Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 05-103 Portola Ave - Fred Waring Dr and De Anza Way CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT O\ STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan Land Use UI Element, removing Office Professional (C-OP) from thirteen (13) lots on west side of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: GPA 05-01 DATE: November 10, 2005 CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation Executive Summary Background Discussion Conclusion Environmental Review �5-103 Draft Resolutions No. approving GPA 05-01 Legal Notice Planning Commission Resolution No. 2355 of September 21, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes of September 6, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 6, 2005 Letters from residents for September 6, 2005 Planning Commission Exhibits Recommendation: 1. That Office Professional, pursuant to our single-story residential ordinance is the most compatible long-term land use on Portola between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. 2. That these properties should also remain single-family so that the existing homes remain legal conforming and also provides property owners with the option to sell their property as compatible office use. 3. That the City Council approve GPA 05-01, amending the General Plan Land Use Element designating 13 lots on the west side of Portola Avenue, south of Fred Waring Drive, as delineated on Exhibit "A" attached, Office Professional (C-OP)/Low Density (R-L) 0-4 units per acre and removing Medium Density (R-M) 4-10 units per acre. Staff Report GPA 05-01 Page 2 October 27, 2005 4. That the City Council direct staff to initiate a change of zone from R-1 to a Mixed O.P. / R-1 zone (which allows these lots to remain legal conforming single-family homes). Executive Summary: Portola Avenue is part of the area defined by the Palma Village Specific Plan, which was one of the first major residential subdivisions in the Palm Desert area. The tract was laid out in 1935 as a low-density single-family neighborhood surrounded by desert, sand dunes and date palms. Over the past 70 years, Portola Avenue has changed from a small, quiet country road to a busy and noisy major thoroughfare. Over the past 9 years, traffic volume has increased from 13,134 trips per day to 26,474 trips per day exceeding the General Plan 2020 projection of 24,275 trips per day. With the development of the north area, a new Portola bridge and 1-10 Interchange, traffic will continue to increase. The high traffic volume has resulted in unsafe driveways, increased road noise and the need for potential road widening. A land use designation is needed to address the long-term issues of both property owners on Portola Avenue, adjacent residential properties, and the City's future right of way needs. On September 6, 2005, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to discuss possible land uses on Portola. Many of the adjacent neighbors attended the meeting and expressed similar concerns about allowing Office Professional and two-story development as they did at the previous public hearings. A few neighbors stated that they are in favor of single-story office projects but were opposed to any two-story development. Commissioner Jonathan stated that low-density residential use does not work on Portola because these homes have driveways that back out onto a very busy street, which is dangerous and unacceptable. Commissioner Lopez stated that road is currently dangerous for kids and the best thing that could happen in this location would be to widen the road and move the sidewalks away from the street and create a much safer condition than what currently exists which can be accomplished by converting the Portola properties to Office Professional and/or Open Space. Chairperson Tschopp stated that doing nothing, or leaving Portola the way it is bothers him. He said that office professional could be a very good buffer and a shield to traffic, noise that occurs on a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of single-story office use and/or Open Space. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would be inclined to change the land use only to Open Space. After analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of three (3) possible land uses, the Planning Commission determined, on a 4-1 vote Finerty opposed, that office professional development pursuant to our single-story residentially scaled ordinance Staff Report GPA 05-01 Page 3 October 27, 2005 and open space are the most compatible long-term uses with Portola Avenue and the adjacent residential neighborhood. Office Professional development can reduce curb cuts with shared driveways and the City can require dedication of the necessary right-of-way and installation of the street improvements for the potential widening. Given the nature of these smaller lots, office use would add approximately 319 to 430 more trips per day resulting in a 1.49% increase to the current traffic levels on Portola. Impacts to the interior residential streets would be negligible. To implement Office Professional as a long- term solution, these properties could be dual designated for office use and low density single-family to allow the people to live on Portola with legal conforming homes and also provide them with the option to sell their property as compatible office use. Open Space would eliminate all driveways on Portola between Fred Waring and De Anza Way. The City can widen the street and construct a passive park similar to Baja Park on Fred Waring Drive. To implement Open Space, the City would have to develop a policy and program to purchase these properties. The Redevelopment Agency currently owns two (2) parcels on Portola. The remaining 11 lots would cost approximately $3,300,000. The total cost of acquisition, demolition, design, and construction would be approximately $4 to $6 million with an annual maintenance cost of $50,000. In addition, the City would also bear all the costs associated with the street improvements for the widening. Development of a passive park can be compatible with both the street and the adjacent neighbors, but at significant expense. For example, the development cost of the area as a passive park would equal the cost of four (4) or five (5) neighborhood parks. BACKGROUND: Portola Avenue, between Highway 111 and Santa Rosa Way has been zoned R-1 since the City incorporated, which allows a density of less than 4 dwelling units per acre. These properties have been designated Medium Density 4-10 units per acre in the General Plan since 1980. A change of zone to bring the area into conformance with the General Plan has never been initiated. During the preparation, review and approval of the General Plan, there was considerable debate concerning traffic circulation requirements and appropriate land uses along Portola Avenue between Highway 111 and Rutledge. Increased traffic was impacting the singe-family properties. The City engineer anticipated future road widening to address projected traffic levels and improve safety on the street. The City Council and Planning Commission determined that an alternative land use was needed which would be consistent with the increased traffic volume, provide for future road widening and improvements, and be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. To address these issues, Office Professional (C-OP) and Open Space (OS) were added to the Medium Density designation on the west side of Portola between De Anza Way and Fred Waring Drive. To ensure that office 3 Staff Report GPA 05-01 Page 4 October 27, 2005 buildings were compatible with Portola and the single-family neighborhood, language was added in the General Plan requiring residentially scaled office buildings. Program 10.B of the Community Design Element states: "The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP designation to assure that appropriate, more restrictive architectural standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and other development standards are applied to office development along non- arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential areas." (Community Design Element, pg III-154, attached). After the general plan was approved, the McFadden project proposed a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional (C/Z 04-02) and a precise plan (PP 04-22) to construct a two-story office complex on the west side of Portola, north of Catalina Way. On September 23, 2004, the project was denied by the City Council because it was not residentially scaled. At that same meeting a Zoning Ordinance amendment (ZOA 04-01) was approved requiring office buildings to meet all the standards of a one-story single-family home implementing Program 10.B. In October 2004, the Ford project proposed a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional (C/Z 04-05) and a precise plan of design (PP 04-31) for a one-story residentially scaled office building that met all the standards of a single-family home. On January 13, 2005, the project was denied based on the neighborhood opposition. The neighbors expressed concerns that office use would increase traffic on Portola and would not be compatible with the residential neighborhood. Many were opposed to any land uses other than single-story residential or open space. It was believed that the Ford project was as close to residential as the City would ever get with an office building. The City Council directed staff to initiate a general plan amendment removing Office Professional (C-OP) from Portola. II. DISCUSSION: In 1996, the traffic volume on Portola Avenue averaged 13,134 trips per day. Today, it averages 26,474 trips per day exceeding the General Plan 2020 projection of 24,275 trips per day. Traffic levels will continue to increase as the north area of the City develops. If it is believed that small office buildings will adversely impact adjacent single-family residential properties, then exposure to a four-lane road with 26,474 trips per day is even more detrimental to the single-family residential properties directly on Portola. A land use(s) designation is needed to address the long-term issues of both property owners on Portola, adjacent residential properties, and the City's future right of way needs. The ultimate land use solution needs to be a compromise that provides for land uses that are compatible with a high traffic road on one side of the property and a low intensity residential use on the other. Staff Report GPA 05-01 Page 5 October 27, 2005 In 1985, the City adopted the Palma Village Specific Plan, which successfully addressed this issue on Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. The single-family neighborhood extended to the street, traffic and noise were increasing, driveways were unsafe, properties were deteriorating, and the roads needed to widen. Conversion to office professional was used as the land use solution. Over the past 20 years, office projects have been developed which have enhanced the appearance of the street, protected the values of the adjacent homes and provided the necessary right-of-way for Fred Waring and Monterey widening. The Specific Plan Policy Criteria (pagel) states that land use regulations shall encourage development which: o Are compatible with existing and future land uses. o Address the needs of the Palm Desert community. o Are economically feasible in the foreseeable future. The same factors that impacted residential uses on Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive are impacting homes on Portola. The high traffic volume has resulted in unsafe driveways, increased noise, and the need for potential road widening. Unsafe driveways: Between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza way there are three (3) residential properties that have driveways that require vehicles to back out onto the street. There is no curbside parking to provide a space for vehicles to back out safely. Two (2) properties have modified their driveways to provide a turn around area in the rear yard. Three (3) other properties have removed front yard landscaping and replaced it with concrete or gravel to use the front yard as a parking lot and turnaround. These modifications have been done to allow vehicles to drive out safely. Increased road noise: As traffic has increased so has the road noise. Two (2) properties have front yard block walls to mitigate the noise. Road noise is a negative impact that reduces the quality of life. Potential road widening: Portola Avenue is an arterial street from Interstate 10 to the Whitewater Storm Channel where it transitions into a major thoroughfare. A street section for a major thoroughfare requires 118' of right-of-way, which allows for each side of the street to have a meandering sidewalk, parking or bike lane, and two (2) vehicle lanes with a center median. Currently, the right-of-way between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way varies between 61' and 81', which is 57' to 37' less than the City's street design requires. -5- Staff Report GPA 05-01 Page 6 October 27, 2005 The current four (4) lanes are narrow, the sidewalk is adjacent to vehicles traveling 35-40 miles per hours, and there is no bike lanes or center median. The Department of Public Works has designed a potential widening plan that includes a four-lane road with a double left on Portola to Fred Waring Drive, a center median, bike lanes and a 12-foot parkway on both sides of the street (see Exhibit A). The design will improve Portola as a major link for the schools providing for bike lanes and moving the sidewalk off the curb to improve pedestrian safety. To implement this potential design the new right-of-way will vary between 88' and 99'. The two (2) office projects proposed on Portola Avenue were conditioned to dedicate between 6' and 14' of land for the right-of-way for future widening. Both projects had conditions that g Y g included cash payments for the cost of the street widening and future median. Land Use Solution: With traffic levels increasing and associated impacts, three (3) land use solutions were studied for compatibility with Portola Avenue and the surrounding residential neighborhood: A. Low and Medium Density Residential B. Office Professional C. Open Space A. Residential: Historically, single-family homes fronting on major thoroughfares have deteriorated throughout the City. As traffic volume increased, noise, safety issues, potential road widening and reduced the quality of life have led to lower levels of maintenance and deterioration. If the Portola properties remain residential, design incentives need to be adopted, which allow property owners to mitigate and balance the negative impacts associated with living on a major thoroughfare (safety & noise). The design standard needs to provide for safer vehicular movement. Vehicular movement can be improved by requiring shared driveways with side entry garages and/or rear loaded garages with access from Catalina Way and De Anza Way. Requiring shared driveways and/or rear-loaded garages will reduce or eliminate driveway access on Portola. Implementing design incentives for low-density single-family development requires a General Plan amendment to Low Density 0-4 units per acre and a zoning ordinance amendment that provides design standards for shared and/or rear loaded garages. To achieve the current 4-10 units per acre General Plan density on these lots with adequate yards and safe circulation two story standards would be needed. Currently the zoning ordinance prohibits two-story adjacent to single- Staff Report GPA 05-01 Page 7 October 27, 2005 story residential. Implementing medium density would require a change of zone from R-1 to R-2 and design standards for shared driveways, rear loaded garages and two-story development. Based on the impacts on these properties and the unique long-term design solutions required to mitigate them, medium density residential development is not the most compatible use for high traffic corridors adjacent to low- density single-family homes and is therefore not recommended. B. Office Professional: Unlike residential uses, which are negatively impacted by their proximity to a major thoroughfare, office professional uses benefit from exposure to a busy street. Therefore they do not require the same level of mitigation as residential needs to maintain value. Our experience on Monterey and Fred Waring has demonstrated that office use is compatible with low-density residential development. Pursuant to our zoning ordinance, they can be economically designed to residential standards as was shown by the Ford application. Offices can reduce curb cuts with shared driveways (see Exhibit D). In addition, the City can require dedication of the necessary right-of-way and installation of the street improvements for the potential widening. Office professional buildings can make economic use of small parcels. Implementing office professional requires a change of zone from R-1 to O.P. The adjacent neighbors expressed concerns that office use would increase traffic on Portola Avenue. According to the Trip Generation Manuel, a single- family home averages 9.57 trips per day and a general office building averages 11.1 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of office space. There are 13 lots between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. As single-family the average trips per day are 125. If all 13 lots were developed with offices, the projected 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of office space would generate 444 to 555 trips per day. Compared to single-family homes, office use would add 319 to 430 trips per day resulting in a 1.49% increase to the current traffic volume of 24,474. Impacts to the interior residential streets would be negligible. It is unreasonable to expect major street fronting properties to bear all the brunt of adjacent traffic, while being denied the benefits of a compatible use. Ironically, the economics of office development allows it to be more compatible with low-intensity residential since it can be designed to single- story residential standards. Staff Report GPA 05-01 Page 8 October 27, 2005 C. Open Space: The last land use designation considered is open space. If these properties are designated open space, the City could widen Portola and construct a passive park similar to Baja Park on Fred Waring Drive. Baja Park serves as walkingarea to the Civic Center, includinglandscaping, berms, benches, a drinking fountains, public art, and a meandering sidewalk. If a similar park were developed on Portola, costs including acquisition, relocation, demolition, design, construction, would be between $4 and $7 million with annual maintenance of $50,000. Open space is compatible with Portola and the residential neighborhood. However, there are several disadvantages. Landscaping and sound walls do not provide as effective noise buffer as buildings. In addition, the City would bear all costs associated with the street widening, park development and maintenance. III. CONCLUSION: After analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of three (3) possible land use options, office professional development pursuant to our ordinance is the most compatible use with Portola Avenue and the adjacent residential neighborhood. Development of a passive park can be compatible with both, but at significant expense. There may be higher priorities for the use of our limited park development and maintenance funds. For example, the development cost of the area as a passive park would equal the cost of four (4) or five (5) neighborhood parks. Regardless of the decision, the City needs to act affirmatively to implement the solution so that property owners have some certainty as to the City's future plans. We don't want to repeat the experience associated with the widening of Fred Waring Drive, which was delayed for 10 years with significant hardships for property owners and increased City expense. If the decision is to preserve the existing low-density residential development, the General Plan Land Use designation needs to be changed from medium to low density. If the decision is to allow office professional pursuant to our single-story residential scale ordinance, then these properties should be dual designated in the General Plan as Office Professional (C-OP)/Low Density (R-L) 0-4 units per acre and a change of zone from R-1 to Mixed O.P./R-1 is needed, which allows these lots to remain single-family and also provide them with the option to sell their property as compatible office use. Staff Report GPA 05-01 Page 9 October 27, 2005 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project area was previously assessed and evaluated as part of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report that was adopted. No further environmental review is necessary at this time. Submitted By: Department Head: Tony Bagato Drell Assistant Planner Director of Community Development CITY COUNCIL IL ACTION: Approval: APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETIN DATE /I- /0' NOES: Orriej C for Dev o nt Services AYES: Note- s ABSENT: MU-- ABSTAIN: A/ -e VERIFIED BY: IC ilfl City Manag Original on File h City Clerk's Office * By Minute Motion, denied the subject case and referred the matter back to staff for preparation of an appropriate resolution that will designate the subject property as residential, low-density (R-L) . 5-0 I RESOLUTION NO. 05-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATING 13 LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF PORTOLA AVENUE, SOUTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE, AS DELINEATED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (C-OP)/RESIDENTIAL LOW (R-L) 0-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND REMOVING MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-M) 4-10 UNITS PER ACRE AS A PERMITTED USE. CASE NO. GPA 05-01: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10 to day of November, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for the above mentioned; and 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.05-52," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and was previously accessed in the General Plan EIR approved March 15, 2004; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the General Plan Amendment: 1. That Office Professional (C-OP) pursuant to our General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements for single-story residentially scaled office buildings on Portola Avenue is the most compatible long-term land use on Portola Avenue and the low-density residential neighborhood to the west. 2. That these properties should also remain single-family so that the existing homes remain legal conforming and also provides property owners with the option to sell their property as compatible office use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That General Plan Amendment 05-01 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) is hereby approved. I RESOLUTION NO. 05-1.... PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 10th day of November, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 K-M �, Jf_ • / J _ ___ RAN H R t-D •,,• c 7 1 r . - R Op R-M Ili _R-M li R-L 4.W LIi R-L �� R M -� el OS/PP OS/PP OS/PP ,,r,,,f/,� I l l l l H \ H1L1I ,.._ 1 SA _ • , , e- QQ o9u-RQoe , _ - iir , ., OD 1 , 6 1-3, ge, gaRYDM _�� R-H - -1 v p SUBJECT ..; y C-OP/R-M PROPERTIES -- _ (A TA re I R-M y0 Z .\\ / Mt R-M;COP/R-M EL CORTE R-M ��--R-M �1 R-M R-M \\` x " = R-M I I\ ,a aY DEAN 111 ZA *Aiw1/0Irame*ii DE A.ZAW' Y D AN W �! ��► Imo, 1. I. * L y R-M R-M R-�� R-M R-M ; R-M = sAwIn�aRI�n 2 ?rl •'� _ I I I 1 Mi. %- Proposed\CPA C-OP/R-H- P:*ice.,/40 Pir-jr--4,471 -/ /71/.r/ ! "? / 7 // ///y ,...Zl -H r`-C'-OP/R-H .% �-OP/R- ��710 \\A D- • DR C-OP/R-H 71 I Ili 64 Office Professional/ Medium Density Residential To - , ,, a a PALM DES; Office Professional/ )ES =�;,;����> Low Density Residential City of Palm Desert Case No. GPA 05-01 CITY COUNCIL °Fye O RESOLUTION NO. 05-103 4-i GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT '©- ,' EXHIBIT A Date: 1 1/10/05 \� IJY OF NU DESE 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 fm_..), \ TEL: 760 346-061 I FAX: 760 341-7098 „....'�r, • ,nfoRpalm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. GPA 05-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the City's General Plan, removing Office Professional (C-OP)from fourteen (14)lots on west side of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. These properties are also know as APNs 627-131-028, 627-131-041, 627-131-042, 627-131-043, 627-135-002, 627-135-003, 627-135-007, 627- 164-012,627-164-006,627-164-007,627-164-008,627-164-009,and 627-164-010. General Plan Land Use Area Ma. //// --FRED W A R IN G DR IN D m a gP I '' 11111 I i zi u14 ay L I., ouvjg v III!FI : ......i . I 4 l Pr impiir law -". - DEANZAWAY' _._."_.�� ir I�►1 / 1 �\ if-* •� . 1%," -- SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 10, 2005, AT 4:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk October 30, 2005 Palm Desert City Council 13 ..:== T CITY OF 11Lffl DESERT � 1p, ,� .;; _ '. 73 5 FRED WAKING DRIVE p• PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 vele ; 4 r •t _ �, TEL: 760 346-061I a,r►z nEy1‘' FAX: 760 341-7098 .''•• info@palm-desert.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: September 21 , 2005 City of Palm Desert Re: GPA 05-01 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of September 20, 2005: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NO. GPA 05-01 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2355 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER FINERTY VOTED NO). Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Philipk ./1).12.-Q) Drell, Se retary _ \ Palm Desert Planning Commission /t m cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal c,PRIM ow ccncun ruE, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2355 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECCOMMEDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATING 14 LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF PORTOAL AVENUE, SOUTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE, AS DELINEATED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (C-OP) OR OPEN SPACE (OS-PP), AND REMOVING MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R- M) 4-10 UNITS PER ACRE AS A PERMITTED USE. CASE NO. GPA 05-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 6th day of September, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for the above mentioned; and 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.05-52," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and was previously accessed in the General Plan EIR approved March 15, 2004; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment: 1 . That residential development is not the most compatible land use for the future of Portola Avenue because of the increasing traffic volume, noise, and safety concerns. 2. That Office Professional (C-OP) or Open Space (OS-PP) are the most compatible land uses with Portola Avenue and the low-density residential neighborhood to the west. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That General Plan Amendment 05-01 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) is hereby recommended for approval to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISS,wv. RESOLUTION NO. 2355 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of September, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: • AYES: CAMPBELL, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP NOES: FINERTY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE AVID E.TSCHOPP, Chairpe on ATTEST: 7tAll-t) PHILIP DRELL Secretary Palm Desert PI nning Commission _ s 2 ( \/ 1 r CARMEL 3+z €, _ BUENA_ , C-OP1 , MARIGOLD DR ASTER DI OS/PP 1 OS/PP OS/PP FRED WARING DR FRED WARING C-OP/R-Hc___Ilm, ri._ - GOLETA AVE R-H ' ' ' '- - - : -." r I- t I- '' , 1 -- - - , SANTA ROSA WAY d 2 IN S?EQ0 a7z,),QQoccie _-_,/\ R-H 42 t SANTA ROSA CIR i - OLIVE CT 3 li, Nrib iNrI 116i.l r SUBJECT <14 _, - " t 3 , 1-= C-OP/OS=PP PROPERTIES ---n— R-M ' mo eiL __z ALII� - o T Y } , t �■i EIR 1. _____ _ 4 N --- , J -4/ - ls R-M• _ JP; - R-M ``4 ,___Z EL CORTEZ i...1 AY EL CORT J 4.:_,__, - " ti), _ '`‘, r ii, — •.' ' "A .(......7?: • L�—.'i l t .� < R . � .-... �1�, a - , R M [ ._. DE ANZA WAY . ' . .:1111t : - 45 ; A,411/ '�,�;\ i 1 , • at,A\mow ` : 3 r. ►e , sftivr a aAN R-M 9 R M �q , �, ll , { y9M . R ' ; �O ,. f ' t O, : .. M - R-M � R-MO R M—, SAN MARINOWAY - ____,-----jr----- 1 • . Slit. � ► I t o _ tI `- ' K I ,S 'R-M _ R-M -t6`- � - : • R-H H a. ..C-OP/R-HTC-OP/R*M� `�„` C-OP/R-H C-OP/R-H C-OP/R-H C-OP/R-I- C-OP/R-H ALESSANDRO DR ALESSANDRO[ GX0 Se OS OS PALM DESERT DR N PA STATE HWY 111 STATE HWY 111 lir PALM DESERT DR S Ailtm :eet � PALM DESERT DR Sa. p INOmme c ee ALLEY 40� eelimmomowns W C-C _�O City of Palm Desert GENERAL PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION . LAND USE MAP RESOLUTION NO. 2355 EXHIBIT A Date: 9/20/2005 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought the project would fit perfectly into what was to be developed into that area and didn't have a problem with Condition No. 18. He thought there needed to be some type of monitoring of traffic at that intersection in the future, but would leave it up to Public Works. Chairperson Tschopp was verymuch in favor of the he project, but p 1 shared Commissioner Lopez's concerns on the number of cars coming out from the development needing to go out onto Spyder Circle to make a U-turn which seemed to be very ineffectual as far as that whole drive and how it would develop in the future, but he was in favor of the project. He was trusting Public Works to do their job on maintaining the free flow of traffic on the street. He noted that a motion was made and seconded and called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2350, approving Case No. PP 05-13, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0-0- 1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained.) COMMISSIONER JONATHAN REJOINED THE MEETING. Mr. Summers came forward and said he just wanted to thank staff. He said they were very helpful in getting this done for them. sim..� D. Case No. GPA 05-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the City's General Plan Land Use Element to remove Office Professional (C-OP) from 14 lots on the west side of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. Mr. Bagato read the staff report. He noted that letters were received from Ming Lowe, Donald Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Gustavo Diaz, Doug and Anne Walker, Ramona and Gary Fletcher, Nina and Rodney McDonald, Marge and George Ezmerlian, Cecile and Art Felix, and Kammie Tavares. He said that most of the letters addressed concerns that had been raised in the past. A few of the neighbors were actually okay with Office Professional, but were 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 opposed to any commercial development, and expressed concerns with impacts into the adjacent streets. Commissioner Jonathan congratulated Mr. Bagato on a thorough and comprehensive report. He said it was actually quite good. He did have a couple of questions. The ultimate staff recommendation was to recommend to City Council for them to reaffirm the current Office Professional/Medium Density land use designation and initiate a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional / R-2. He aske d if Mr. Bagato could provide clarification. If the land use designation included a medium density residential component, he asked why the zoning would be an R-2 designation for residential. Mr. Bagato explained that the R-1 wouldn't permit the density that Medium Density would allow. Commissioner Jonathan concluded that the R-2 would allow the Medium Density 4-10 units per acre. Mr. Bagato concurred. Regarding the O.P. designation that staff was recommending for Portola, Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was similar to the Palma Village Plan which was cited in the staff report in that it would allow the adjacent lots to be used for parking in conjunction with office professional. Mr. Bagato said no. On Fred Waring and on Monterey, Commissioner Jonathan noted that has proven to be very effective in terms of a buffer. That includes a building, parking, a six-foot wall, and then 20 feet of landscaping, and then residential. It was kind of a natural buffer that declines in intensity. He asked if that was considered as part of the staff recommendation. Mr. Bagato said that in this area they were only looking at smaller scale office buildings when the discussion took place. They were really just trying to address the properties on Portola and that was not looked at. Commissioner Lopez noted that one of the considerations was open space and asked for a little more information as to what that would look like. He asked if it would be similar to Fred Waring as far as setbacks to the wall, the height of the wall, etc. Mr. Bagato explained that the lots on Fred Waring varied from 35 to 45 feet after the street was widened, so the lots were pretty narrow and limited the amount of development that could be done there in the future. On these lots after the widening there would be somewhere between 70 to 140 feet left, which provided significant land for development. So the walls would be much further back from the street and there would be more landscaping. However, given the location next to a major thoroughfare, 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 staff didn't believe that this kind of park would be compatible for recreational use such as basketball facilities. It wasn't large enough for that. They also didn't want to have children necessarily playing these kinds of activities next to Portola. So it would be similar to Baja Park, but twice the size, and the wall would probably be eight feet, which was typical for sound walls. He didn't know if they could go higher. But the wall would be farther back from the street and the landscaping increased. There were no potential design ideas yet. Depending on what happened here, there could be in the future. Chairperson Tschopp asked if it was Public Works' opinion that the widening of the street would have to be done at some point in time given the volume of traffic increasing. Mr. Bagato said their opinion is they would like to do it right now if they could, whether the road width increased or not. That was what the engineers told him. Chairperson Tschopp asked about the timing for something like this. Mr. Bagato said it wasn't within the five-year time frame, but this conceptual plan was kind of what they were going with to hopefully schedule it down the road, but he didn't know the timing of the widening. He just knew it was not within the five-year planning phase, but realistically, if they had the means and the ability to do it, they would love to do it now. Chairperson Tschopp indicated that some of the drawings Mr. Bagato gave them showed what the road would look like after widening, and it pretty much eliminated some of the homes and it took out a decent portion of everyone elses lots, and so forth. He asked if Mr. Bagato could expand on that. If nothing was done, these people were going to be impacted tremendously. He assumed nothing being done was not an option, something had to be done, so how else would they go about it if the street wasn't widened? Mr. Bagato asked for him to repeat his question. Chairperson Tschopp noted that the drawings showed that a significant portion of people's property would be taken. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Chairperson Tschopp said it also showed most of the homes along that stretch being impacted severely. Given that the street, in the opinion of Public Works and staff that it has to be widened at some point in time, he asked what the alternative would be if they left it status quo. Mr. Bagato said that the only alternative if it was never widened was to leave it as it is, but traffic would continue to increase either way, which would impact the properties. Mr. Drell indicated that there were four lanes now and it became a priority issue. In reality the greater problem was north of Fred Waring. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Basically it is an arterial up until Fred Waring, so the goal would be six lanes up to that point. Since they didn't think they would ever get more than four lanes south, there had to be ways to get people right and left. So in that diagram, the bigger problem is the free right they put in because all it takes is two cars stopped at the signal and it didn't work. So in terms of the higher priority, it was getting that southbound right to work to improve the efficiency of that intersection. Mr. Drell thought the issue south of Fred Waring was that although it's substandard and isn't ideal, they could probably live with it. Again, he thought what happened on Fred Waring was a good example. They had discussions like this in the early 1990's for Fred Waring trying to think how to solve that problem. And then they put it off for ten years and they eventually had to bite the bullet and did what they had to do. Kind of what was inherent in the general plan process was not to look two years or five years down the road, but to look to the end game and say okay, if they were going to encourage people to invest in this part of the city, they needed to tell them what the long-term goal is. Again, he thought it was a mistake what happened to those people on Fred Waring over those ten years. They were left in limbo not knowing. There was this thing hanging over their heads, not knowing when it would fall. So that was the purpose of the general plan, to come up with a land use and it wouldn't matter if it fell or not. If the land use was compatible with what they project today and 20 years from now, then let the market decide when the change should occur, which is like what they did on Fred Waring west of San Pablo. They said let the market decide when the residential should change to office, but unless they allow for office, the market couldn't operate. Back to the traffic issue, they could probably limp along with what they have their right now. In ten years they might think differently. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing. He noted that he had Request to Speak cards, some of which he believed were to speak toward an earlier issue. He said he would go through the cards first and if he missed anyone, he would ask for anyone else who wished to speak to step forward. He asked for anyone who wished to speak in FAVOR to step forward. Mr. Drell said there was such a range of options that anyone could probably talk. Chairperson Tschopp noted that there were blue cards that were very much in opposition. Mr. Drell said opposition to what. The item on the agenda is the elimination of the O.P. designation. They were not recommending it, but that was the item on the agenda. So favoring the elimination of the O.P. on 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 the agenda, they were speaking in favor of the agenda item. Just because staff had a disagreement, that didn't change what the agenda item is. Chairperson Tschopp thanked him for clarifying that. He said what they would do is read the blue cards and start with those people first and then everyone else would be invited to speak. Beginning with the first name, he invited Mr. Angle to speak. MR. THOMAS ANGLE, 44-454 San Jose Street, addressed the Commission. He said that the back of his property faces the back of the property that is on Portola. His back bedroom is 12 feet from the fence. He has a swimming pool that extends there which is on that property. He has a bathroom which is next to the master bedroom which has a window facing that property. If they were to allow buildings, commercial buildings, 18 feet tall that would be on the street looking toward his house, the back of his house and all that property would be open to view by anybody that would be in those buildings. Also, the traffic coming in in the morning or traffic going out in the evening would be like him living next to a parking lot. It would go on and on and on. When he bought that property in 1977, the house was already built. He understood it was started in 1946 and finished in 1950. He had no conception or wasn't given any hint that there would be high-rise office buildings overlooking his property. If they allow that, according to the experts he talked to and he has a half-acre piece, the value of his property would be lessened by between $300,000 and $400,000. That was something to consider. So what he was asking of them was to not allow office buildings that would be looking back into his property. Keep them single story just like his house. Any taller and he's living next to a parking lot. He thanked them. MS. MING C. LOWE stated that she owns the corner of Portola and Catalina at 73-985 Catalina Way. She said they just did all of this with City Council and didn't quite understand what they were up to doing it again. She had pictures on a board that she made up for the last time to show their neighborhood. It is a historical neighborhood in Palm Desert, it's a low profile neighborhood and it's flanked by schools at either end. A lot of the traffic was from parents picking up their children from school. She noticed on Fairway, and a little parallel 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 street to Portola, that it was blocked off so that people couldn't go around faster to go up the street and she noticed that Fairway has been slowed way down. So her suggestion would be some way to leave things the way they are but slow it down. The vacant property that the City owns, she didn't see why it would cost millions of dollars to put in a couple of desert rocks and a plants le of I p ants and make a nice little path for people to kind of sit and take it easy and still have a neighborhood feeling and a feeling of Palm Desert when they are driving up and down the street. She showed the colored map that was attached to her first letter. She didn't know if they were given copies. Chairperson Tschopp confirmed that they received her letter with the attachment. Ms. Lowe said at that time the issue was McFadden's building. But this was the same issue. It is all residential. She didn't understand the point of putting in offices in the middle of a neighborhood. The other thing is how many cars come in and out. The count didn't matter. There were children walking up and down the street and people walking up and down the street. She asked if they had a cross walk person standing at each driveway for each of these office professionals for children and the few cars that were coming in and out. She said she thought there was a requirement for an eight-car parking lot or a certain amount of parking for each office professional. So they weren't just talking about buildings, but parking lots. That wasn't a neighborhood thing and at night these things are unattended and she didn't think parking lots had a very good reputation for what goes on in them. But her thought was to keep in mind that there are schools on either end of Portola. The City has really helped certain neighborhoods by slowing them down and putting signs up like Fairway, no through traffic, and she didn't know why they would start in the middle of a neighborhood with office buildings here. It didn't make sense. Also, with the plan of street widening, her property is on a corner, so she would lose her front yard and her back yard and what's left? And if they take away all the neighborhoods, what would they have? Some kind of strip malls or something like that? She was really really against 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 it and didn't know what the point was. She asked if it was revenue for the two vacant lots that the City owns. Would the City like office professional so they could build some office buildings and get some revenue from those two vacant lots they own? She didn't understand their motivation for starting in the middle of a neighborhood. She noted the City's lots were sort of in the middle between De Anza and Fred Waring, right in the middle. They weren't talking about doing this down here where they said would connect to the freeway. She counted houses and stopped counting, but from Fred Waring down there are houses and people living there. Another thing was that houses were being built. Recently. McFadden's property was just bought and the people were very happy and they were moving their daughter into this house. They didn't have a problem buying it and were calling it their hacienda and were looking forward to a nice future there. Another house was being built just a little further up. So that was her opinion. MR. DOUG WALKER addressed the Commission. He said he and his wife own property at 44-326 San Jose Avenue. He really thought he was coming here this evening to commend the Planning Commission members and the City Council for following up on some previous decisions, both at the Commission level and at the City Council meeting, one of them back in February with a recommendation to go back to R-1. Hopefully he would still be able to feel that way at the end of this session this evening. He said he and his wife wrote a letter and the Commission would probably be able to see that they wrote it before they saw the agenda. What they saw was a legal notice of the meeting indicating there would be a public hearing to consider the amendment to the plan to remove office professional from the lots and they assumed return of those to the R-1 designation. So the letter they wrote was based on the legal notice they received and there was no indication in that notice that there had been staff recommendations developed that somehow ran totally counter to this proposal. He was more then a bit concerned and disappointed that staff didn't somewhere along the line try to notify and involve some of the concerned citizens that live in the area who have been to previous meetings and who he thought had in a very professional fashion responded to the proposals and 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 provided input to both Planning Commission and City Council. But he looked at the agenda and said wow, what a change from what they thought was being recommended. In the past, as he thought had already been mentioned, Planning Commission and the City Council both voted unanimously against Mr. McFadden's requests and proposal for office professional building to be sited on Portola and Catalina. And then there was another proposal from the Fords that was rejected by the City Council. He didn't recall what the vote and recommendation was at the Planning Commission. But during meetings at both the Planning Commission and City Council, he thought people heard a number of comments and concerns that were expressed by residents of the Palma Village area about reasons and rationale for maintaining the R-1 designation in that location. They included a number of issues, and he didn't want to go back through all of those, but certainly there was concern about high density. Maybe he wasn't well informed in terms of engineering and traffic flow, but it seemed to him that if there was already a traffic problem, and there would be a growing traffic problem on Portola, how would that help if they added office professional or medium density residences which would cause increased need for ingress and egress of vehicles rather than going the other direction and reducing the problem? They mentioned a number of traffic issues, including child safety in terms of getting out of the Palma Village area and moving down Portola. It would seem that the increase in traffic and driveways would increase some risks and problems there. There were discussions of building height and he thought this group, thank you, agreed that two- story buildings, at least at prior meetings, was something that was really not fitting with the current residential nature of that neighborhood. And then, as had already been explained very nicely, there were privacy issues for folks that have property immediately behind the homes on Portola and there were other issues. As he recalled looking back at a copy of the agenda from February 10, at that time the City Council voted to direct the staff to initiate a general plan amendment that would remove the office professional land use on Portola as indicated on the legal notice and on the 19 C MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 agenda. That was approved, he believed 4-1, and he was hoping they could truly trust what has happened at previous meetings to be continued by both the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council. The suggestion that had already been made, and he didn't know what the overall cost factor would be, but where there is open space, this was certainly not the first time this idea had come up to use in that area. If there needed to be a widening of Portola, use that space or the open space that exists for some type of park area that people can use for walking and access and be away from the immediate curb by the street. If Portola was widened, where would there be room for office professional or two-story buildings without having them immediately in their back yards? That was already an issue and it would be an increased issue if the staffs recommendations were followed. He couldn't do anything other than just to strongly urge this Commission to proceed in line with their previous actions and the previous City Council actions and approve the recommendation to make the area along Portola, Fred Waring to De Anza, officially R-1. He said he appreciated their consideration. MRS.ANNE WALKER, 74-539 Monte Verde th ey've de Way, said they ve owned the property on San Jose since being built in 1975. They were the original owners. It's right in back of the corner of Portola and Catalina. She couldn't believe they were here. She said it seemed like they have been fighting this battle and fighting this battle and once they thought they had resolution, here it came again. She disagreed with Mr. Bagato about the property values decreasing. If they did comps with the real estate agent, they would find that they have continued to increase. Mr. McFadden, when they denied his O.P. zoning, wanted to build his two-story building behind them at the corner of Catalina and Portola. He was able to sell that property as an R-1 and if they would drive by that property, those people are putting a lot of money into it and it was really looking good. It was painted, there were bushes, they started a wall, and they have a fancy mail box. Those properties aren't going down hill, they are going up hill. He sold his property that he had for less than a year and made a big profit. He 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 made a profit selling it as R-1 on Portola. So some of those assumptions are incorrect. She was worried about the two-story aspect that Mr. Angle also mentioned because her daughter and son-in-law live in that home. They just spent $50,000 redoing that home they own on San Jose and they didn't want people looking in the backyard. That would ruin the whole single family dwelling atmosphere. So she was really against two-story, whatever use it was. She said she would like some certainty. The Planning Commission denied Mr. McFadden his O.P. zoning. It went to the City Council and they unanimously denied that zoning and that building. The same thing happened with the Fords. Their property on Portola, even though the City Council said it was a beautiful property, said it couldn't be a better fit for a single family look, but they denied unanimously changing the zoning from R-1 to O.P. If she could read from the minutes from the February 10 City Council meeting, the City Council voted 4-1 to "initiate proceedings for a general plan amendment removing the Office Professional land use on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza Way." They asked the Planning Commission to remove that. That is what the City Council asked of them and they would only hope that the Planning Commission would follow their lead. They would really appreciate it. She thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding this matter. MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. She said they have been working on this since 1999 opposing any change of zoning in that area. She has lived in that house since 1960. She raised her son there, had her mother with her, etc., as many residents did. And some of their kids now own the property and are raising their children. This has always been family oriented and they wanted to keep it that way. She thanked them. MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court in Palm Desert, said that they came tonight to thank them very much for hearing them one more time and bringing this back to R-1, as it has been since the very 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 beginning. She listened to the report tonight, as the Commission did. She hoped they had her letter and read it because she was fortunate enough to have had the staff report in her hands and addressed it. She was surprised to find that Mr. Bagato had drawn up some plans of homes. She didn't recognize that as being what they were talking about here. This is an established neighborhood. People have homes they have put money into, they are proud of it and there is no blight, except there are a couple of empty lots that the City owns and there was a home right next to that that has been allowed to deteriorate because they wanted to build an office professional. This overlay they are talking about is just that. It is an overlay. During the time they went through all those hearings for the general plan, different things, different people brought it up. Office Professional was one, R-1 was one, Open Space was another. Now they have all this there and they are fighting over essentially two empty lots and one place next to it. The rest of these places are owned, they are established, and people live there. They are not wanting anyone to take all these homes, demolish them, and put up anything else. These are homes and pride is taken in them. Ms. Fletcher said they thoroughly approve removing any office professional overlay from this and she hoped that all of them would agree and support what they have worked for all this time. She asked if there were any questions from her letter. Many of her neighbors also signed it. Some couldn't be here because of vacation and they were all out having a good time. As soon as they got out of the meeting tonight, she hoped to be doing the same thing. So if they had any questions, she was present to answer them. If not, she asked them to please support the removal of the overlay. She thanked them. MR. JOHN ARIANO, 44-565 San Jose Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said he received an incredible amount of information this evening. First and foremost he was disappointed that he has been completely out of the loop. He hasn't received any mailings for any of this. He was informed by a neighbor and he called City Hall and requested that he get a mailing of tonight's hearing. So there was a lot of information to digest this evening. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 However, he had a couple of opinions. He wasn't completely opposed to office professional buildings. He has seen the work that has been done on Fred Waring. The architecture was beautiful and the landscaping was beautiful. He wasn't in favor of two-story buildings. Single story he would be. When they look at some of the homes between Fred Waring and De Anza on Portola, they are in need of repair and landscaping. One thing he did learn by calling the office was that the empty lots that are owned are planned for apartment complexes, single-story apartment complexes. Whether or not that was true he had no idea. If those empty lots are going to be providing single family housing units, a single family home, that was great, but if they were going to be zoned for apartment buildings that would create more noise and more traffic then a single-story office professional building. So maybe he and everyone else in this room needed more specifics as to what the plans are for those empty lots that currently exist and the design. He thanked them. MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71-774 Chuckawalla in Palm Desert, stated that he owns the property at 44-401 Portola. He was here in a state of shock. He, like other people who made comments and he supported everything the others had said, he viewed this as almost an attempt to get a sell out of the owners. Things have been said about letting the market dictate what to do, which meant building bigger streets and it was said tonight that if Public Works had its way, they would build six lanes today. That has been evident for a long time. They could go back and read the letter he filed about six lanes on Portola and he has stated in writing that Public Works needs to reject and kill any four lanes. He didn't hear any planning. All he heard was more: more lanes, more multi-family, more this and more everything. That wasn't planning. This was simply running wild. In the very beginning when the office professional came up, particularly in the case of Fords, he didn't take a position either way. That property is contiguous to his property. It looked like it was going to be a nice idea. The plans looked okay, but of course it was turned down. He was obviously naive. It looked like it was going to be a nice, easy deal where places could be constructed for office and everyone could get along and so forth. But now he came here tonight and found 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 out like other folks that they were looking at two-stories, multi-family and other stuff like that. Absolutely not. He hears this business from staff that people let their property run down. That is false. It has been stated otherwise tonight. Properties have been upgraded. He has upgraded his property. He put thousands of dollars into it. It is under lease and it is well maintained. He did this out of respect for the city and for the residents nearby. Other things that came to mind tonight, he didn't make any notes, but was simply reacting to what has been said by staff and the staff keeps picking at this. This is a residential area and has been a residential area since the beginning of time. It used to be a grapefruit grove and some of those properties, including his, still have the original grapefruit trees from the old ranch. All he could say in frustration is the City wants to keep picking away at this issue. A few houses down there where people are getting along, are trying to do things and make it, and are making improvements. He didn't want to be the target of a sell out of some kind of a deal. He has had a realtor chasing him around for the last year wanting him to sell his property at, quite frankly, a very substantial price. Now he starts to say to himself, what is going on? Are they going to cobble together lots here and put in two-story and have multi-family and let it be done like that? He rejected that. He respects the people down there and asked this Commission to maintain the intent of residential for the 14 lots that were under discussion tonight. He thanked them. MR. ANTHONY PITEL, 44-399 Lingle Lane in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. Referring to the exhibit, he said it is all homes. Continuing all the way down Portola it is all homes. And continuing up Portola just to 111 there are businesses, but farther up Portola there are homes that are gated communities or homes. Everywhere around there are homes except for that little island right there. He asked why they would want to put in businesses right in the middle of a neighborhood. That was ridiculous. Where his property is he wasn't effected by people looking over into his property or anything else, but he lives in that neighborhood. Probably longer than these old folks. He has lived there 34 years. He bought the property from his parents. He has two lots there. So he intended to live there another 34 years or 50 more years. His kids walk down that street, around Catalina, onto his private street (Lingle Lane), and they go into their 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 home. That was a bad place to put offices. There are homes that abut Portola on Santa Rosa and then there are all condos. It is a neighborhood. It wasn't the same as Fred Waring. It wasn't the same as Monterey. Those go through and they are all businesses. All up Portola it is residential. They need to put a park in there. That is the heart of Palm Desert. He has lived there 34 years. Not part time, not leasing his property, 34 straight years he has lived on that street and he would live there many more years. It is a bad decision, so he supported not putting in Office Professional. He thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty told the audience that she gets it and hears what they are saying. She didn't know why they were going through this all over again. They went through it with the General Plan and she listened to them over and over again. She heard loud and clear through the McFadden project and the Ford project that they don't want office professional. They understand, or at least she did, that they want to protect the integrity of their neighborhood and she supported that. She would be inclined to change it only to Open Space if that was what was acceptable. Office Professional should not be and multi-family apartment complexes were also not what it should be. So she would not be in support of what staff recommended. Commissioner Campbell worked with the General Plan also and said they have been through this before. She was not in favor of the multi-story apartments and they really didn't need to tear down all of those homes and put more residential homes there. She was in favor of Office Professional, but not the two-story kind, just like a regular home would be or have it Open Space. Commissioner Jonathan concurred, but he wanted to explain why. He was sitting there really listening to them, and they are good people and are long time residents of the city, and they really struck a chord with him and he empathized with their concerns. If he was living in their neighborhood, he would have the exact same concerns. He wanted to tell them a couple of things. Number one, this kind of use of space along major roads does work. It wasn't the worst thing that was running through their minds. There are places in the city where it works. He 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 thought on Portola in their neighborhood it could work 9 because they weren't talking about tall buildings. They weren't talking about a second story that would look into their back yards. They were talking about structures that would look like homes. There were good examples on Deep Canyon if they would take time to drive and look at those. So it has the possibility of working. The question of why was asked tonight. Why do this? What differentiates these homes on Portola is that they have a driveway that goes onto a very very busy street and yes, he gets it. He understood where they were coming from, but the Commission's responsibility here is to listen to them, understand their needs, but also their job as Planning Commissioners is to look at the bigger picture. Sometimes that puts them in a position where they aren't just catering to the people in front of them, but looking at other needs as well. They may agree or disagree, but he wanted them to hear the answer to the question why. These properties are differentiated because they have a driveway that goes onto a major street. The other residential homes, when they look at all the yellow areas on the map, they are differentiated because they have other access. They don't have to go directly into a driveway off of Portola and then reverse out. That was a dangerous, unacceptable situation just asking for problems. He would love another situation and he commended staff for bringing several alternatives to the table. Because open space, if the City wanted to spend $3 million - $5 million, he was happy with that and it would be great. It is part of what they as the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council in going through the General Plan amendment. They felt that more open space is needed. So if the Council makes that decision, he would be 100% in support of that. Short of that, if the current situation is unacceptable where they have these homes and driveways backing onto Portola, then what other alternatives were they left with? If someone more creative then the people here in this room tonight could come forward and suggest other alternatives, he would certainly keep an open mind. But short of that, the Office Professional could be a reasonable alternative if designed properly. He thought it would not end up being their worst nightmare. The other question as to why they were here is they did go through a General Plan amendment that the Planning Commission recommended to Council to allow this Office Professional use. Council said yes, we agree, and in fact the General Plan included that. What Council did earlier this year was 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 reverse themselves and say no, they now see a project that fits into that zoning, it is office professional residential in scale, but for whatever reason the Council did not like it, so they needed to clean up the General Plan and the zoning and change what they approved previously. That is why they were back here tonight. No one wanted to be back here readdressing an old issue, but the Council changed its mind and wanted Planning Commission to make a recommendation changing the General Plan designation. That's why they were there tonight. In summary, they really struck a chord and he empathized with their concerns, but they were kind of between a rock and a hard place. There is a situation on Portola that is not acceptable. It is dangerous and they couldn't have people reversing out onto a street like that. They were just asking for bad events to take place and he thought that was unacceptable. Short of another alternative, he had to agree with staff. He thought it was well thought out and given all their options, it was a reasonable recommendation with one exception. He could not support two-story residential. He understood that a developer, if it went residential, had to make a return, but he didn't think it made sense from a planning standpoint. Commissioner Lopez said he too has listened and they struck a chord with him also from the standpoint that their concerns were such that they wanted to leave this as an R-1 location. They already know that there's more traffic on that road then that road can take or should be taking. They know there would be continued growth and there would be more traffic on that road. It was inevitable. Having lived in that area for many years, right off Rutledge and his kids go to Lincoln School, he knows the dangers along that road and what it was like during the height of the school season. The chances of things going on on that particular road increased each year with the amount of traffic that goes along there at the speed it currently goes and kids were going in and out of those on those sidewalks from those developments and it is a dangerous situation. The best thing to happen along that location would be to widen that road and move those sidewalks away from that street and create a situation that is much safer than currently exists. But to do that they somehow had to develop that property in one of two areas and that would be to either develop it to an open space park, that's one alternative that has been brought forward tonight. The concern he had about that is open space or parks in general would provide locations for more kids to go in that area if that was the way 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 the park was developed. It could be a walk through park and that would be fine. But that would create more hazards he thought for the youth that go along Portola Avenue. The other part would be to convert it to office professional, single story, looking like residential and this way moving that sidewalk back and allowing some kind of an area to develop and create a much safer environment than what currently exists. But, unfortunately, the group before them tonight would like nothing to happen. They would rather have everything remain the same and he feared that they were going to develop something that they would all regret in years to come. As the traffic continues to grow, a situation could develop there that is not very healthy. He was opposed to any type of two-story development along Portola, whether residential or commercial. Folks who live on San Jose do not want to have people looking down into their backyards. He was in favor of an open space area and if that is one of the alternatives that the City Council takes, he would be in agreement with that. He liked the idea of open space and liked the idea of open parks with proper setbacks. He liked the way that it currently exists with the office professional. As an alternative, open space, and thought it was the best alternative they could come up with right now based on current conditions on Portola. Chairperson Tschopp said this was a very difficult decision. They were hearing different opinions tonight and his would probably fall right there with them. He heard their comments and concurred that he would not like two- story buildings looking down into his backyard, whether office or apartments. However, they have seen where a well-designed office professional built to residential standards and height could be a very good buffer and a shield to traffic, noise and so forth that occurs on a major thoroughfare. The thing that scared him was doing nothing. They weren't taking away any uncertainty of what will have to happen at some time in the future, which is address a major thoroughfare happening on Portola. There is no way to divert that traffic and would be adding to it with the bridge, putting in an interchange and the traffic was already increasing tremendously and would only continue to do so. So at some point in time they would have to look at it again. He thought it was time to do it now. The buffer has worked before and worked very well. It has shielded and actually been a benefit to people on the in-lying streets. Tonight most of the 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 speakers, except for maybe one, were people who live on San Jose behind it and their concern was the buffer. He truly believed there was a way to do that with office professional, single story, andprotectingthem ry from the noise and traffic c better than just leaving ing it the way it is. He, too, had a very big concern about people backing out onto Portola from their houses and that would still be a real r p oblem. So he was in favor of staffs recommenda tion without the second story request. Commissioner Finerty commented that if the Ford project didn't protect everyone and create the right buffer, she didn't think there was any project for O.P. that could. She noted that Mr. Drell mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that at the end of the fiscal year, the City found themselves with $4 million left over and the staff report said that the passive park would be $3 to $5 million, so that would pay for it. And there is an annual maintenance of$50,000 and that would basically be one piece of artwork and they would have the area dealt with. The other thing that didn't make any sense to her was staff purporting concern that there's been so much traffic on Portola and then, on the other hand, they are recommending that they make this two- story multifamily for apartments. She didn't understand what they were trying to say, but she did hear the residents loud and clear and with that, she would make a motion to delete office professional from this area and that would be exactly what the City Council had done back in February. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty to delete Office Professional from this area. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Commissioner Campbell said she e was in favor of Office Professional with single story, or Open Space. No multifamily dwellings or other single family homes. Mr. Drell asked if that would include reducing the residential designation from Medium Density to Low Density, which is the current residential zoning. Commissioner Campbell said there wouldn't be any residential, she was talking about Office Professional or Open Space. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and was prepared to second that motion with the clarification that Office Professional would be residential in scale, one story. Commissioner Campbell concurred. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, by minute motion, to recommend that City Council approve O.P. and/or O.S.; Office Professional to be residential in scale, single story in height. (Residential use to be removed.) Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Mr. Drell stated that staff would prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty indicated that there would be a meeting tomorrow. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty advised that there wasn't a meeting. XI. COMMENTS None. 30 3c.0 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 6, 2005 CASE NO: GPA 05-01 REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan Land Use Element, removing Office Professional (C-OP) from fourteen (14) lots on west side of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 BACKGROUND: Portola Avenue, between Highway 111 and Santa Rosa Way has been zoned R-1 since the City incorporated, which allows a density of 4 dwelling units per acre. These properties have been designated Medium Density 4-10 units per acre in the General Plan since 1980. A change of zone to bring the area into conformance with the General Plan has never been initiated. During the preparation, review and approval of the General Plan, there was considerable debate concerning traffic circulation requirements and appropriate land uses along Portola Avenue, between Highway 111 and Rutledge. Increased traffic was impacting the singe-family properties. The City engineer anticipated future road widening to address projected traffic levels and improve safety on the street. The City Council and Planning Commission determined that an alternative land use was needed which would be consistent with the increased traffic volume, provide for future road widening and improvements, and be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. To address these issues, Office Professional (C-OP) and Open Space (OS) were added to the Medium Density designation on the west side of Portola between De Anza Way and Fred Waring Drive. To ensure that office buildings were compatible with Portola and the single-family neighborhood, language was added in the General Plan requiring residentially scaled office buildings. Program 10.B of the Community Design Element states: "The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP designation to assure that appropriate, more restrictive architectural standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and other development standards are applied to office development along non- arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential areas." (Community Design Element, pg III-154, attached). STAFF REPORT GPA 05-01 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 After the general plan was approved, the McFadden project proposed a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional (C/Z 04-02) and a precise plan (PP 04-22) to construct a two-story office complex on the west side of Portola, north of Catalina Way. On September 23, 2004, the project was denied by the City Council because it was not residentially scaled. At that same meeting a Zoning Ordinance amendment (ZOA 04-01) was approved requiring office buildings to meet all the standards of a one-story single-family home implementing Program 10.B. In October 2004, the Ford project proposed a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional (C/Z 04-05) and a precise plan of design (PP 04-31) for a one-story residentially scaled office building that met all the standards of a single-family home. On January 13, 2005, the project was denied based on the neighborhood opposition. The neighbors expressed concerns that office use would increase traffic on Portola and would not be compatible with the residential neighborhood. Many were opposed to any land uses other than single-story residential or open space. It was believed that the Ford project was as close to residential as the City would ever get with an office building. The City Council directed staff to initiate a general plan amendment removing Office Professional (C-OP) from Portola. II. DISCUSSION: In 1996, the traffic volume on Portola Avenue averaged 13,134 trips per day. Today, it averages 26,474 trips per day exceeding the General Plan 2020 projection of 24,275 trips per day. Traffic levels will continue to increase as the north area of the City develops. If it is believed that small office buildings will adversely impact adjacent single-family residential properties, then exposure to a four-lane road with 26,474 trips per day is even more detrimental to the single-family residential properties directly on Portola. A land use(s) designation is needed to address the long-term issues of both property owners on Portola, adjacent residential properties, and the City's future right of way needs. The ultimate land use solution needs to be a compromise that provides for land uses that are compatible with a high traffic road on one side of the property and a low intensity residential use on the other. In 1985, the City adopted the Palma Village Specific Plan, which successfully addressed this issue on Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. The single-family neighborhood extended to the street, traffic and noise were increasing, driveways were unsafe, properties were deteriorating, and the roads needed to widen. Conversion to office professional was used as the land use solution. Over the past 20 years, office projects have been developed which have enhanced the appearance of the street, protected the values of the adjacent homes and provided the necessary right-of-way for Fred Waring and Monterey widening. The Specific Plan Policy Criteria (pagel) states that land use regulations shall encourage development which: o Are compatible with existing and future land uses. 2 3?� STAFF REPORT GPA 05-01 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 o Address the needs of the Palm Desert community. o Are economically feasible in the foreseeable future. The same factors that impacted residential uses on Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive are impacting homes on Portola. The high traffic volume has resulted in unsafe driveways, increased noise, and the need for potential road widening. Unsafe driveways: Between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza way there are three (3) residential properties that have driveways that require vehicles to back out onto the street. There is no curbside parking to provide a space for vehicles to back out safely. Two (2) properties have modified their driveways to provide a turn around area in the rear yard. Three (3) other properties have removed front yard landscaping and replaced it with concrete or gravel to use the front yard as a parking lot and turnaround. These modifications have been done to allow vehicles to drive out safely. Increased road noise: As traffic has increased so has the road noise. Two (2) properties have front yard block walls to mitigate the noise. Road noise is a negative impact that reduces the quality of life. Potential road widening: Portola Avenue is an arterial street from Interstate 10 to the Whitewater Storm Channel where it transitions into a major thoroughfare. A street section for a major thoroughfare requires 118' of right-of-way, which allows for each side of the street to have a meandering sidewalk, parking or bike lane, and two (2) vehicle lanes with a center median. Currently, the right-of-way between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way varies between 61' and 81', which is 57' to 37' less than the City's street design requires. The current four (4) lanes are narrow, the sidewalk is adjacent to vehicles traveling 35-40 miles per hours, and there is no bike lanes or center median. The Department of Public Works has designed a potential widening plan that includes a four-lane road with a double left on Portola to Fred Waring Drive, a center median, bike lanes and a 12-foot parkway on both sides of the street (see Exhibit A). The design will improve Portola as a major link for the schools providing for bike lanes and moving the sidewalk off the curb to improve pedestrian safety. To implement this potential design the new right-of-way will vary between 88' and 99'. The two (2) office projects proposed on Portola Avenue were conditioned to dedicate between 6' and 14' of land for the right-of-way for future widening. Both projects had conditions that included cash payments for the cost of the street widening and future median. 3 31 STAFF REPORT GPA 05-01 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Lan d Use Solution: With traffic levels increasing and associated impacts, three (3) land use solutions were studied for compatibility with Portola Avenue and the surrounding residential neighborhood: A. Low and Medium Residential B. Office Professional C. Open Space A. Residential: Historically, single-family homes fronting on major thoroughfares have deteriorated throughout the City. As traffic volume increased, noise, safety issues, potential road widening and reduced the quality of life have led to lower levels of maintenance and deterioration. If the Portola properties remain residential, design incentives need to be adopted, which allow property owners to mitigate and balance the negative impacts associated with living on a major thoroughfare (safety & noise), provide for the potential road widening, and improve the quality of life. These design standards must increased front, side, and rear setbacks to provide for vehicular movement, sound walls with landscaping, and potential widening, which still allowing for usable yard space. Vehicular movement can be improved by requiring circular driveways in the front, shared driveways between properties, or rear-loaded garages for corner lots on Catalina Way and De Anza Way (see Exhibit B & C). Shared driveways and rear-loaded garage will reduce the number of driveways on Portola. To improve the quality of life on Portola, design incentives need to provide for a quiet environment, usable indoor and outdoor space to maintain property value. All these potential solutions require more space than is possible with the current single-story requirements. Vehicle maneuvering area eliminates other yard uses. The main design incentive that creates the space necessary to mitigate noise, safety, potential road widening, and balances the quality of life impacts associated with living on a major thoroughfare is two-story residential development. Implementing the incentive for low density single-family development requires a General Plan Amendment to low density and a zoning ordinance amendment, which provides design standards for two-story homes. To achieve medium density residential the General Plan allows, and provide for mitigation measures, two-story is even more necessary. 4 � J STAFF REPORT GPA 05-01 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Implementing the incentive for medium density would require a change of zone from R-1 to R-2 and design standards for two-story development. Unfortunately, two-story development has been perceived to be incompatible with single-story homes and the zoning ordinance prohibits it in this situation. Specific design guidelines would need to be approved to implement two-story residential uses on Portola. Based on the impacts on these properties and the unique long-term design solutions required to mitigate them, residential development is not the most compatible use for high traffic corridors adjacent to low-density single-family homes. B. Office Professional: Unlike residential uses, which are negatively impacted by their proximity to a major thoroughfare, office professional uses benefit from exposure to a busy street. Therefore they do not require the same level of mitigation as residential needs to maintain value. Our experience on Monterey and Fred Waring has demonstrated that office use is compatible with low-density residential development. Pursuant to our zoning ordinance, they can be economically designed to residential standards as was shown by the Ford application. Offices can reduce curb cuts with shared driveways (see Exhibit D). In addition, the City can require dedication of the necessary right-of-way and installation of the street improvements for the potential widening. Office professional buildings can make economic use of small parcels. Implementing office professional requires a change of zone from R-1 to O.P. The adjacent neighbors expressed concerns that office use would increase traffic on Portola Avenue. According to the Trip Generation Manuel, a single- family home averages 9.57 trips per day and a general office building averages 11.1 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of office space. There are 13 lots between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. As single-family the average trips per day are 125. If all 13 lots were developed with offices, the projected 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of office space would generate 444 to 555 trips per day. Compared to single-family homes, office use would add 319 to 430 trips per day resulting in a 1.49% increase to the current traffic volume of 24,474. Impacts to the interior residential streets would be negligible. It is unreasonable to expect major street fronting properties to bear all the brunt of adjacent traffic, while being denied the benefits of a compatible use. Ironically, the economics of office development allows it to be more compatible with low-intensity residential since it can be designed to single- story residential standards. 5 L1 1 STAFF REPORT GPA 05-01 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 C. Open Space: The last land use designation considered is open space. If these properties are designated open space, the City could widen Portola and construct a passive park similar to Baja Park on Fred Waring Drive. Baja Park serves as a walking area to the Civic Center, including landscaping, berms, benches, drinking fountains, public art, and a meandering sidewalk. If a similar park were developed on Portola, costs including acquisition, relocation, demolition, design, construction, would be between $3 and $5 million with annual maintenance of $50,000. Open space is compatible with Portola and the residential neighborhood. However, there are several disadvantages. Landscaping and sound walls do not provide as effective noise buffer as buildings. In addition, the City would bear all costs associated with the street widening, park development and maintenance. III. CONCLUSION: After analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of three (3) possible land use options, office professional development pursuant, to our ordinance is the most compatible use with Portola Avenue and the adjacent residential neighborhood. Depending on development standards, residential uses will either not be compatible with the high intensity use of the major thoroughfare or the low intensity use on the adjacent single-family residential. If the City is going to mandate residential development then two-story development is needed to achieve long-term viability. Development of a passive park can be compatible with both, but at significant expense. There may be higher priorities for the use of our limited park development and maintenance funds. For example, the development cost of the area as a passive park would equal the cost of four (4) or five (5) neighborhood parks. Regardless of the decision, the City needs to act affirmatively to implement the solution so that property owners have some certainty as to the City's future plans. We don't want to repeat the experience associated with the widening of Fred Waring Drive, which was delayed for 10 years with significant hardships for property owners and increased City exp. If the decision is to preserve the existing low-density residential development, the General Plan Land Use designation needs to be changed from medium to low density. If the decision is to encourage medium density development, then a change of zone from R-1 to R-2 is needed. Regardless of the type of residential development, two-story standards will be required to promote redevelopment and achieve long-term viability. If the decision is to allow office professional pursuant to our current codes and two-story multi-family development, then the current Office Professional (C-OP)/Medium Density land use designation remains and a change of zone from R-1 to Mixed O.P/ R-2 use is needed. 6 STAFF REPORT GPA 05-01 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project area was previously assessed and evaluated as part of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report that was adopted. No further environmental review is necessary at this time. V. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council: • Reaffirm the current Office Professional (C-OP)/Medium Density 4-10 units per acre land use designation. • Direct staff to initiate a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional (O.P)/R-2, and • Direct staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to develop alternative standards that will include two-story for multi-family development. VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. City Council minuets dated February 10, 2005 B. Copy of Community Design Element, pg III-154 C. ZOA 04-01 D. Exhibits Prepared by: C Tony aga o Assistant Planner Reviewed and Approved by: Philip rell o er Croy Director of Community Development ACM of Com Development 7 uIJY Of PHL (O OESERI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ..‘� PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 �� TEL: 760 346-0611 I. FAX 760 341-7098 info@palm-deserc.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. GPA 05-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the City's General Plan, removing Office Professional (C-OP) from fourteen (14) lots on west side of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. These properties are also know as APNs 627-131-028, 627-131-041, 627-131-042, 627-131-043, 627-135-002, 627-135-003, 627- 135-007, 627-164-012, 627-164-006, 627-164-007, 627-164-008, 627-164-009, and 627- 164-010. General Plan Land Use Area Ma FRED WARING DR • % >> - '___�___ _ _ El ,..t.. 6§PalPiX17% 1 rIIIIIIIIIIIIP"Vl ill IS al i ®aasi isii b if� wp �' ` r� �r+si4 ill 11111/ f <. ii _ a kt c ,,.,..:; -54 Ir ' Ai, , II ,,a,,,,, L;;; De AMA WAY • ,,,,,, ire,,,t, ,04,i, , iimmonir. ,:ii '., ' inimammimminne SAID public hearing will be held on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, AT 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL,Secretary August 22,2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission i -_4 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2005 Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-4. Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO. B. RESOLUTION NO. 05-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A 1,826 SQUARE FOOT GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 44-447 PORTOLA AVENUE Case Nos. C/Z 04-05 and PP 04-31 (Robert and Marilyn Ford,Applicants)(Continued from the meeting of January 27, 2005). MS. MARILYN FORD, of 48-770 Shady View Drive, Palm Desert, addressed the City Council. She and her husband were the owners of 44-447 Portola Avenue, which they never expected would become such a controversy. She noted that they were 25-year residents/taxpayers of the City, property owners and real estate professionals, and they never would have considered purchase of the subject property as a primary residence without the possibility of rezoning it. She felt it was obvious that the busy traffic and proposed future setbacks on Portola Avenue will continue to make this a busier street and more and more undesirable for residential. They agreed with the City Council's decision last year to make Portola Avenue conform to the surrounding area closer to Highway 111 and the potential office professional designation. Nothing had changed since last year's action on the office professional possibility, and they felt it would be a mistake to revisit the lengthy process in the next agenda item involved in reversing that decision. She said they still hoped to have their own small office space somewhere in the City of Palm Desert, believing they were one of the very, very few people who would want to build a less than 2,000 square foot, residential-in-nature office building, with probably five vehicles total. She said they believe the City made the right decision, and they commended it for looking at the City's future vision and the best use of this very busy highway. Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-14. Motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel, and it carried by a 5-0 vote. C. CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REMOVING THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL LAND USE ON PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND DE ANZA WAY (Continued from the meeting of January 27, 2005). Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment, removing the Office Professional land use on Portola Avenue between 11 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2005 Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. Motion was seconded by Councilman Kelly, and it carried on a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson voting NO. Mayor Crites noted that consideration of the proceedings did not mean that office professional land use on Portola Avenue will be removed; there were a variety of options that might come before the Planning Commission, the City Council, and staff on whether or not to revise the existing land use designation. Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson commented that the City had done its best to provide notice on the General Plan process and policies. At that time, his desire was to try to provide a parachute for those property owners so that they didn't have steadily declining property values. He requested that specific notice be given the owners of record for each of the parcels along Portola between Fred Waring and Alessandro to be sure they would have the opportunity to speak to the issue. He was curious to see what each of them would say. Mayor Crites added that he'd like to extend notice to the residents at least two property owners' back from Portola, who he felt would have comments that would be equally interesting. MR. CHRIS McFADDEN said he wished to speak on this item, disappointed that it had been considered so quickly. He was a Portola property owner and had feelings similar to those of the Ford's. He acquired three parcels immediately along Portola approximately six or eight months prior to the actual recommendation for the zone change overlay. He had hoped to obtain an office professional use through his application, which was turned down. He was currently trying to sell that property, and there were two remaining overlays on it —open space and medium density residential. He said the Planning Department was totally unaware of the open space overlay aspect, and he asked for some clarification, as it had a significant effect on the property values. Mayor Crites responded that the City will be initiating that entire discussion. He urged Mr. McFadden to visit with Planning Manager Steve Smith about the issue over his property's designation and also to participate in the hearing process about continuing the existing zoning or alternatives suggested by the property owners. 12 City of Palm Desert/Adopted3.15.04 Comprehensive General Plan/Community Design Element Program 10.A a The City shall review all commercial, institutional and industrial development to assure accommodation of pedestrian-oriented circulation, safe and convenient ingress and egress, screening of outdoor storage/loading and other unsightly areas, lighting, signage, and the planting of landscaping to provide an effect of permanency in the near-term. Responsible Agency: Planning Department Schedule: Continuous Program 10.B The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP designation to assure that appropriate, more restrictive architectural standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and other development standards are applied to office development along non-arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential areas. , Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council Schedule: 2004-05 Policy 11 Community and neighborhood activity centers shall be established at appropriate locations to create recreational opportunities, encourage social interaction and provide a sense of public space and center for neighborhood activity. Program 11.A The City shall continue to actively pursue joint use agreement with the Desert Sands and Palm Springs Unified School Districts to promote the appropriate public use of school open space, and athletic and other facilities as integral parts of adjoining and nearby neighborhoods. Responsible Agency: Parks and Recreation Department, Planning Department, School Districts, Planning Commission, City Council Schedule: Continuous Program 11.B The City shall review development proposals for opportunities to integrate parks, plazas, squares and other open space areas that allow and facilitate public use and social interaction. Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council Schedule: Continuous Policy 12 The City shall maintain and enforce a Sign Ordinance that minimizes the size, scale and number of signs needed to provide functional identification and exposure to convey messages, while minimizing impacts on traffic safety, streetscape appearance and scenic viewsheds. Program 12.A The City shall review and, as necessary, revise the signage regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance addressing all aspects of sign review, and shall establish finite periods by which existing non-conforming signage shall be retired. Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council Schedule: Continuous , Community Design Element III-154 ORDINANCE NO. 1078 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT AND REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND DE ANZA WAY. CASE NO. ZOA 04-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23rd day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2291 has recommended approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm jDesert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its approval as described below: 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 and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare then the current regulations. OR DINANCE NO. 1o78 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings the City Council in this case. of 2. That ZOA 04-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 14th day of October , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, FERGUSON, KELLY, SPIEGEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: BENSON ABSTAIN: NONE ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, May r ATTEST: RA ELLE D. KLASSEN, Ci y Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1078 EXHIBIT A That Section 25.25.019 be added to read: 25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area. 3 4 PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN Adopted June 13, 1985 Prepared by: Department of Environmental Services Ramon A. Diaz Philip Drell Tonya Monroe Palma Village Specific Plan Advisory Committee City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 51 • LAND USE ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The area defined by the La Palma Village Specific Plan was the first major residential subdivision in the Palm Desert area. When the tract was laid out in 1935 it was designed as a small, low density single family residential village surrounded by desert and date palms. Over the past 50 years the desert and date palms have given way to the College of the Desert, the Palm Desert Town Center? the Civic Center, and the Cultural Center. Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive (formerly Greenleaf Road) have grown from quiet county roads to major regional arterials. While the overall growth and development of Palm Desert has significantly impacted La Palma Village, existing land use patterns and policies have remained essentially unchanged. The task of the Citizen Advisory Committee was to reexamine these existing land use patterns and policies identifying areas where present policies have succeeded in - promoting desirable development, areas where minor adjustments or incentives are required, and areas where external impacts require significant policy revisions. Prior to formulating their recommendations, the committee set up generalized policy criteria for evaluating the appropriatness of existing and proposed land uses in the La Palma Village area. POLICY CRITERIA Land use regulations shall encourage developments which: I. Are compatible with existing and future adjacent uses. IL Address the needs of the Palm Desert community. III. Are economically feasible in the foreseeable future. LAND USE ELEMENT COMPATIBILITY The most critical area of land use policy involves the boundaries between potentially conflicting uses. Some uses are inherently incompatible and therefore can never coexist, while others can be made compatible by design regulations. It is important that any resolution to land use conflicts account for the basic requirements of both uses so that both sides of the use boundary can develop satisfactorily. If the solution favors one use to the detriment of another, the results are often vacant abandoned properties. II. NEEDS Land use policies should not only control use conflicts, but should also encourage specific, desired uses. Senior housing, affordable housing, creation of attractive streetscapes, are examples of specific positive development features which should be encouraged through land use controls. III. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY Regardless of how compatible or desirable a use may be it will never be built if it does not generate a profit. Existing uses which are unprofitable will not be maintained properly. When land use controls attempt to maintain unrealistic uses; vacant, deteriorated, and abandoned properties result which will lower overall neighborhood quality. GENERAL POLICY I CITY'S ROLE The city shall take a proactive role in promoting compatible high quality infill private development and public works consistent with the area policy criteria. -2- `5`f LAND USE ELEMENT In examining La Palma Village, the committee paid special attention to areas with a high percentage of vacant or deteriorated properties. While vacant land is expected in a new subdivision, it is often symtornatic of a land use problem in a 50 year old subdivision. This is especially true when properties remain vacant while surrounding areas experience tremendous growth and economic development. The predominance of vacant lots and poorly maintained properties discourage new investment, rehabilitation, and new construction which leads to further decline. Wherever possible, the adjustment of land use controls and other incentives should be utilized to break this cycle. GENERAL POLICY II COMMERCIAL ZONE DEPTH Multifamily and Commercial zones should be of sufficient depth to allow efficient site planning and the creation of adequate buffer areas adjacent to single family zones. DISCUSSION Narrow strips of commercial and multifamily zones adjacent to single family zones are poorly suited for quality development and negatively impact adjacent properties. It is important to designate zones which are appropriate to the scale and quality of development we wish to promote. GENERAL POLICY III TRAFFIC Whenever possible, general through traffic should be directed away from local residential streets. -3- LAND USE ELEMENT DISCUSSION Often the inadvertent result of traffic and road improvements is the encouragement of non-local traffic through residential areas. Where this has occurred, circulation redesign should attempt to discourage this non-local traffic. GENERAL POLICY IV ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS For new development to effectively serve as a stimulus for overall neighborhood improvement, it must be of sufficient high quality to change both neighborhood and city wide attitudes about the area's future. New projects must therefore meet the same high architectural and site planning standards being applied to new projects elsewhere in the city. GENERAL POLICY V LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES To prevent legal non-conforming residential properties from becoming blighted, a process shall be created to allow presently non-conforming residential properties to obtain conforming status through architectural and site rehabilitation. DISCUSSION The adoption of the city's zoning map of 1975 resulted in extensive down zoning of multi- family property developed under the county. This change created a number of legal non- conforming duplexes and apartments. Under the city's non-conforming ordinance, these units may remain as they presently exist, but they cannot be replaced if they are destroyed or substantially damaged. This non-replacement feature discourages lenders from financing the sale or rehabilitation of these units. This often results in low levels of building maintenance leading to generalized deterioration. -4- LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL POLICY VI BUILDING HEIGHT Building heights shall be regulated to preserve the area's overall low profile character. Appropriately sited limited height two story development shall be permitted within the R- 2 and R-3 zones to maximize open space, off street parking, and site planning efficiency. Two story development standards shall be reduced from the present 30 foot limit to 22 feet for flat roofed buildings, 24 feet for pitched roofs, and 25 feet for office professional buildings. Height shall be measured from finished grade. DISCUSSION The plan area presently contains R-2 and R-3 zones which allow two story structures to a maximum height of 30 feet. While two story developments contribute to both the livability and economic feasibility of multi-family projects, improperly sited two story buildings can block views and destroy privacy of adjacent properties. The existing 30 foot allowable height far exceeds that which is necessary for good architecture. Height regulations should be designed to protect views and privacy while allowing the planning flexibility afforded by two story construction. GENERAL POLICY VII SURPLUS CITY LAND The city shall either landscape, suitably develop, or sell vacant surplus city land within the Palma Village area. DISCUSSION The city presently owns vacant residential lots and portions of lots originally acquired for road widening. These areas are often used for illegal dumping and generally detract from -5- S1 LAND USE ELEMENT the value of adjacent properties. Wherever residential properties back onto arterial streets or major thoroughfares, the city shall initiate a parkway landscaping perimeter decorative wall program. This is especially necessary on the south side of Fred Waring west of Monterey Avenue and East of Portola Drive. SPECIFIC AREA ISSUES POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTABLE PROGRAMS AREA 1 Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. ISSUES With the development of the civic center, cultural center, town center, and street improvements and extension to Interstate 10, Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue are becoming major regional arterials. The existing pattern of low and medium density single family development is incompatible with the projected traffic volumes and emerging character of these important streets. POLICIES 1. New Development on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue should reflect as to scale and overall quality the public improvements represented by the civic center, college, and cultural center and should be compatible both with the high traffic volume arterial highway and the adjacent residential land uses. 2. Use zones fronting on these streets shall have sufficient depth to allow substantial projects while creating a landscaped buffer for adjacent single family uses. 3. Incentives shall be provided for lot consolidation to facilitate larger projects and minimize access points to Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. Whenever feasible the redevelopment agency shall assist in this effort. -6- • LAND USE ELEMENT IMPLE:MENTATION 1. Where subdivision patterns permit, a special zone, minimum 200 feet in depth, would be created allowing either Office Professional or High Density zoning depending upon compatibility. The Office Professional designation would be applied to the south side of Fred Waring Drive between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo and along the east side of Monterey Avenue between Fred Waring and Catalina, R-3 2,500 would be applied on the south side of Fred Waring Drive between San Pablo Avenue and Portola Avenue and on the west side of Monterey north of Fred Waring Drive. The Scenic Preservation Overlay will be removed allowing two story construction adjacent to Fred Waring with a 24 foot height limit. The zones will require a minimum 20,000 square foot area and will require a 20 foot landscaped project setback adjacent to any single family residential district. This requirement will create a 20'-32' wide landscaped green belt adjacent to residential uses. There will be no access allowed from these projects to local streets. 2. Where subdivision pattern precludes attainment of the 200 foot lot depth, the existing Office Professional zoning will apply. This area would include the west side of Monterey Avenue between the Town Center and Fred Waring Drive and the north side of Fred Waring between Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven. 3. On the north side of Fred Waring between Portola Avenue and San Pascual Drive, a modified multi-family zone overlay would be created which would allow High Density Residential use with a 22 foot height maximum and 30 foot rear building setback to compensate for the lack of green belt buffer. 4. Whenever feasible projects shall be required to execute mutual access agreements creating shared parking and rear circulation, minimizing the need for multiple curb cuts on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. 5. Surplus city land remaining after road widening of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive shall be landscaped by the city. Additional landscaping shall be required wherever Office Professional use abut these areas. -7- LAND USE ELEMENT AREA 2 Monterey Avenue, south from the McAllister property to Highway 111 east to Las Palmas Avenue. ISSUES The Monterey/Highway 111 intersection has become the primary Comm, 'al focus of the city. High quality commercial development has occurred along eaci1 leg except this northeast block. A major effort should be made to encourage development in this area comparable in quality to Palm to Pines and the Town Center. The interior residential area, if adequately buffered from the commercial activity, can continue to offer a safe and very convenient residential environment. Presently the signal at San Gorgonio Way and Monterey Avenue has encouraged through traffic on San Gorgonio threatening the areas residential character. POLICIES 1. Commercial zoning in this area shall be expanded to allow for substantial commercial projects with adequate off-street parking. 2. The interior residential area shall be preserved and protected from the adverse impacts from commercial development by the creation of green belts and traffic circulation improvements discouraging non-resident through traffic. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Expand C-1 zoning to a depth of two lots with assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. 2. Convert the second row of lots to a common use (President's Plaza type), parking area which will be separated from the residential area by a wall and 30 foot wide landscaped green belt. -8- G O LAND USE ELEMENT 3. Create a parking improvement assessment district which will finance acquisition construction and maintenance of the parking lot. 4. Study methods to slow traffic and reduce volumes on San Gorgonio Way. 5. With the exception of the lots involved in the commercial expansion green belt project, zoning shall remain consistent with existing land uses. The three circles shall remain R-1; Royal Palms R-2 (5); Las Palmas and Las Flores, R-3. AREA 3 Santa Rosa Way to Guadalupe Avenue between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. • ISSUES This area contains a mixture of single family homes, duplexes, and small apartments. All the multifamily units were built prior to incorporation. The existing R-2 (7) zone allows only one unit per 7,000 square foot lot. Since few lots exceed 7,200 square feet, the area has developed as a single family neighborhood since 1973. With the creation of a substantial Santa Rosa green belt (see Area 1 policies) this area will be protected from the high intensity uses to the north and should continue to provide a safe, moderate income housing. POLICIES This area should be encouraged to continue developing as a moderate priced single family neighborhood. IMPLEMENTATION The R-2 (7) zone shall remain. -9- LAND USE ELEMENT AREA 4 Monterey Avenue west to Fairhaven Drive. ISSUES If adequately buffered from traffic impacts, this area can continue to provide safe moderately priced single family housing. POLICY Preserve and enhance the areas single family character. IMPLEMENTATION None required. AREA 5 Alessandro Drive. ISSUES Alessandro Drive marks the transition between Highway 111 commercial and adjacent residential uses. The street is presently dominated by vacant lots on the north and commercial rear yards on the south. The north side is zoned R-3 (4) to a depth of 80 feet to 140 feet and is limited to one story due to the adjacent R-1. The generally unattractive streetscape created by the commercial rear yards and the height restriction has discouraged multifamily development in the R-3 (4). POLICIES 1. Land use controls and incentives shall be used to encourage high quality office professional and multi-family residential development on the north side of Alessandro. -10- LAND USE ELEMENT 2. Frontage Road Commercial uses should be encouraged to remodel their rear yards creating a more attractive streetscape. IMPLEMENTATION 1. The north side shall be rezoned to R-3 2,500 to an average depth of 200 feet depending upon subdivision patterns. Two story construction shall be excluded within 100 feet of the R-1 zone. 2. In conjunction with the formation of a parking assessment district, Highway 111 owners would be encouraged to remodel their rear elevations. Expansion into rear yards would be permitted as part of an in-lieu fee program financing the purchase and construction of parking lots on the north side of Alessandro. AREA 6 San Pascual and Catalina. ISSUES This area contains a diverse mix of residential types ranging from half acre lots to 18 per acre apartments. The city has constructed a senior center on 1.65 acres at the northwest corner of San Pascual and Catalina. The area east of San Pascual is substantially developed. The western area is 50 percent vacant. Overall quality of maintenance is inconsistent throughout. POLICIES 1. Preserve the single family zone east of San Pascual. 2. Encourage construction of senior housing surrounding the senior center. 3. West of San Pascual, make zoning consistent with the multi-family character of existing development. -11- LAND USE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 1. Rezone blocks fronting on San Pablo to north to Fred Waring Drive and east to San Raphael R-3. Rezone block north of Catalina east of San Raphael R-2. 2. Create a Senior Housing Overlay allowing higher density, reduced dwelling sizes and parking requirements for senior housing projects. The overlay shall be applied within walking distance of the senior center. Northeast corner of Catalina Way and San Pascual Avenue shall be restricted to one story by the Scenic Preservation Overlay. AREA 7 Portola Avenue to Deep Canyon Road. This area contains a broad range of housing types and quality from the up scale Portola del Sol to some severely deteriorated single family units. There are no inherent land use conflicts which prevent the development and enhancement of this area as a quality affordable single family neighborhood. POLICY Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of this area as a moderate priced single family neighborhood. IMPLEMENTATION Maintain present R-1 status. AREAS 8 and 9 McAllister and Jeffrey Properties. ISSUES These two parcels represent the last large pieces of unsubdivided acreage in the study area. Due to the convenient close-in location of the sites both property owners are -12- LAND USE ELEMENT interested in the development of senior housing. Since senior housing represents a lower intensity of development in terms of household size, noise and traffic impacts higher densities might be accommodated on these large sites if properly designed. POLICY Allow submission of proposals for compatible planned senior housing on these parcels. IMPLEMENTATION Apply senior housing overlay to the existing R-1 and PR-5 zoning for these parcels. -13- LAND USE ELEMENT -14- CIRCULATION ELEMENT The plan area is adequately served by public roads. The principal circulation issue has been the intrusion of non-local traffic through residential neighborhoods. As more high intensity development occurs in the surrounding area the impact of non-local traffic will increase. Discussions have centered around the possible closure of two streets: San Gorgonio Way at Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive at Parkview Avenue. San Gorgonio receives a great deal of non-local through traffic associated with the Town Center and from the neighborhoods to the north. At this time San Gorgonio residents are strongly divided as to whether the elimination of through traffic is worth the resulting inconvenience. Fairhaven Drive, presently linking Park View Drive and Fred Waring Drive could become a short cut to the Town Center for residents of One Quail Place and proposed developments in Rancho Mirage. In this case, the neighborhood seems fairly unanimous in its desire to see Fairhaven Drive closed at Park View Drive. It is also inportant that when closures occur, adequate right-of-way is acquired to construct complete cul-de-sac improvements. Where this has not been done, dead end lot property owners end up with their driveway being used as public turnarounds. POLICY: 1. Whenever it is consistent with public safety, sound circulation planning and the wishes of the effected neighborhood; local residential streets should be closed or otherwise modified to discourage non-local through traffic. IMPLEMENTATION: 1. Fairhaven Drive will be cul-de-sated before Parkview Drive. San Gorgonio shall stay open pending a study to determine neighborhood preferences and alternatives to reduce traffic speeds and volumes. -15- CIRCULATION ELEMENT 2. All dead end streets in the study area shall be adequately signed and the cul-de- saced with full improvements. -16- PUBLIC FACILITIES The quality and variety of a neighborhood's public facilities can have a significant impact on the safety, convenience and quality of life of its habitants. The public facilities to be discussed in this element include roads, street lights and sewers. ROAD ISSUES: The dominating public facility within the study area is the road system. With a few exceptions, it is without curb or gutters and is six to eight feet narrower than ultimate design width. Isolated areas suffer flood damage during summer thunderstorms due to improper street drainage. These storms also cause damage to the pavement edges. In addition to creating a more attractive streetscape, a well designed curb and gutter system will significantly reduce drainage problems and solve the problems of crumbling asphalt edges. The area is also without street lights. POLICY: 1. The city shall actively encourage and facilitate the creation of curb and gutter districts. 2. Safety low intensity street lighting shall be provided at intersections of collector streets, major thoroughfares and arterials. IMPLEMENTATION: 1. The city shall circulate assessment district petitions to all property owners and will assist interested residents in the collection of required signatures. of 2. Property owners whose household income falls below the HUD "l until" 80%le of median level may elect to defer their curb and gutter assess their property. -17- PUBLIC FACILITIES 3. Lighting and landscaping district shall be formed to finance the construction and maintenance of intersection street lighting in the study area. II. SEWER ISSUES: With a few exceptions, the plan area is without sewers. As the individual systems P � .ag a and increased development occurs, maintenance may become a problem in some p areas. POLICY: A long range goal shall be the extension of sewer lines throughout the study area. IMPLEMENTATION: Conduct a feasibility study to determine the costs and timing of an area wide sewer project. • • -18- "ICE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES PARK ISSUES: In the Recreation Element of the Palm Desert General Plan, neighborhood eigh oran aorea parks are rse try to be provided with service areas of between X, and Y2 mile. p does not contain any neighborhood parks. Most of the plan San Pablbeyond o d. the In desired Y2 mile radius of the Community Park and the planned addition, access to these parks may involve the crossing of two four lane highways. Small neighborhood parks can provide a wide range of recreational experiences for all ages and serve as a meeting place and focus for neighborhood identity. POLICY: Provide each of the three major blocks in the plan area with a small neighborhood park which shall include a tot lot, basketball or volleyball court, and general landscaped area. IMPLEMENTATION: Potential sites shall be studied for possible acquisition. An advisory committee shall be formed in each block to work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to determine park design. OPEN SPACE ISSUES: The city presently owns potential lots fronting on Fred Waring Drive west of Monterey and the east side on Monterey Avenue south of Fred Waring. g properly landscaped, these areas can provide a visual buffer for the adjacent residential areas. In addition, the Land Use Element proposes creation of green belts on nathe north side of Santa Rosa Way and north of the Highway III commercial ea between Monterey and Las Palmas. -19- PARKS AND OPEN SPACES POLICY: Whenever adjacent property owners cannot be induced to maintain and landscape these parkway areas, the city shall provide landscaping. IMPLEMENTATION: Plans shall be prepared and monies budgeted for the installation of landscaping in these areas. • -20- ECONOMIC AND HOUSING ELEMENTS The plan area comprises the city's largest stock of lower and moderate priced ownership housing. Median ownership costs were 25% lower in the 1980 census than in the city as a whole. Rental costs are only slightly lower than the city median. Of the areas approximately 1,500 dwelling units, 388 (25%) are actual multi-family apatments with l the balance being single family homes. Fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units are renter occupied indicating a large percentage of single family detached rentals. In 1980, the area median income was $17,015 compared to $19,647 for the whole city f of andd $22,100 for the San Bernardino/Riverside County plan area households below the HUD lower income threshold and 70% below the moderate level. public Being the oldest subdivision in Palm Desert, the area contains the e oldest code infrastructure and private housing stock. In a recent survey conductedb y th enforcement division, the area's overall condition and level of maintenance was significantly below the city-wide average. The specific plan land use element discusses proposed land use changes providing for multi-family development on Fred Waring Drive, San Pablo Avenue, and Alessandro Drive. Senior housing will be encouraged in the vicinity of the senior center at Catalina Canyon nd San Pascual Avenue and on two large sites off of Monterey Ave Deep Road. Developments in these areas will be required to address lower and moderate income housing needs. It is hoped that these land use changes will stimulate high quality new construction which To will in turn encourage increased investments and maintenance of existings housing. ed the of augment this effort, the General Plan Housing Element has prop Redevelopment Agency housing funds in this area to provide below market rate financing for rehabilitation and purchase of housing by lower and moderate income households. -21- �3 ECONOMIC AND HOUSING ELEMENTS POLICY: 1. The city shall encourage new inf multi-family and senior housing in appropriate areas through use of the Affordable High Density and Senior Housing Overlays. 2. Existing single family and multi-family neighborhoods shall be enhanced by use of Redevelopment Agency housing funds to encourage rehabilitation and owner residency, increasing housing quality and opportunities for lower and moderate income households. IMPLEMENTATION: 1. Apply R-3 2,500 and Senior Housing Overlays to areas indicated in the Palm Village Land Use Element. 2. Solicitate from financial institutions proposals for the operation of a compensating balance low interest loan program to aide in the rehabilitation and purchase of housing in the plan area by lower and moderate income households. -22- Li Ming C. Lowe august 29, 2005 city of palm desert 73-510 fred waring dr. palm desert, ca 92260-2578 re: case # GPA 05-01 dear palm desert planning commission, my property, since 1967, is on the southwest corner of portola and catalina way: 73985 catalina way. in regard to your notice of august 22, 2005 i think it would be very much appreciated by the majority of my neighbors and most assuredly myself, if office proffessional would be 'removed' from the city's general plan for our neighborhood. also....apparently the dity owns two vacant lots in the center of the strip of homes under consideration...i would like to suggest the land be used as a small park that could be enjoyed by the passing shool children, senoir citizens and others dwelling in our historical palm desert neighborhood. we and certainly i would be extremely grateful for any help from the city towards 'slowing' things down and contributing towards the preservation, stability, safety, serenity and sanity of our homes and of ourselves. very truly, ming c. lowe ps. attached is my view of the neighborhood and the sincere hope that 'office proffessional' is 'not' established right in the middle of it and possibly, in the future in my back yard. P.O. Box 289 Palm Desert Ca. 92261 Ph. 760-349-3369 www.mingclowe.com . „ SCHOOL • ALESSANDRO DR ' ALESSANDR I I • I'i-l''1"' " ' • , ZONE 7/ _ rilr t,4IQL1 k rftS f-in „Zt ming -At osiTjew ma i CHANGE r41 1 _n , 811 icI RzmNM l _C.�L.� F 4 )iA Wkf<"i41:" ii k.i.r/l PLEASE No OR san marino c r.. r. (, . y o�aar iwr r - i UN 4a1 i 7 i --vi Jim SAV ar * ~I DE A' • WA IIPDE A • WAY DE ANZA WAY I • N • WAY ° 711. :: :r::;n fb_ 44 4 <If, ia I 1 1ml" "I] 711 "II i L"14. ZPIV E:i © 4 ELit .i.ifi. , iw �n n© no a: irl :1 ,-"ri ..„,,,, ss ni ,.., ,.., .. . . v ctc1c�' EL.iiling. , . , „, ,,, �* a La lit* W 1 ._ l CATALINA WAY CATALINA Y CATALINA WAY CATALINA W iiii L7 r_7 I r_-_-__ :,-,-; 4.,.--: 71 i MT IS lige ? mg ir 1 I WHY? 1 -Ai 441 T `NO° P. lii, iri.0_1- ■ : r O. . t.. 7 E. r • F sow • Santa:o _ rkl 4am, ��� A ,_ \E1N 1i . i(tI24),:4 kg — 1 i .� -� % 1 u .1. 3 J- ,--r 4oP-, SANTA 'OSA CI E r� �'y1�� •• .tii I iii r 'A ROSA A' '= p1`SANTA USA WAY-' 110 111J1I! PIU 'i'i1IIII too iiimpoopooz_ CHURCH 011 III 1,41 FRED WARING DR. FRED WARING DR M /STUDIO PO BOX 289 1120.P PALM DESERT, CA 92261 SCHOOL um : "OMES www.minoclowe.com RECEIVED Ming C. Lowe SE u 3 2Q05 January 27, 2005 ( _ ,� ( �v : / Q COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT S'0.r(c� (fl CITY OF PALM DESERT resolution: 05-14 cam- 0'o. 6?R OS-of--ciry 0 F ?fit-Ifv- 56-R- and old business...initiation of general plan amendment. city council city of palm desert 73-510 fred Waring drive palm desert ca 92260 dear city council members, regarding the proposed zone change from de anza to fred waring on portola i had a few more thoughts: if 'possible' street widening of portola in the future and disruption of residences is of concern to the city planners...why encourage 'multiple' family dwellings or office proffesional buildings...with the 'increase' of required parking, hence the increase of traffic flow from these buildings that would result. it is not so much the increase of traffic on portola that concerns me ..but the increase of 'crossing over' of the 'sidewalks' from side streets and 'driveways' that would interupt the flow of 'pedestrian' traffic existing on portola fro m children walking ng to and from schools and general neighborhood congestion ..why not just keep it simple, as is ..single family residences? thank you, again, for your consideration. sincerely, ming c. lowe ps. 'at present' the section of de anza to fred waring on portola is 'entirely' residential. there are no 'existing' commercial units or offices on this section....and since the city of palm desert became a city ...no building permits have been given for such. P.O. Box 289 Palm Desert Ca. 92261 www.mingclowe.corn City of Palm Desert Case GPA 05-01 RECEIVED Hearing Date: September 6, 2005 SEP 0 2 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I am not able to attend the scheduled meeting. I do have three related items I would like for you to take into consideration before you make your decision. I am not against small business being incorporated into Portola Ave. However it should be a type of business that has a very small onsite customer cliental.....with a very small parking lot. For example, an independent insurance agent. Also the traffic for these business' must stay on Portola Ave. and not be directed onto the residential streets. (The McFadden project had the parking lot exit on Catalina Way). My concerns are for the safety of the residents in these family neighborhoods. 1. We have no sidewalks in our neighborhood. Our residents are primarily families with school age children and senior citizens. It would be extremely hazardous to have additional traffic going down our residential streets. 2. Business would bring people into the neighborhood. Strangers that otherwise would not be there. As you know this increases crime. We need to keep our kids and our seniors safe. 3. My own personal request: We bought a house with a huge backyard that we constantly enjoy. We would hate to loose our privacy because people are looking down at us from their two story office building window. Our neighborhood has improved tremendously over the last two years. Almost all of the home are now owner occupied and most all of the homes have gone through major improvements. It is one of the few middle class non-gated family neighborhoods left in the desert. It is very important to keep the integrity of the neighborhood in the upward direction it is taking. Bringing in too much business or business' that are too big would not be beneficial to this section of our community. Sincerely, 61> eit cce_ Wfzfr — Kammie Tavares 73925 Catalina Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 ,z e G9 D /O5 Doug and Anne Walker 74-539 Monte Verde Way RECEIVED Palm Desert, CA 92260 SE? 0 6 2005 September 6, 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Zoning Amendments in La Palma Village CITY OF PALM DESERT From C-OP back to R-1 To: Planning Commission Members, City of Palm Desert Because we own a home at 44-326 San Jose Avenue that our daughter and son-in-law occupy, we received a legal notice from the City of Palm Desert that indicates you plan to consider an amendment to the City's General Plan removing Office Professional (C-OP) designations from fourteen lots along Portola Avenue on the east side of the La Palma Village area. We assume this is a technical follow-up to the City Council's previous directives and the specified lots will be changed back to their original R-1 designations. The proposed amendment appears to be a follow-up to previous City Council meetings where, after hearing from a number of local residents,the Council Members denied two C-OP projects and indicated their willingness to return the La Palma Village area to R-1 zoning. If the current proposed amendment is doing just that, we thank you. Please know your follow through is much appreciated by us and others living in the neighborhood. gh d. It is important for members of any community to know they can trust their elected representatives to do what they say they are going to do. We commend you for doing what the City Council told the local residents the City would do and we will be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting to provide support for this is sue. Hopefully, you will y, cast a unanimous vote supporting the wishes of most g in this people long established,residential neighborhood by removing the few C-OP designations and returning them to R-1. Sine ly and appreciatively, Doug e Walker as- RECEIVED ' G ' �Lr o 6 2005 "OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT From: Donald R. Smith 44239 Anacapa Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 To: City of Palm Desert Plannimg Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Subject: Public Hearing in consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan, Tuesday, Sept. 6,2005 at 6:00 pm Reference: Legal notice case No. GPA 05-01 Neither my wife nor me will be attending Subject meeting, thus this correspondence has been prepared. We have been part time residents in Portola Village since 1990. As for the proposed amendment, we are strongly in favor of eliminating ALL COMMERCIALISM from the resi- dential area in which we live. If the underlying intent is to open our resi- dential area to other commercial activities other than c-op then we are opposed. We do not want any more commerciial activities in our resi- dential area. Sincerely yours, ,4067/41-12k Donald R. Smith RECEIVED CITY OF PALM DESERT SEP Q 6 2005 September 6, 2005 Planning Commission Case Nos. GPA 05/01 73-510 Fred Waring Drive COMKNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUPPORT Palm Desert, California 92260-2 CITYOFPAW(DESERT Dear Commission Members, As concerned property owners we are in full SUPPORT of the City Council's removal of the OP overlay on the City's General Plan Land Use Element. For many years the residents have been subjected to the threat of zone changes and have written letters, attended multiple meetings and presented testimony before the Architectural Committee, Planning Commission and the City Council. .to name a few. Some of those meetings, but not necessarily all, are as follows: * On October 10, 1999 the City Council found in favor of the residents appeal and directed that the zone was to remain R-1; * February 8, 2001 (GPA 99-2) zone change to OP was denied; * In 2002 many General Plan hearings were attended by various property owners and testimony concerning this issue was provided; * September 2, 2004 (C/Z 04-02 & PP 04-20) Planning Commission denied change of zone to OP. * January 11, 2005 Appeal hearing C/Z 04-05 & PP 04-20 City Council denied the zone change to OP and directed staff to "remove" OP use on Portola between Fred Waring and De Anza. As you see, we have been "tested" many times. We believe, as owners and residents, we have proven. .over and over again. .the right to be left as zoned. . .R-1. It follows that we are opposed to staff's recommendations! And we find the report quite biased toward those recommendations. A few examples (again not necessarily all) are: * Page 3-Portola Avenue ends at Gerald Ford. .not interstate 10. And although the road widening may take place ten, twenty or thirty years from now, that is not a viable reason to demolish a long established neighborhood. * Mr. Drell has mentioned repeatedly the economics of OP (developers) paying for the cost of street widening. What he hasn't mentioned, nor has he answered the question, is who will be responsible for the surrounding owners loss of equity value and other assets and the increased cost of insurance, etc. if the zone is changed to OP. Will it be the city or developer/owner? * Page 4-The properties that have deteriorated (of these 14) are owned by the city or speculators with the expectation of changing the zone to OP. Some owners are "on hold" with their plans for improvements until the city clarifies its position. * Page 5-Isn't R-2 multiple family designation and wouldn't that only intensify the noise and traffic problems? * Page 6-No one has suggested the purchase nor demolishing of existing homes for "open space". We do agree with the conclusion statement by staff "We don't want to repeat the experience associated with the widening of Fred Waring Drive, which was delayed for 10 years with significant hardships for property owners and increased City exp. " Still staff has recommended the same proposal used in the Palma Village Plan of 1985 to widen Fred Waring. Surely leaving this area residential until definative, shorter term plans are drawn would be much wiser and in the long run. .less expensive. Page 1 ��_ The last decade of zone change upheaval has been an upsetting experience for many of the home owners. Once again, we respectfully await your decision. PLEASE KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD A NEIGHBORHOOD by your SUPPORT of GPA 05-01! S' cerely, ��j/CQ �e� amona and Gary Fletcher CC: City Council 73969 Olive Court Palm Desert, Ca. , 92260 (760) 776-191 YV1- - Nina and Rodney McDonald 73975 Olive Court Palm Desert, CA. , 92260 M rge/and George Ezmerli 73965 Olive Court OeL% Desert CA. ,c92,2.-60, . Cecile and Art Felix 73977 Olive Court Palm Desert, CA. , 91160 Page 2 f+ Doug and Anne Walker 74-539 Monte Verde Way RECEIVED Palm Desert, CA 92260 2005 September 6, 2005 v` 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Zoning Amendments in La Palma Village CITY OF PALM DESERT From C-OP back to R-1 To: Planning Commission Members, City of Palm Desert Because we own a home at 44-326 San Jose Avenue that our daughter and son-in-law occupy,we received a legal notice from the City of Palm Desert that indicates you plan to consider an amendment to the City's General Plan removing Office Professional(C-OP) designations from fourteen lots along Portola Avenue on the east side of the La Palma Village area. We assume this is a technical follow-up to the City Council's previous directives and the specified lots will be changed back to their original R-1 designations. The proposed amendment appears to be a follow-up to previous City Council meetings where, after hearing from a number of local residents,the Council Members denied two C-OP projects and indicated their willingness to return the La Palma Village area to R-1 zoning. If the current proposed amendment is doing just that, we thank you. Please know your follow through is much appreciated by us and others living in the neighborhood. It is important for members of any community to know they can trust their elected representatives to do what they say they are going to do. We commend you for doing what the City Council told the local residents the City would do and we will be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting to provide support for this issue. Hopefully, you will cast a unanimous vote supporting the wishes of most people in this long established,residential neighborhood by removing the few C-OP designations and returning them to R-1. Sinc ly and appreciatively, Doug e Walker cL( Mr. &Mrs. Gustavo Diaz 73-978 Catalina Way Palm Desert, California 92260 Rsod ved M PI.m* Comialmkasimistag September 5, 2005 09 aG tL5b W/9_�-4 City of Palm Desert Fran .r.. Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Case No GPA 05-01 Dear Planning Commission Members: Please be advised that we are owners of the three parcels of land, listed below, in the effected area of Portola Avenue from Fred Waring Drive to De Anza Way and were NOT notified of your meeting on September 6, 2005. Parcel 1 73-978 Catalina Way Parcel 2 73-968 Catalina Way Parcel 3 44-277 Portola Avenue We are absolutely opposed to any change of zoning from R-1 to Office Professional and/or R-2. We also favor single story development in the area from Fred Waring Drive to De Anza Way. Respectfully submitted: Z-(L3 Mrs. Gustavo (Marie) Diaz cc: Palm Desert City Council g5 09/06/1 5 15:04 FAX 714 800 3406 FRIST AMER ICAN ADMIN. -) lQ002 V The First American Corporation • • . • D.P.KENNEDY • CHAIRMAN CMCRITVS • September 6, 2005• • ' ' • • • Palm Desert Planning Commission ' City or Palm Desert '. 73-510 Fred Waring Drive • Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 • • coma',,•, • Sent via facsimile (760) 341-7098 . • My name is Donald P. Kennedy and I am the owner of the lot on the S.W. corner of Catalina and San Jose. My wife and I have occupied the residence op that location for over 50 years. • • ' Our property is directly affected by your proposed action. I attended a :: • . meeting of the Council when this same proposal was considered and rejected. ' It continues to seem unreasonable that this strip of land be designated as other than residential and that developers continue to pursue a plan after rejection. In the absence of some compelling reason to change, I urge the Commission I '•. to adhere to the wishes of the owners and the council. • • • .P.Kennedy • • • DPK:src •. 1 FirstAmerican Way,-ante Ana,CA 92707 T e i. 714.800.3404 FA r 714.800.3406 , ••• dkennediefirstam.corn'+ww .ffrs tam.com • Nrs e: cAa • �,J 0.: t ',_`il« . •1, •i_ Received Sep-06-2005 13:59 From-714 800 3406 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Pap 002 F ECE;iV ED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT. CA Paul&Barbara W. Bowie � �� NOV _ � ��. ' O 71 774 Chuckawalla Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 November 7, 2005 Members Of The City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Honorable Mayor Crites and Council Members: The record of oral testimony and written documents in Case No. GPA 05-01 speaks clearly to the entire issue which states plainly and emphatically that Office Professional Zoning/Land Use has no basis for implementation or continued pursuit. It is asked that the Council take action to amend the General Plan and to unequivocally remove Office Professional as a Zoning designation in this Case. The undersigned are opposed to the taking of land or of street curb set-back from the present point on Portola Avenue as relates to their owned property at 44 401 Portola Avenue. Should future measures be initiated to take land by Imminent Domain proceedings or through Zoning/Land Use modifications such action will be resisted. Respectfully submitted, file PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL November 10, 2005 73510 Fred Waring Drive Case Nos. GPA 05/01 Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 SUPPORT Honorable Mayor and Council Members, As concerned property owners we are in full SUPPORT of the City Council's removal of the OP overlay on the City's General Plan Land Use Element on Portola Avenue. Our heart-felt "thanks" to you, our elected representatives for listening and finding our opposition to the OP overlay relevant and in the best interest of Palm Desert and the residents it has affected. For years the residents have been threatened with a zone change from residential to office/professional in this well established neighborhood. We have written letters, attended meetings and presented testimony to the Architectural Committee, Planning Commission, General Plan hearings and to you. . .repeatedly. Some of these meetings, not necessarily all, are as follows: * On October 10, 1999 the City Council found in favor of the residents appeal and directed that the zone was to remain R-1; * February 8, 2001 (GPA 99-2) zone change to OP was denied; * In 2002 many General Plan hearings were attended by various property owners and testimony concerning this issue was provided; * September 2, 2004 (C/Z 04-02 & PP 04-20) Planning Commission denied change of zone to OP. * January 11, 2005 Appeal hearing C/Z 04-05 & PP 04-20 City Council denied the zone change to OP and DIRECTED staff to "remove" OP use on Portola between Fred Waring and De Anza. * September 6, 2005 (GPA 05/01) an obvious sham-hearing by Planning Commission. As you know, we have been "tested" and "tested". As owners and residents, we have proven. .over and over again. .the right to be left as zoned. . .R-1. We have consistently opposed staff's recommendations to change Portola into another Fred Waring; however, we do agree with their statement of September 6, 2005. . . "We don't want to repeat the experience associated with the widening of Fred Waring Drive, which was delayed for 10 years with significant hardships for property owners and increased City exp. " To leave this area residential until plans are completed for the widening of Portola will be wiser, probably less expensive and much less disruptive for all concerned. The last decade of zone change upheaval and harassment has been quite an upsetting experience for many of the home owners. Hopefully for the last time, we once again ask for your help. . .PLEASE REMOVE THIS OP OVERLAY FROM THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN. . .by your SUPPORT of GPA 05-01! c� n- Sincerely, (: 2 -v - a 3 L 1 V cr Ramona and Gary Fletcher -� r-- -, 73969 Olive Court 1 1" )+-i 1 t 5-vQ r. G� 7-10 Palm Desert, Ca. , 92260 7 (o t9 — -T 1 at (e L1 7 (760) 7 7 6-1915 °'' Xi N CTi �.71 p G) > w m JEAN H. MARTIN 44-276 San Jose Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 760/346-1 519 - 760/346-8530 November 3, 2005 Palm Desert City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Case No. GPA 05-01 Dear Council Members: On November 10, 2005 you will AGAIN address the above case. I am sure that you have heard everything there is to hear from our group of citizens in favor of removing the office professional land use on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. You have listened, with open mind, to our pleads since 1999 and we feel that this should be put to rest forever. You have agreed with us and on February 10, 2005 directed staff, by a 4 to 1 vote, to initiate a General Plan Amendment to that effect. PLEASE let this be our last meeting with regard to this matter and approve a General Plan Amendment. t si cerely, ZUZ- JEAN H. MARTIN owfi 4 30� ,1 S�, ri ;1 , 1 1