HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRED WARING DR/PARKVIEW C/Z 02-83 1983I.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
REQUEST:
Approval of a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance
amendments, change of zone, precise plan and Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow the construction
of 384 apartment units on approximately 17.85 acres at a gross
density of 21.5 d.u./acre located between Fred Waring Drive
and Parkview Drive, east of the Palm Valley Storm Channel.
APPLICANT: ONE QUAIL PLACE
P.O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
CASE NOS: GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
DATE: July 14, 1983
CONTENTS:
A. Planning Commission Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Resolutions 6c , and Draft Ordinances &
D. Planning Commission Minutes Involving Cases: GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z
02-83, and PP 07-83.
E. Planning Commission Resolutions: 862, 863, 864 and 865.
F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 7, 1983.
G. Related Maps and/or Exhibits.
A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
Case GPA 01-83: That Council waive further reading and adopt Resolution ,
approving an amendment to the general plan land use element creating the
affordable high density 15-25 dwelling unit per acre designation and assigning the
designation to the area between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, east of the
Palm Valley Storm Channel and approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact as it pertains thereto.
Case ZOA 05-83: That Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance , to
second reading creating Section 25.055 of the zoning ordinance and Chapter 25.37
relating to the establishment of a high density designation for projects which
include low income housing, and approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
Case C/Z 02-83: That Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance ,to
second reading to change the zoning R-2 (6) S.P. to AHDPR-22 S.P. for 17.85 acres
located between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, east of Palm Valley Storm
Channel and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains
thereto.
(`nen PP n7_21. Tk. + ...�;-- ;—+k . --4;-- -A —4--+ De-.J.,+;--
ONE QUAIL PLACE
July 14, 1983
predominantly site planning issues, the various amendments involve clarification,
interpretation, refinement and implementation of city policies.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:
The City of Palm Desert Plan Housing Element contains an implementation
strategy which was intended to promote the construction of housing affordable by
low and moderate income households. The primary implementation tool was an
overlay which would allow higher densities, flexible design standards and other
incentives to achieve the housing goals.
The section has proven inadequate since the land use element does not contain well
defined corresponding mechanisms which allow the higher densities.
The proposed amendment to the land use element and map will create a precise
land use definition for an affordable high density overlay and will assign the subject
area with that designation. The AHD land use will be in force only if a project
contains at least 20% of its units affordable by households earning less than 80% of
the median for Riverside County as determined by the Riverside County Housing
Authority. If this criteria is not met, the land use would revert to the underlying
designation.
Based upon available land and construction cost data, densities of between 15 and
25 d.u./acre are required to make an affordable project viable. Even with the
maximum of 25 units, other incentive may be required to achieve the desired goals.
The AHD overlay will allow densities in the 15-25 unit per acre range.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
State law requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with general plans.
Presently, our zoning ordinance does not contain any provisions implementing the
goals and objectives of the housing element relating to affordable housing.
This amendment will create Section 25.24.055 within the planned residential
district which will allow densities to a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre in
areas designated as appropriate sites in the general plan. The affordable high
density planned residential (AHDPR) designation will only be in effect for projects
which contain 20% very low or low income housing as defined by the Riverside
County Housing Authority. The exact nature of the programs to be utilized shall
be specified in a development agreement executed between the developer and the
city.
The amendment shall read:
25.25.055 Maximum Density for "Affordable Projects". For projects
containing at least 20% units affordable to low income households as defined
by the Riverside County Housing Authority, a maximum density of 25
dwelling units per acre may be allowed by precise plan. To be eligible for
this program, the developer must enter into a development agreement which
will tie the zoning designation and the precise plan approval to affordable
housing performance standards.
To provide definitions and procedures for development agreements Chapter 25.37
would be created. Normally zoning runs with the land and is not tied to a
ONE QUAIL PLACE
July 14, 1983
This change of zone would designate the property AHDPR-22. The actual change
of zone would not occur until all facets of the project including the development
agreement is approved.
Assuming the general plan and code amendments are approved in some form, the
following findings can be made to support the proposed change of zone.
1. The proposed change of zone from R-2 (6) single family residential, 6000
sq.ft. minimal area to AHDPR-22 (affordable high density planned
residential 22 d.u./acre) is consistent with the general plan as amended and
specifically the goals and objections of the housing element.
2. The proposed zoning is compatible with adjacent land uses in that the storm
channel acts as a buffer for properties to the west and the design
requirements contained within the PR zone will mitigate possible impacts on
vacant lands to the east.
3. By allowing the construction of housing affordable by a broad range of
economic groups in the Palm Desert Community, the proposed change of
zone would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than
the existing zoning.
AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES:
Since the amendments represent an evolving housing policy, the commission may
consider a number of variations to the proposed amendments. As written, the 20%
low income feature is a mandatory prerequiste for the zoning. The language of the
ordinances can be changed to allow the council discretion in approving varying
amounts of low income housing depending upon the merits of a particular project.
The actual density range can be modified keeping in mind that lowering of densities
increases the need for other public subsidies to meet our housing objectives.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION - PRECISE PLAN 07-83:
The applicant is proposing a 384 unit apartment project located on 17.5 acres for
an overall density of 21.5 d.u./acre. The required density is similar to projects
recently constructed in Palm Springs and elsewhere in the valley. The unit mix will
be as follows:
1 bedroom - 1 bath 697 sq.ft. 156
2 bedroom - 1 bath 897 sq.ft. 88
2 bedroom - 2 bath 986 sq.ft. 140
The following table represents a comparison of PR standards with project
specifications:
Building Coverage Max.
Usable Open Space
Building Separation
Road Width
Perimeter Setback
Requirement Project
50% 28%
50%
51%
20'
20'
20'
25'
20'
90'
ONE QUAIL PLACE
July 14, 1983
*The applicant requested a development standard modification to allow 177
compact spaces 8' x 17' bringing the total open spaces to 319. Assuming the spaces
were adjacent to landscape areas these spaces would have to be increased by one
foot in each direction to 9' x 18' to comply with the standards.
Planning Commission did not grant the requested modification relating to compact
parking spaces. At this time then, the site plan will need to be revised to provide
the 384 full size spaces required by the recent ordinance amendment unless the
Council chooses to permit some of the spaces to be compact spaces.
Site Layout and Circulation
The project will consist of 34 8-plex two story buildings separated by extensive
landscaping, water features, a meandering walkway and will include the following
recreational facilities:
1.
Recreational Building 2
2.
Tennis Courts 4
3.
Pools 4
4.
Spas 4
5.
Volleyball Courts 2
6.
3-wall racquetball courts 2
7.
Basketball Court 1
Although not presently planned, the developer has agreed to include a wide range
of recreational facilities appropriate for younger children. In general, the
recreational facilities and open space design exceed city standards.
The project will be served by a perimeter road and associated parking facilities
with complete pedestrian/vehicular separation. This perimeter road plus the Palm
Valley Channel creates a 235' butter between the two story buildings and the
nearest single family zone.
The following areas require redesign to comply with fire marshal and staff
conditions:
1. Dead-end parking areas will require sufficient turnaround to allow
forward exit from end stalls and for cars not finding a space.
2. All corners must have a 50' turning radius to accommodate fire
trucks.
3. Some interior units presently do not meet the 150' maximum fire
access requirement. This problem can be overcome by fire sprinklers
or emergency access to these units.
The applicant has agreed to do what is necessary to comply with these
requirements.
Affordable Housing Issues
In order to meet the requirements of the previously discussed general plan and code
amendments, at least 20% of units must be affordable by households earning less
than 80% of the county median. The applicant has submitted a pro forma analysis
ONE QUAIL PLACE
July 14, 1983
With the use of tax exempt bond financing at 9 3/8% the project could include 70
low income units (46 one bedroom; 31 two bedroom) at $354.00 per month. These
units would be mixed throughout the project. In addition, market rents on the
remaining units would be lowered by $11 - $13 per month.
This program would meet the low income requirements outlined in the general plan
and code amendments. The details of the bond program are complex but would not
involve any financial obligation or significant adminstration by the city. If the
general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, change of zone and project
design represent acceptable tools to achieve our housing goals, the precise plan
approval would be conditioned upon the execution of a development agreement and
the completion of the bonding program.
The City of Rancho Mirage commented in writing (letters attached to report) that
the project would generate too much traffic to be adequately accommodated on
Parkview Drive. As a result of this comment a traffic generation study was
completed which indicated that with the proposed development Parkview Drive
would only have a total of 2681 movements per day. Parkview Drive is a planned 4
lane street which will have a capacity of 24,000. Therefore, even with this
proposed development there will still be 89% of the total available.
Recently, staff of the City of Rancho Mirage contacted Palm Desert staff and said
that because Joshua Road north of Parkview leads to Magnesia Falls Drive which
provides access to the Rancho Las Palmas retail center and business/restaurant
park, that people residing in the proposed development would use the above route
as a short cut to Von's.
This may occur, but then it occurs now and would occur with any development on
any vacant land in the area including the land in Rancho Mirage, east of the storm
channel which is zoned 15 units to the acre. The problem of traffic going through a
residential area is not caused by this proposed development but rather by
inadequate planning of the retail/business/restaurant park and its location and
direct connection with the residential area. Of course the problem could be
completely eliminated were Rancho Mirage to close Joshua Road at Parkview
Drive.
At the planning commission hearing one person other than the applicant spoke in
favor of the project. No one spoke in opposition.
Three members of the planning commission approved of the project as submitted
including the requirement to provide a minimum of 20% low income housing and to
tie the general plan amendment to the low income housing requirement.
Commissioners Kryder and Richards did not object to the project in general,
however, they did object to the proposed tax exempt bond financing and the
requirement that 20% of the units be low income housing.
On a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Kryder and Richards voting Nay) the planning
commission recommended approval of GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, and C/Z 02-83 and
approved PP 07-83.
/lr
�a 1
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: June 7, 1983
CASE NOS: GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
REQUEST:
Approval of a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendments,
change of zone, precise plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact to allow the construction of 384 apartment units on approximately
17.85 acres at a gross density of 21.5 d.u./acre located between Fred Waring
Drive and Park View Drive, east of the Palm Valley Storm Channel.
APPLICANT:
ONE QUAIL PLACE
P.O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
1. BACKGROUND:
A. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES:
CUP 18-80, TT 16396, 219 MF - The previous approvals for the property
were for a 128 unit residential development by Watt Industries. Watt
decided not to pursue the project and did not renew its option on the
property.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North:
PR-7 S.P./vacant
South:
PR-6 S.P./vacant
East:
PR-7 S.P./vacant
West:
Storm Channel and R-1
The general location of the project is compatible with a high density rental
unit proposal. The project will have access on two four -lane highways, is
adjacent to utilities, is served by Sunline Transit System and is within % mile
of both the College of the Desert and the Highway III/Monterey regional
commercial district.
C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Existing: Median density 5-1 d.u./acre
Proposed: Affordable High Density 15-25 d.u./acre
11. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
The approval of this project and related amendments involves several levels of
planning and policy decisions. While the evaluation of the precise plan involves
predominantly site planning issues, the various amendments involve interpretation,
Staff Report
GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
costs must be reduced to a minimum. One way to accomplish this
cost reduction is to allow densities of 15 to 25 dwelling units per
acre.
3. A 25 dwelling unit per acre project can meet the city's general design
standards, provide a quality living environment compatible with
adjacent land uses and the character of the City of Palm Desert.
4. It was city council's direction to review high density proposals on a
case by case basis. The submission of the precise plan along with the
required general plan and code amendments allows the planning
commission and council to evaluate the type of project which would
be permitted if the amendments are adopted. Thus, this direction is
achieved through this application.
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:
The City of Palm Desert Plan Housing Element contains an implementation
strategy which was intended to promote the construction of housing
affordable by low and moderate income households. The primary
implementation tool was an overlay which would allow higher densities,
flexible design standards and other incentives to achieve the housing goals.
The section has proven inadequate since the land use element does not
contain well defined corresponding mechanisms which allow the higher
densities.
The proposed amendment to the land use element and map will create a
precise land use definition for an affordable high density overlay and will
assign the subject area with that designation. The AHD land use will be in
force only if a project contains at least 20% of its units affordable by
households earning less than 80% of the median for Riverside County as
determined by the Riverside County Housing Authority. If this criteria is
not met, the land use would revert to the underlying designation.
Based upon available land and construction cost data, densities of between
15 and 25 d.u./acre are required to make an affordable project viable. Even
with the maximum of 25 units, other incentive may be required to achieve
the desired goals. The AHD overlay will allow densities in the 15-25 unit
per acre range.
B. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
State law requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with general plans.
Presently, our zoning ordinance does not contain any provisions
implementing the goals and objectives of the housing element relating to
affordable housing.
This amendment will create Section 25.24.055 within the planned residential
district which will allow densities to a maximum of 25 dwelling units per
acre in areas designated as appropriate sites in the general plan. The
affordable high density planned residential (AHDPR) designation will only be
in effect for projects which contain 20% very low or low income housing as
defined by the Riverside Countv Housing Authority The Pxart nature of the
Staff Report
GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
development agreement which will tie the zoning designation and the
precise plan approval to affordable housing performance standards.
To provide definitions and procedures for development agreements Chapter
25.37 would be created. Normally zoning runs with the land and is not tied
to a particular project.
The development agreement will be a contract between the developer and
the city spelling out the specific requirements necessary to maintain the
desired zoning. If the requirements are not met, all approvals are voided
and the zoning will revert to the original designation. Once the project is
built and operating, the agreement will insure the maintenance of the
desired project features. As presently written, only projects meeting the
low income definition would be eligible for development agreements.
C. CHANGE OF ZONE:
This change of zone would designate the property AHDPR-22. The actual
change of zone would not occur until all facets of the project including the
development agreement is approved.
Assuming the general plan and code amendments are approved in some form,
the following findings can be made to support the proposed change of zone.
1. The proposed change of zone from R-2 (6) single family residential,
6000 sq.ft. minimal area to AHDPR-22 (affordable high density
planned residential 22 d.u./acre)is consistent with the general plan as
amended and specifically the goals and objections of the housing
element.
2. The proposed zoning is compatible with adjacent land uses in that the
storm channel acts as a buffer for properties to the west and the
design requirements contained within the PR zone will mitigate
possible impacts on vacant lands to the east.
3. By allowing the construction of housing affordable by a broad range
of economic groups in the Palm Desert Community, the proposed
change of zone would better serve the public health, safety and
general welfare than the existing zoning.
D. AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES:
Since the amendments represent an evolving housing policy, the commission
may consider a number of variations to the proposed amendments. As
written, the 20% low income feature is a mandatory prerequisite for the
zoning. The language of the ordinances can be changed to allow the
commission discretion in approving varying amounts of low income housing
depending upon the merits of a particular project.
The actual density range can be modified keeping in mind that lowering of
densities increases the need for other public subsidies to meet our housing
objectives.
M PRfllr:PT FAPrU D1DTV1N - DDPf`TQV Dt AAI n7 92
Staff Report
GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
The following table represents a comparison of PR standards with project
specifications:
Building Coverage Max.
Usable Open Space
Building Separation
Road Width
Perimeter Setback
Requirement Project
50%
28%
50%
51%
20'
20'
20'
25'
20'
90'
Parkin
covered 384 384
uncovered - 9' x 20' 298 142*
- 8' x 17' — 177*
1
*The applicant is requesting a development standard modification to allow 177
compact spaces 8' x 17' bringing the total open spaces to 319. Assuming the spaces
were adjacent to landscape areas these spaces would have to be increased by one
foot in each direction to 9' x 18' to comply with the standards. Staff is not
recommending approval of this modification.
Site Layout and Circulation
The project will consist of 34 8-plex two story buildings separated by extensive
landscaping, water features, a meandering walkway and will include the following
recreational facilities:
1.
Recreational Building 2
2.
Tennis Courts 4
3.
Pools 4
4.
Spas 4
5.
Volleyball Courts 2
6.
3-wall racquetball courts 2
7.
Basketball Court 1
Although not presently planned, the developer has agreed to include a wide range
of recreational facilities appropriate for younger children. In general, the
recreational facilities and open space design exceed city standards.
The project will be served by a perimeter road and associated parking facilities
with complete pedestrian/vehicular separation. This perimeter road plus the Palm
Valley Channel creates a 235' burr between the two story buildings and the
nearest single family zone.
The following areas require redesign to comply with fire marshal and staff
conditions-
1. Dead-end parking areas will require sufficient .turnaround to allow
forward exit from end stalls and for cars not finding a space.
2. All corners must have a 50' turning radius to accommodate fire
trucks.
3. Some interior units presently do not meet the 150' maximum fire
Staff Report
GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
of project costs at various densities and financing arrangements.
If the project was developed at the existing R-2 6, S.P. (7 d.u./acre), monthly rents
would range from $793.14 to $1,021.00. At 14 d.u./acre rents would be well above
the current market at $525 to. $675. Even if subsidies allowed for the 20% low
income units, the remaining`80% unsubsidized units would be unrentable.
With conventional financing it appears that any senario would preclude low income
rents. Any density less than 20 d.u./acre would require massive subsidies and would
probably kill the project. The project costs are reasonable and do not contain areas
for significant reductions.
With the use of tax exempt bond financing at 9 3/8% the project could include 70
low income units (46 one bedroom; 31 two bedroom) at $354.00 per month. These,
units would be mixed throughout the project. In addition, market rents would be
lowered to $11 - $13 per month.
This program would meet the low income requirements outlined in the general plan
and code amendments. The details of the bond program are complex but would not
involve any financial obligation or significant adminstration by the city. If the
GPA, ZOA, C/Z and project design. represent acceptable tools to achieve our
housing goals, the precise plan approval would be conditioned upon the execution of
a development agreement and the completion of the bonding program.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The criteria for the selection of high density sites described in the general plan
specifically excludes areas which would suffer significant adverse impacts as the
result of development. Detailed review will be completed as each new site
designation is proposed.
The environmental review of the previously approved 134 unit Watt Industries on
the same site resulted in a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The
newly proposed project was reviewed and similar impacts were identified with the
exception of traffic generation resulting from the high density.
A traffic generation study (see attachments) has determined that both Fred Waring
Drive and Parkview Drive have sufficient capacity to handle the projected traffic
volumes. Based upon these findings, the director of environmental services has
determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
As was discussed earlier, the various proposals represent two distinct levels of
decision making. One being the formulation and implementation of housing policy,
the other being the evaluation of the merits of the design of a particular proposal.
After examining the various alternatives, the use of high density and tax exempt.
bond financing seems to be the most effective means of reducing housing cost
while keeping direct government involvement to a minimum. Theproposed
amendments are necessary to acheive this goal. The exact percentage of low
income units required or the maximum'density permitted is variable.
Y
Staff Report
GPA O1-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
VI.
If the commission feels that the proposed project is an acceptable means of
achieving our affordable housing goals, staff recommends:
Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. ,
recommending to the city council approval of GPA 01-83 and a
Negative Declaration of Environlmental Impact as it pertains
thereto.
2. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. ,
recommending to city council adoption of ZOA 05-83 and a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
3. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. ,
recommending approval of C/Z 02-83 and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
4. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving PP
07-83 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
pertains thereto.
ATTACHMENTS•
A. Resolution
B. Negative Declaration
C. Traffic Generation Study
D. Developer Cost Analysis
E. Site Plan
F. Letters from Rancho Mirage
G. Legal Notice
Prepared by
Reviewed arid Approved by
Ar
II.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
REQUEST:
Approval of a Development Agreement, Resolutions of Intent,
selection of bond counsel and underwriter for tax-exempt bond
financing of an approved 384 unit apartment project.
Ill. APPLICANT:
IV.
V.
ONE QUAIL PLACE (a Limited Partnership)
P.O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
CASE NO: DA 01-83
DATE: October 13, 1983
VI. CONTENTS:
A.
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion and Order of Procedure
C. Draft Ordinance No. , Resolution Nos. &
D. Agreements for bond council and underwriter.
E. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. DA 01-83.
F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 893.
G. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 4, 1983.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 14,9 , approving DA 01-83,
One Quail Place - Affordable Housing Development Agreement to second
reading.
2. Adopt Resolution Of Intent No.83-101 , initiating proceedings for the
proposed project financing.
3. Adopt Resolution No.83_102 , approving bond counsel and underwriter.
4. By minute motion approve Indemnity Agreements for bond counsel and
underwriter, and authorize execution by Mayor on behalf of the City.
B. DISCUSSION:
The attached development agreement implements the conditions of PP 07-83, C/Z
02-83 and Zoning Ordinance Section 25.24.055. The agreement specifies the terms
and conditions for the management and financing for the 384 unit apartment
project containing 77 affordable units. As part of the agreement, the city will
initiate proceedings preparatory to the issuance of tax exempt bonds to finance the
project. The agreement has been reviewed and approved by the city attorney. The
applicant has also agreed to the terms and conditions. The agreement was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 4, 1983, and
recommended approval by a 3-0 vote (2 absent).
Resolution of Intent No. , initiates the process for the issuance of revenue
bonds for the purpose of financing the One Quail Place project. The Council should
DA 01-83
October 13, 1983
In the cover letter accompanying the underwriter's agreement, Mr. Chilton
explains:
"The issuer will not incur any out-of-pocket costs, since each developer will
cover all underwriting costs. In addition, the issuer will not obligate,
pledge, nor use any of its revenues or credit for the payment of the bonds.
The bonds will be secured solely and exclusively by the real estate itself or
some credit device provided by a savings and loan association, a bank, or
some other financial institution ("Lender") to the bond trustee ("Trustee").
Administration of the program will be handled by the Lender; the issuer
itself need not be involved in the collection of monthly rents or in any
foreclosure procedures. The Lender will originate and service construction
and permanent loans according to guidelines adopted by the issuer. The
trustee will receive debt payments from the Lender, and make payments to
bondholders."
/lr
ORDINANCE NO. 348
EXHIBIT "A"
ONE QUAIL PLACE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This agreement, made as of this 27th day of October, 1983, between the City of
Palm Desert, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter "CITY") and One Quail
Place, a limited partnership, (hereinafter "DEVELOPER") provides:
Vn ;+.Ic
1. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm
Desert, California, which property is described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
made a part hereof (hereinafter "PROPERTY"). DEVELOPER has applied for and
been granted a change of zone (C/Z 02-83) of PROPERTY to AHDPR-22 and
approval of a precise plan (PP 07-83) to construct 384 residential rental units on
the PROPERTY.
2. As a condition of said approvals, CITY has required that a specified number of
units within Precise Plan 07-83 (hereinafter "PROJECT") would be set aside for low
income occupants subject to restrictions necessary to insure the continued
occupancy of said units by low income households.
3. DEVELOPER and CITY desire to further memorialize and implement the conditions
of said approval and do hereby agree to the following terms and conditions.
Agreement
1. DEVELOPER has been conditionally granted permission by the CITY to construct
384 rental residential units on the PROPERTY by Change of Zone 02-83, Ordinance
342, Precise Plan 07-83, and City Council Resolution No. 83-72. As a condition of
said approvals DEVELOPER is required, and hereby agrees to reserve for rent 77
units for low income households. Hereinafter these 77 units shall be referred to as
"AFFORDABLE UNITS".
These AFFORDABLE UNITS shall consist of 31 one -bedroom one -bath, 15 two -
bedroom one -bath, and 31 two -bedroom two bath units.
t
ORDINANCE NO. 348
officially recognized agencies, the applicant may request amendment of this
agreement to include such data.
3. Rent for affordable units shall not exceed 30% of the gross income of low income
households. One bedroom, one bath units shall be based on income figures for two
person households; two bedroom, one bath, 3 person households; and, two bedroom,
two bath, four person households, resulting in the following maximum initial rents.
These rents shall be adjusted per Article 2 of this agreement.
1 bedroom 1 bath $401
2 bedroom 1 bath $451
2 bedroom 2 bath $502
The DEVELOPER may build the project in 3 phases provided that each phase
contains at least 20% AFFORDABLE UNITS in the proportions specified by Article
No. 1 and that each phase contains a complete circulation system. Recreational
facilities shall also be provided along the same ratio as is present in the complete
PROJECT.
4. The DEVELOPER or his assigned management agent shall be responsible for
determining elgibility of prospective tenants. Prior to opening the project the
DEVELOPER shall submit for approval a plan to the CITY describing the procedure.
for determining and enforcing eligibility requirements. This plan shall include
annual qualification by all eligible households and a semi-annual audit at the
DEVELOPERS cost by the CITY or its assigned agents determining compliance with
all aspects of this agreement.
5. The DEVELOPER shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, sex, national
origin, or age. The AFFORDABLE UNITS shall be equipped in the same fashion and
their exterior shall be identical in quality and desirability as other units in the
project. The AFFORDABLE UNITS shall be evenly dispersed throughout the
project. The exact location of the AFFORDABLE UNITS shall be changed from
time to time as vacancies permit.
6. The DEVELOPER shall maintain the quality of the buildings, grounds and
recreation facilities consistent with their condition at the time of. issuance of
certificate of occuoancv. The DEVELOPER shall cost a 525.000 bond or other
ORDINANCE NO. 348
occurs.
8. The term of this agreement shall run for thirty years during which period 77
aforementioned AFFORDABLE UNITS shall be reserved for low income household.
During the first ten years of this agreement the entire PROJECT shall be
maintained as rental housing. Thereafter the DEVELOPER or his successor may
apply to amend this agreement to allow condominium conversion. The
DEVELOPER will be required to conform to all applicable zoning and building
regulations. The amendment would include a program to maintain the availability
of the AFFORDABLE UNITS for low income households throughout the remaining
term of the agreement.
9. The provisions of this agreement shall run with, burden and bind the DEVELOPER
and his successors. The provisions hereof shall be enforceable by appropriate legal
action brought by the CITY. In the event legal action is brought to enforce any
provision hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees
together with other legally allowable costs.
10. This agreement shall be reviewed by the CITY planning commission every 6
months, at which time the applicant or his successor shall be required to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. If as a result
of this review, the commission finds and determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence, that the applicant has not complied in good faith with terms or
conditions of the agreement, it shall recommend to the city council that the
agreement be modified or terminated. If the city council concurs with the planning
commission recommendation the agreement shall be modified or terminated.
Proceeding before the city council shall be a noticed public hearing. If at the time
of the hearings substantial improvements have not yet occurred on the site,
termination of the AGREEMENT will also involve revocation of all previous
approvals and permits associated herewith and the zoning of the property shall
revert to R-2 (6) S.P. If substantial improvements are already in place and
modifications acceptable to the CITY cannot be negotiated then enforcement of
provisions of this agreement shall be pursued through legal action per No. 9 of this
AGREEMENT.
11. The AGREEMENT
shall be
construed according
to
the
laws of the State
of
California. If any
portion
of the AGREEMENT
is
for
any reason held to
be
ORDINANCE NO. 348
EXHIBIT "A" OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 5
South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, according to an official plat of
said land filed in the District Land Office November 26, 1856, described as follows:
Beginning at the South line of said Section, South 890 12' West, 660 feet from the
Southwest corner of Palm Dell Estates, as shown by Map on file in Book 21 page 66 of
Maps, Riverside County Records, being the Southwest corner of that certain parcel
conveyed to Wiefels and Son by Deed recorded February 5, 1962, as Instrument No. 10987,
in Book 3071, page 390 of Official Records; thence continuing South 890 12' West, 525
feet, more or less, on said South line to the Southeast corner of that certain parcel
conveyed to the Coachella Valley County Water District by Deed recorded January 22,
1960 as Instrument No. 6187, in Book 2521, page 94 of Official Records; thence North
1253.19 feet on the East line of said parcel to the Southwest corner of that certain parcel
conveyed to the County of Riverside by Deed recorded December 16, 1963 as Instrument
No. 132567, in Book 3560, page 9 of Official Records; thence North 850 13, 34" East,
532.96 feet on the Southerly line of said Parcel to a point on the Westerly line of that
certain parcel described as Parcel 3 in Deed to Penelope A. Rigby by Deed recorded
November 28, 1961 as Instrument No. 101782, in Book 3027, page 335 of Official Records;
thence South 000 06' 30" East 394.57 feet on the West line of said parcel to the Southwest
corner thereof; thence North 890 15' East 330 feet on the South line of said Parcel and its
Easterly extension to the Northwest corner of Parcel 1, described in said Deed to Rigby;
thence South 00 06' 30" east 490 feet on the West line of said Parcel to the Northeast
corner of that certain parcel conveyed to Wiefels and Son by Deed thereinabove referred
to; thence south 890 12' West, 330 feet on the North line of said parcel to the Northwest
corner thereof; thence South 000 06' 30" East 396 feet on the West line of said parcel to
the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom that portion as described in the deed to the County of Riverside
recorded December 21, 1964 as Instrument No. 151987.
Said land is also situated in the City of Palm Desert.
ORDINANCE NO. 348
EXHIBIT 'B"
SECTION 8
INCOME LIMITSI
March 1983
Persons
in the
Family
1-
Very Low Income
Other Low Income
2
Very Low Income
Other Low Income
3
Very Low Income
Other Low Income
4
Very Low Income
Other Low Income
5
Very Low Income
Other Low Income
6
Very Low Income
Other Low Income
7
Very Low Income
Other Low Income
8
Very Low Income
Other Low Income
Definitions:
Riverside/San Bernardino
$ 8,800
14,050
10,050
16,050
11,300
18,050
12,550
20,100
13,550
21,350
14,550
22,600
15,550
23,850
16,550
25,100
Very Low Income: These are households with incomes that do not exceed 50% of the
median family income for a four -person household. Persons with incomes below this
amount are to be the principal beneficiaries of housing assistance programs.
Other Low Income: Households with incomes above the Very Low Income limit but below
80% of the median family income for a four -person household.
a. 9
RESOLUTION NO. 83-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT CREATING THE AFFORDABLE HIGH DENSITY
15-25 D.U./ACRE DESIGNATION AND ASSIGNING THE
DESIGNATION TO THE AREA BETWEEN FRED WARING
DRIVE AND PARKVIEW DRIVE, EAST OF THE PALM
VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AND APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO.
CASE NO. GPA 01-83
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
14th day of July, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by ONE
QUAIL PLACE for an amendment to the Palm Desert General Plan Land Use Element
creating the affordable high density 15-25 d.u./acre land use designation and assigning the
area between Parkview Drive and Fred Waring Drive, east of the Palm Valley Storm
Channel with that designation;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 862, has recommended
approval;
WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services had determined the project will
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been
prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and
arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following
facts and reasons to exist to recommend that the land use element be amended:
1. The proposed amendments provided a defined land use designation for the
' implementation of the policies contained within the housing element.
2. The area designated is well suited to the assigned affordable high density
land use.
3. The amendment will facilitate the production of housing affordable by a
broader segment of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the Council in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve and adopt GPA 01-83 as described in Exhibits
"A" and "B" for reasons set out in the staff report and this resolution.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby approved.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
(�^ Council, held on this 14th day of July, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: JACKSON. KELLY. PULUOI
RESOLUTION NO. 83-71
EXHIBIT "A"
GPA O1-83
Amend Page III, A-18 of Land Use Element:
B., Residential Neighborhoods: Residential uses within the city and sphere of
influence are incorporated into a series of neighborhoods with densities ranging
from an average of 1 to 25 units per acre. Developmentwithin each density range
indicated below may exceed the density for each range if a. development of
sufficient lesser density is provided to bring the overall density into the range.
Refer to Figure 2 for more• definitive locations of the various densities throughout
the planning area.
The various neighborhood structures are indicated as follows:
High Density Neighborhoods are designated immediately adjacent to the
commercial area, the College of the Desert and major streets. These
neighborhoods would be developed at densities ranging from 7-25 units per acre.
Development within the high density neighborhoods could consist of a mixture of
apartments, condominiums and convertional detached housing developed under
specific development plans:.
Projects within these neighborhoods will be classified into "market" and
"affordable". Market projects will generally be eligible for densities in the-7-15
unit per acre range. Affordable projects, those which provide at least 20% of their
units affordable by low income households may apply for an affordable high density
designation (AHD) which will allow densities in the upper 15-25 d.u./acre range.
RANCHO MIRAGE GTY LIMIT
so
ITr 6f PAI AA Of SERI [dt lllpi
Noy
r
ow on v
'�•••.•�
OO It O°O
M
•
N
M
•,.•
x
OL
••�t•���•• �
°`t A
--
A a
,,.•.;':.
IRt o00 a
„`
to
:: ;-'•' P.R.`T, L'�.t.
R-1 �' °IOIIIANA oo-
It,000
It,000 R-1 � a
,
AVENUE WA
L
P.R.-6, B.P. °
( DP 04-7e !
ING R V tt 1A AVENUE
SAP.
v
R -
R 11—
in SANTA j O 1 A A
Y AOMONA R- 2 17!
R-I
SAN NICN OtA t AV i NUTS--
o
P.R.-4 E S.
( DP 04-70
IN
P.
It
J,
RESOLUTION NO. 83-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 384 APARTMENT UNITS ON 17.85
ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
PARKVIEW DRIVE EAST OF THE PALM VALLEY STORM
CHANNEL AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO.
CASE NO. PP 07-93
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
14th day of July, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of ONE
QUAIL PLACE for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of 384
apartment units on 17.85 acres located between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive
east of Palm Valley Storm Channel;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 865, approved said precise
plan;
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and Negative
Declaration has been prepared; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, of all interested persons desiring- to be heard, said Council did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design:
1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property
values in the vicinity.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment
of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or
general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the Council in this case.
2. That approval of Precise Plan 07-83 is hereby granted for reasons subjkct to
the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 14th day of July, 1983, by the following vote,. to wit:
AYES: JACKSON, KELLY, PULUQI
NOES: SNYDER, WILSON
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 83-72
3NDITIONS OF APPROVAL_
Precise Plan 07-83'
1.. Approval of the project is subject to approval of GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z" 02-83
and the execution of a development agreement. between the developer and the city
by which the developer agrees to provide at least 20% of• the units within the
project affordable to low income households as -defined by the Riverside: County
Housing Authority.
2:- Prior, to the issuance of a building. permit for construction of any uses
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural , J
requirements of the city which include,. but are• not limited to, design review; and
building. permits.
3:. Construction of the- total. development may be done in phases;- however,. each
individual phase shall meet_ or exceed all, municipal code requirements: to the
degree that the city could consider each phase as. a. single project.
4.
Construction of� a portion of. said project shall commence -within one year from the.
date: of final approval'. unless, a. time extension, is- granted, otherwise said. approval'.
shall. become null,.void and:ofno effect whatsoever..
5...
The development of the! property described. herein shall be subject- to the
restrictions and -limitations- set. forth• herein which- are in addition to all' municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now: inforce, or which hereafter may be
in- force..
6.
Prior- to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval,, the. applicant shall first. obtain permits and/or clearance- from the
following agencies:.
Riverside. County Departmentof Health
Palm*Desert Architectural Commission
- City: Fire: Marshal "
J
= Coachella, Valley Water District -
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the- above agencies shall be presented to
the -department of -building -and safety. at the time -of issuance of a building permit
for -the use contemplated. herewith. .
7."
Project to. -be provided•with•a minimum 6 foot high solid masonry wall along all
interior property lines and a. minimum 3 foot. masonry wall along. Park View Avenue
and Fred Waring Drive. or as approved by the architectural review commission.
S..
Parking areas- adjacent to, tennis courts. must ° be modified to provide adequate turn
around to allow forward, exit of vehicles in end spaces and for- cars encountering a
full lot.
9.. Tennis courts shall be" designed- to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent units. Court
lighting shall not: exceed,20 feet in height and. be- down -shining block box type.
10.. Provisions. for mail service° shall be coordinated'with the. Palm Desert Branch U.S./
Postal Service.
11.. Location. and design of trash enclosures shall be coordinated with Palm- Desert
Disposal -Co.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-72
sidewalk on Parkview Drive.
15. Installation of curb and gutter at 43 feet from construction centerline, match -up
paving, one-half median with landscaping and sidewalk on Fred Waring Drive.
16. Drainage and signalization fund fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits.
17. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance
and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city
standards.
18. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the
respective service districts.
19. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by
ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any
improvements is commenced. The developer shall submit "as -built" plans prior to
acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city.
20. Landscaping maintenance on Fred Waring Drive and on Parkview Drive shall be
maintained by the owner.
21. All overhead utilities shall be undergrounded.
22. Traffic safety striping on Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive shall be provided
to the specifications of the director of public works. A traffic control plan must
be submitted to and approved by the director of public works before placing
pavement markings.
r l 23. Street improvement plans must be approved by the public works director and
U sureties posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to building
permits being issued.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
24. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a two (2) hour
duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based
upon a minimum of 29 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from
which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
25. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more
than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
a. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
b. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each
hydrant.
26. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and
three (3) copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. Upon
approval, one copy will be sent to the building department, and the original will be
(i returned to the developer.
S
RESOLUTION NO. 83-72
29. An approved emergency access road must be provided to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior walls of all buildings.
30. Minimum 50 foot turning radius, for- interior streets must be provided for
emergency vehicle access.
/Ir
r _
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 1983
findings as recommended by staff; carried unanimously 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 861, approving CUP 08-83 and VAR 02-83,
subject to conditions; carried unanimously 5-0.
D. Case Nos. GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, and PP 07-83, ONE QUAIL
PLACE, Applicant
Request for approval of a general plan amendment, zoning
ordinance amendments, change of zone, precise plan and
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow the
construction of 384 apartment units on approximately
17.85 acres located, between Fred Waring Drive and Park
View Drive, east of the Palm Valley Storm Channel.
Mr. Drell in reviewing the staff report pointed out that this project would have a
density of 21.5 units per acre. The applicant proposes to use tax exempt bond
financing in order to reduce housing cost. This would require the applicant to
provide 20% low income units as defined by the Riverside County Housing
Authority. Mr. Drell stated that if a 22 unit per acre project were acceptable the
proposed site plan represents an efficient design and the site is suitable. Mr. Drell
concluded that if the concept as presented was an acceptable means to achieving
the city's • housing goals the application and associate amendments should be
approved..
Mr. Drell noted that a letter was received by the City of Rancho Mirage in
opposition of this project because it was felt the density was too high and extreme
traffic conjestion would result on Parkview Avenue. Mr. Drell stated that both
Parkview Avenue and Fred Waring Drive could accommodate any future traffic
generated by development in the area.
Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to
make a presentation.
MR. DENNIS MARTIN, 73-725 El Paseo, explained that- the high density
would be the only way to meer the affordable housing needs together with
tax exempt bond financing. He noted that if the bond financing were to
become a problem he would like to work -something out with the city. He
requested a modification in the parking requirements; 25% to be compact
spaces in order to have more green area. He requested to put a 6 foot
chainlink fence with trees along the flood control channel rather than block
wall. He also requested the elimination of the 3 foot high wall along Fred
Waring Drive and Parkview Avenue. In addressing the City of Rancho
Mirage concern for traffic on Parkview Avenue,. Mr. Martin felt that once
converted to four lanes the street would be able to handle the traffic
generated by this project.
Commissioner Crites felt that compact spaces would only create a parking
problem; he was uncertain as to how they would be regulating the prohibition of
large vehicles in these compact spaces.
Commissioner Crites asked staff how thev felt reeardine the elimination of the 3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 1983
It was noted to add "or as approved by the architectural review commission" to
Condition No. 7.
l
Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION
to the project.
MR. JACK BENNETT, 2102 Areta St., Newport Beach, stated he was very
much in favor of the project.
Chairman Wood closed the public hearing and asked for the pleasure of the
commission.
Commissioner Richards was concerned that bond financing would become a
problem and noted that Mr. Martin stated in his presentation that if it did become
a problem he would like to work something out with the city. He stated that it was
a good project but that the free market should determine rents. He also felt that
the definition for affordable housing was questionable and that this project should
be binding with bond financing.
Commissioner Kryder agreed with Commissioner Richards and added that it would
be a serious mistake and it could not possibly be regulated in the proper manner.
Commissioner Crites felt that this project would begin the process of the needed
affordable housing provision. He noted that the state program already had
approved the affordable housing program and felt that the definition could be
properly defined. This was an opportunity for the city and/or community to
provide the needs of those people who cannot otherwise afford the high cost of
rent.
Chairman Wood stated that the financing problem was not a planning commission
matter and the commissioners should concentrate on the project itself.
Commissioner Kryder felt that the project in general and the financing for it can
not be separated.
It was noted that Commissioners Richards and Kryder were only objectional to the
bond financing but not the project as proposed.
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt
findings as recommended by staff; carried 3-2 (Commissioners Kryder and Richards
voting NAY).
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 862, recommending approval of GPA 01-83;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 863, recommending approval of ZOA 05-83;
Planning Commission Resolution No. 864, recommending approval of C/Z 02-83;
and, Planning Commission Resolution No. 865, approving PP 07-83, subject to
conditions; carried 3-2 (Commissioners Kryder and Richards voting NAY).
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Letter received from Richard H. Fromme requesting clarification on zoning
requirements for car washes.
J UN 13 1983
ENVIRONMENTAL SEHVICLb
CI"l-'Y OF PALM DESERT
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, California 92260
Attention: Phil Drell
Planning Department
Dear Mr. Drell:
West 4512 Elderberry Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99208
June 6, 1983
We are the owners of the following property:
Lot 15 MB 027/036 Parcel #627-021-015-0
Lot 16 MB 027/036 Parcel #627-021-016-1
This property is located across from the College of the Desert.
We urgently request your sincere consideration to grant
a variance in the zoning of our property on Fred Waring Drive
to permit multiple type residential building. Such variance
will give developers opportunity to build-up the area in a
manner to better serve the College Personnel.
Also the heavy traffic on the Fred Waring Drive is not
conducive to single family occupancy in respect to small
children.
An early reply would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Albert F. Berlin %%
�'/% . . // 11 /' 4 '
eth A. Berm
ENVIRONINENTAt. SERVICES
CFIY OF PALM DESERT
.vNe]T
74 AIJ oy N,.uS -?�) " I h e t A.S 7-
4
7 /f�3
11,4-(?) 3 K6- s��s
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 17, 1983
replied that the city did. Mr. Diaz clarified that he did not perceive any problems
with this easement and for aesthetic reasons it would be to the applicant's
advantage to agree in landscaping this area.
Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to
make a presentation.
MR. GEORGE RITTER, 73-899 Highway 111, representative, stated he was
present to answer any questions the commission might have. He
indicated they were willing to comply with all the conditions as stated in the
draft resolution and agreed that something needed to be done with the
equestrian easement.
Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of this case.
REV. DEAN MILLER, Paster of the Palm Desert Community Church, highly
recommended approval and stressed the need for this church.
Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to this
case; there being none, the public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt
findings as recommended by staff; carried unanimously 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 858, approving PP 06-83, subject to
conditions; carried unanimously 5-0.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE
IX. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. ONE QUAIL PLACE - Discussion of 384 unit residential project located east
of palm valley storm channel, between Parkview Drive and Fred Waring
Drive (oral presentation will be made).
Mr. Diaz explained that an application has been filed for this project and that the
applicant wished to make a presentation to the commission to get their initial
feeling on this project. He introduced Mr. Dennis Martin.
MR. DENNIS MARTIN, 73-725 El Paseo, felt that an apartment project such
as this is important and would serve the needs of the city. He explained
that this type of housing could be for moderate income families and he also
is trying to work out a program to accommodate those in the low income
range. Financing would be through a tax exempt mortgage revenue bond
program which would allow a 9 3/8 % interest rate. The program would
require that 20% of the units financed be affordable by low income
households. Low income would be defined as households earning less than
80% of the county wide median. The monthly rents for those units could not
exceed 30% of gross income. For example, the median income for a single
family of four in Riverside County is $17,770. Low income family earn 80%
or $14,216 and can spend $4,264 annually on housing. This would require
that 70 units within the project have monthly rents no greater than $355.00.
He felt that this LVDe of housing would be very much needed with all the
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 17, 1983
Commissioner Crites asked Mr. Martin to explain the ratio again on the financing
for the low income family. Mr. Martin explained that this proposal would be called
a loans to lenders bond with the criteria of serving the moderate income of a
family of four with the median income of $17,770 , take 80% of that, then 30% of
the 80% is the amount they can afford. Commissioner Crites asked who would
determine eligibility. Mr.. Martin replied that the developer would administer the
program with the requirement of filing. reports on who would be renting these type
of projects.
Commissioner Richards asked what type financing could, the developer get
otherwise with the type of density proposed. Mr. Martin stated that it would be
about II% financing, putting the rentals at $463 to $601 per month.
Chairman Wood clarified that the city would not have any financial responsibility.
Commissioner Kryder asked if the possibility of a substantial difference in monthly
payments between neighbors could occur. Mr. Martin replied affirmative.
Commissioner Crites asked. if the- 20% would be mixed one -bedroom and two -
bedroom. Mr. Martin stated it would be an estimated mix of one -bedroom one -bath
being 40%; two -bedroom one -bath 20%; two -bedroom two -bath 40%.
Mr. Diaz noted that staff's intentions on this type of housing would be a total mix
rather than having certain areas/buildings being for the low income families..
Commissioner Richards felt that the proposal is something the city needs but a
different type of financing would be a better way to go.
Mr. Diaz clarified to the commission that the issues staff would like addressed are:
1) Should the entire project be affordable or 20% of the project? 2) Does the
commission want this project at all? 3) What type of financing?
Commissioner Kryder felt that affordable housing is. needed but the type of
financing proposed is impractical and not ideal. He suggested conventional
financing might be a better way to go.
Commissioner Richards felt that this type of project proposed is the best the
commission has seen but the type of financing proposed would not work.
Commissioner Crites was in favor of the proposal and pointed out that the city has
an opportunity through this project to help people in the low to moderate income
range. He also explained that the financing is a problem between the developer
and the state. He felt it was a very much needed housing project.
Commissioner Downs also was in favor of the project.
Chairman Wood was also concerned- about the type of financing and asked Mr.
Martin to consider the concerns addressed by the commission in his application for
this type of project.
B. ORDINANCE CHANGE - Request. for city to study ordinance change to
allow drive -through restaurants.
Mr. Diaz explained that commission had a choice of either directing staff -to study
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(20109 2015.5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
LEGAL NOTICE
PPOT-83
T am a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the
age of eighteen years* and not
a party to or interested in the
above entitled matter. I am the
principal clerk of the printer
of THE OESERT POST*
a newspaper of general circula-
tions printed and published weekly
in the city of Riversides County
of Riversides and which newspaper
has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of
Riversides State of Californias
under date of October 5♦ 1964#
Case number 83658; that the
notices of which the annexed is
a printed copyt has been published
in each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates# to -wit:
05/27 91983
I Certify for declare) under
penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated May 27# 1983
at Riversides California
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CITY O -PALM DESERT
LENOTICE
CASE NOS. OPA 01-87.ZOA OS
83, C/Z OTIC
03-87 and PP 07-87
NE IS HEREBY GIV-
EN that a Dublic hearing will
be held before the Palm De-
sert Planning Cpnmlssbn to
consider a re�l�5t by ONE
OU AIL PLACE (a general
. Ole-33I and 618-330-
D public hearing will be I
M June 7, 1983, at 7:00
�Innt DesertCitycity c Hal
rickiv Pear, Palm De-
'allfarnia, a which time
lace all Interested per -
Ire Invited to attend antl
xd.
� NarAy. DIAZ
Desert Planning
lission
PDP-S/27
Cutllzrw cgxff T PWz nrrc, =®=®Ip{0O
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CAU FORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: June 8, 1983
One Quail Place
P.O. Box 6000-33
Palm Desert, CA 92261
Re: GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-8 CC/Z
-8 J, PP 07-83
i
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its meeting of June 7, 1983.
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 862, 863, 864, do 865
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental
services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
I
P 6Rd(lA1 A. r%1A7-ECP.E-T.ARY
.,,
PLANNING COMMISSION
RAD/lcr
cc: File
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 862
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT CREATING THE AFFORDABLE HIGH
DENSITY 15-25 D.U./ACRE DESIGNATION AND
ASSIGNING THE DESIGNATION TO THE AREA BETWEEN
FRED WARING DRIVE AND PARKVIEW DRIVE, EAST OF
THE PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AND APPROVING
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO.
CASE NO. GPA 01-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of June, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by ONE
QUAIL PLACE for an amendment to the Palm Desert General Plan Land Use Element
creating the affordable high density 15-25 d.u./acre land use designation and assigning the
area between Parkview Drive and Fred Waring Drive, east of the Palm Valley Storm
Channel with that designation; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services had determined the project will
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been
prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and
arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to recommend that the land use element be amended:
1. The proposed amendments provided a defined land use designation for the
implementation of the policies contained within the housing element.
2. The area designated is well suited to the assigned affordable high density
land use.
3. The amendment will facilitate the production of housing affordable by a
broader segment of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council that GPA 01-
83 be adopted as described in Exhibits "A" and "B" for reasons set out in the
staff report and this resolution.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby
recommended for approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 862
EXHIBIT "A"
GPA 01-83
Amend Page III, A-18 of Land Use Element:
B. Residential Neighborhoods: Residential uses within the city and sphere of
influence are incorporated into a series of neighborhoods with densities ranging
from an average of 1 to 25 units per acre. Development within each density range
indicated below may exceed the density for each range if a development of
sufficient lesser density is provided to bring the overall density into the range.
Refer to Figure 2 for more definitive locations of the various densities throughout
the planning area.
The various neighborhood structures are indicated as follows:
High Density Neighborhoods are designated immediately adjacent to the
commercial area, the College of the Desert and major streets. These
neighborhoods would be developed at densities ranging from 7-25 units per acre.
Development within the high density neighborhoods could consist of a mixture of
apartments, condominiums and convertional detached housing developed under
specific development plans.
Projects within these neighborhoods will be classified into "market" and
"affordable". Market projects will generally be eligible for densities in the 7-15
unit per acre range. Affordable projects, those which provide at least 20% of their
units affordable by low income households may apply for an affordable high density
designation (AHD) which will allow densities in the upper 15-25 d.u./acre range.
/lr
RANCHO MIRAGE CITY LIMIT
J, --
:itr (�i PALM DESERT CnT Limy
i
N� .
r° P.R-7, P
I ' � W
W I
I • W
•-:: _
•
�1�yQ0 a R-1 o a
O,Z O IP 000
:•
11.000
�
.�• • .
Oi.E
AVE
c
. ,•�: •.,�
_ P.R. 7, S.P.
w GLORIANA OR.
R-I
It,000 o R-1 I2,000
WAaINr, noly❑
—
-
AVENUE) FRFn
(DP 04-78 )
COLLEGE_OF THE
L
O PE ��
H 1A AVENUE
2 .P R- (7 S.
R I s ° a - _ -
AI A R 0 9 A WAY
RR.
ANTA R-1 a R-2 (7) w R- 2 (7)
SONORA _ a w
S A N N I G H 0 L A S A V N U E >
R
r — _.___. ...__:?� �`1-ti R-2 (7) R- 2 (7)
RR.-4 , S.I
( DP 04-78
T
y
P.1
(D
m
x
S
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 863
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TEXT, CREATING SECTION 25.055 AND CHAPTER 25.37
RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HIGH
DENSITY DESIGNATION FOR PROJECTS WHICH
INCLUDE LOW INCOME HOUSING; AND APPROVAL OF
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO.
CASE NO. ZOA 05-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of June, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a zoning
ordinance amendment creating Section 25.24.055 and Chapter 25.37 relating to the
establishment of a high density designation for projects which include low income housing;
and approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance text
amendment:
1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance.
2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general
plan.
3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
considerations of the commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend a zoning ordinance text amendment, as
provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, WOOD
NOES: KRYDER, RICHARDS
ABSENT: NONE
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 863
EXHIBIT "A"
ZOA 05-83
Amend Section 25.25 by adding:
25.25.055 Maximum density for "affordable projects". For projects containing at
least 20% units affordable to low income households as defined by the Riverside County
Housing Authority, a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre may be allowed by
precise plan. To be eligible for this program, the developer must enter into a
development agreement per Section 25.37 which will tie the zoning designation and the
precise plan approval to affordable housing performance standards.
Ar
1
M
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 863
EXHIBIT "B"
Chapter 25.37
Development Agreements
SECTIONS:
25.37.010
Purpose
25.37.020
Eligibility
25.37.030
Contents
25.37.040
Public Hearing and Notice
25.37.050
Consistency
25.37.060
Rules, Regulations and Official Policies
25.37.070
Periodic Review
25.37.080
Amendment or Cancellation
25.37.090
Recording of Agreement
25.37.100
Modification or Suspension to Comply with State or Federal Laws
25.37.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the city with greater
control and flexibility in the evaluation of projects by tailoring development standards to
the unique features of a particular site and linking them with specific development
proposals and performance criteria.
25.37.020 Eligibility. Persons or organizations entering into development
agreement with the city must have a legal or equity interest property. Project proposals
in the following zones are eligible for participation in the development agreement process
if they meet the specified findings.
A. Affordable high density planned residential. Projects receiving the AHDPR
designation require a development agreement to specify the condition under
which the high density is to be granted.
25.37.030 Contents. A development agreement shall specify or contain the
following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F
Duration of agreement.
Permitted uses.
Maximum height and size of building.
A general site plan showing arrangement
dedication.
A timetable for the completion of various
of the agreement.
of uses, circulation and required
project phases or other features
Other conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent
discretionary actions.
25.37.040 Public hearing and notice. A public hearing on an application for a
development agreement shall be held by the planning commission and city council. Notice
of intention to consider adoption of a development agreement shall be given as provided in
Chapter 25.86.
25.37.050 Form and consistency. A development agreement shall be approved by
ordinance and shall be consistent with general and specific plans. With a majority vote of
city council, the agreement may be made subject to a referendum.
1- 25.37.060 Rules, reeulatinns and nffirial nnliriec TTnlPcc ti..
conditionally approving any subsequent development application on the basis of such
existing or new rules, regulations and policies.
25.37.070 Periodic review. The planning commission shall review a development
agreement every 6 months, at which time the applicant or his successor shall be required
to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. If as a result of
this review, the commission finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence,
that the applicant has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of the
agreement, it shall recommend to the city council that the agreement be modified or
terminated. If the city council concurs with the planning commission recommendation,
the agreement shall be modified or terminated. Proceedings before the city council shall
be a noticed public hearing per Chapter 25.86.
25.37.080 Amendment or cancellation. In addition to provisions of Section
25.37.060, a development agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part by
mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their successors. Procedure shall be as
described in Sections 25.37.040 and 27.37.050.
25.37.090 Recording of agreement. No later than 10 days after the city enters
into a development agreement, the city clerk shall record with the county recorder a copy
of the agreement, which shall describe the land subject thereto. From and after the time
of such recordation, the agreement shall impart such notice thereof to all persons as is
afforded by the recording laws of this state. The burdens of the agreement shall be
binding upon, and the benefits of the agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to
the parties to the agreement.
25.37.100 Modification or susaension to comply with state or federal laws or
regulations. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after a
development agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one
or more provisions of the development agreement, such provisions of the agreement shall
be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws
or regulations.
Ar
1
Ilil. I- "
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 864
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-2 (6) S.P. TO AHDPR-
22 S.P. FOR 17.85 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN FRED
WARING DRIVE AND PARKVIEW DRIVE, EAST OF THE
PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AND A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT
PERTAINS THERETO.
CASE NO. C/Z 02-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of June, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by ONE
QUAIL PLACE for a change of zone from R-2 (6) S.P. to AHDPR - 22 S.P. for 17.5 acres
located between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive east of the Palm Valley Storm
Channel and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
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 to justify their actions, as described below:
1. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
adjacent proposed land uses.
2. The density resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
. , densities permitted in the adjacent areas.
3. The proposed change of zone would be compatible with the adopted Palm
Desert General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission in these cases;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a change of zone from R-2 (6) S.P. to AHDPR - 22 S.P. as shown
on Exhibit "A", attached.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, WOOD
NOES: KRYDER, RICHARDS
ABSENT:
NONE
ARSTAIN!
NONE
P.R.-4
s ( OP Od
RANCHO MIRAGE CITY LIMIT
I I -IT OF PA DESERT City Llmi
ij�y
/ro" P.R-7, P
S —
> COLLEGE OF THE I iESI T
a a
5A' 0
O PO
R-2 KZ`11000 i 12000 N uai 1�
(s) l
R-t2
a7. r c Ir
I ,000 t
W
A AVE.
y c . `o PPOo` a
R-I Q0 ao p
AND s 12,000 a tri
PR-22 1� �GLORIANA DR.a _
P.R:7 ,3.P R-I
$P t 12,000 $ R-1 12,000
9.P. a
AV44 to AVENUE _
(7)S.P.
WLR - 11 Is °¢ li — —
? R-IERR-�l
U) A A R 0 S A WAY
P.R.-G, S.P. a R-2 (7) R- 2 (7) WsA
SONORASAN N I C H O L A S AVENUEaR-I e` R-2 (7) R- 2 Cr)
a. SIERRA, VISTA 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 865
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 384 APARTMENT UNITS ON 17.85
ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
PARKVIEW DRIVE EAST OF THE PALM VALLEY STORM
CHANNEL AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO:.
CASE NO. PP 07-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of June, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
ONE QUAIL PLACE for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of 384
apartment units on 17.85 acres located between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive
east of Palm Valley Storm Channel.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find, the
following facts and 'reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design:
1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property
values in the vicinity..
2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment
of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or
general welfare.
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 commission in this case.
2. That approval of Precise Plan 07-83 is hereby granted for reasons subject to
the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, WOOD
NOES: KRYDER, RICHARDS
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 865
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Precise Plan 0743
Approval of the project is subject to approval of GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83
and the execution of a development agreement between the developer and the city
by which the developer agrees to provide at least 20% of the units within the
project affordable to low income households as defined by the Riverside County
Housing Authority.
2. Prior to the issuance of a, building permit for construction of any uses
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural
requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to, design review, and
building permits.
3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each
individual phase shall meet or exceed all municipal code requirementsto the
degree that the city could consider each phase as a single project.
4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
5. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be
in force:
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Riverside County Department of Health
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Coachella Valley Water District
Evidence of said permit or clearance from .the above agencies shall be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit
for the use contemplated herewith.
7. Project to be provided with a minimum 6 foot high solid masonry wall along all
interior property lines and a minimum 3 foot masonry wall along Park View Avenue
and Fred Waring Drive or as approved by architectural review commission.
8.. Parking areas adjacent to tennis courts must be modified to provide adequate turn
around to allow forward exit of vehicles in end spaces and for cars encountering a
full lot.
9.. Tennis courtsshall be designed to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent units. Court
lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height and be down -shining block box type.
10. Provisions for mail service shall be coordinated with the Palm Desert Branch U.S.
Postal Service.
1
1
11. Location and design of trash enclosures shall be coordinated with Palm Desert ■
Disposal Co.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 865
13. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet -from construction centerline on Fred Waring
Drive.
14. Installation of curb and gutter at 32 feet from centerline, match -up paving and
sidewalk on Parkview Drive.
15. Installation of curb and gutter at 43 feet from construction centerline, match -up
paving, one-half median with landscaping and sidewalk on Fred Waring Drive.
16. Drainage and signalization fund fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits.
17. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance
and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city
standards.
18. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the
respective service districts.
19. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by
ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any
improvements is commenced. The developer shall submit "as -built" plans prior to
acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city.
20. Landscaping maintenance on Fred Waring Drive and on Parkview Drive shall be
maintained by the owner.
21. All overhead utilities shall be undergrounded.
22. Traffic safety striping on Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive shall be provided
to the specifications of the director of public works. A traffic control plan must
be submitted to and approved by the director of public works before placing
pavement markings.
23. Street improvement plans must be approved by the public works director and
sureties posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to building
permits being issued..
Fire Marshal Conditions:
24. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a two (2) hour
duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based
upon a minimum of 29 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from
which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
25. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more
than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
a. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
b. Exterior. surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each
hydrant.
r-^e 26. Prior to iq-tinnrP of a hidirlino normi4_ tho Aovnlnnnr ehnll fnrniuh +6— ...;_.-I -A
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 865
system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow.
29. An approved emergency access road must be provided to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior walls of all buildings.
30. Minimum 50 foot turning radius for interior streets must be provided for
emergency vehicle access.
/Ir
1
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: June 7, 1983
CASE NOS: GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
REQUEST:
Approval of a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendments,
change of zone, precise plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact to allow the construction of 384 apartment units on approximately
17.85 acres at a gross density of 21.5 d.u./acre located between Fred Waring
Drive and Park View Drive, east of the Palm Valley Storm Channel.
APPLICANT:
ONE QUAIL PLACE
P.O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
I. BACKGROUND:
A. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES:
CUP 18-80, TT 16396, 219 MF - The previous approvals for the property
were for a 128 unit residential development by Watt Industries. Watt
decided not to pursue the project and did not renew its option on the
property.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North:
PR-7 S.P./vacant
South:
PR-6 S.P./vacant
East:
PR-7 S.P./vacant
West:
Storm Channel and R-1
The general location of the project is compatible with a high density rental
unit proposal. The project will have access on two four -lane highways, is
adjacent to utilities, is served by Sunline Transit System and is within % mile
of both the College of the Desert and the Highway 111/Monterey regional
commercial district.
C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Existing: Median density 5-7 d.u./acre
Proposed: Affordable High Density 15-25 d.u./acre
if. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
The approval of this project and related amendments involves several levels of
planning and policy decisions. While the evaluation of the precise plan involves
predominantly site planning issues, the various amendments involve interpretation,
Staff Report
GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
costs must be reduced to a minimum. One way to accomplish this
cost reduction is to allow densities of 15 to 25 dwelling units per
acre.
3. A 25 dwelling unit per acre project can meet the city's general design
standards, provide a quality living environment compatible with
adjacent land uses and the character of the City of Palm Desert.
4. It was city council's direction to review high density proposals on a
case by case basis. The submission of the precise plan along with the
required general plan and code amendments allows the planning
commission and council to evaluate the type of project which would
be permitted if the amendments are adopted. Thus, this direction is
achieved through this application.
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:
The City of Palm Desert Plan Housing Element contains an implementation
strategy which was intended to promote the construction of housing
affordable by low and moderate income households. The primary
implementation tool was an overlay which would allow higher densities,
flexible design standards and other incentives to achieve the housing goals.
The section has proven inadequate since the land use element does not
contain well defined corresponding mechanisms which allow the higher
densities.
The proposed amendment to the land use element and map will create a
precise land use definition for an affordable high density overlay and will
assign the subject area with that designation. The AHD land use will be in
force only if a project contains at least 20% of its units affordable by
households earning less than 80% of the median for Riverside County as
determined by the Riverside County Housing Authority. If this criteria is
not met, the land use would revert to the underlying designation.
Based upon available land and construction cost data, densities of between
15 and 25 d.u./acre are required to make an affordable project viable. Even
with the maximum of 25 units, other incentive may be required to achieve
the desired goals. The AHD overlay will allow densities in the 15-25 unit
per acre range.
B. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
State law requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with general plans.
Presently, our zoning ordinance does not contain any provisions
implementing the goals and objectives of the housing element relating to
affordable housing.
This amendment will create Section 25.24.055 within the planned residential
district which will allow densities to a maximum of 25 dwelling units per
acre in areas designated as appropriate sites in the general plan. The
affordable high density planned residential (AHDPR) designation will only be
in effect for projects which contain 20% very low or low income housing as
defined by the Riverside Cnuntv Hnnsino Authority_ Tho Avn�t na+,.ro .,f thu
Staff Report
GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
development agreement which will tie the zoning designation and the
precise plan approval to affordable housing performance standards.
To provide definitions and procedures for development agreements Chapter
25.37 would be created. Normally zoning runs with the land and is not tied
to a particular project.
The development agreement will be a contract between the developer and
the city spelling out the specific requirements necessary to maintain the
desired zoning. If the requirements are not met, all approvals are voided
and the zoning will revert to the original designation. Once the project is
built and operating, the agreement will insure the maintenance of the
desired project features. As presently written, only projects meeting the
low income definition would be eligible for development agreements.
C. CHANGE OF ZONE:
This change of zone would designate the property AHDPR-22. The actual
change of zone would not occur until all facets of the project including the
development agreement is approved.
Assuming the general plan and code amendments are approved in some form,
the following findings can be made to support the proposed change of zone.
1. The proposed change of zone from R-2 (6) single family residential,
6000 sq.ft. minimal area to AHDPR-22 (affordable high density
planned residential 22 d.u./acre) is consistent with the general plan as
amended and specifically the goals and objections of the housing
element.
2. The proposed zoning is compatible with adjacent land uses in that the
storm channel acts as a buffer for properties to the west and the
design requirements contained within the PR zone will mitigate
possible impacts on vacant lands to the east.
3. By allowing the construction of housing affordable by a broad range
of economic groups in the Palm Desert Community, the proposed
change of zone would better serve the public health, safety and
general welfare than the existing zoning.
D. AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES:
Since the amendments represent an evolving housing policy, the commission
may consider a number of variations to the proposed amendments. As
written, the 20% low income feature is a mandatory prerequisite for the
zoning. The language of the ordinances can be changed to allow the
commission discretion in approving varying amounts of low income housing
depending upon the merits of a particular project.
The actual density range can be modified keeping in mind that lowering of
densities increases the need for other public subsidies to meet our housing
objectives.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION - PRFCISF. PLAN n7-R3
Staff Report
GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
The following table represents a comparison of PR standards with project
specifications:
Requirement Project
Building Coverage Max. 50% 28%
Usable Open Space 50% 51%
Building Separation 20' 20'
Road Width 20' 25'
Perimeter Setback 20' 90,
Parkin
covered 384 384
uncovered - 9' x 20' 298 142*
- 8' x 17' -- 177*
*The applicant is requesting a development standard modification to allow 177
compact spaces 8' x 17' bringing the total open spaces to 319. Assuming the spaces
were adjacent to landscape areas these spaces would have to be increased by one
foot in each direction to 9' x 18' to comply with the standards. Staff is not
recommending approval of this modification.
Site Layout and Circulation
The project will consist of 34 8-plex two story buildings separated by extensive
landscaping, water features, a meandering walkway and will include the following
recreational facilities:
1.
Recreational Building 2
2.
Tennis Courts 4
3.
Pools 4
4.
Spas 4
5.
Volleyball Courts 2
6.
3-wall racquetball courts 2
7.
Basketball Court 1
Although not presently planned, the developer has agreed to include a wide range
of recreational facilities appropriate for younger children. In general, the
recreational facilities and open space design exceed city standards.
The project will be served by a perimeter road and associated parking facilities
with complete pedestrian/vehicular separation. This perimeter road plus the Palm
Valley Channel creates a 235' butter between the two story buildings and the
nearest single family zone.
The following areas require redesign to comply with fire marshal and staff
conditions:
1. Dead-end parking areas will require sufficient turnaround to allow
forward exit from end stalls and for cars not finding a space.
2. All corners must have a 50' turning radius to accommodate fire
trucks.
3. Some interior units presently do not meet the 150' maximum fire
Staff Report
GPA O1-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
of project costs at various densities and financing arrangements.
If the project was developed at the existing R-2 6, S.P. (7 d.u./acre), monthly rents
would range from $793.14 to $1,021.00. At 14 d.u./acre rents would be well above
the current market at $525 to $675. Even if subsidies allowed for the 20% low
income units, the remaining 80% unsubsidized units would be unrentable.
With conventional financing it appears that any senario would preclude low income
rents. Any density less than 20 d.u./acre would require massive subsidies and would
probably kill the project. The project costs are reasonable and do not contain areas
for significant reductions.
With the use of tax exempt bond financing at 9 3/8% the project could include 70
low income units (46 one bedroom; 31 two bedroom) at $354.00 per month. These
units would be mixed throughout the project. In addition, market rents would be
lowered to $11 - $13 per month.
This program would meet the low income requirements outlined in the general plan
and code amendments. The details of the bond program are complex but would not
involve any financial obligation or significant adminstration by the city. If the
GPA, ZOA, C/Z and project design represent acceptable tools to achieve our
housing goals, the precise plan approval would be conditioned upon the execution of
a development agreement and the completion of the bonding program.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The criteria for the selection of high density sites described in the general plan
specifically excludes areas which would suffer significant adverse impacts as the
result of development. Detailed review will be completed as each new site
designation is proposed.
The environmental review of the previously approved 134 unit Watt Industries on
the same site resulted in a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The
newly proposed project was reviewed and similar impacts were identified with the
exception of traffic generation resulting from the high density.
A traffic generation study (see attachments) has determined that both Fred Waring
Drive and Parkview Drive have sufficient capacity to handle the projected traffic
volumes. Based upon these findings, the director of environmental services has
determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
As was discussed earlier, the various proposals represent two distinct levels of
decision making. One being the formulation and implementation of housing policy,
the other being the evaluation of the merits of the design of a particular proposal.
After examining the various alternatives, the use of high density and tax exempt
bond financing seems to be the most effective means of reducing housing cost
while keeping direct government involvement to a minimum. The proposed
amendments are necessary to acheive this goal. The exact percentage of low
income units required or the maximum density permitted is variable.
Staff Report
GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
June 7, 1983
If the commission feels that the proposed project is an acceptable means of
achieving our affordable housing goals, staff recommends:
1. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. ,
recommending to the city council approval of GPA 01-83 and a
Negative Declaration of Environlmental Impact as it pertains
thereto.
2. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. ,
recommending to city council adoption of ZOA 05-83 and a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
3. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. ,
recommending approval of C/Z 02-83 and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
4. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving PP
07-83 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
pertains thereto.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A.
Resolution
B.
Negative Declaration
C.
Traffic Generation Study
D.
Developer Cost Analysis
E.
Site Plan
F.
Letters from Rancho Mirage
G.
Legal Notice
Prepared b`y�
Reviewed and Approved by
/lr
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT CREATING THE AFFORDABLE HIGH
DENSITY 15-25 D.U./ACRE DESIGNATION AND
ASSIGNING THE DESIGNATION TO THE AREA BETWEEN
FRED WARING DRIVE AND PARKVIEW DRIVE, EAST OF
THE PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AND APPROVING
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO.
CASE NO. GPA O1-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of June, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by ONE
QUAIL PLACE for an amendment to the Palm Desert General Plan Land Use Element
creating the affordable high density 15-25 d.u./acre land use designation and assigning the
area between Parkview Drive and Fred Waring Drive, east of the Palm Valley Storm
Channel with that designation; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services had determined the project will
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been
prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and
arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to recommend that the land use element be amended:
1. The proposed amendments provided a defined land use designation for the
implementation of the policies contained within the housing element.
2. The area designated is well suited to the assigned affordable high density
land use.
3. The amendment will facilitate the production of housing affordable by a
broader segment of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council that GPA 01-
83 be adopted as described in Exhibits "A" and 'B" for reasons set out in the
staff report and this resolution.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby
recommended for approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
GPA 01-83
Amend Page III, A-18 of Land Use Element:
B. Residential Neighborhoods: Residential uses within the city and sphere of
influence are incorporated into a series of neighborhoods with densities ranging
from an average of 1 to 25 units per acre. Development within each density range
indicated below may exceed the density for each range if a development of
sufficient lesser density is provided to bring the overall density into the range.
Refer to Figure 2 for more definitive locations of the various densities throughout
the planning area.
The various neighborhood structures are indicated as follows:
High Density Neighborhoods are designated immediately adjacent to the
commercial area, the College of the Desert and major streets. These
neighborhoods would be developed at densities ranging from 7-25 units per acre.
Development within the high density neighborhoods could consist of a mixture of
apartments, condominiums and convertional detached housing developed under
specific development plans.
Projects within these neighborhoods will be classified into "market" and
"affordable". Market projects will generally be eligible for densities in the 7-15
unit per acre range. Affordable projects, those which provide at least 20% of their
units affordable by low income households may apply for an affordable high density
designation (AHD) which will allow densities in the upper 15-25 d.u./acre range.
/lr
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT,
CREATING SECTION 25.055 AND CHAPTER 25.37
RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HIGH
DENSITY DESIGNATION FOR PROJECTS WHICH
INCLUDE LOW INCOME HOUSING; AND APPROVAL OF
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO.
CASE NO. ZOA 07-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of June, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a zoning
ordinance amendment creating Section 25.24.055 and Chapter 25.37 relating to the
establishment of a high density designation for projects which include low income housing;
and approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance text
amendment:
1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance.
2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general
plan.
3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
considerations of the commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend a zoning ordinance text amendment, as
provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
ZOA 07-83
Amend Section 25.25 by adding:
25.25.055 Maximum density for "affordable projects". For projects containing at
least 20% units affordable to low income households as defined by the Riverside County
Housing Authority, a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre may be allowed by
precise plan. To be eligible for this program, the developer must enter into a development
agreement per Section 25.37 which will tie the zoning designation and the precise plan
approval to affordable housing performance standards.
Ar
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT 'B"
Chapter 25.37
Development Agreements
SECTIONS:
25.37.010
Purpose
25.37.020
Eligibility
25.37.030
Contents
25.37.040
Public Hearing and Notice
25.37.050
Consistency
25.37.060
Rules, Regulations and Official Policies
25.37.070
Periodic Review
25.37.080
Amendment or Cancellation
25.37.090
Recording of Agreement
25.37.100
Modification or Suspension to Comply with State or Federal Laws
25.37.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the city with greater
control and flexibility in the evaluation of projects by tailoring development standards to
the unique features of a particular site and linking them with specific development
proposals and performance criteria.
25.37.020 Eligibility. Persons or organizations entering into development
agreement with the city must have a legal or equity interest property. Project proposals
in the following zones are eligible for participation in the development agreement process
if they meet the specified findings.
A. Affordable high density planned residential. Projects receiving the AHDPR
designation require a development agreement to specify the condition under
which the high density is to be granted.
25.37.030 Contents. A development agreement shall specify or contain the
following:
A. Duration of agreement.
B. Permitted uses.
C. Maximum height and size of building.
D. A general site plan showing arrangement
dedication.
E. A timetable for the completion of various
of the agreement.
of uses, circulation and required
project phases or other features
F. Other conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent
discretionary actions.
25.37.040 Public hearing and notice. A public hearing on an application for a
development agreement shall be held by the planning commission and city council. Notice
of intention to consider adoption of a development agreement shall be given as provided in
Chapter 25.86.
25.37.050 Form and consistency. A development agreement shall be approved by
ordinance and shall be consistent with general and specific plans. With a majority vote of
city council, the agreement may be made subject to a referendum.
25.37.060 Rules. reeulatinns and nffirial nnliries_ ilnless nthPrwicP nrnviriafl by
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
conditionally approving any subsequent development application on the basis of such
existing or new rules, regulations and policies.
25.37.070 Periodic review. The planning commission shall review a development
agreement every 6 months, at which time the applicant or his successor shall be required
to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. If as a result of
this review, the commission. finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence,
that the applicant has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of the
agreement, it shall recommend to the city council that the agreement be modified or
terminated. If the city council concurs with the planning commission recommendation,
the agreement shall be modified or terminated. Proceedings before the city council shall
be a noticed public hearing per Chapter 25.86.
25.37.080 Amendment or cancellation. In addition to provisions of Section
25.37.060, a development agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part by
mutual consent of the parties to the agreement or their successors. Procedure shall be as
described in Sections 25.37.040 and 27.37.050.
25.37.090 Recording of agreement. No later than 10 days after the city enters
into a development agreement, the city clerk shall record with the county recorder a copy
of the agreement, which shall describe the land subject thereto. From and after the time
of such recordation, the agreement shall impart such notice thereof to all persons as is
afforded by the recording laws of this state. The burdens of the agreement shall be
binding upon, and the benefits of the agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to
the parties to the agreement.
regulations. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after a
development agreement has been entered into, prevent or preclude compliance with one
or more provisions of the development agreement, such provisions of the agreement shall
be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws
or regulations.
/lr
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-2 (6) S.P. TO AHDPR-
22 S.P. FOR 17.85 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN FRED
WARING DRIVE AND PARKVIEW DRIVE, EAST OF THE
PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AND A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT
PERTAINS THERETO.
CASE NO. C/Z 02-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of June, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by ONE
QUAIL PLACE for a change of zone from R-2 (6) S.P. to AHDPR - 22 S.P. for 17.5 acres
located between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive east of the Palm Valley Storm
Channel and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
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 to justify their actions, as described below:
The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
adjacent proposed land uses.
2. The density resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
densities permitted in the adjacent areas.
The proposed change of zone would be compatible with the adopted Palm
Desert General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission in these cases;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a change of zone from R-2 (6) S.P. to AHDPR - 22 S.P. as shown
on Exhibit "A", attached.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 384 APARTMENT UNITS ON 17.85
ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
PARKVIEW DRIVE EAST OF THE PALM VALLEY STORM
CHANNEL AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO.
CASE NO. PP 07-83
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of June, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
ONE QUAIL PLACE for approval of a precise plan of design to allow construction of 384
apartment units on 17.85 acres located between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive
east of Palm Valley Storm Channel.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said precise plan of design:
1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property
values in the vicinity.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment
of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or
general welfare.
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 commission in this case.
2. That approval of Precise Plan 07-83 is hereby granted for reasons subject to
the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Precise Plan 07-83
1. Approval of the project is subject to approval of GPA 01-83, ZOA 02-83, C/Z 02-83
and the execution of a development agreement between the developer and the city
by which the developer agrees to provide at least 20% of the units within the
project affordable to low income households as defined by the Riverside County
Housing Authority.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural
requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to, design review, and
building permits.
3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; however, each
individual phase shall meet or exceed all municipal code requirements to the
degree that the city could consider each phase as a single project.
4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless a time extension is granted, otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
5. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be
in force.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Riverside County Department of Health
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Coachella Valley Water District
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit
for the use contemplated herewith.
7. Project to be provided with a minimum 6 foot high solid masonry wall along all
interior property lines and a minimum 3 foot masonry wall along Parkview Avenue
and Fred Waring Drive.
S. Parking areas adjacent to tennis courts must be modified to provide adequate turn
around to allow forward exit of vehicles in end spaces and for cars encountering a
full lot.
9. Tennis courts shall be designed to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent units. Court
lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height and be down -shining block box type.
10. Provisions for mail service shall be coordinated with the Palm Desert Branch U.S.
Postal Service.
11. Location and design of trash enclosures shall be coordinated with Palm Desert
Disposal Co.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
13. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from construction centerline on Fred Waring
Drive.
14. Installation of curb and gutter at 32 feet from centerline, match -up paving and
sidewalk on Parkview Drive.
15. Installation of curb and gutter at 43 feet from construction centerline, match -up
paving, one-half median with landscaping and sidewalk on Fred Waring Drive.
16. Drainage and signalization fund fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits.
17. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance
and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city
standards.
18. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the
respective service districts.
19. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by
ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any
improvements is commenced. The developer shall submit "as -built" plans prior to
acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city.
20. Landscaping maintenance on Fred Waring Drive and on Parkview Drive shall be
maintained by the owner.
21. All overhead utilities shall be undergrounded.
22. Traffic safety striping on Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive shall be provided
to the specifications of the director of public works. A traffic control plan must
be submitted to and approved by the director of public works before placing
pavement markings.
23. Street improvement plans must be approved by the public works director and
sureties posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to building
permits being issued.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
24. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a two (2) hour
duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based
upon a minimum of 29 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which
the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
25. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more
than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
a. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
b. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each
hydrant.
26. Prior to issuance of a building nermit. the develoner shall furnish the nriginal and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow.
29. An approved emergency access road must be provided to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior walls of all buildings.
30. Minimum 50 foot turning radius for interior streets must be provided for
emergency vehicle access.
/lr
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative
Code.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO:
COMMON PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, C/Z 02-83, PP 07-83
ONE QUAIL PLACE
ONE QUAIL PLACE
c/o DENNIS MARTIN
P.O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
General plan, zoning ordinance and map
amendments dealing with high density
designations for purposes of providing low
income housing and a precise plan for a 384
apartment project located between Fred Waring
Drive and Parkview Drive, east of the Palm
Valley Storm Channel.
The director of the department of environmental services, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
�-.2 "f3
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
/lr
EXPLANATION TO "YES" AND "MAYBE" RESPONSES
15. Housing: The project will provide 70 units affordable by low income households.
These units will satisfy 10% of the current need for these units as identified by the
SCAG Regional Housing Allocation Model.
16. Transportation/Circulation: Although the project will result in increased vehicular
movements, the affected highways have sufficient capacity. (See attached traffic
study)
/lr
EN7I1ON112NTAL SERVICES DEPT.
INITIAL STUDY
ENPIRO1T-ZNTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "•yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets). .
. Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable -earth conditions or in changes in
/
geologic.substructures?
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or
overcovering of the sail?
c.
•Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d.
The destruction, covering, or modification
—
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e.
_
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils,. either on or off the site?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
/
either lnrally nr roninnallv9'
o.
Zr
Yes Maybe No
3- Water. Will the proposal result in:
a....hanges.in currents,"or the course or
l.'direction of water'movements?
"`. b. Changes in-absorptlt)h rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and -amount of
surface water runoff?
f
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Alteration of -the direction or rate,of
flow of ground waters?
e. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
f. Reduction in the amount of water other-
wise -available for public water supplies?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of -species, or
numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, and
crops.)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plants?
_
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
5. 'Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
3.
Yes Mnbe No
6.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in:.the rate of use of any natural
resources? -
b. Depletion of_any non=renewable natural
resource?
7'.
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re-
quire the -development of new sources of
energy?
/
✓
8.
Risk of Uoset tiDoes the proposal involve a
risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, pesticides, ail, -chemicals, or radiation) in
the event of an accident or upset conditions?
f
:c
— — —
9.
Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in -the value of property and
improvements endangered by flooding?
t•
— —.
b. A change in the value of property and
impro+emen = rexposed to geologic hazards
beyond accepted community risk standards?
_
10.
Noise. Will the proposal increase existing
noise levels toathe point at which accepted
community noise and vibration levels are
exceeded?
11.
Land Use. Willathe proposal result in the
In of the present developed or
a ti' planned
planned land
use of an area?
12.
Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a
— —
decrease in the: -amount of designated open
space?
13.
Population. Will the proposal result in:
s —
4.
Yes Maybe
No
14.
EmDloyment. Will] the proposal result in
additional new long-term jobs provided, or a
change in the number and per cent employed,
unemployed, and underemployed?
_
15.
Housing. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in number and per cent of housing
units by type (price or rent range,
zoning category, owner -occupied and rental,
etc.) relative to demand or to number of
families in various income classes in the City?
b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a
demand for additional housing?
— —
16.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
/
FEMME
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
— _
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
— —
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians?
17.
Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools? ,.
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
;�
Yes Maybe No
18.
Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal
result in a net change in government fiscal
flow (revenues less
operating expenditures
and annualized capital expenditures)?
.19.
Utilities., Will the proposal result in a
Feed for new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications system?
c. Water?,
d.. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
20.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
'
a. The creation•of any health hazard -or
potential health hazard?
b. A change in the level of community health '
care provided?'
21
Social Services. Will the proposal result in
an increased demand for provision of general
social services?
22.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result.in:
a. Obstruction -of any scenic vista or view
open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
_ —
site open to public view?
c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or pleasantness,
uniqueness?attractiveness,
and uniqueness?
✓
23.
Light and Glara. Will the proposal produce
—
/
A GJ .ni,f n� �1..��•f
S.
Yes Maybe No
25. Mandatory Findings of Significance:
a.. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment or to curtail
the diversity in the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?(A short-term impact on
the environment is'one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the.impact an each.rescurce
is relatively small', but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on the environment
is significant.)
d. Does the project have.environnental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?'
Initial Study Prepared By:�"' II -�
TRAFFIC GENERATION STUDY
PP 07-83
Number of limits: 384
Generation Factor: 6.1 trips per unit per dayl
Total Trips: 2362 ADT
It is assumed that trips will be split 50150 between Parkview Drive and Fred Waring Drive.
Both streets will be developed to a full four lanes, capacity 24,000 ADT each with signals
at Monterey and Highway 111.
Existing ADT2 Increase Total Slack Capacity %
Fred Waring Drive 15,110 1181 16291 7,709 32%
Parkview Drive 1500 1181 2681 21,319 89%
Conclusion:
Traffic on the two subject roadways will continue to be well below design capacity after
completion and occupancy of the proposed project. The slack capacity is sufficient to
meet the demands created by future development of surrounding properties including
properties in Rancho Mirage.
Ar
I,
'ONE QUAIL PLACE
1
384 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT
ANALYSIS OF
EFFECTS OF
RENT LEVELS
ON LESS DENSITY, LESS, LANDSCAPE 8 RECREATION AND
- -
LOWER INTEREST RATES ON
FINANCING
As Proposed
Less Density
Less Density
As Proposed As Proposed
-As-Proposed------
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
20.5 UPA
7 UPA
14 UPA
Less Landscp 9 3/8% MRB's
Average Cost
---- -
-
(384) ...•.
_1128)
8 Rec. (384) (384)
Per Unit
' Land costs
1,800,000
"_____(256)".".
1,800,000
1,800,006
1,600,000-'----- "---'---"-468730-------
Land Improvements
1,210,000
1,100,000
1,150,000
1,210,000
3151.04
I--Fees-and-Assesments-=------
Sewer Tie -on 384
1,000
384,000
------"-
Water Tie -on 384
900
345,600
`-Drainage-Fee--- - 18.72
- 2,800
"-52,416
Parks 8 Recreation
----
`- - -- -
. 3.07
96,154
295,193
-Eng; Buij9ing-Ete.---
---
1,177,209
392,403
784,806
1,177,209
3065.65
nst:=Building------ -----
-- -- --
8,763,912
_ 3.,213,430
6,426,860
22822.69
Const.-Landscape
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,300,000
_-8,763,912
800,000 "" --" '"
" ---3125.00 ----
- Const.-Recreation Facil.
270,000
270,000
270,000
100,000
703.13
inancing---- - - -
- -
1,400,000-
_466,670
933,340
1,350,000
3645.83
-
Marketing
,000
380,000 -�-=-589:58
- -�
2
,3R0'000
.150,000
-- ,300
ECCONOMICS
r-Loan----- ----
Equity Required
--Total -- - -
Debt Service
r-Operati ng-Expenses-----
i
`-Return-on-Investment -8%
11% 30 Year
' TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME REQUIRED
i
TOTAL MONTHLY INCOME REQUIRED
`RENTAL -INCOME-PER SQUARE FOOT (325,796)
13,000,000 .7.035.000 _ 10,370,000 __ 12,465,000 13,000,000 33854.17
3,201,121 1,757,503 2,595,006 3,116,121 3;201,121" 8336.25 -
1,485,625
803,950
1,185,300
1,424,485
1,297,529
3868.82
768,000. -_
256,000
_512,000_
768,000
__ 768,000 -
2000.00_
,256,089
�140,600
�183,600
�249,290
�256,089
2
666.90
209,143
100,045
156,741
203,481
193,468
544.64
64.19 CSF $1.09 SF 72.17 CSF
MONTHLY RENT FOR
-1 Bedroom-1 Bath 633 467.08 793.14 525.11
2 Bedroom-1 Bath 897 575.78 977.73 647.32
2 Bedroom-2 Bath 936 601.27 1,021.00 675.97
62.46 CSF 59.38 CSF 64.19 CSF
62.69 CSF
Combined Rents W/MRB"s
454.47 456.16 (46) 354.00
560.24 562.33 (20) 354.00
585.03 587.21 (11) 354.00
10,783.8476 $10,784 Mo.
Y
T
J
ei cn La4lc P.�w Y
PALM V/�LllY— 9ldCMw \LF CNALIIEI
A'�tLa.cL VMY�C l�MILV —
riv
-� City of RANCHO MIRAGE
69-825 HIGHWAY 111 RANCHO MIRAGE CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 324-4511
May 24, 1983
Mr. Ramon A. Diaz, Director
Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
'45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Case No..PP07-73; One Quail Place, Dennis Martin
mauIIv�
MAY 2 6 1983
ENVIRONMENTAL SFhS;
CITY OF PALM Of6! i;k,
Thank you for the opportunity for the City of Rancho Mirage to review and comment
on the referenced development case. As you know, the proposed project will be
located immediately adjacent to our southern City boundary, and is therefore of
particular concern to us.
It is our understanding that the approval process for this project includes a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change that would permit residential densities
exceeding twenty dwelling units per acre. This density would far exceed that
currently permitted on this property and is also considerably higher than the
highest residential density allowed in Rancho Mirage.
In our review of the project site plan, we note there are only two access
driveways to service a.project of almost 400 units. We feel that traffic con-
gestion will result, both on and off site. We are most concerned with the traffic
impact on Parkview Drive since the property fronting on the north side of Parkview
is zoned for 15 dwelling units per acre, and could create a major problem when
also developed. There is also some question whether this dense layout could be
adequately protected by Fire and other emergency services.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City of Palm Desert approve General Plan and Zoning that will permit
residential densities not to exceed 12 to 15 dwelling units per acre.
Please /gt/nue keep ng the City of Rancho Mirage informed as to the approval
processipg4of this evelopment proposal.
S
City of RANCHO MIRAGE
69-825 HIGHWAY 111 RANCHO MIRAGE CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 324-4511
June 1, 1983
Ralph Wood, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
..UN -1 1983
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Re: Case Nos. GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, CZ 02-83 and PP 07-83
Dear Chairman Wood:
The City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the
above -referenced apartment project proposal at our regular meeting May 26,
1983. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend opposition to the project
in its present form.
The project site is located along Parkview Drive, the common boundary between
our two cities. The Planning Commission -is highly concerned that the proposed
density of 20.5 dwelling units per acre is excessive. It would far exceed
residential densities permitted in Rancho Mirage, and, we understand, would be
over three times the density permitted by current Palm Desert zoning for the
property.
Another concern of the Planning Commission is that the proposed 400 apartment
units will generate too much traffic to be properly accommodated on Parkview
Drive. With only two access points to the project, and anticipated adjacent
development both in our city and the regional shopping center in Palm Desert,
serious traffic congestion could result. The Planning Commission also feels
that the project, as a totally two-story development, is not consistent with
low profile development both our cities have always encouraged.
In summary, we hope you will agree the proposal, as set forth, is too intensive
for this site. The extremely high dwelling unit density, possible traffic con-
gestion, and two-story character of the project indicate this proposal should
be redesigned on a smaller scale of development. Again, we recommend you
deny this project as submitted.
Sincerely,
May 19, 1983
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. GPA 01-839,ZOA 05-839 C/Z 02-83 and PP 07-83
NOTICE IS :HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by ONE QUAIL PLACE (a general
partnership), for a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, change of zone
and precise plan and a negative declaration of environmental impact to allow the
construction of 384 apartment units. on approximately 18 acres (density 20.5 d.u./ac.)
presently zoned R-2 (6), (7.26 d.u./ac.) located between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview,
east of the Palm Valley Channel, more particularly described as:
A.P.N. 618-330-008 and 618-330-009
GPA 01-83,ZOA 05-83',C/Z 02-83 & PP 07-83�4
_ T
\\ ��� .
l3fr+rw� a31rM�wyyG "-Ailltln MIrJ
9
mm..
M1M1
City of RANCHO MIRAGE
Menes 69-825 HIGHWAY Ill RANCHO MIRAGE CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 324-4511
May 24, 1983
Mr. Ramon A. Diaz, Director tli2v2mT :/
Environmental Services N11AY 2 6 1983
City of Palm Desert
7Prickly Pear LaneENVIRONMENTAL OF
PalmDesertSEjyy,;e;_�
?P,LAq 0I'FRI,
Re: Case No. PP07-73; One Quail Place, Dennis Martin
Thank you for the opportunity for the City of Rancho Mirage to review and comment
on the referenced development case. As you know, the proposed project will be
located immediately adjacent to our southern City boundary, and is therefore of
particular concern to us.
It is our understanding that the approval process for this project includes a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change that would permit residential densities
exceeding twenty dwelling units per acre. This density would far exceed that
currently permitted on this property and is also considerably higher than the
highest residential density allowed in Rancho Mirage.
In our review of the project site plan, we note there are only two access
driveways to service a project of almost 400 units. We feel that traffic con-
gestion will result, both on and off site. We are most concerned with the traffic
impact on Parkview Drive since the property fronting on the north side of Parkview
is zoned for 15 dwelling units per acre, and could create a major problem when
also developed. There is also some question whether this dense layout could be
adequately protected by Fire and other emergency services.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City of Palm Desert approve General Plan and Zoning that will permit
residential densities not to exceed 12 to 15 dwelling units per acre.
Please ,tynue keeing the City of Rancho Mirage informed as to the approval
proce si of this evelopment proposal.
Sifitefe1
, Director
Communi
RE:DA:
° City of RANCHO MIRAGE
69-825 HIGHWAY 111 RANCHO MIRAGE CALIFORNIA 92270 TELEPHONE (619) 324-4511
June 1, 1983
Ralph Wood, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
."UN - 1 1983
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Re: Case Nos. GPA 01-83, ZOA 05-83, CZ 02-83 and PP 07-83
Dear Chairman Wood:
The City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the
above -referenced apartment project proposal at our regular meeting May 26,
1983. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend opposition to the project
in its present form.
The project site is located along Parkview Drive, the common boundary between
our two cities. The Planning Commission is highly concerned that the proposed
density of 20.5 dwelling units per acre is excessive. It would far exceed
residential densities permitted in Rancho Mirage, and, we understand, would be
over three times the density permitted by current Palm Desert zoning for the
property.
Another concern of the Planning Commission is that the proposed 400 apartment
units will generate too much traffic to be properly accommodated on Parkview
Drive. With only two access points to the project, and anticipated adjacent
development both in our city and the regional shopping center in Palm Desert,
serious traffic congestion could result. The Planning Commission also feels
that the project, as a totally two-story development, is not consistent with
low profile development both our cities have always encouraged.
In summary, we hope you will agree the proposal, as set forth, is too intensive
for this site. The extremely high dwelling unit density, possible traffic con-
gestion, and two-story character of the project indicate this proposal should
be redesigned on a smaller scale of development. Again, we recommend you
deny this project as submitted.
Sincerely,
kMcFadden la
irman
Tanning Commission
JWM:DA:grb
".•e=� ^_/
Y'
CASE
XiO.S GPA 01—Z'
pP 0-7
(=0 ZPET7t`1s�
ENVIIROENTAL SERVICES DEPT.
IINITIAL
STUDY
EXWIR0JJl'1ENTAL EVALUATIOPi CHECKLIST
NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets).
Yes Maybe
No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ,
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic. substructures?
b. Oisruptions, displacements, -compaction, or
overcovering of -the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d. The destruction, covering'.. or modification
- of any unique geologic or physical features?
✓
_
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the'site?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?'
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? — —
✓
i
Zr
Yes• Maybe
No
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a..Changes.in currents,'or the course or
l' direction of water movements?
✓'
— —
'`. b. Changes in -absorption rates,'drainage
patterns, or the rate and -amount of
surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Alteration of -the direction or.rate of
flow of ground waters? •
— —
. e. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? —
f. Reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies? —
—
4. ' Plant Life.. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, and
crops,)?
/
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species.of -plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
S. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, or
insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique;
rare, or endangered species of animals? _
✓
—
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier.to
the migration or movement of animals? i —
_✓
Yes Mnbe
6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in:.the rate of use of any natural
resources? -
r
b. Depletion of:any non-renewable natural
resource?
o,
7. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
,s
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, ar re-
quire the.deselopment of new sources of
energy?
' sti
8. Risk of Upset:#iDoes the proposal involve a
risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, pesticides, oil, chemicals., or radiation) in
the event of an accident or upset conditions?
'c
9. Econonic Loss. Will the proposal result in:
A.
a, A change in -the value of property and
improvements endangered by flooding?
t•
b. A change in the value of property and
improoementsrexposed to geologic hazards
beyond accepted community risk standards?
10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing
noise levels toathe point at which accepted
community noise and vibration levels are
exceeded? i
11. Land Use. Willethe proposal result in the
a t e tion of the present developed or
planned land use of an area?
12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a
decrease in theramount of designated open
space?
13. Population. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteraticn of the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
Population of -the City?
b. Change in the population distribution by
age, income,72�eligion, racial, or ethnic
group, occupational class, household type?
3.
No
h.
4.
Yes Maybe No
14. Emolo ent. Will the proposal result in
additiona new long-term jobs provided, or a
change in the number and per cent employed,
unemployed, and underemployed? _
15. Housing. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in number and -per cent of housing
units by type (price or rent .range,
zoning category, owner. -occupied and rental,
etc.) relative to demand or to number of /
families in various income classes i'n the City?
b. Impacts on existing .housing or creation of a — —
demand for additional housing?
16. Trans ortation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? _
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation —
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians?
17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
arees:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools? ..
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of pubiic'facilities, including — —
f. Other governmental services? i .
Yes Maybe
18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal,
result in a net change in government fiscal
flow (revenues less operating expenditures
and annualized capital expenditures)?
.19. Utilities. Will the proposal result i,n a
Teed for new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural, gas?
b. Communications system?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
7
f. Solid waste and disposal?
20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The,creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
b. A change in the level of community health '
care provided?
21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in
an increased den
and for provision of general
social services?
22.. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site' open to public view?
c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or area) attractiveness, pleasantness,
and uniqueness?
23. 'Light and Glare: Will the proposal.produce
new light or glare?
24. Artheoloaical/Historical. .Will the proposal
resu t in an a teration of a significant
archeological or historical site, structure,
object, or building?
5.
No
6
Yes
Maybe No
25. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment or to curtail
the diversity -in the environment?
f
b. Does the project have the potential' to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs, in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.) -
—
c. Does the project have impacts which .are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each•resource
is relatively small, but.where the effect of
the total of those impacts on the environment
/
is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study Prepared By:� D 6A� -
N
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Thct portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian,
according to an official plat of said land filed in the District Land
Office November 26, 1856, desc r..bed as follows:
Be3iani.g at the South line of said Section, South 89' 12' Weser 660_
feet from_tz Sou0hvest_co._rne__ofPala_Dell,Estates, as shown by yap on
file in Book 21 page 66 of Maps, Riverside County Records, being the
Southwest corner of that certain parcel conveyed to Wiefels and Son by
Deed recorded Febrlar7 5, 1962 as Inst:.=ant No. 10987, in Book 3071,
page 390 of Official Records; thence continuing� South _89' 12` Rest, 525
feet, more or less, on said South line to the Southeast corner of that
certain parcel conveyed to the Coachella Valley County 'dater District by
Deed recorded January 22, 1960 as Instr-.mtent No. 6187, in Book 2621,
page 94 of Official Records; thence North 1233.19 feet on _the _East line
of said ;artel to_-tae Southwest corner of that certain parcel conveyed
to the County of Riverside by Deed recorded Deceaber 16, 1963 as lnst-r=eat
.7o. 132567, in Bock '560, page 9 of Official Records; thence Portz 85`._.,
13' 34'' East. 532.os6 faet on the Southerlyline of said Parcel_.. to a
point on the :westerly of that certain parcel desc :bed as Parcel 3
in Deed to Penelope A. Rigby by Deed recorded Novenber 23, 1961 as
L t—` eat No. 1.01782, in Book 3027, page 335 of Official Records;
thence South 00' 06' 30" East 394.57 feet on the West li=e of said
Pares to .ie bout ae t hot? ,.thersof.;_ Cjg^ e_;7ort ,o9° la'_East 33C
f a.--teasioa .to tan
Northw=_st torte.- of Parcel 1, described in said Deed to P.iobys_hemca
South C° 05' 30" east 490 feet on the West line of said Parcel to the
Northeast corner of that certain parcel conveyed to Wiefels and Son by
Deed heraitabove referred to; thence south 89' 12' West, 330 feet cn_the
-wort: line of said oa cel to the Northwest corner therao';,thence South
OC' 06' jQ' ;a z,,,��fj;ggt, on ae _HeL� line cf sa,.d oa eel to the ooi t
of beainai=z•
12CF77ING theref.-ca that portion as described in the deed to the Ccumt�
of Riverside recorded Dece=ber 21, 196-� as I_.str=ant ao. 151I87.
Said land is also situated is the Cit7 of "a'_a De=art.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION.
One Quail Place, a general partnership
Applicant 1 Pima pmt)
P. O. Box 6000-333 (619) 568-1619
Nailing Address Telephone
Palm Desert, California 92261
City
State
REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested)
1
To amend the General Plan to be consistentwith the zone hange we are rgZiesting for
the below property. we are requesting a zone change which will allow 384 apartment units
and appurtenant structures and recreation facilities on 18.72 net acres.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The property is located No. of Fred 97arinq Dr., So of Parkview and East of the Palm
Valley Drainage Channel. The nearest cross street is E1 Paseo.
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 618-330-008 & 009
EXISTING ZONING R-2 (6)
Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNERS) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE A'JTHDR-
IIATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS ATION.Clinic PPLIC
s7.
SIG i4jTTU DATE
AGRCE'<ENT
; FSCLVI'IG THE CITY GF PAL".
UESE17 OF ALL I -I ' .LITIES REl ATIVE TO 4NY GEED O-STRICT:^'!S.
I CO
5Y MY ClGiii,T'J - 0'1
THIS A. r'TZ;(:iqT, ADSC'L,E tHE CgAP)OF F•l 1, FF SEP1
.,
.E F C— I.E TD - f
'O.:RTY -,,.. _4D r,n_ ..
LEI
�i
p,:;
SIFL.TURL
Appli Cants
S:gnG'ure
GATc
SIC NAT URE
(FDR STAFF L'5E C'.LY) ENVIRON'<ENTAL STATUS
❑ M.r,:STEF,AL ACT E A. No.
0 CATEGCRIC4L EXEUPTI—i
ED
ACCEPTED EY
-1 CASE No.