i • F�vc: 760 34�-7098 in fo @palm-descrt. o cg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CZ/PP/CUP 16-280 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY MCFADDEN ARCHITECTS TO REZONE THREE PARCELS FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO MIXED RESIDENTIAL (R-2) AND APPROVE A PRECISE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 69 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES LOCATED ON THE FORMER EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE AT PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB (APNs 637-190-021, 637-190-024, AND 637-190-027) 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: 77-200 California Drive, APNs: 637-190-021, 637-190-024, and 637-190-027 Proiect Description: The project is for the repurpose of the former nine-ho►e Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Executive Golf Course (Executive Course), with 69 single-story condominium units on approximately 30 acres. Parcel A is proposed for 32 condominium units on 13.56 acres bounded by existing single-family homes on Oklahoma Avenue, Tennessee Avenue, Kentucky Avenue, Oregon Circle, and California Avenue. Parcel B is proposed for 19 condominium units on 6.15 acres surrounded by existing single-family homes on Kentucky Avenue, Tennessee Avenue, and California Avenue. Parcel C is proposed for 18 condominium units on 9.74 acres bounded by existing single-family homes on Colorado Street, New Mexico Drive, California Avenue, Indiana Avenue, Tennessee Avenue and Utah Circle. All three parcels include various private amenities such as pools, sports courts, and open space. Planning Commission Recommendation: The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission, at their meeting on December 19, 2017, reviewed and considered the request for a Change of Zone and development applications for the repurpose of the former Executive Course at PDCC. The Planning Commission voted in favor (4-1} and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715 recommending approval of the project, as presented, to the City Councii. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance for the Change of Zone application and a City Council Resolution approving the project design and land use for the repurposing of the former Executive Course. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the City Council on March 22, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. Public Review: The Change of Zone, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, 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, CITY CLERK March 2, 2018 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA