Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Packet - 2023-01-26CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: January 26, 2023 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk Subject: City Council Meeting of January 26, 2023 Below you will find questions received from the Mayor or Councilmembers and answers provided by City staff regarding tonight’s City Council meeting: ITEM 2A: AWARD A CONTRACT TO MARKS ARCHITECTS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,142,400 FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE PARKVIEW OFFICE COMPLEX (PROJECT NO. 726-17) Q1: We have a fund with roughly $5 million set aside for renovations of the Parkview Office Complex that has been accumulating from fees collected from past and current renters. Is that fund the source of the $1.4 million that we will be paying Marks Architects with or is that money coming from another source? A1: Yes. The Parkview Office Complex is part of our Enterprise Fund (self-supporting government fund) that currently has about $5 million plus the $1.497M that has already been budgeted for the project. Current annual rent in the Enterprise Fund generates approximately $1.35M, with operations costs estimated at $1.2M. Net Revenue for 2022 was approx. $425k. Q2: Marks Architects was the only company to bid on this project. Does that raise any concerns? Any speculation as to why more firms did not bid on this job? A2: Initially there were concerns. However, 367 firms viewed the request for proposals (RFP) and 44 firms downloaded the RFP from our public online platform OpenGov. In addition, staff reached out to three other engineering/design firms to further enhance awareness of the RFP. Feedback from these firms indicated they were at capacity and could not commit to the project. Staff conducted further due diligence through a cost analysis by HR Green which resulted in a price reduction of over $236,000 and (HR Green) concluded this was a fair cost proposal. Q3: Is there any preliminary estimates on the actual cost of renovations needed for Parkview or are we simply waiting for Marks to conduct their work? A3: There are no preliminary estimates. However, after a comprehensive assessment of building deficiencies (code, ADA, etc.) and stakeholder feedback (tenants, economic development subcommittee), a cost estimate and exterior conceptual renderings will be presented to the City Council for direction. Q & A Memorandum-1 01/26/2022 Question & Answer Memo Page 2 of 3 ITEM 2B: AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE NORTH SPHERE FIRE STATION DESIGN AND BUILDING ASSESSMENT OF FIRE STATION 33 AND 71 TO PBK ARCHITECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $674,000 (PROJECT NO. 762-23) Q1: What is the average Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and sales tax revenue in Riverside County? A1: The County’s website indicates they assess a 10% TOT rate. Like the cities, the “local jurisdiction” in a County Area would receive 1% of the Bradley-Burns sales tax in that area. The County also has access to Prop 172 sales tax money, which requires that one-half cent sales tax in each county be reserved for public safety purposes. Sales Tax in California is broken down as follows (of the current 7.75%): • 6.00 percent to the State • 1.00 percent to the Local Jurisdiction • 0.25 percent to the Local Transportation Fund • 0.50 to County Public Safety Fund (Prop 172) The County’s Budget for 22/23 shows the following values for their General Fund-Discretionary Revenue. • TOT is lumped in with Other Misc Revenue at $25.8M for 22/23 and includes landfill fees, leases, and revenue sharing. • Sales and Use Tax is listed at $42.9M • Public Safety Sales Tax is $284.1M Q2: What are the ages of Fire Stations 33 and 71? A2: Fire Station 33 was built sometime between 1983-1985. Fire Station 71 was built between 1984- 86. Q3: Have there been any previous remodels on those two stations? If so, when and how much did they cost? A3: Station 33 – Foundation had to be re-engineered 18 months after the fire station opened, unable to pull costs at this time. Kitchen Remodel in 2004, unable to pull these costs currently. Bathroom Remodels in 2009 or 2010, unable to pull these costs. City Staff has been addressing a lot of deferred maintenance in the last 18 months: • Mold Mitigation at 33 and 71 totaling $137,000. • Of the $190,000 in maintenance and repair budget, $85,000 spent to date (this fiscal year). • Of the $108,400 in the capital office budget, $52,000 spent to date (this fiscal year). ITEM 2C: APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $227,000 WITH PREST-VUKSIC-GREENWOOD ARCHITECTS (PVGA) FOR WORK RELATED TO DISCOVER PALM DESERT, A NEW VISITOR SERVICES CENTER LOCATED AT PALM DESERT CIVIC CENTER Q1: Under the project description it states that the total project cost is now estimated to be $6.5 million. This conflicts with the letter (Page 2C-25) from the architects which states that the total project cost is now estimated to be $3.5 million. Which amount is correct? A1: Staff made a mistake and the $6.5 million is a typo. We have confirmed with the architects that the estimated cost is $3.5 million. Q & A Memorandum-2 01/26/2022 Question & Answer Memo Page 3 of 3 ITEM 3B: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN (PP), AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A 394-UNIT MULTIFAMILY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ON AN 18.31-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVENUE (APNs 620-400-030 AND 620-400-031) 394 UNIT PROJECT Q1: Where can I watch the planning meeting where the Portola & Frank Sinatra project were discussed? A1: As requested, a link has been provided for Case No. PP/CUP22-0006 394-units Frank Sinatra and Portola Avenue, to view the recording of the Planning Commission meeting held December 6, 2022: Click Here. Q2: Is there any more information available about Hayes Dietrich, LLC? A2: From the applicant: "...this is our first development on our own. Both Calvin and I previously worked for Doran Companies, one of the largest multifamily developers in the Midwest and one of the largest general contractors in Minnesota. I have attached our general profiles for additional reference. We have mentioned that this is our first project at past meetings since breaking off to start our own firm. Calvin Hayes previously resided in Palm Desert for approximately 7 years before moving to Minnesota about 11 years ago. As part of us starting our own firm, he wanted to get back to this area and help create high quality housing that we are accustomed to providing for this area, seeing a significant need in the market. Calvin is currently looking for housing and will be moving back to the area as we get closer to starting construction on the project. Calvin will remain in the Coachella Valley to lead that regional office as we plan to create a longstanding presence in Palm Desert and the neighboring cities. Additionally, we are working on several other projects in the Minnesota market and currently have a 330-unit development in Plymouth, MN, being submitted for an initial sketch plan review in the coming weeks. Below are website links to several of the projects that we previously worked on and show the level of quality that we will be bringing to the Frank Sinatra and Portola luxury housing development. Expo Luxury Apartments & Townhomes, Skyline Views Minneapolis (expompls.com) – Expo (Minneapolis, MN) – 369-unit 25-story high rise building with separate 6-story mid-rise building and small retail component. Luxury Apartments in Maple Grove | The Reserve at Arbor Lakes – The Reserve at Arbor Lakes (Maple Grove, MN) – 531-units of 4-story buildings with 30,000 SF clubhouse Luxury Apartments South Metro The Triple Crown Residences (thetriplecrownapts.com) – Triple Crown (Shakopee, MN) – 321-unit 4-story building with 18,000 SF clubhouse Q3: Page 63 refers to a letter dated October 3, 2022, from the applicant responding to resident concerns. Please provide this letter. A3: The letter is now posted on the City website with the agenda item and can be accessed by clicking here. Q & A Memorandum-3 From:Ivan Thomson To:CouncilMeeting Comments Subject:Keeping of hens with the City of Palm Desert Date:Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:17:49 AM Dear City Council, I write to you to ask that the City of Palm Desert please consider allowing the keeping of hens within backyards within the city of Palm Desert by residents in accordance with the rules set forth by the County of Riverside ( https://www.rctlma.org/ce/content/brochures/05E_count_chickens_all_districts_english.pdf ). There are many people who would like to raise a limited number of hens as personal pets and/or to harvest eggs for personal consumption and this would encourage self-reliance and independence to a limited degree. Although most people would either not want to do this and/or would live in an HOA which would prohibit it. But for those on private residence it would be nice to see the city encourage backyard gardening/farming and limited agriculture; an activity that once was commonplace throughout the Coachella valley once upon a time. I believe Palm Desert should be a welcoming community to the principles of self-reliance, independence, freedom, safety, security and other important virtues. Allowing people limited ability to raise their own food (hens, backyard farming, gardening, etc.) would help to achieve these virtues. There are many parents, such as myself, whom would love the opportunity to actually teach their kids limited farming skills instead of simply reading about an abstract idea from a schoolbook and having kids simply thinking food comes from stores. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ivan Thomson Resident of Palm Desert Sent with Proton Mail secure email. Supplemental Packet Public Comment-1 Supplemental Packet Public Comment-2 Parkview Complex PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 2023 Supplemental 2A-1 Vicinity Map Highway 111 Larkspur LaneCC -AGENDA 2A 21/26/2023 Supplemental 2A-2 Parkview Complex (Street View) Highway 111 Larkspur LaneCC -AGENDA 2A 31/26/2023 Supplemental 2A-3 Background The Parkview Office Complex •Two Buildings •Parkview Building (two-story)–32,280 square feet -Constructed in 1991 •State Building –21,250 square -Constructed in 1992 •Buildings have not been assessed in 30 years •2018 Project -Scope Increase -Council Direction •Re-engaged tenants and updated leases •September 23,2022,posted an RFP on OpenGov CC -AGENDA ITEM 2A.41/26/2023 Supplemental 2A-4 RFP Proposal •Received one proposal •367 reviews •44 downloads •Contacted references •Professional •Schedule-oriented •Commissioned HR Green financial review •Cost effectiveness, costs per labor, level of tasks, hourly rates, and expertise •Analysis resulted in a fee reduction of $236,600 •HR Green approved and meets industry standard CC -AGENDA ITEM 2A 51/26/2023 Supplemental 2A-5 Project Description Comprehensive project includes multiple phases: •Data collection, bidding and construction Interior and exterior design improvement plans: •Building assessment (hazardous materials, ADA, Title 24 compliance) •Tenant surveys, stakeholder feedback (e.g. Economic Sub-Committee) •Prepare conceptual designs with cost estimates •City Council presentation/direction Bundle Agreement •Agreement bundles design services for two tenant improvement plans: •Water Quality Control Board •California Dept. of Food and Agriculture CC -AGENDA ITEM 2A 61/26/2023 Supplemental 2A-6 Fiscal Analysis •Funds of $1,497,600 are included in the approved CIP list for FY 2022 -23 •Additional funds will need to be appropriated for construction based on estimates CC -AGENDA ITEM 2A 71/26/2023 ITEM AUTHORIZED BUDGET COST ORIGINAL BUDGET 06/14/2018 $1,497,600 Security Camera Installation 08/25/2022 $89,039.29 Engineering/Design Services 01/26/2023 $952,400 Water Quality Control Board Tenant Improvement Engineering/Design Services 01/26/2023 $190,000 Contingency 01/26/2023 $150,000 TOTAL 1,497,600 $1,381,439.29 BALANCE $116,160.71 Supplemental 2A-7 Recommendation •Award a Contract to Marks Architects,Inc.in the amount of $1,142,400 for architectural design and structural engineering services for the Parkview Office Complex. •Authorize the Director of Finance to set aside a contingency amount of $150,000 for unforeseen work and future tenant improvement design services. •Authorize the City Manager or designee to review and approve written contract amendments up to the contingency amount. •Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and any documents necessary to effectuate the actions taken herewith. •Direct staff to work with the City’s Economic Subcommittee on the exterior conceptual designs. CC -AGENDA ITEM 2A 81/26/2023 Supplemental 2A-8 2023 CENTRAL INVENTORY WORK PLAN Supplemental 2D-1 CENTRAL INVENTORY BACKGROUND Through the State of California Surplus Land Act (SLA) all public entities in California must create a Central Inventory of surplus properties annually by December 31. The Central Inventory is used to inform developers of surplus properties. The disposition of properties on the Central Inventory is flexible. Properties can be retained for governmental use. The current Central Inventory was approved on December 15, 2022. Staff is seeking direction on a work plan for disposition of properties identified in the Central Inventory. Supplemental 2D-2 SLA PROCESS Supplemental 2D-3 MAP OF CENTRAL INVENTORY Supplemental 2D-4 45656 MOUNTAIN VIEW In final stages of the SLA process Distributed a Notice of Availability (open for 60 days) In the mandatory 90-day negotiation period Will bring a recommendation for disposition to City Council Supplemental 2D-5 ALESSANDRO PARCELS Received approval to release Notice of Availability (NOA) Will be sold as one unit NOA release next week Minimum of 5 months from the date of the release of the NOA before disposition Supplemental 2D-6 WALLAROO PARCELS Received approval to release Notice of Availability (NOA) Will be sold as one unit Completing NOA and plan to release it two weeks Minimum of 5 months from the date of the release of the NOA before disposition Supplemental 2D-7 JOSLYN CENTER PARCELS 627 -102 -017 -0.65 acres 627 -102 -025 -0.32 acres Total of 0.97 acres If directed to dispose of property, staff will return to the City Council with a Resolution and to seek approval to release an NOA Supplemental 2D-8 JOSLYN CENTER PARCELS Supplemental 2D-9 NEXT STEPS After the disposition process is started for Alessandro Alley and Joslyn Center properties, staff will return to the City Council for direction on future dispositions. Desert Willow Pads A, C, & D Fred Waring and San Pablo Entrada Del Paseo Ocotillo Portola Haystack Supplemental 2D-10 HAYES DIETRICH PROFILES As President of Construction and Co-Founder, Calvin is involved with the development side and is responsible for pre-construction and construction execution of all developments. Calvin has delivered over 1,500 multifamily units in Minnesota and Colorado from low- rise to high-rise buildings while working for Doran Companies, one of the largest general contractors in Minnesota. In his last role as Vice President of Construction Operations at Doran Companies, Calvin oversaw all of the firm’s construction teams and projects. Calvin previously worked in the Coachella Valley on several high profile projects including the exclusive Madison Club and the Hideaway in La Quinta, Terra Lago in Indio, Indian Canyon Interchange in Palm Springs and others throughout the Valley. Serving as the President of Development and Co-Founder, Cody sources and oversees the firm’s projects throughout the development, construction and operational life cycle. Cody’s experience includes the development of more than 2,500 new construction multifamily units and over 500 units that were acquired and substantially rehabilitated. The total development costs of those multifamily developments exceeds $800M and ranges from luxury, Class-A developments to affordable tax credit developments. Cody began his career at Dominium, one of the largest affordable housing developers in the country and then previously worked at Doran Companies, one of the largest multi-family developers in the Midwest as the Director of Development developing Luxury and mixed- income multifamily developments. Cody is also heavily active in ULI and sits on ULI Minnesota’s Housing Council. CALVIN HAYES CODY DIETRICH Supplemental 3B-1 To: Palm Desert City Council Subject: 394, three story proposed apartment complex by Hayes Dietrich, LLC My name is Doug Hoekstra. My residence is 1504 Retreat Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92660. My residence, which I purchased a year ago, is located in The Retreat which is the development east of the proposed apartment complex. I have attended all of the meetings related to this project. Here are some observations of the process: • The developer has been very collaborative in their approach. They have held several meetings with the local neighborhoods and have been open to feedback from the ARC committee. • I have been very impressed with the ARC Committee. They are very knowledgeable and clearly have the best interest of the City of Palm Desert in mind. Here is my opinion and ask: The developer designed the project based on the current allowed usage for the property. The ARC committee suggested many changes to the design and had many more. The real issue the ARC Committee had is that the property did not fit the surrounding neighborhood. Comments made regarding this included concerns about the “mass” of the project and the tunnel impact it would have on Portola since the proposed buildings are high and so close to the road. It is very apparent they did not support the project, not because of the architecture of the structure, but rather the “mass” and impact it would have on the local Community. The Developer decides to take it to the Planning Council knowing he is “within the rules” and forgoes continuing to work with the ARC Committee. At the Planning Council meeting, the project was debated and good questions were asked. It was obvious that the Planning Council did not really support the project either. The Developer was asked by one of the Council Members if he would reconsider his plan based on the feedback he received, and the Developer quickly replied “No”. In addition, one Planning Council member made the point that litigation is an option, but that the City would not want to incur the cost. From my perspective, the Planning Council reluctantly approved the project, believing its hands were tied. Now it is with the City Council. From my perspective, know one involved in this project believes this is a good fit for the surrounding community. This was very evident with the ARC Committee and the Planning Council, based on the comments made and questions asked. Based on the feedback at the “neighborhood” meetings, it is very evident that this project does not have the local community support either. I actually, believe the Developer does not believe the project is a good fit for the neighborhood either, but this is not his concern. He is only worried about making money. My personal opinion is that if this project was only two stories high it would be a viable option and not have a negative impact on the local community. So the City Council ultimately has to approve this project, and I am asking them to strongly consider all of the feedback in making this decision and do what is right for the City of Palm Desert. I understand litigation may be expensive, but I believe it is important as this project is precedent setting, and if not changed will negatively impact the trajectory and feel of Palm Desert neighborhoods in the future. Thank you for your consideration. Doug Hoekstra From:Nicole Seikaly To:CouncilMeeting Comments Cc:Nicole Seikaly Subject:Case No PP/CUP/EA22-0006 Date:Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:44:17 AM We would like to submit our objection to the approval of the 394-unit apartment complex located at the southwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. This complex is in all ways incompatible with the location. It’s unbelievable and unfortunate that the City changed the zoning from R-8 to R-22 for this area, as it just doesn’t make sense. Our objections are as follows: 1. This is a huge shift in the dynamic of our community. There are other places in Palm Desert that this project should be built, but not in this area where everything is much lower density. This will have a negative effect on our home property values. 2. This high-density housing complex will significantly increase the amount of street traffic, noise and privacy issues. There will undoubtedly be an increased risk for motor vehicle collisions due to U-turns having to be made, especially along Portola next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy. Homeowners that face Portola will be subjected to car headlights being directed straight toward their homes in addition to the increased noise. And residents on the 3rd floor of the complex would have direct views into homes along both Portola and Frank Sinatra. 3. The lighting from this massive complex will negatively impact our Dark Sky Initiative. 4. The 3-story design of the complex will take away our beloved mountain views, even with the supposed “view” corridors. 5. The design of the project is in no way “upscale” and does not fit in with the current aesthetic of our community. Please reconsider the approval of this project and make the right decision for our community by denying it. Thank you. Ramzi and Nicole Seikaly 1201 Retreat Circle Palm Desert, CA 92260 =================================================== This communication contains confidential Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. business information, and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, or if there is a problem with the communication, please notify the sender immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, reproduction, forwarding, copying or alteration of this message is strictly prohibited. Participants in this communication are not permitted to exchange or transmit Personal Identity Information (PII) via unsecured email. PII includes: Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, bank and credit union account numbers, health insurance plan identification numbers, driver’s license numbers, dates of birth, and other similar information associated with an individual that, if misused, might compromise that person's personal or financial security. Supplemental 3B-3 From:Pam Hoekstra To:CouncilMeeting Comments Subject:Hayes Deitrich Development Date:Thursday, January 26, 2023 8:33:29 AM Dear Members of the Palm Desert City Council, I am writing to express concerns related to the proposed 3-story development by Hayes-Deitrich. As you know, the ARC Committee spent a considerable amount of time working with the developer to create a development that was more appealing to the community. The ARC Committee obviously cares very much about the community of Palm Desert as do we, the homeowners. The ARC Committee was so impressive in their knowledge and professionalism and as homeowners that have invested in our homes in the city we are very grateful for their level of commitment. Unfortunately, the developer did not heed or respect the advice of the ARC Committee and chose instead to move forward without consideration of the ARC Committee recommendations or approval. Consider that this developer does not live, reside or do business in Palm Desert or the Coachella Valley. While the ARC Committee represents the residents and the property owners and care about our community and have committed their time in doing what is best for the city. Many concerns have been presented by other residents along with the ARC Committee. Some that I would like to highlight are as follows; First of concern, while this is technically claimed to be a 3-story building, it is in fact much more than 3 stories. The building will sit on a piece of land that is now much higher than street level or the level of the adjacent neighborhoods, making it significantly higher than 3 stories. In other situations in Palm Desert where buildings are higher than one story, they are always at street level or even below street level. In addition, the equipment on top of the buildings adds much more to the height than what is being called 3- stories. At a minimum the building should sit at or below street level and the equipment on top of the building should be considered in the additional height. As you drive around the surrounding neighborhoods there are no buildings this high or even close to this height anywhere in any residential area. A good place for this type of building would be near the hotels and commercial areas where there are taller buildings like this. Not in a residential neighborhood directly next to homes. Also, consider what a 3 story development of this type will do to the charm and character of our community. Do you really want to introduce this look for our beautiful community? Further the lack of set back from the street is dangerous from a traffic standpoint and very concerning. While I am not aware of the required set back requirement it seems to be more than what is presented in this proposal. The lack of set back creates a massive 3+ story wall along a major intersection in Palm Desert. (Is this really how you want people to be welcomed to your city) In comparison, any other buildings of this height in Palm Desert, which are always in retail or commercial areas, are set back from the street and the land area they sit on is much greater and unobtrusive. Not only is this very unattractive but it causes privacy issues in that these apartments will be looking directly into the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Please respect the concerns and property value of the residents and property owners of Palm Desert over a transient investment group proposing a concrete structure that will change the future of the city. These are our homes and we care about the future of Palm Desert. This development will greatly reduce our property values and ultimately all of those of the city of Palm Desert all while taking away from the natural beauty of the community. The number of residents whose views of the mountains will be blocked is immeasurable in addition to those travelling through the area. Is this worth giving up? Out of respect for our current homeowners, the recommendations of the ARC Committee and the Community of Palm Desert. Please do not allow them to build this development as proposed. On the Supplemental 3B-4 grounds that it is not in fact 3-stories and there are safety concerns regarding the set back from the road in addition to the privacy issues with this building looking directly into the neighboring homes. This development will take away from the natural beauty of Palm Desert. Please take this decision very seriously and the negative impact it will have on our neighborhood and community. Thank you for your time and consideration. -- Pamela Hoekstra1504 Retreat Circle Supplemental 3B-5 From:Cam Cameron To:CouncilMeeting Comments Subject:Opposition to the Hayes Dietrich proposed development at Portola Ave and Frank Sinatra Dr. Date:Sunday, January 22, 2023 7:10:45 PM Dear Palm Desert Council Members: We once again urge you to consider DENYING the massive 3 story, boxy, dormitory looking structure being proposed by Hayes Dietrich at Portola Ave and Frank Sinatra. We understand that it fits the current R-22 zoning designation of that property. It definitely does not fit the surrounding neighborhood either in current design, density, or community impact. Please reconsider this project. The Architectural Review Commission rejected it 3 times as presented. It was pushed up to the Planning Commission upon the 3rd denial at the request of the developer. The Planning Commissioners reluctantly approved it but clearly found some serious issues. The mass of the project will ruin beautiful mountain views , create loud traffic noise, encroach on privacy of nearby residents, and ruin the ambiance of our idyllic neighborhood for all of us. I’ve included a photo, taken from our dining room window. We see more of the mountains than the photo represents. The top black line drawn in is the height of the projected 3 story buildings provided by Hayes Dietrich. The lower line would be a two story roof line, far more acceptable. If you must approve this project, as we strongly hope you won’t, PLEASE send it back to the ARC for further improvements in design and appearance. Supplemental 3B-6 Respectfully, Cam and Jeff Cameron 2601 Retreat Circle (at Portola Ave) Palm Desert Supplemental 3B-7 January 26, 2023 City of Palm Desert RE: Proposed Apartment Complex on Portola and Frank Sinatra Dear City Council Members, We purchased our home in 2019 and chose Palm Desert for it’s great location in the greater Palm Springs area along with it’s stunning mountain views. As you drive through Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage, you appreciate the clean roadways, beautiful foliage and unparalleled views. These 3 cities have maintained this vision for decades. New housing developments are discretely hidden away from the roadways, hotels are built with lush golf courses in front with the buildings set further back. This new massive multi-story development built right on the road, with balconies that can be seen from every direction will change the feel of Palm Desert forever. This is an extremely important decision for all of you. Instead of driving through the city seeing beautiful foliage and mountains, you will be staring at a boxy, monstrosity with balconies piled with bikes, bbq’s, laundry, or whatever a tenant chooses to store outside their unit. In addition, this complex will put another 700 vehicles just in this one block increasing noise and traffic levels. I truly hope this City Council continues with the vision of it’s predecessors and determines that this type of project does not belong in this City. Please do not compromise our beautiful city. Sincerely, Maria Crema Supplemental 3B-8 October 3, 2022 Nick Melloni Senior Planner City of Palm Desert – Development Services 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org RE: Frank Sinatra and Portola Development – Response to Neighborhood Concerns Dear Mr. Melloni, Please find this memo as a supplemental submission for the proposed multifamily development at Frank Sinatra and Portola. This memo is intended to provide a response to the concerns of the residents in the neighborhood and how we have addressed or mitigated those concerns. The concerns, questions and comments listed below have been combined and/or summarized from the 10 opposition letters and emails provided to Hayes Dietrich through September 30th, 2022. 1. Neighborhood Changes: Our neighborhood, The Retreat at Desert Willow, consists of 112 units on 15 acres. The proposed complex is 395 units on 18 acres. Although the recently changed zoning for that property allows 22 units per acre, installing a development such as that within an area which is primarily 12 units per acre, is a drastic shift in our community. It will change the entire dynamic of the desert community that we love. Also note large three- story boxy buildings. a. Response: The General Plan updates were studied from 2013 to 2016. In 2016 the City Council adopted the Town Center Neighborhood designation at this site, which allows for three stories and up to 40 units per acre. The zoning code was subsequently adopted by the City Council in 2017 to allow for 22 units per acre. Figure 1 below shows the growth of the area and building out vacant and infill sites like the one we are proposing to develop. The northern sphere of the city is mostly zoned Planned Residential (see Figure 2 - Orange). As stated in Chapter 25.10 Residential Districts, “the purpose of this district is to provide for flexibility in residential development, by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4.0—40.0 du/ac), mixed housing types, and community facilities. The district is characterized as providing for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments and is organized around formal, walkable, and highly connected streetscapes.” This project incorporates mixing of housing types across arterial roads and follows what is been recommended and Supplemental 3B-9 planned for by the city through the General Plan and Zoning Code designations. The standards for this district also go on to say, “The PR district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the city with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval.” The development is a high-quality project that has been designed to have the first elevator building in a non-senior rental project and the first residential project with underground parking in Palm Desert. This allows the project to provide more open space and more view corridors through the site for the neighbors to the east. The three-story buildings were originally designed as a more traditional style architecture. After review with the Architectural Review Commission on June 28th, the design was modified to be a more modern simple structure. The buildings have recessed windows, undulating walls and built secondary walls to create shadow lines and slight differences in the plane of the façade while maintaining the modern aesthetic. The three-story structures also provide for further views through the site that would be blocked by shorter buildings that are closer together. Figure 1. Supplemental 3B-10 Figure 2. 2. Detrimental Noise: A high-density housing complex would alter the quiet enjoyment that we relish in this neighborhood. The introduction of a high-density housing project would significantly increase the amount of street traffic and noise that we currently encounter. a. Response: The development is across an arterial road from the neighbors to the east and the north. The General Plan has planned for the increase in traffic and there is infrastructure in place along the arterial roads to accommodate the density of this development. This will not change the noise level of traffic on Portola Avenue or Frank Sinatra Drive. The development will be made with high quality materials, and the Applicant provides additional framing details, subfloor treatments and additional drywall details to reduce the sound transmission from unit to unit and we take the overall development just as seriously. The pool, clubhouse, and courtyard area are in the central portion of the site to reduce sound transmission. As part of our efforts to Supplemental 3B-11 enhance the view corridors through the site, we moved a building to where we originally had pickleball and tennis courts. There has been more feedback about these amenities in recent years that they are a noise nuisance. Due to this we decided it would be best for the neighbors and our future residents to remove them entirely from the project to avoid this noise concern. The level of density doesn’t alter the noise levels as these are people’s homes no different than a lower density multifamily housing project like the Retreat at Desert Willow or a single-family home. This is evidenced by Palm Desert Municipal Code section 9.24.030 Sound Level Limits. This section of the code applies average sound level limits and all residential zones from single-family homes to multifamily homes follow the same standard of 55 decibel limits over a 10-minute average between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.. 3. There are 671 parking spaces planned for the project. That is a variance from the current required parking spaces for this type of development which is 2 parking spaces per unit. A complex with 395 apartments and 671 parking spaces makes for a very busy and loud project. There are only 78 visitor parking spaces allocated for 395 units. That equates to less than 2% of the population of the complex being able to have visitors at any given time. Where are all the excess visitors going to park? Overflow parking would spill over to residential properties across Frank Sinatra. a. Response: The development has been modified and is proposing to build out the full parking requirement of 2 stalls per unit and contains an additional 27 stalls in the underground parking that are tandem. These stalls are above the 2:1 requirement and would be used by the same home that has the stall in front of the tandem stall and it would be the resident’s responsibility to rotate their vehicles. The Applicant added an alternate plan for the Commissioners to consider reducing the unneeded parking and to provide more open space as previously contemplated. The Applicant would highly encourage the Commissioners to consider this as the difference to the plans adds 144 parking stalls to the development and takes away from the great open spaces that could be provided. Past projects completed by the applicant have had parking ranges for projects of this size and of similar locations of 1.5-1.6 stalls per unit, so we as the Applicant feel very comfortable with the parking ratio of 1.7 stalls per unit on the site. These three areas are the dog park/retention basin, the park area along Portola Avenue, and the green space behind the fitness center. It is our best interest as the Owners of the development to have sufficient parking in order to lease apartments, if we don’t have parking for the residents, they will not sign leases. The 78 visitor stalls item is being misconstrued from our note about stalls per bedroom at the neighborhood meetings. This response will not be needed unless the Commissioners decide to reduce the unneeded parking in exchange for more open space. To answer their concerns, their assumption for the 1.15 stalls per bedroom is that each bedroom uses a stall and the extra 0.15 stalls per bedroom would be for guests. All of the project underground garage stalls, garage stalls, and carports Supplemental 3B-12 (there may be several that are unassigned), will be assigned to residents. This would leave 180 surface stalls (if the open space is reimplemented) that will be shared between extra cars of residents and guests and not the 78 noted by this concern. Even at 78 stalls, that would be approximately 20% and not less than 2% of the units as noted having a guest over at the same time, which would be extremely unlikely. 4. Traffic: The main entrance to the development is planned to be located almost directly across from The Retreat at Desert Willow. Our homeowners that face Portola will be subjected to car headlights being directed straight toward their homes in addition to the increased street traffic. Cars exiting the project on Portola will only be allowed to turn right. This means that the number of U-turns made on Portola, next to the Desert Willow Golf Academy will be very high. The increased risk for motor vehicle collisions will significantly increase. a. Response: The development is utilizing a left-turn in at the main entrance that is similar to the entry to the Retreat at Desert Willow and offset to allow for both to have individual access from the outside traffic direction. This is a common practice throughout the city and allows for traffic to keep flowing. We also worked with the city’s public works department and the city’s consulting traffic engineer to make this work and avoid adding an unnecessary stop light as a traffic control. In addition, we prepared a Traffic Analysis for the development that was also reviewed by the public works department and the city’s consulting traffic engineer. All concerns were addressed from these groups. As part of the move-in documentation provided to each resident, a map will be provided to highlight the best exits to use depending on the direction the resident is intending to travel. Currently, the Retreat makes U-Turns at the Frank and Sinatra intersection to travel south and this development would require the same to travel west at that intersection. The map will recommend using the Frank Sinatra exit to go north, east or U-Turn west. The Applicant is happy to add some additional signage in the street median to deter individuals from turning around. As for the car headlights, both the Retreat at Desert Willow (Figure 3) and the homes to the north (Figure 4) have 6-foot perimeter walls and landscaping to buffer the lights. Early in the process, the Applicant was recommended to have a perimeter wall design that allowed for more views into the development to provide more aesthetic interest. The previous design of the perimeter wall was 6-foot walls that are 4-feet of a block wall with the top 2-feet as rod iron pickets. There are pockets where there were 6-foot picket walls only. In response to the neighbor concerns, the Applicant has revised all perimeter walls along the street to the 4-foot-tall block wall with a 2-foot picket railing. Supplemental 3B-13 Figure 3. Figure 4. Supplemental 3B-14 5. Light Pollution: Lighting standards installed over the vast areas of outdoor parking will impact the Dark Sky Initiative that we all rely upon in this area. It is important to our local wildlife as well as local sky/star watchers. a. Response: The Applicant has paid close attention to avoiding light pollution as part of the overall design. A photometric plan along with lighting cut sheets were submitted as part of the development application displaying this. The lighting design for the development is intended to provide a small neighborhood residential setting with low-scale lighting. The light poles are set at 12 feet tall to accomplish this. The light poles are designed to luminate light to the ground and are Dark Sky Friendly (Figure 5). In addition, the site design includes lit bollards along the sidewalk paths that project light down to illuminate those paths of travel. For the parking, the Applicant has used the creative technique of including underground parking, which is the first residential development in Palm Desert to do so. The underground parking accounts for over 25% of the overall parking and does not add to the parking on-site that would require lighting. By not building out the unneeded proof of parking, the development also doesn’t need to provide additional unnecessary lighting to service those parking areas, even though the lighting would be Dark Sky Friendly. Figure 5. Supplemental 3B-15 6. Loss of Views: As the project is currently designed, even though the developer has stated that they have created “view corridors” between the buildings, the obstruction of our beautiful mountain views will be almost complete obliteration. The proposed 3 story apartment buildings are massive and a supposed “view corridor” is a sad excuse for mitigating the views that we will lose. We paid a lot of money for our views when we purchased at The Retreat. Also note that when The Retreat project was approved and construction began, the project property was zoned R-8. There was no way for prospective homebuyers at The Retreat to even begin to think that the city would make such an aggressive change in zoning for this area. For the city to change the zoning from R-8 to R-22 is shocking. We realize the need for growth and the need to develop the property in question, but to do so in such a drastic fashion is not conducive to the area. Homeowners along Frank Sinatra will be subject to complete view loss. A 3 story building will obliterate their south facing views. In addition to the fact that residents on the 3rd floor would have views directly into homes along Frank Sinatra. a. When The Retreat at Desert Willow had started construction, the General Plan framework was put in place and the development was guided for up to 40 units an acre per the Town Center Neighborhood designation. While The Retreat was under construction in 2017, the city approved the updated zoning to PR-22, which was within the 40 units per acre allowed in the General Plan that was approved in 2016 and the framework started in 2013. Please note that if a development were to propose a 40 unit per acre project that was in accordance with the zoning code, the City would have to consider revising the zoning code to allow for the development as the General Plan supersedes the zoning code, and the zoning code is required to match what is allowed in the General Plan. Initial concept plans of the development had the majority of buildings along Portola Avenue set up parallel with the street. Through discussions with staff, and reviewing further, we revised these to be perpendicular with Portola Avenue, which would provide view corridors. These view corridors were setup as approximately 110-foot wide between buildings. After the initial neighborhood meeting on April 25th, we took the main building impacting the views of The Retreat and tucked it in the back to open up the view corridor further. This moving of the building required us to modify that building to remove a stack of units to allow it to be pushed to the south further. The results of moving this building created an approximate 310-foot uninterrupted view corridor that allowed the buildings at The Retreat facing the west to continue to have views through the development. Figure 6 shows the views prior to the moving of the one building and Figure 7 shows the current view corridors after making that modification. For the homes to the north, it becomes inherently difficult to allow for view corridors through the site as the north portion of the site is more square and allows for layering of buildings. With buildings layered throughout this area the buildings behind still block views through the site. Due to the site being shaped like a piece of pie to the south, this allows the development to provide view corridors through the site. If the site was a rectangle or square, the entire site would be layered and would not be able to have Supplemental 3B-16 view corridors. See site plan for the Bravo Gardens development (Previously The Sands) as Figure 8 that shows the layering of buildings through a site. Lastly, please see Figure 9 showing the 8-foot wall at the neighboring former Santa Rosa Country Club and Figure 10 showing the 1.5-2 story building Avenida about a mile south from the site on Portola Avenue. Although Figure 9 is an 8-foot wall, you will notice that it blocks half of the views of the mountains to the south. Figure 10 shows that a 1.5-2 story building along Portola blocks the entire view of the mountains. By providing 3-story buildings, the development is able to provide the views throughout the site, whereas a 2-story product of single-family homes, townhomes or condos would block the entirety of views of the mountains from the neighbors at the Retreat. Also, please note that the ends of the buildings perpendicular to Portola are 33’ 6” tall. The buildings at The Retreat range from approximately 28’ tall to 30’ 6” tall. The Retreat is a high-quality development, but a similar type of product would not allow for the view preservation that has been incorporated into this development. As it related to privacy of the homes along Frank Sinatra, the development team took drone photos from the buildings along Frank Sinatra looking at the Pele Place neighbors and looking across Portola at The Retreat neighbors. Photos were taken at 5, 15 and 25 feet above finished grade to exemplify a resident sitting on their patio or in their dining room (buildings perpendicular on Portola do not have balconies facing the street) of each level. Figure 11 shows a view of the Pele Place neighbors from the third-floor balcony and Figure 12 shows a view of The Retreat property from the third-floor dining room of the building on the south side of the main entrance. As the images show, the residents at the development will not be able to see the pools and into the backyard of the Pele Place neighbors. You will see the denser landscaping along The Retreat in Figure 12, and the development will have this level of landscaping as well that generally shields the lower two levels. The Applicant has also discussed with several of the Pele Place neighbors including the President of their HOA and we have agreed to provide them with some additional landscaping along the north side of Frank Sinatra. The Applicant will walk this area and determine what is best on a home-by-home basis with that HOA. Supplemental 3B-17 Figure 6. Figure 7. Supplemental 3B-18 Figure 8. Figure 9. Supplemental 3B-19 Figure 10. Figure 11. Supplemental 3B-20 Figure 12. 7. Design of Project: The developer is trying to sell this as a high-end, upscale residential complex. However, as designed all the building will have exterior staircases. Buildings with exterior staircases are unattractive and in no way say “upscale”. I find it hard to believe that they will be able to charge $4,000/month for a 3-bedroom unit in a building with no elevator. The design as proposed tends to make me think that multiple families will start to share units to cover the “upscale” rent. The only building with elevator service is located in the center of the complex. a. Response: While the Applicant appreciates the concern with the business plan by the neighbors, these claims are made with no facts or knowledge of the rental market. As part of the Applicant’s due diligence, we hired a professional consultant to conduct a market analysis and feasibility study to fully comprehend the rental market. They initially conducted a phone survey of the most “comparable properties” in the area and then followed that up with in-person surveys of those properties where they were able to view the physical condition, in-unit features and amenity features of each of those properties and then compare to our property. After completion of their research, we received a report identifying this information, vacancy rates, and estimated rents for the property. Please note that the “most comparable properties” referenced were built in 2002, 2008 and 2010. These “comparable properties” have minimal amenities, are older vintage, and some are mixed-income properties with a portion of the units being affordable. Their research showed that this area had a Supplemental 3B-21 vacancy rate of less than 1.5%. A market is deemed to be in equilibrium when the vacancy rate equals 5%. At 5%, this means there is enough supply to satisfy the rental demand in the market, and under 1.5% vacancy would make this one of the markets that is most undersupplied in the entire country. This is further evidenced by the support letter provided by Cannon Management that they only have 12 vacant units throughout their portfolio of 2,000 units in the Coachella Valley. This would equal a 0.6% vacancy and is a staggering number that shows the lack of housing in Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley. Walk-up style buildings with exterior stairwells are common throughout the entire southern region of the country from the west to east coast. All comparable non-senior rental communities in Palm Desert currently have exterior stairwells and no elevators. The design intentionally had the stairwells tucked inside the exterior of the building to provide for a higher aesthetic. The development will only include 1,2, 3- bedrooms units at the currently estimated $4,000 per month, and all of those units will be in the elevator building, which was incorrectly noted in the concern. Figure 11 shows a 2-bedroom unit at The Vineyards at Palm Desert that is marketed for rent at $3,935 per month as of September 14th and does not include an elevator. Over 27% of our units will have access to the elevators and underground parking in that building. This development is designed to be a resort-styled community that is highly amenitized. We expect our community to serve lifestyle renters who choose to rent rather than own and others who are upgrading from the current properties available in the market. This lifecycle housing will allow others to upgrade to those vacated units at the older vintage properties and hopefully open more affordable housing down the line. Migration patterns and the effects of COVID both emotionally tied to loneliness and financially have had households combine and separate through the different stages as they see fit for their households. Per the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Applicant and any other landlord are not allowed to deny and or discriminate against any rental applications based on family status. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Housing has a “two heads per bed” rule that does not allow for more than two people to occupy a bedroom limiting the number of people that can live in a unit. We expect our target market to be primarily a mix of empty nesters and young professionals with other residents filling in the gaps. Supplemental 3B-22 Figure 13. 8. Property Perimeter: As currently designed, the project has only vertical slat fencing to surround the property. This will do nothing to mitigate noise and car headlights. The actual distance between the street and fence line is quite narrow. It has been stated that the developer will install a meandering sidewalk around the property. However, the drawings that we have been shown that installing a sidewalk will be quite tight on space. a. Response: This statement is incorrect and that only applies to the west property line, not along street frontage. Early on in discussions with city staff we were informed that the city would like to start having more visibility into developments to create interesting visuals rather than provide complete privacy from a block wall. The Applicant agrees with this approach to create more visual interest. The design that has been shown since the initial renderings created for the neighborhood meeting has always included a 4-foot tall block wall with a 2-foot picket railing at the top and 6- foot picket fencing at opening throughout the site to create that visual interest. In response to the neighbor concerns, the Applicant has revised all perimeter walls along the street to the 4-foot tall block wall with a 2-foot picket railing. Please see Figures 14 as a reference point. In regards to the meandering sidewalk, this has also always been shown in the plans. The meandering sidewalk will be 8-foot wide and match the width of the sidewalks on Supplemental 3B-23 the north side of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. Figure 15 includes an image of the site plan (alternate park option) overlayed on an aerial plan. The image shows that the sidewalk design has been designed to mimic these adjacent sidewalks and meet Palm Desert’s standards. Figure 14. Supplemental 3B-24 Figure 15. 9. Property Value Loss: The installation of a high density housing project across the street from The Retreat at Desert Willow and neighboring homes bordering Frank Sinatra will have a detrimental effect on area home values. The City of Palm Desert should be applying transitional land use management practices. Permitting the installation of a 395 unit, high density apartment complex next to low density neighborhoods will have a negative impact on our property values. a. The Planned Residential zoning district is intended to provide for a mix of housing types and densities. This development brings a high-quality luxury resort-styled community to the area and provides for a housing type that is not currently available in the area. The development will be a $150M+ investment in the community that will encourage additional investment in the area for both public and private development. An example of public investment that can help be spurred by this development is the Portola Interchange project at Interstate 10 that would provide additional ease of access throughout this area. Research has shown that apartments generally do not decrease values even if the apartments are set aside for low-income residents and all Supplemental 3B-25 apartment types can actually increase property values. This is a development that is investing a significant amount of money in the area and is a luxury product that will signal that property values are justified to remain strong and continue to increase throughout the area. 10. The project is too close to the street. a. The project was originally designed at the 20-foot minimum setback from the property line, but the buildings were shifted back approximately 3 to 6 feet on the perpendicular buildings on Portola (except Building 5) and 12 and 26 feet on the parallel buildings (Buildings 4 And 6). The Applicant looked to push these buildings in as far as possible while ensuring adequate room for the roads and utility infrastructure needed. Originally, the layout was designed to follow the guidance of the Town Center Neighborhood designation in the General Plan, where they encourage buildings along the street with small to moderate yards. The increased setbacks of the building were pushed back as far as reasonably possible at the request of the neighbors. 11. Such a large complex would create a transient community of perhaps 600 plus people surround by an otherwise stable population. a. As noted in the letter from our property management company, Cannon Management, turnover throughout the region has hit historic lows and most people stay in their apartments for multiple years. This notion that the development will be transient is an unbased claim. Typically we see retention of 70-80% of our residents due to the quality of project we build, which is in-line with how the building will be operated by our property management partner. This building will be unmatched in terms of quality for general market-rate apartments in the area and the lifestyle renters that it attracts will choose to remain here due to the high quality and lack of comparable properties. Most of the residents who move out of our properties are doing so for a life change that could be related to a job, family need or choosing to purchase a home. We create and foster communities that our residents feel at home, which keeps them in place similar to an owned-home. 12. Moving the powerlines underground along Portola would go a long way in making the street look like a modern city. a. The powerlines to the west of the development are not on the development’s property. The Developer did reach out to the power company to see the cost of moving those sections of powerlines underground and was told the number would be a minimum of $5-6M to do so, which is unfeasible for the adjacent property owner to complete. The Applicant also supports the efforts of the city to underground the power lines and consider making Portola Avenue a primary area for doing so with the City’s undergrounding utilities fund. Supplemental 3B-26 13. Potential safety concerns for the area with a portion of the residents potentially being short term rentals. a. This was mentioned in the neighborhood meetings, but none of the units will be short- term rentals. All residents will be required to sign long-term leases to maintain residence at the development. In addition, all of the residents prior to moving in will be required to complete an application and background check for all members of the household 18 and over, and all of those members will be required to be on the lease. 14. Noted that the neighbors had not seen traffic, parking and noise studies for the development and wanted to understand the impact of public utilities and infrastructure. a. The entitlement package and subsequent traffic studies, hydrology reports and CEQA documents were all sent to The Retreat leadership on June 24th. The studies found there to be no adverse impacts from the development. In addition, the street infrastructure and utilities are already sized to handle this development as they were planned out for in the General Plan that this area could see up to 40 units per acre. 15. Concerns over exterior stairwells. a. The stairwells on the walk-up buildings have been designed to be internal open-air breezeways and not be outside the footprint of the building. The open-air sections have been designed to look like window openings to match the sizes of the actual window openings. These also are not enclosed to be more environmentally friendly by not cooling these areas for limited amounts of units. 16. Concerns about items being stored on the balconies such as bikes and surf boards with DSRT Surf coming to the area. a. As part of the lease for every unit, the residents will be required to comply with the property handbook. This handbook will explicitly not allow for the storage of bikes, surf boards, or other items and will also require the residents to keep their balconies generally tidy. Patio furniture and small plants will be allowed on the balconies. Supplemental 3B-27 Supplemental 3B-28