Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 2020-17 SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 - MC Properties, LLC - 02/13/2020/�/R`r .v.5•k-'pip'goy..4.di^_�, //...F��n'4.S'.-,.'4t''.k .,_.., mLN CITY COUNCIL STAFF RI~P&Ti� CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: February 13, 2020 PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner REQUEST: Consideration for approval of a Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map 37234 to subdivide 32+ acres into four (4) planning areas east of Monterey Avenue, south of Dick Kelly Drive, north of A Street, and west of Gateway Drive; and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 2020-1 7 , approving a Specific Plan document, including the three (3) recommendations below, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 37234; and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Impact. 1. Planning Area 4 shall require a minimum of 200 residential units per the Housing Element. The developer is required to reserve twenty -percent (20%) of the 200 units (40) within the project to be made available at affordable rents (20 low and 20 very low incomes) and memorialized with a recorded Housing Agreement. 2. If any residential uses are constructed in Planning Area 3, the Developer is required to reserve twenty percent (20%) of all units within the project to be made available at affordable rents (low and very low) and in accordance with an approved and recorded Housing Agreement. 3. The Specific Plan shall not include any age -restricted housing. Planninq Commission At its meeting of September 18, 2018, the Planning Commission heard the project request and ultimately was in support of the overall project, including age restricted housing; however, could not reach a consensus regarding staff's recommendation to require twenty percent (20%) of the units on Planning Areas 3 and 4 for affordable housing. The Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion on the Housing Element, the applicant's position, and the staff recommendation. The Planning Commission understood staff's position and the need for affordable housing, but was seemingly uncomfortable with imposing an affordable housing requirement since the City does not have a formal affordable housing policy adopted by the City Council. After several failed motions, the Planning Commission was undecided. February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 2 of 11 At the suggestion of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission approved a general recommendation (no resolution) of what they believe the City Council should consider: 1. General support of facilitating affordable housing on this site. 2. That the Specific Plan allow for assisted living uses on Planning Area 3. Attached to this staff report are the Planning Commission meeting minutes dated September 18, 2018. Executive Summary Approval of the staff request will approve a Specific Plan, TPM 37234, and an MND. The Specific Plan subdivides the 32-acre site into four (4) planning areas: two (2) commercial, one (1) flex, and one (1) residential parcel. The City's Housing Element requires that the applicant construct a minimum of 200 residential units, and staff is recommending that twenty percent (20%) (40 units) are made available at affordable rents (20 low and 20 very low incomes) within Planning Area 4. Since 2017, the applicant has disagreed with staff on whether the City may impose an affordable housing requirement, since the City does not have a formal adopted policy in place. Today, the applicant still objects to the affordable housing conditions of approval and submitted a letter dated February 8, 2018 explaining their objections. A copy of the letter is attached to this staff report. In order to move the Specific Plan forward, City staff and the applicant agreed to schedule the City Council public hearing without identifying the affordable housing requirements. Through the public hearing, the City Council will need to determine the affordable housing requirements if any, for the Specific Plan, along with determining if age restricted housing is an appropriate land use within Planning Area 3. Backqround A. Property Location: The property consists of two (2) parcels totaling 32+ acres of currently vacant land located in the northern sphere of the City. The parcels are bounded by four streets: Monterey to the west, Dick Kelly Drive (Dick Kelly) to the north, A Street to the south, and Gateway Drive (Gateway) to the east. B. General Plan and Zoning: Zoning Designation(s): PC-2 - Planned District Commercial (21 acres) PR-22 - Planned Residential, 22 units per acre (12 acres) G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specfic Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties\CC Staff Report Feb 13 docx February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 3 of 11 General Plan Land Use Designation(s): • R-R - Regional Retail (21 acres) • T-CN -Town Center Neighborhood (12 acres) C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: PC-3 - Planned Regional Commercial (Desert Gateway shopping center) South: PC-3 - Planned Regional Commercial (Lowe's Home Improvement) PR-13 - Planned Residential (Enclave) East: P - Public Institution (future school) PR-22 - Planned Residential (vacant site) West: City of Rancho Mirage Proiect Description The applicant has submitted a Specific Plan document (attached) that sets forth a land -use plan and development standards that facilitate commercial, residential, hospitality uses, open space, and mixed -use development within the project boundaries. It establishes a cohesive development plan for four (4) planning areas that will be sold and developed by future owners through a Precise Plan (PP) application that requires approval by the Planning Commission. A. Specific Plan The Specific Plan encompasses 32+ acres, which includes information related to the existing conditions of the site, existing and proposed street circulation patterns, designated land uses, development standards, and design criteria for the development of the four (4) planning areas. The objective of a Specific Plan is to provide the City with high -quality development that takes advantage of the synergies created by the residential and commercial uses planned for the site. The planning areas within the specific plan are as follows: Planninq Area 1 (PA1): PA1 consists of 7.37 acres located at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Dick Kelly Drive. PA1 will remain zoned PC-2 and will be developed as commercial shopping center(s) consisting of one- or two-story buildings, with the exception of a hotel(s) and mixed -use developments. All land uses will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance allowed per Chapter 25.16, Commercial Uses, identified in Table 25.16-1. Without limiting the foregoing, allowed uses and conditionally permitted uses shall include: drive -through restaurants, mixed -use developments, car wash, hotel(s), convenience stores, automobile service stations without regard to the required site location separation distances per Section 25.34.090, commercial indoor recreation facilities and indoor amusement establishments. Ancillary commercial uses, business support services, and personal services shall be allowed. Residential units and/or professional office space shall be allowed on a second story. G \Planning\Kevin SwartMord\Specifc Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties\CC Staff Report Feb 13 docx February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 4 of 11 Planninq Area 2 (PA2): PA2 consists of 7.37 acres located at the southwest corner of Monterey Avenue and A Street. PA2 will remain zoned PC-2 and will be developed with the same land uses and development standards as PA1. Planninq Area 3 (PA3): PA3 consists of six (6) acres located at the northeast corner of Dick Kelly and Gateway Drives. PA3 is currently zoned PR-22 and will be designated for alternative land uses such as residential, commercial and mixed -use developments. PA3 may be developed per the following standards: • Attached or detached residential units for sale or for rent at densities from 10-22 units per acre. • As a mixed -use project. • A commercial project. • A larger residential project combined with Planning Area 4. • PA3 will utilize the development standards identified in PA1, 2, and 4 based on the project. Planninq Area 4 (PA4): PA4 consists of 11.44 acres located at the southeast corner of Gateway Drive and A Street. PA4 will remain zoned Planned Residential and allow up to twenty-two (22) units per acre. Per the City's Housing Element, PA4 is required to create a minimum of two hundred (200) attached for sale or for rent residential units, and will have the potential to add forty (40) units towards the City's goal of twenty percent (20%) affordability (this is discussed in more detail in the Analysis Section of this staff report). B. Tentative Parcel Map Tentative Parcel Map 37234 was prepared to subdivide the project site into four (4) unique parcels. When each parcel is sold, the new buyer will submit for a PP application, which will include site plan layout, architecture, landscaping, grading, parking, hydrology, open space, walls, reciprocal access between the parcels, and overall internal circulation. C. Circulation The project area has immediate access to regional transportation links, including the 1-10 freeway, arterials and local roads that interconnect. Roads immediately adjacent to the property are described within the Specific Plan. Analysis Below please find an analysis of all actions under review: A. Specific Plan: The current zoning designation for the properties are PC-2 and PR-22, and the same zoning will remain in place. Final site design, building design, architecture, and orientation are yet to be proposed, and the applicant will need to submit a PP application for staff and Planning Commission review prior to development. G \PlanningWevin SwartzMord\Speafic Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13 docx 4 February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 5 of 11 The Specific Plan requires the development of an integrated and unified combination of residential and commercial development. The residential component, which could include a variety of housing types, will be within easy walking distance to the commercial component. Although it is not possible to predict what types of businesses will locate in the commercial component, the uses will include those that will be needed by project residents, and when combined with the commercial businesses located in existing projects to the north and south of the site, will provide residents with a broad range of service and shopping opportunities. The Specific Plan document has been prepared in accordance with State Government Code Section 65450-65457, which sets standards for document content and provides direction for adoption. The plan itself must be consistent with the City's General Plan and must contain statements regarding the relationship of the Specific Plan to the City's General Plan. Statements regarding consistency are provided in the Specific Plan (pages 30-40). Staff supports the Specific Plan document as a means of identifying desirable land uses and development standards for this particular project. As proposed and with staffs modifications (identified below), the Specific Plan establishes a distinct project and provides a commitment of what will be built within the project boundaries, commits development of the project to a unifying architectural theme, and provides sufficient flexibility for changes to the project. Housinq Element On May 12, 2011, and pursuant to State law, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011- 24 approving an updated Housing Element. The Housing Element is designed to guide the City's elected and appointed officials, as well as City staff and the general public, in locating and constructing housing of all types within the City. The Housing Element is one of the State mandated components of the City's General Plan and is the only one that requires an update every eight (8) years. The Housing Element is also the only Element of the General Plan that requires review and approval by the State of California, specifically the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). With every planning period, changes in the law require that the City incorporate new information. In the 2006-2014 cycle, the City had to identify the parcels available for housing, and demonstrate that they have sufficient land to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) units in the very low, low, and moderate -income categories. This analysis extends to a requirement to rezone lands, at a density of twenty (20) units per acre or more. The City identified twenty-two (22) vacant parcels that were rezoned, and the applicant's parcels were one of the parcels identified (Letter G). The Housing Element also identified that a minimum of two hundred (200) units must be provided for this site. Because of the State's "No Net Loss" provisions, a minimum of two hundred (200) units must be built within the Specific Plan area. The City's Housing Element does not specify affordability levels within the 200 units shown on this property. G \PlanningWewn Swartz\Word\Specifc Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13 docx 5 February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 6 of 11 Planninq Area 4 The proposed density and development standards conform to the existing zoning designations. Building heights are allowed up to three -stories and the PR zone allows for more imaginative architectural design and will encourage an innovative and unique development. In accordance with the Housing Element, and as part of the Specific Plan, staff is recommending that the applicant reserve twenty percent (20%) of the two hundred (200) units (forty (40) units at affordable rents). The applicant objects to the affordable housing conditions of approval and submitted a letter dated February 8, 2018, explaining its objections, and a copy of the letter is attached to this staff report. Over the years, staff and the applicant have had numerous attempts to find common ground, but have been unsuccessful. Below are the applicant's alternatives and staffs reasoning for not accepting them that were presented at the September 18, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. 1. An affordable housing in -lieu fee in the amount of $1.50 for each livable square foot for each residential unit within PA4. It costs the City approximately $250, 000 to construct a single affordable housing unit. An in -lieu fee of $1.50 per livable square foot is below what the City is reviewing from KMA's analysis of this property and other properties within the City. Without knowing what the livable square footage is for PA4, staff is estimating that if the developer were to pay $1.50 per livable square foot that amount would create between two (2) and five (5) total affordable units, well below the forty (40) units being required. 2. Providing forty (40) units within a combination often (10) units provided at moderate income and set aside one acre of land to accommodate the additional thirty (30) units at low and very low incomes. Staff was originally open to setting aside land for the future creation of affordable units; however, staff could not come to terms with the applicant as to an appropriate size for the parcel to set aside. Staff believes that setting aside a future one -acre parcel as proposed by the developer is not large enough to accommodate the buildings, open space, parking, and landscaping. 3. The development of Planning Area 4 could occur in two phases covered by a single PP application. Phase 1 would encompass 9.64 acres and comprise all of PA4 except Phase 2 (1.8-acre parcel). Phase 1 will have a minimum of one hundred seventy (170) units (one hundred sixty (160) market -rate units and ten (10) moderate - income units). Phase 2 would encompass 1.8 acres located along the western edge of PA4, abutting the eastern edge of PA2, and developed with a minimum of 30 units. City staff was acceptable to the development of PA4 occurring in two phases covered by a single PP application and setting aside a 1. 8-acre parcel, as long as the future Phase 2 project is integrated into one cohesive project with access to all amenities, parking, open space, etc., and shall not be separated by a fence. G \Planning%ewn SWartZ orMSpecific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13 docx February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 7 of 11 Staff also requested a minimum of two hundred (200) units in Planning Area 4 with forty (40) units at affordable rents. City staff is recommending that the forty (40) units be divided between twenty (20) low-income units and twenty (20) very -low-income units. Staff does not support that ten (10) of the forty (40) units will be assigned at moderate income and built within Phase 1. 4. If the City and the applicant agreed on No. 3, that Phase 2 of the future 1.8-acre parcel would be designated for thirty (30) units, including fifteen (15) low income and fifteen (15) very -low-income units, with a term of ten (10) years from the approval of the PP. During that 10-year period, the owner of PA4 shall have an obligation to sell the Phase 2 property to either the City or its designee for the property's Fair Market Value for the purpose of developing affordable housing. The Fair Market Value shall be determined without regard to the requirement to construct affordable housing, and taking into account all site improvements, engineering and architectural costs that benefit the Phase 2 area. The owner of PA4 shall have no obligation for the construction or operation of the affordable housing units in Phase 2. The Phase 2 applicant shall take all required steps under the Subdivision Map Act to allow for the transfer of the Phase 2 development area once the purchaser for Phase 2 is identified by the City and the purchase is documented and binding. The Specific Plan and future PP applications fall under the provision of Section 65915-65918 of the California Government Code. The code states that the affordability term is 30 years or longer if required by the construction, financing or rental program to preserve the affordable housing units. Typically, thirty (30) years have been imposed in past Housing Agreements. Also, the 30-year term starts with the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or when the units are ready to be leased. Housing Policv Subcommittee Since the Planning Commission meeting (September 18, 2018), staff and the applicant attempted again to find common ground before scheduling the City Council hearing. The applicant understands that the City's adoption of a specific plan involves a legislative act, and that the City Council has broad discretion in making policy choices when it takes formal legislative action to adopt a general plan or a specific plan. The applicant disagrees with City staff based on the fact that the City Council has not, to this point, formally adopted a general plan, ordinance, or an enforceable policy that would allow staff to require twenty percent (20%) affordable housing on the specific plan. At the City Council meeting of June 14, 2018, Mayor Jonathan requested under City Councilmembers' Request for Action that staff provide answers to four questions as they related to the City's current affordable housing policy: 1. How does our current policy compare to other Coachella Valley cities? 2. Has our policy been consistently applied? 3. Is our policy effective or is it deterring development? 4. Is there a better way to do this? G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13.docx February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 8 of 11 At it's October 11, 2018, City Council meeting, staff presented an informational report that addressed the four above questions. Staff also requested policy direction on how aggressive the City Council wishes to be on attempting to create new deed restricted affordable units. On January 10, 2019, the City Council directed staff to form an ad -hoc affordable housing subcommittee, and appointed then Councilmembers Harnik and Kelly to the subcommittee to work with City staff and to: • Review the City's affordable housing policies • Review existing policies from around the State • Perform a comparative analysis of affordable housing with other Coachella Valley cities, and • Explore affordable housing policy options for the City Throughout 2019, Community Development staff from both the Planning and Housing Divisions, worked with Councilmembers Harnik and Kelly to perform the tasks above. Based on the work of the subcommittee a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) has been prepared for a new housing overlay district. The overlay district provides optional standards for affordable housing development and is intended to incent developers to incorporate affordable housing units in their project designs. The ZOA is scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission on February 4, 2020, and is anticipated to be scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council later this month. Proposed Land Transaction On May 29, 2019, the Affordable Housing Subcommittee met to discuss the MCP Specific Plan. The subcommittee valued this project (PA4) for affordable housing in the future, because of the site location being adjacent to a future school and the jobs in the area. Staff presented the applicant's proposals that were presented to the Planning Commission and were most favorable to the proposal of setting aside land, but believed that approximately five (5) acres was the appropriate size needed. The subcommittee acknowledged that in an effort to move this case forward, the City should consider all options available (including purchasing) to retain lands in the City's name for a future affordable project including the following: • Appraisal to determine the current market value for approximately 5-acres of medium/high density residential property. • City could waive commercial housing mitigation fees to be used as a credit towards the purchase price of said 5-acre parcel of land. • Complete exemption of an affordability requirement on PA3. G \Planning\Kevin SwariMord\Specihc Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13 docx 19 February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 9 of 11 After the May 29, 2019 Affordable Housing Subcommittee meeting, staff and the applicant discussed two options. • Option One — Schedule a public hearing to the City Council with the same recommendation that staff presented at the September 18, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. • Option Two — Continue to work together and find common ground. Staff and the applicant both agreed to continue to work together. After months of discussions, both sides concluded that each (applicant and City) would receive appraisals for PA3. After both parties received their appraisal reports, a conference call was conducted in December 2019 to discuss the potential sale. Staff indicated that the difference of approximately one million dollars (67%) between appraisal reports, and methodologies had yielded significantly different valuation. Staff further indicated knowledge of other appraisals in the immediate vicinity, at lower values than both appraisals. Staff indicated that it did not believe it was responsible to recommend a purchase price in excess of the City's prepared appraisal report. The applicant stated that the property owners would not accept a lower price than their appraisal. While both parties remain amicable, staff and the applicant remain at an impasse regarding a purchase of lands. In order to move the Specific Plan forward, City staff and the applicant agreed to schedule the City Council public hearing without identifying the affordable housing requirements. Staffs recommendation remains the same as at the Planning Commission hearing and is reflected in the recommendation above. Through the public hearing, the City Council will need to determine the affordable housing requirements if any, for the Specific Plan. Planninq Area 3 PA3 will be designated for alternative land uses such as commercial, residential, and mixed - use. If the site becomes commercial and/or mixed -use then PA3 will be subject to the development standards outlined for PA1 and PA2. If the site is a residential project, then it will be required to use the development standards identified within PA4. Based on the Housing Element, staff is recommending that if any residential units are planned on PA3, then the developer will be required to reserve 20% of all units within the project to be made available at affordable rents and in accordance with an approved and recorded Housing Agreement. The applicant has not agreed to this recommendation. In addition, the applicant and staff have discussed age -restricted senior housing (assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing, and independent living). Staff believes that allowing any age -restricted housing within PA3 is not consistent with the General Plan and is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. Adjacent to the site will be a future school (K through 12), and staff believes that a senior housing project is not a compatible land use to a school site or to the job -rich commercial centers along Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. The site is much better suited for workforce and family housing because the sites proximity to jobs and schools. The General Plan encourages housing in close proximity to places of employment. PA1 and PA2 will provide commercial uses where potential residents G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Specdic Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13 docx February 13, 2020 — City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 10 of 11 within PA3 could walk to work and/or school. The General Plan also discourages long single - building construction, which senior housing developments are typically located within. Staff is recommending that the Specific Plan not include any age -restricted housing based on the information provided above and is reflected in the recommendation. Planninq Areas 1 and 2 Both PA1 and PA2 will remain zoned PC-2 and the parcel sizes are similar to other district commercial developments within the City. This zoning district permits the greatest diversity of commercial land uses and is ideal for commercial parcels in close proximity to residential development. It is anticipated that they will develop to serve the existing and future residents in the area. All land uses will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance allowed per Chapter 25.16, Commercial Uses, identified in Table 25.16. Without limiting the foregoing, allowed and conditionally permitted uses shall include drive -through restaurants, mixed -use developments, car wash, hotel(s), convenience stores, automobile service stations, commercial indoor recreation facilities and indoor amusement establishments. Residential units and/or professional office space shall be allowed on a second story. The land uses identified within the Specific Plan are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. B. Building Heights and Development Standards In general, the Specific Plan document follows the development standards established in the PC-2 and PR-22 zoning districts. PA1, PA2, and potentially PA3 allows commercial buildings that conform to the PC-2 zoning district, which allows a maximum building height of thirty- five (35) feet. PA4 and potentially PA3 allow for residential developments that conform to the PR-22 zoning district with a height limit of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. The Specific Plan also allows for an additional ten (10) feet of height for architectural features. This standard is consistent with the standards for architectural elements in the Municipal Code. The Specific Plan establishes a maximum building height of sixty (60) feet for hotel and mixed -use developments within the project boundaries. This height limit exceeds the maximum building heights established in the PC-2 zone by fifteen (15) feet. Staff is supportive of the height increase, only for hotel developments and mixed -use projects, as existing hotels in the vicinity were approved at forty-two (42) feet (Hampton Inn), fifty-six (56) feet (Fairfield Inn), and fifty (50) feet in height for the Millennium Specific Plan. In addition, future developments at this site are sufficiently distant from existing residential development, and impacts to surrounding views are limited. C. Tentative Parcel Map 37234 The parcel map to subdivide the project site into individual parcels conforms to all City standards and the Subdivision Map Act. All parcels have reciprocal parking and an access easement to allow for vehicular and pedestrian movements within the project area. In addition, all future development will be required to submit a PP application, which will address site planning and internal circulation, and further define the responsibilities of all property owners within the Specific Plan. G \Planning\Kevin SwartzMord\Specific PlanslSP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties\CC Staff Report Feb 13 docx f l D February 13, 2020. L7City Council Staff Report Case Nos. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 Page 11 of 11 D. Findings of Approval: Findings can be made in support o Municipal Code. Findings in support Resolution attached to this staff report. Environmental Review f the project, and in accordance with the City's of this project are contained in the City Council For the purposes of the CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The initial study and MND are attached as part of this report and the filing of the MND has occurred in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL ASSISTANT REVIEW CITY MANAGER N/A NIA Robert W. Hargreaves Ryan Stendell Janet Moore Andy Firesti City Attorney Director of Comm. Dev. Director of Finance Assistant tj Manager City Manager Lauri Aylaian: APPLICANT: MC Properties, LLC 270 North El Camino Real, Suite F397 Encinitas, CA 92024 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2. Specific Plan 3. TPM 37234 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration 5. Letter from Rutan & Tucker, LLP dated, February 8, 2018 6. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated, September 18, 2018 G \PlannmgWevm Swartz\Word\Specific Plans\SP 16-342 and TTM 37234 MC Properties= Staff Report Feb 13 docx CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 37234 TO SUBDIVIDE 32+ ACRES INTO FOUR (4) PLANNING AREAS BOUNDED BY, EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE, SOUTH OF DICK KELLY DRIVE, NORTH OF A STREET AND WEST OF GATEWAY DRIVE; AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CASE NOS: SP 16-342 AND TPM 37234 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert;' California, did on the 13t" day of February 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by MC Properties, LLC, for approval of the above -noted with staff's recommendations outlined in the staff report; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City -of Palm Desert, California,d'�on the 23d day of January 2020, hold a duly noticed public" --hearing to' -`consider the request by MC Properties, LLC, and continued the item; and WHEREAS, the Planning Cornrr»ssion of the 18th day of September 2018, hold 'a duly note by MC Properties, LLC, for approval of the a outlined in the staff report: The Planning' .Qommi resolution for either approvalor denial; and WHEREAS%' id applicati ns have i Palm Desert Proce ire for Im 'gVen ation Resolution No. 2015-5, yin#rf that the project will, not "=a negative ir Negative Declarationcan b °opted; and the Citf Palm Desert, California, did on V, "A ced publi pring to consider the request bovE noted with staffs recommendations 3sion , ndecided and did not adopt a flied with the requirements of the "City of e California Environmental Quality Act," 'ommunity Development has determined on the environment and that a Mitigated WHEREAS, at s ublic` ring, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments; if any, of all i bested rersons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and rea s to exist to justify the approval of said request: 1. The MCP SpePlan, as proposed and with staff's recommendations, is consistent with 'the goals and policies of the Palm Desert General Plan including that the project will provide additional affordable housing units, provide local employment centers in close proximity to residential land uses, and increase the City's sales tax base. 2. The Specific Plan document has been prepared in accordance with State Government Code Section 65450-65457, which sets standards for document content and provides direction for adoption. The plan itself must be consistent with the City's General Plan and must contain statements regarding the relationship of the Specific Plan to the City's General Plan. Statements regarding consistency CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. are provided in the Specific Plan (pages 30-40). Staff supports the Specific Plan document as a means of identifying desirable land uses and development standards for this particular project. As proposed and with staff's modifications (identified within the staff report), the Specific Plan establishes a distinct project and provides a commitment of what will be built within the project boundaries, commits development of the project to a unifying architectural theme, and provides sufficient flexibility for changes to the project. 3. The MCP Specific Plan will provide land use compatibility within the boundaries of the planning areas and with adjacent properties as ,the proposed uses and development standards are similar to existing uses to the south, north, and east. 4. The MCP Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the property has been designated for commercial,'` residential,, and mixed -use, and that development will comply with applicable City standards and standards approved as part of the Specific Plan.. 5. That the proposed Tentative Parce safety or general welfare, or be ma or improvements in the City of Palm 6. The project under the contained in the City's GE variety of neighborhoods, future residents Findings for lap is not detrimental to the public health, Tally, injurious`to the surrounding properties �sert n complies,_ with the goals and policies iat promote affordable housing, promote a E �Q of housing choice for current and 1. That the"ity of t ed suTsion is consistent with applicable general and specific s x die 6iff" IIA oniffTelAgsidential, signation for the properties are Planned District Commercial 22 units Der acre (PR-22). and the same zonina will remain lace"',:'Final site design, building design, architecture, and Pr are to be proposed, and the applicant will need to submit a Precise Plan (PP) app tion for staff and Planning Commission review prior to development. T Specific Plan identifies that future projects within Planning Areas 3, and gild include a mix of housing densities inclusive of single-family detached/attabd homes and multi -family apartment/condominium units with affordable`,hoousing components. General Plan Land Goal 3 Neighborhoods proposes that "A variety of housing types, densities, designs and mix of uses and services that support healthy and active lifestyles. Goal 3.1 Complete Neighborhoods contain a diversity of housing types. The Specific Plan's mix of high -density residential and commercial development will allow for the development of a non -motorized neighborhood environment, by promoting close proximity between home and potential jobs and shopping opportunities. These uses will be within walking distance of the residential 2 �3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. neighborhood. The location of the Specific Plan on Monterey Avenue also allows residents to have easy access to transit, which currently operates on that roadway. The proposed residential component of the Specific Plan will include a mix of for sale and for rent units made available at affordable rents and to a varied range of households. In addition, the project site's location allows for easy connections to proposed parks and schools located easterly of the site. The <design of the residential component of the project will be governed by PP approvals, allowing the City to implement the requirements of this policy through: design consultation and the conditions of approval. The diverse range of housing types within the project area complies with this goal and the mix of densities is consistent with,.. 'City General Plan. 2. That the design or improvement q' proposed, subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific planes The design and improvements reviewed by the Panning; DqT Department for consistency:_with existing perimeter streets and:,ut conformance with the General. F complete existingp.­streets. Inter Tentative Parcel Map..37234 1 application for consistency and consistent with the General Plan. 3. That the of the �parcd#ff and parcel maps have been irtment, Fire, Department, and Public Works the General Plan and emergency services. All ty'mprovements; and circulation pattern are in 9n and,minor roadway dedication is needed to al.project streets that serve the project and ilf be reviewed under a Precise Plan (PP) conformance with all City standards and are type of development. The res- tained in the MCP Specific Plan is suitable for the developme , opoggd., Environmental, cultural, and other special studies were prepared fo °te'nds within. the project area. No environmental issues were identified thatwould indicate that the development in this area would be unsuitable. In addition, existing commercial and residential developments have successfully constructed similar types of development in the immediate vicinity. No obstacles to: the development of surrounding subdivisions were experienced and, due to,,the proximity and similarity of the proposed development, it's reasonable ;to conclude that the site is physically suitable for it. The property is suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. As proposed, the land uses are consistent with surrounding development. The Specific Plan proposes commercial, hotel, and mixed -use developments within the western portion of the project area at heights and intensities similar to 3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. existing commercial and hotel uses in the vicinity. The Specific Plan also proposes single-family detached/attached homes and multi -family apartment/condominium units with affordable housing components within the western portion of the project area, which is consistent with surrounding land uses. The proposed project densities are similar to existing multi -family residential development within the northern sphere of the City. The location of the higher density residential uses (Planning Area 4) is well suited as they are in close proximity to a future school and existing and future ;.employment opportunities. The infrastructure, soils, and terrain serving the Velopment will adequately support these densities. � / 5. That the design of the subdivision and the ddsed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental dan 6 or substantially, and unavoidably injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat dlvl' For purposes of the California Enviri�nmental' y Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental "Impact.has==been prepared. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat since the,'surrounding areahas been developed with similar densities and limited wildlife is : present of �Jhe site. Environmental studies performed at the site did not identify any en or sensitive species. In addition, the project will pay into the Coa ells 'alley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation funVor the development okra ` a 6. That the Pgn of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause s b s public health problems.. The proposes floped under a PP, will be in compliance with ail grad' re ants and t �iroperties will be developed in accordance with ;atte Unifi � Ca Ja Building Code. If any grade changes occur within the Specific Plitl;�then p4 _, will be accommodated by the internal street layout and open space providedtoughout the subdivision. Pedestrian access will also be provided to adjoining land uses and surrounding roadways, which decreases the need for vehiculartraffic between adjoining properties. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easemerits; acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed project will be required to accommodate drainage retention basins for each parcel once development occurs, which will be reviewed under a PP application. Improvements related to drainage will be provided to ensure the project area accommodates 100% of the 100-year storm. Surrounding perimeter City streets are built -out to the General Plan Designation Pedestrian connections will also be provided throughout the project area. M CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby recommend approval of SP 16-342 with staffs recommendations and TPM 37234, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 13th d; following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHE 5 cil of the City of Palm February 2020, by the E, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. SP 16-342 and TPM 37234 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The applicant shall record Parcel Map 37234 within two (2) years of project approval. Construction of improvements, in accordance with the approved Specific Plan, shall commence within two (2) years from the date of approval unless a time extension is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void'and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to the approved Specific Plan and all Palm Desert Municipal ordinances and state and.�federal statutes now 'in _ force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use 'or structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first"obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water Di Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of sW�Idiimn "0'it or clW-rance fro "I a above agencies shall be presented to the Department og & Safet at the ti ofissuance of a building permit for the use contemplatedWth. rFF 5. A cultural resources inrventory shall be` c6ffi pleted by a qualified archeologist prior to any development activities within the project area. 6. Should human remains be discovered during the construction of the proposed project, the project coordinator will be subject to either the state law regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains or the Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance, all destructive activity J61he immediate vicinity shall halt and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City and Developer will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. 7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 8. Each Planning Area shall be subject to all applicable fees at the time of issuance of building permits for improvements within that Planning Area. n. r-� CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 9. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection between Planning Areas 1 and 2 and Planning Areas 3 and 4. 10. Prior to the development and construction of improvements within Planning Areas 1 thru 4, the property owner shall submit a PP application to the City's Community Development Department. Precise Plan applications shall be submitted for the development of a single Planning Area or multiple Planning Areas. The PP application will require public hearings with the City's Planning Commission. All final landscape plans will be submitted to the City's Community Development Department and the CVWD for review and approval. 11. Planning Area 4 will be required to provide a minimum 6f.200 units per the Housing Element. The developer is required to reserve twenty,percent.,'20%) of the 200 units (40) within the project to be made available at affordable rents{20low and 20 very low incomes) and in accordance with an approved and:recorded Housi6g._Agreement. 12. If any residential uses are constructed in Planning Area 3, the Developer, is required to reserve twenty percent (20%) of all units within the project to be made available at affordable rents (low and very low) and in accordance :W' ith an approved and recorded Housing Agreement. 13. The Specific Plan shall not include a`n` 14. All Planning Areas shall develop-, Standards contained � in ethe Specifi addressed in the ,pecfie Plan, sha (PDMC). restricted housing. a manner, consistent with the Development Plan... All "other., development standards, not ;omply with the` Palm Desert Municipal Code 15. The applicant shall pay into; the City's Public Art Fee for Planning Area 1 or 2, whichever is first to.�'dev,clop--of,the ';Speoific'PIan. It is recommended that this fee is used for,an, onsite public art project within Planning Area 1 or 2. The remaining PI Areas'shall pa Jnto the City's Public Art Fee at the time a Building Permit is ssoed for the development�of said Planning Areas. 16. Ligt t ng plans shall be-,,submitte"d in accordance with PDMC Section 24.16 for any landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area. 17. All mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be incorporated into.the planning, design, development, and operation of the project. 18. Final Fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the developer submits a PP application for each Planning Area by the Fire Prevention Bureau. 19. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when the developer submits a PP application for each Planning Area. 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map: 20. The parcel map shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 21. Right-of-way, as may be necessary for the construction of required public improvements, shall be provided on the parcel map. 22. Prior to City Council approval of Parcel Map 37234, the applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off -site improvements. Improvements may include but are not limited to: A. Twenty-five percent (25%) of a traffic signal installation of Monterey Avenue and Street A or the pro-rata share of the signal based upon a traffic study. If the traffic signal is constructed by the applicant for the City of Rancho Mirage then the bond submitted to the City of Palm Desert shall be released >by Council action. B. The relocation of power lines on Monterey Avenue to accommodate a future deceleration lane. C. The fair share cost, as det�erMined by tfor the future traffic signal modification at Monterey Avenue and, i KeIII ive. D. The removal and replacement -of an er t (8) sid'ewalk on Monterey Avenue to accommod,qte'-.a--future deceleration lane >° E. The installed h of a' deceleratio on Monterey Avenue. 23. Subsequent 24. The construction ons will beA'Opplied at ,'time each parcel is developed. V",,06Wterey Avenue may be approved at the er fCity of Palm Desert and the City of Rancho l.1 MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT— 73510 FRED WARING, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 Applicant: MC PROPERTIES LLC, MacLeod -Couch Land Company LLC C/O Applicant Consultant: Chambers Development 11870 Pierce Street, Suite 250 Riverside, CA 92505 805.889.9212 THE MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 4 A. Overview..................................................................................................... 4 B. Purpose....................................................................................................... 4 C. Project Boundary....................................................................................... 5 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................. 5 A. Setting.........................................................................................................5 B. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations ...................... 5 C. Circulation................................................................................................11 D. Utility Infrastructure................................................................................12 1II. LAND USE REGULATIONS........................................................................17 A. Land Use Plan...........................................................................................17 B. Permitted Uses and Development Standards .......................................... 21 C. General Development Standards............................................................. 23 IV. DESIGN GUIDELINES.................................................................................24 A. Purpose..................................................................................................... 24 B. Site Planning............................................................................................. 24 C. Access & Circulation................................................................................ 25 D. Architectural Elements............................................................................. 26 E. Landscaping.............................................................................................27 F. Walls and Fences...................................................................................... 27 G. Open Space...............................................................................................27 H. Lighting....................................................................................................28 I. Accessory Facilities...................................................................................28 V. PHASING AND FINANCING....................................................................... 29 VI. PROCEDURES.............................................................................................. 29 VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN........................................30 LIST OF TABLES Table I — Zoning Designations........................................................................................17 Table 2 - MCP Palm Desert Land Use Allocation........................................................18 Table 3 - Planning Area 1 And 2 Development Standards.........................................21 Table 4 - Planning Area 3 And 4 Development Standards.........................................22 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit1 Vicinity Map...............................................................................................6 Exhibit 2 Existing Conditions Site Cross Sections .................................................... 7 Exhibit 3 Existing City General Plan........................................................................8 Exhibit 4 Existing City Zoning.................................................................................. 9 Exhibit 5 Street Cross Sections................................................................................ 10 Exhibit 6 Existing Utilities....................................................................................... 16 Exhibit7 Land Use...................................................................................................19 Exhibit8 Zoning....................................................................................................... 20 d'� 1. INTRODUCTION A. Overview A Specific Plan is a document allowed under California law, which provides cities and counties with a planning tool for master planning project sites. A Specific Plan, when approved, becomes the zoning document for the project it covers. Specific Plans must be consistent with the General Plan of the jurisdiction in which they occur. Specific Plans can be implemented by local jurisdictions in accordance with the provisions of California .Government Code Section 65450. The City of Palm Desert is implementing this Specific Plan for the MCP Palm Desert project. The MCP Palm Desert project consists of 32.2 acres of currently vacant land located near the City's northern gateway at Interstate-10. It is immediately adjacent to the easternmost lane of Monterey Drive, I mile south of the Monterrey/1-10 interchange. Due to its proximity to the Desert Gateway and Marketplace retail centers, a nearby proposed elementary school and existing and proposed residential, commercial and medical complexes, MCP Palm Desert presents an opportunity to provide (1) a retail center directed at supporting local residents, employees and visitors to the nearby regional shopping centers, (ii) a significant high density (attached and/or- detached, for sale and/or for rent) residential community and (iii) the potential for other non -competing, complementary residential uses and/or mixed use projects. B. Purpose This Specific Plan sets forth a land use plan and long-range development standards that facilitate commercial, residential, open space and mixed use development within the project boundaries. It establishes a cohesive development plan for multiple parcels, yet is flexible enough to be responsive to future economic conditions. The Specific Plan's land use plan complements existing and planned development in the project vicinity and maximizes the use of existing utility infrastructure and roadways. The objectives of the Specific Plan include: • The development of high quality architecture, flexible, productive and well - designed master planned project that takes advantage of the synergies created by the residential and commercial uses planned for the site. • Creating a balance for the uses that provides the City with a range of residential options for future residents; a variety of commercial uses that serve not only the project residents, but the surrounding neighborhood and the traveling public; expands the City's sales tax base; and creates opportunities for a broad range of employment for residents of the project site, the City and the region. 03 C. Project Boundary The property is bounded by Dick Kelly Drive on the north, Gateway Drive on the east, "A" Street on the south and Monterey on the west. Please see Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map. I1. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Setting The subject property is located on the central, low-lying valley floor near the northerly Palm Desert city limits. It consists of vacant, generally flat desert land with sandy soils and sparse vegetation. The southwestern 15f acres of the property is the high point of the site, and slopes down in a northeasterly direction, ranging from approximately 308 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the corner of "A" Street and Monterey Avenue, to a low point of 260 feet above msl at the northeastern corner of the property. Please see Exhibit 2, Existing Contours.. Immediately north of the site lies the NEC corner of the Desert Gateway regional shopping center comprised of Wal-Mart, Kohl's, Ashley furniture and numerous drive through and fast casual restaurants and "in -line" small to medium sized retail tenants. To the east of the site lies undeveloped similarly sloping desert land; the northern portion is zoned planned residential and the southern portion has been acquired by the Palm Springs School District for a future school. As shown on Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map to the southeast of the site lies the Enclave, a 320 unit upscale apartment complex and to the south of the site lies Lowe's improvement center of which the southwestern most portion (approximately 5 acres) remains undeveloped. To the west of the site, across Monterey Avenue, lies undeveloped similarly sloping desert land in the City of Rancho Mirage. B. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations The City's General Plan shows the 32-acre site as being within the University Park Area with approximately 21 acres designated as Regional Retail (R-R) and approximately 11 acres as Town Center Neighborhood (T-CN). Please see Exhibit 3, Existing General Plan Designations. The City's Zoning Map designates the westernmost approximately 21 acres as Planned Commercial (PC-2) and, by ordinance 1233, designates the remainder of the site Planned Residential (PR-22). Please see Exhibit 4, Existing Zoning Designations. 1>i C MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN JUurce. Nlv&lWUU I-UUMY UOTO TrOM \rCUIS MSA CONSULTING, INC. wevw.crisciconsuliincgicrc.com N.T.S. Exhibit Date: October 31, 2016 VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 1 9- MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN EX. BOUNDARY EX. SURFACE EX. BOUNDARY Dick Kelly A Street Drive I— ----------------- --------------- 300' — — — 285' 266 SECTION "A" EX. BOUNDARY_ EX. SURFACE 307' --------- — — — — EX. BOUNDARY 286'--------- SECTION "B" 259' Source: MSA Consulting, Inc. MSA CONSULTINGID, INC. wwwnisoconsulfinyinc.com N.T.S. Exhibit Date: November 21, 2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE CROSS SECTIONS EXHIBIT 2 C MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN IIIiINJllull�.�.n.l ��,IIIII,.I �li�ll�il�li il�liluil�iilpl l.lul,l�. Ilil l�i�i �i. i�i it Sul �uli iiin ������ii i�l•i�u � lui lli�l�,lll ll lull lli�.,.I,iel,ililii llll�i�IIIII�uiiliJ li���udulli �i,��lllnliiu�i,ii I. ui i I�I�u�II ICI II IIuii l.lill lii,�, llliil�,�liluiilul ll ,I �lil il•�I li.l�li iu i.i Il I IIIIII � I III I I I I�--J I I--J--------- --------- � = Dick Kelly Drive a I I� C H71y GI I G &HC HO NIDRMOI I , I I� I I� I IQ I Iz I I� 13 I3 A Street — — r�EMOMAL R�STG^�od �,Va c�Ea��� I I I I I II I I a�O�aQo�aoo� � -- C CITY OF PALM DESERT! TrO�M1,'N CENT�F; NEICH600 �HOOO D L fD PUBUC F&C OLOTV 1 oa��o���ooaa� 1 l i i l l ll l � y JoD I I Legend: I L— — -- I — I I /I 11 H4 I I , I I �IIIIIIIIII Source: City of Palm Desert :xhibit Date: October 31, 2016 ID I EXISTING CITY GENERAL PLAN o' aoo• MSA CONSULTING, INC. ® EXHIBIT 3 www.rnsocor-isultiricginc.coni SCALE: -7 = 40V A:7 MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN I I I � I F- - - I � - I I I Dick Kelly Drive I I RANCHO WOR&RE P° -22 Legend: Planned Residential (PR-22) Planned Commercial (PC-2) Source: City of Palm Desert Zoning ID 01 400' MSA CONSULTING, INC. www.rnsaconsultinginc.coni SCALE: 1" = 400' J C 07V OF PG^ALN DESERT o\ - m 1 1 P.C.D. AStree4 -�------- I I I I I I �,ilillllil J- I iJ Exhibit Date: February 28, 2018 EXISTING CITY ZONING EXHIBIT 4 - MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN | ~ ! ~ ^~~~ .' .' .. . ~ IRA — IX T—Il�|�� ...�—.^..--.—' .— � � ^ ~ � ' | �r ~~%:~ ���~ �X ~r ~ Source: City Exhibit Dote: o�u z�'r .^ ID STREET CROSS SECTIONS MSA CONSULTING, INC. EXHIBIT C. Circulation The project area has immediate access to regional transportation links, including the I-10 freeway, arterials and local roads that interconnect with the broader roadway system. Roads immediately adjacent to the property are described below. Please see Exhibit 5 regarding the circulation elements listed below. Monterev Avenue Monterey Avenue is immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the property. In the project area, it is designated as an "Arterial" in the General Plan, which will be built out to a 150-foot right-of-way that includes 6 travel lands (3 in each direction), a median, west and east turn lands, parkway and utility corridor. Monterey Avenue will be built out when the City of Rancho Mirage completes construction of the currently scheduled westernmost lane and parkway. MCP Palm Desert may request a southbound left turn lane approximately mid -block on Monterey Avenue provided (i) there is no conflict with an anticipated northbound left turn lane into Rancho Mirage; (ii) a traffic study acceptable to the City demonstrates that the queuing geometries are sufficient, the LOS is within a reasonable level and the turn lane is safe and (iii) Rancho Mirage approves the request. Dick Kellv Drive Dick Kelly Drive is immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the property. In the project area, it is designated as a "Secondary" in the General Plan and is built out. Gatewav Drive Gateway Drive is immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property. In the project area, it is designated as a "Secondary" in the General Plan and is built out. "A" Street "A" Street is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the property. In the project area, it is designated as a "Secondary" in the General Plan. It has been approved as is built out, to "Collector" standards. Public Transit Sunline Transit Agency provides public bus service throughout the Coachella Valley. The nearest bus route to the subject property is Line 20, which extends along Monterey Avenue between the Monterrey/1-10 interchange and Palm Desert Town Center includes 2 bus stops (one on each side of the road) on Monterey Avenue near its intersection with Dick Kelly Drive, approximately 200 feet south of the subject property. Sunline will detennine whether bus stops adjacent to the property are added based on ridership and demand. D. Utility Infrastructure The Section 29 Assessment District ("AD 29") was formed by the City in 2007 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and installing water and sewer lines, stone drainage facilities and street improvements in the vicinity of the project including, but not limited to, those described below. AD 29 was funded following the City's adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the plans for the street improvements and storm drainage facilities were approved by the City and the plans for the water and sewer facilities were approved by CVWD and all of these facilities were installed in 2007 — 2008. Please see Exhibit 6 regarding location of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. The City retains the right to change the size and location of City owned facilities on the condition that existing level of service is met or exceeded with respect to the Specific Plan properties. Water Domestic water is supplied to the project area by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), which serves much of the Coachella Valley. CVWD's primary source of domestic water is groundwater extracted from the Whitewater River Sub -basin. Efforts to conserve and supplement finite groundwater supplies include a groundwater recharge program using imported Colorado River water, tertiary (three -stage) treated wastewater for golf course and greenway irrigation, and recycled water for agricultural and other purposes in the lower valley. Domestic water lines are in place beneath roads adjacent to the project. Existing water lines are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following: • "A" Street - 12-inch water line from Monterey Avenue to Gateway Drive • Gateway Drive - 12-inch water line from "A" Street to Dick Kelly Drive • Dick Kelly Drive -12-inch water line from Monterey Avenue to Gateway Drive • Monterey Avenue — 12-inch water line from "A" Street to Dick Kelly Drive A Water Supply Assessment will be prepared when Precise Plans and/or Tentative Tract Maps for the project are submitted to the City for review and approval. No major expansions of the existing water distribution system are expected to be required by the development. Sewer CVWD provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the project area. Existing sewer lines in the project vicinity are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following: "A" Street - 8-inch sewer line from Lowe's east property line (approximately 648' east of Monterey Avenue centerline) east of Monterey to Gateway Drive Gateway Drive - 8-inch sewer line from "A" Street to Dick Kelly Drive Dick Kelly Drive - 88-inch sewer from a point 670' east of Monterey Avenue to Gateway Drive Effluent from the project area is conveyed to CVWD's Wastewater Reclamation Plant No.10 (WRP-10) on Cook Street in Palm Desert. It treats approximately 11 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater and has a design capacity of 18 million gallons per day. Approximately 60 percent of the effluent undergoes tertiary treatment for the purpose of golf course and greenbelt irrigation, thereby reducing the demand for groundwater resources. New development facilitated by this Specific Plan will connect to the existing network of sewer lines. Increased demand from the project is not expected to require major infrastructure expansions or adversely affect CVWD's ability to serve the area. Stormwater Management The subject property is located outside of any flood hazard areas, as shown on the most recent (2008) Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).l It is located in Zone X, which represents areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. Regional Drainage CVWD is responsible for regional stormwater management in the project area. Parcels immediately north of the subject property were once included CVWD easements for the proposed Mid -Valley Stormwater Project. However, the project was retired in January 2012, and all easements were quitclaimed to the respective owners. CVWD has indicated that there are no regional stormwater management concerns for the subject property or its immediate vicinity. The property is not included in a CVWD drainage plan. Local Drainage Rainfall tributary to the project will flow from buildings, across parking lots and along internal streets to nearby catch basins. Catch basins will collect and convey runoff via an onsite storm drain system. The onsite system will confluence at the northeast corner of the project and connect to an existing storm drainpipe. The existing pipe will convey flows to the large city -owned retention basin along the railroad tracks. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Section 29 Assessment District (AD 29), which was formed in 2007 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and installing water and sewer lines, storm drainage facilities and street improvements adjacent to and in the vicinity of the project. A hydrology study was prepared for AD 29 in 2007 demonstrating that the offsite stormwater infrastructure can contain flows from the project site during a 100-year storm event. Therefore, individual projects proposed within the project planning area will not be required to contain 100 year storm flows onsite as long as flows are adequately directed to the existing offsite stormwater infrastructure. Implementation of these and other requirements will assure that drainage and stormwater will not create or contribute water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stromwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A Water Quality Improvement Plan and hydrology studies will be required and submitted to the City for review and approval when Precise Plans and/or Tentative Tract Maps for the Specific Plan Property have been submitted to the City. Existing storm drainage facilities are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following: • "A" Street — 30- inch storm drain pipe from Lowe's east property line to Gateway Drive • Gateway Drive — 36-inch storm drain pipe North of "A" Street to Dick Kelly Drive • Dick Kelly Drive — 54-inch through 66-inch storm drain pipe east of Gateway Drive • Retention Basin — AD 29 acquired the retention basin; reshaped retention basin; added slope protection and constructed pipe outlet structure Electricity Electricity in the project area is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE's power is primarily generated outside the Coachella Valley; however, wind -generated power is purchased from local producers. A variety of rebates are offered for the use of energy -efficient equipment and appliances, such as electric heat pumps and water heaters. The project area is well served by electric power. Overhead transmission lines and buried distribution lines are located along the east side of Monterey Avenue. Underground lines provide electricity to existing development north of Dick Kelly Drive. Existing transmission lines on Monterey Avenue will not be undergrounded due to their size. Buried distribution lines necessary to serve the project exist underground on the north side of Dick Kelly Drive to Gateway Drive and stubs exist in Dick Kelly Drive intended for future development. Natural Gas Natural gas is typically used for domestic hot water and space heating, as well as some industrial processes. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to the project area. There is a high-pressure gas line in the west side of Monterey Avenue between Dick Kelly Drive and "A" Street. Significantly, there is a 6" gas stub at the SEC of Monterey Avenue and Dick Kelly Drive plus another 6" stub at the NEC of Monterey Avenue and "A" Street. One of these 2 stubs will serve any new development. Telecommunications Frontier Communications is the local provider. They can provide copper service to the site for Telephone and Internet services. In some areas, FiOS and CATV are also available through Frontier Communications. Availability of FiOS or CATV services through Frontier Communications would have to be detennined at the time of development. Cable TV Time Warner is the local provider for telephone, Internet and cable TV services. Solid Waste Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services provides solid waste collection and disposal services to the project area through a franchise agreement with the City. Residential, commercial, industrial, and construction waste is collected and transported to a transfer station in Cathedral City, then to the Lamb Canyon or Badlands regional landfills. These landfills are owned and operated by Riverside County and have available capacity to accommodate waste generated by future development. The City's recycling program has contributed to reductions in the need for landfills. Burrtec collects recyclable materials, including those from construction sites and green waste, and hauls them to Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) throughout southern California for sorting and processing. Ell MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN 12Wa#er afn� h - Storm Drain Line 77 Storm Drain Catcn Basin v la 8"Sewer Main �5- 12' Water Main �� 12" Water Main 8"Sewer Main .UA ;u Storm Drain Line a' Project Site 8' Sewer Main 2 12" Water Main 2'' Water Main 8" Sewer Main Storm Drain Catch Basin' A Street Storm Drain Line` ., y ai Legend: —W® Existing Water Main —SD Existing Storm Drain Line —S Existing Sewer Main ® Existing Storm Drain Catch Basin Source: MSA Consulting, Inc. Exhibit Date: November 21, 2016 ID EXISTING UTILITES MSA CONSULTING, INC. EXHIBIT 6 v�ww.rnsar_onsuflinginc.com N.T.S. ..35 1II. LAND USE REGULATIONS A. Land Use Plan This section of the Specific Plan provides descriptions of the land uses allowable within each planning area. It also includes descriptions of the zoning designations applicable to each Planning Area. The MPC Pahn Desert Specific Plan area is divided into four (4) Planning Areas, three of' which are designated for a specific land use and one of which is designated for alternative land uses. The land use plan proposed for the two existing legal parcels comprising the MCP Specific Plan is described below and illustrated on Exhibit 7. The MCP Specific Plan Land Use is consistent with the current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Designation The current Zoning Designations are shown earlier on Exhibit 4. A total of four Planning Areas in the MPC Palm Desert Specific Plan are proposed. The Zoning Designations for the Planning Areas are listed in the following Table and shown on Exhibit 8. Table I — Zoning Designations Planning Area Acres Zoning Designation 1 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2) 2 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2) Planned Residential (PR-22) 3 6.0 Planned Commercial (PC-2) Planned Residential 4 11.44 (PR-22) Land Use Allocation The MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan is designed to provide a broad range of land uses to be developed in a coordinated, high quality environment. This Specific Plan can be developed based on the following master land use allocation, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 - MCP Palm Desert Land Use Allocation Density/Lot Planning Density/Lot Coverage Projected Area Land Use Acres Coverage Min. Max. Units/SF Planned Commercial 1 (PC-2) 7.37 25% 50% 55,000* Planned Commercial 2 (PC-2) 7.37 25% 50% 65,000* Planned Residential 3 (PR-22, PC-2) 6 10/acre 22/acre 132 Planned Residential Min. 200 4 (PR-22) 11.44 17.34/acre 22/acre Max.252 Total Maximum Potential Units 384 Total Potential Sq. Footage 120,000* * Projected SF represents structure footprint; square footage of structure may increase due to inclusion of second story 12�-7 MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN Parcel 3 Residential / Commercial 5.87 acres` Parcel 4 Residential 11.44 acres Total _ 32.05 acres Source: MSA Consulting, Inc. aN MTV OF N%LA ; DLMEQ7 ° s :! =r k $ai Exhibit Date: February 28, 2018 LAND USE 0' 300' MSA CONSULTING, INC. vv�vw.insaconsultin9inC•Cani SCALE: V' = 300' EXHIBIT 7 C MCP PALM DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN PARCEL 3 PARCEL PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR-22) / PLANNED. _ PLANNED C Cody OD F COMMERCIAL (PC-2) COMMERCIAL (PC-2) PARCEL 2 PARCEL 4 PLANNED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR_ 22) COMMERCIAL (PC-2) • � ,'�� "Y �-`_ ire t Legend: r, Parcel 1 Planned Commercial (PC-2) Parcel 2 Planned Commercial (PC-2) Parcel 3 Planned Residential (PR-22) / Planned Commercial (PC 2) Parcel 4 Planned Residential (PR 22) Source: MSA Consulting, Inc. ID 0' 300' MSA CONSULTING, INC. NN,w.r7isacoruultinginc.com SCALE: 1" = 300' a' t e. ri r I� r t 4 .. uA p 34d � Exhibit Date: February 28, 2018 ZONING EXHIBIT 8 M B. Permitted Uses and Development Standards Planning Area 1 and 2 — Planned Commercial (PC-2) Planning Areas 1 and 2 may be developed as commercial shopping center(s) consisting of one or two-story buildings. The following Specific Plan Uses are in addition to uses allowed in the Zoning Ordinance regarding PC-2. Uses allowed per Chapter 25.16, Commercial Uses, are allowed within the PC-2 zone identified in Table 25.16; permitted and conditional uses are allowed. Without limiting the foregoing, allowed uses shall include drive -through restaurants, mixed -use developments, car wash, hotel(s) per Section 25.34.070 containing a spa, convenience stores, automobile service stations without regard to the required site location separation distances per Section 25.34.090, commercial indoor recreation facilities and indoor amusement establishments and combinations of two or more of the uses listed above. Ancillary commercial uses, business support services and personal services shall be allowed. Residential units and/or professional office space shall be allowed on a second story. Approval of the uses are subject to a CUP application, Precise Plan application or administrative use permit application; the form of application shall be consistent with city policies as determined by the Community Development Director. Table 3 - Planning Area 1 And 2 Development Standards Minimum Lot Size 3 acres Front Yard Setback (min) 0 ft. Side Yard Setback (min) 0 ft. Street Side Yard Setback 0 ft. Rear Yard Setback (min) 0 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage 50% Maximum Height, Retail, Office and Mixed Use 35 ft. Maximum Height Recreational Facility (Commercial and/or Private) and/or Entertainment Facility 40 ft. Maximum Height, Hotel 60 ft. Maximum no. of Stories, Hotel and Mixed Use 4 Minimum Landscaping (% of lot area) 20% Development standards not listed in the Table shall be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance Development Standards for the Planned Commercial (2) District, Section 25.16.050 Development standards may be modified with approval of a Precise Plan Maximum height does not include architectural screen walls and towers as outlined in Section 25.40.040 Planninq Area 3 — Planned Residential (PR-22); Planned Commercial / (PC-2) Planning Area 3 may be developed as part of a large attached residential project on Planning Area 3 combined with the same use as on Planning Area 4. Alternatively, PA3 may be developed (i) with attached or detached residential units, for sale or for rent, at densities from 10-22/acre, (ii) as a mixed -use project and/or 100% commercial project using the same development standards as in Planning Area 1 and 2. Condominium projects may be permitted with approval of a Precise Plan application. PA3 will utilize the development standards identified in Planning Area 1, 2, and 4 based on the project. Planninq Area 4 Planning Area 4 shall be developed with a minimum of 200 attached for sale or for rent residential units. Table 4 — Planning Area 4 Development Standards Maximum Density PR-22 2_2 units/acre Planning Area Landscape 20% Front Yard Setbacks (min) 10 ft. l Street Side Yard Setbacks (min) 5 ft. 8 ft. with no one side less Side Yard Setbacks Combined both sides (min) than 3 ft. Rear Yard Setback (min) 10 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage 50% SFA l 65% SFD < Maximum Lot Coverage 2500 sf. 55% SFD > Maximum Lot Coverage 2500 sf. Maximum Number of Stories/Height l 3 stories/40 feetl 1 covered Parking space per unit 1 space every 8I Guest Parking units Common Area Open Space per Unit l 250 sf. l Development standards may be modified with approval of a Precise Plan Maximum height does not include architectural projections or towers. 4( C. General Development Standards 1. The Project shall be developed in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this Specific Plan. 2. A reservation of housing affordable to the lower and/or moderate residents (if any) shall be addressed in the blousing Agreement. 3. All improvements constructed on the property shall conform to applicable public works and building ordinances and codes in effect at the time construction occur. 4. Where the provisions of this Specific Plan conflict with land use or building ordinances, regulations, and/or codes, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall control. 5. The exact location and configuration of Specific Plan Planning Areas may be altered as Precise Plans and Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps are developed, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 6. Tentative Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, and Precise Plans may be submitted and approved by the City, consistent with the provisions and intent of this Specific Plan. 7. All utility, roadway, and other improvements required to adequately serve each phase of the Project shall be constructed in conjunction with such phase. 8. Shared parking is required for commercial and mixed -use areas throughout the MCP Specific Plan. The number of required parking spaces may be reduced where it is demonstrated that parking efficiencies will result from shared land uses, subject to Planning Commission approval. Shared parking can occur within individual Planning Areas, or across Planning Area boundaries. 9. Joint use parking shall not exceed 50 percent of the required spaces of any uses involved. A recorded covenant, acceptable to the city attorney, shall be required to facilitate joint use. 10. All circulation and parking elements incorporated in Precise Plans and/or Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps shall be reviewed and approved by Fire Department and Public Works. 11. Pedestrian access to public parkways shall be proposed with Precise Plans or Tentative Tract Maps for the Specific Plan Property. 'mil IV. DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Purpose This section establishes design guidelines for the Specific Plan area that supplement those set forth in the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. They provide a flexible set of fundamental principles that will assure a cohesive, attractive, and quality working and living environments. Where conflicts or inconsistencies may exist, the guidelines of this Specific Plan shall control. The guidelines shall apply to all Planning Areas in the Specific Plan boundaries, unless otherwise specified. B. Site Planning 1. All built elements of the Specific Plan area should be developed in a cohesive and integrated manner such that they function as and are recognizable as a single destination. This includes consideration of structures, hardscape, and landscaping that visually tie these elements together in an effective and pleasing manner. 2. Projects developed within the Specific Plan should incorporate elements of the City's Sustainability Plan to the greatest extent practical. 3. Each phase of development must be self-sustaining in terms of scale, access, and amenities. 4. Whenever possible, structures should be clustered to create landscape -enhanced plazas or pedestrian ways and public spaces. Long, "barracks -like" rows must be avoided. When clustering is impossible, visual links such as arcades and trellises should be encouraged between separate structures. 5. Commercial buildings should generally be arranged in a "U," "L," or similarly shaped configurations to encourage pedestrian activity, provide isolation of loading and other operation areas, allow visibility of entrances from the street, and encourage shared pedestrian and vehicular linkages between properties. Pedestrian improvements and amenities shall be provided throughout the Specific Plan area to further integrate adjoining Planning Areas and create a sense of place. 6. Loading docks, trash enclosures, and other service facilities should be located at the rear of the site whenever possible and recessed and/or properly screened from view. 7. Special design elements will be required at the interface of the commercial planning areas and the residential planning areas to minimize visual and noise elements inconsistent with residential experience. 4-2) C. Access & Circulation Roads and Access Drives 1. Internal circulation should minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts to the greatest extent possible. Structures should be linked to public sidewalks with textured or enhanced paving, landscaping, or similar treatments. Parking 1. Parking facilities should be conveniently located, with street access made as direct as possible. 2. Wherever possible, parking areas should be visible from the residential units that use them. 3. Residential parking spaces not located within garages or carports should be shaded by landscaping with effective summer shade of a minimum of 50%. 4. Detached and attached garages, carports, and accessory structures should be designed as integral parts of the project and consistent with the principal structures of the project in their use of materials, color, and design details. 5. The preferred location for garages and carports is on the interior side of parking areas. 6. Prefabricated carports are not permitted. 7. Garage doors should be steel or aluminum and may include wood cladding or metal to enhance architectural compatibility. Hinge -type garage doors are prohibited. Pedestrian Access 1. Pedestrian, bicycle and NEV access and circulation should connect planning areas to encourage non -vehicular travel. Non -vehicular access must be integrated into project site plans and, when appropriate given project use(s), shall occur on dedicated paths that protect pedestrians and bicyclists from automobiles, and provide shaded areas and amenities for their users. When appropriate given project use(s), Pedestrian connections must be provided between Planning Areas 1 and 2 and Planning Area 3 and 4. These pedestrian connections must be dedicated to pedestrian and bicycle access only, and cannot be located within roadways or internal driveways. Sidewalks on internal streets should not be the only form of pedestrian access provided, but should be supplemented by internal walkways, trails or paths. The City shall review each proposed project within this Specific Plan to assure connectivity between these Planning Areas. 2. To the extent possible, the entrances to individual residential units should be plainly visible from nearby parking areas. 3. Individual outdoor walkways, corridors, or access balconies should be designed to serve no more than five residential units. 4. In the event that a building is located in close proximity to a street, and parking is provided at the rear or side of the lot, clearly delineated secondary pedestrian access convenient to parking areas should be provided to the greatest extent practical. D. Architectural Elements I. Architectural development plans will be reviewed for their focus on high -quality, attractive design and compatibility with the intended objectives of this Specific Plan, as well as existing and proposed development in the project vicinity. Designs should be harmonious with regard to building style, form, size, color, material, and roofline. 2. Architectural designs should incorporate energy efficient materials and construction techniques, and strive to exceed existing Building Code requirements. 3. Individual buildings should be distinguishable from one another, while also being viewed as integral parts of the larger building design. 4. Large buildings should provide architectural interest through variations in building mass and distribution. 5. Long, unbroken facades and unarticulated box -like forms should be avoided. Building facades should be tied together through a unified and cohesive design. Building setbacks and projections and varying rooflines can provide visual interest while maintaining function. 6. Balconies, porches, and patios should be integrated into single and multi -family development to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures. 7. Building design should be sensitive and responsive to the varying temperatures and outdoor living opportunities of the low desert. 8. Buildings should provide a 360° articulation of all building facades. 9. Entryways on commercial buildings should be clearly identifiable to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and should be integral parts of building design. Entryways should provide safe and unobstructed pedestrian access. 10. Monument signs will be located at project area intersections, and will serve as the primary directional signage for the project. Monument signs will be designed to be integral to the Architectural style of the project, and will be consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance standards. E. Landscaping 1. Landscape treatments should maximize the use of native desert and compatible drought- tolerant plant materials. Species must comply with City and CVWD water conservation ordinance requirements. 2. Landscape plans must address wind and water erosion issues and demonstrate the water efficiency gained from plant and irrigation systems. 3. All areas not covered by structures, drives, parking or hardscape should be appropriately landscaped. 4. The use of turf should be limited to functional play and active use areas. 5. Landscaping should provide shade where needed, including within parking areas, bus shelters, park seating areas, and pedestrian paths/trails. 6. Where appropriate, organic and inorganic groundcovers are recommended in place of asphalt or concrete. F. Walls and Fences 1. Walls and fences should be an integral part of site design, especially in areas of public visibility. Careful consideration must be given to their placement so as to assure a natural transition between land uses. 2. Windbreak walls, berms, and fences may be constructed in areas that warrant protection from prevailing winds. G. Open Space 1. Common open space should be conveniently located for the majority of units. 2. Private open spaces should be contiguous to the units they serve and at least partially screened from view. 3. Open space areas should be designed and oriented to take advantage of available sunlight and sheltered from wind, traffic, and noise to the greatest extent practical. `-C G 4. Adequate and safe pedestrian and non -motorized access to open spaces should be provided. 5. Within commercial centers an outdoor plaza or center shall be provided in order to create a sense of place for pedestrians. 6. Outdoor areas associated with commercial and multi -family developments should provide attractive spaces that are carefully planned and not simply leftover areas between structures. Pedestrian amenities, such as tables, benches, fountains, and shade structures, should be provided. H. Lighting 1. Exterior lighting fixtures should provide safety and convenience, and should be integral design elements of the project. 2. All outdoor lights should be screened and shielded to avoid spilling onto adjoining properties and streets, and must comply with the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements. Accessory Facilities 1. Trash storage, transfer, and disposal facilities should be located in parking areas or at the end of parking bays. Locations should be conveniently accessible for both trash collection and maintenance and should not block access drives during loading operations. 2. Trash facilities should be enclosed in accordance with applicable City standards and the minimum requirements of the disposal service provider. Pedestrian access should be provided to the rear or side of the enclosure. 3. Accessory facilities in multifamily projects, such as laundry facilities, recreation buildings, and pool cabanas should be as centrally located within the development and consistent in architectural design and form with the rest of the complex. Sales and leasing offices also should be compatible with these guidelines. 4. Where common mailboxes are provided, their location should be carefully considered so as to provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access and vehicular stacking. Design and architectural character should be compatible and complementary in form, materials, and colors to the surrounding buildings, as well as minimum U.S. Postal Service specifications. 5. Any roof -mounted equipment is to be located within an attic space or fully screened by an architecturally appropriate parapet wall. All HVAC and similar equipment must be visually and acoustically screened. The screening method must be functionally and architecturally compatible with the building design in terms of materials, color, shape, and size. V. PHASING AND FINANCING The MCP Palm Desert project will be developed in phases. Phases in development will be subject to market demand. As described in this document, infrastructure currently exists immediately adjacent to the project site. Connections to this existing infrastructure will be made as planning areas develop, including water, sewer and all dry utilities. Storm drainage will be developed consistent with Section 11 D., Local Drainage, herein and with the approved hydrology study and water quality management plans. The project financing will generally be private. As with any project, a variety of financing mechanisms are available to both the owners and the City to fund specific project or infrastructure needs. These mechanisms may be employed by the owners as needed throughout the construction of the project. VI. PROCEDURES Amendment of the Specific Plan This Specific Plan may be amended by application for a proposed amendment by the land owner(s) of the affected parcel(s) within the Specific Plan area, and approved by the City based on the following criteria: Amendments Subject to Director's Approval The following amendments shall be subject to administrative review and approval by the Director of Community Development: • Minor changes in this Specific Plan that provide supplemental detail consistent with the existing content of the Specific Plan. • Minor changes in the Planning Area boundaries that increase or decrease any Planning Area acreage by 15% or less. • Minor changes in overall density or lot coverage that increases total land use allocation by 10% or less. Amendments Subject to Planning Commission Approval The following amendments shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and may be subject to the City Council calling the proposed amendments up: • Any change in land use designation applicable to a Planning Area. • Major changes in Specific Plan that affect the purpose and intent of this document. • Major changes in Planning Area boundaries that increase or decrease any Planning Area acreage by 15.1 % or more. • Major changes in overall density or lot coverage that increase total land use allocation by 10.1% or more. ig Concurrent Aaalications Whenever possible, applications for development approvals shall be processed concurrently, when multiple applications are required. For example, if a commercial project within a Planning Area requires a Parcel Map, Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit, every effort shall be made to process all applications concurrently. Precise Plans Precise Plans will be required for all projects within this Specific Plan. Precise Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. Precise Plans may cover portions of a Planning Area, an entire Planning Area, or multiple Planning Areas. Partial development of a Planning Area shall not inhibit the overall development of the subject Planning Area or other Specific Plan Planning Areas. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN As required by Government Code Section 65451, this section of the Specific Plan addresses the relationship of the MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan to the City of Palm Desert General Plan. The Goals, Policies and Programs of the General Plan recently adopted by the City in November of 2016 have been reviewed, and where applicable, have been analyzed individually for each Element. In the analysis below, the applicable Goal or Policy is first cited, followed by an analysis of this Specific Plan's consistency. Where Goals and/or Policies are inter -related, they are grouped together for discussion. Land Use & Community Character 1.1 Scale of development. Require new development along the city's corridors use design techniques to moderate height and use and ensure compatible fit with surrounding development. The Specific Plan establishes development standards and guidelines for the ultimate development ofplanned commercial land uses on the east side of Monterey Avenue. To the east, and not on the Monterey Avenue corridor, high density residential would be constructed. Along the Monterey corridor, retail and office structures could extend to 40 feet in height, while a hotel could occur at a 60 foot height, which is consistent with height standards in the City's commercial areas. Design Guidelines include recommendations for the siting of commercial structures to reduce the bulk of individual buildings. The Specific Plan includes provisions for the preparation of Precise Plans which will address the placement of buildings. This requirement will allow the City the ability to assure that the scale and mass of proposed structures is consistent with the ,scale and mass of adjacent and surrounding development, including the existing commercial development immediately to the north and south on Monterey Avenue. Goal 2. Human -Scaled Design. A city designed for people, fostering interaction, activity, and safety. 2.2 Parking frontages. Require parking strategies and designs that ensure parking areas do not dominate street frontages and are screened from public views whenever possible. The Specific Plan Design Standards require that Precise Plans include shared parking provisions, to reduce the overall parking fields within the project. This requirement, coupled with Design Guidelines which encourage 'U' and 'L'shaped commercial buildings and clustered structures, will allow the design of parking areas that do not dominate the street frontages. 2.7 Public gathering spaces. Improve existing and create new gathering spaces throughout the city to provide beautiful, comfortable, and inviting public and pedestrian spaces, encouraging walking and public gathering spaces. 2.8 Public plazas. Encourage new development to incorporate public plazas, seating, drinking fountains, and gathering places, especially in prominent locations and areas of pedestrian activity. The Specific Plan includes both commercial and residential development components. Its Design Guidelines provide for integrated and cohesive design that will assure that the entire project appears as one coordinated site. These guidelines also encourage the clustering of structures and creation of public .spaces and pedestrian access, and provide for pedestrian amenities throughout the .site. Finally, dedicated pedestrian connections must be provided between Planning Area I and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4. 2.9 Commercial requirements. Require development projects in nonresidential and mixed use areas to provide for enhanced pedestrian activity through the following techniques: • Requiring that the ground floor frontage be oriented to and accessible from the sidewalk. • Locating the majority of a building's frontages in close proximity to the sidewalk edge; • Requiring that the first level of the building occupy a majority of the lot's frontage, with exceptions for vehicle access; • Requiring that the majority of the linear ground floor retail frontage (where it occurs) be visually and physically "penetrable," incorporating windows and other design treatments to create an attractive street frontage; • Requiring that the first level of building where retail uses are allowed have a minimum 15 feet floor to floor height for nonresidential uses; • Minimizing vehicle intrusions across the sidewalk; • Allowing for the development of outdoor plazas and dining areas; • Discouraging new surface parking lots; and ,-5o Locating parking (surface or structured) behind buildings, wherever feasible. • Address parking on a regional basis to maximize efficiency. The Speci/ic Plan includes a requirement for Precise Plan approvals, which will allow review of plans to meet these .standards. In addition, the master planned nature of the development components in the Specific Plan assure that a continuous and unified building layout will occur. The City will limit access points oil Monterey Avenue, thereby reducing potential vehicle intrusions across sidewalks. As stated above, the Design Guidelines encourage the clustering of buildings to allow for public plazas and similar open areas. Further, the Specific Plan requires the implementation ofshared use parking strategies to limit and coordinate parking areas. 2.10 Auto -oriented uses. Consider allowing uses that serve occupants of vehicles (such as drive -through windows) and discourage uses that serve the vehicle (such as car washes and service stations), in places that are clearly automobile oriented, ensuring that such uses do not disrupt pedestrian flow, are not concentrated, do not break up the building mass of the streetscape, and are compatible with the planned uses of the area. The Specific Plan project area is located on a major arterial roadway, and as .such will provide a convenient and accessible location for uses that serve the occupants of vehicles, including drive -through facilities. In addition, the location of high density residential in close proximity to these commercial uses will encourage the use of these businesses as .stops on the way to or from work or school via pedestrian or bicycle access. Goal 3. Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing types, densities, designs and mix of uses and services that support healthy and active lifestyles. 3.1 Complete neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement process, ensure that all new Neighborhoods (areas with a "Neighborhood" General Plan Designation) are complete and well structured such that the physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use, are family friendly and address the needs of multiple ages and physical abilities. New neighborhoods should have the following characteristics: • Contain short, walkable block lengths. • Contain a high level of connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles where practicable. • Are organized around a central focal point such as a park, school, civic building or neighborhood retail such that most homes are no more than one quarter -mile from this focal point. • Have goods and services within a short walking distance. • Contain a diversity of housing types, where possible. • Have homes with entries and windows facing the street. • Have a grid or modified grid street network (except where topography necessitates another street network layout). • Provide a diversity of architectural styles. The Specific Plan's mix of high density residential and commercial development will allow for the development of a non -motorized neighborhood environment, by promoting close proximity between home and potential jobs and shopping opportunities. These uses will be within walking distance of the residential neighborhood. The location of the Specific Plan on Monterey Avenue also allows residents to have easy access to transit, which currently operates on that roadway. The proposed residential component of the Specific Plan could include a mix offor sale and for rent units available to a varied range of households, including both families and seniors. The Specific Plan also includes the potential for assisted living facilities in the plan, which would allow for transition of neighborhood residents who could remain in the neighborhood in the long term. In addition, the project site's location allows for easy connections to proposed parks and schools located easterly of the site. The design of the residential component of the project will be governed by Precise Plan approvals, allowing the City to implement the requirements of this policy through design consultation and conditions of approval. 3.2 Conventional neighborhood design. Discourage the constriction of new residential neighborhoods that are characterized by cul-de-sacs, sound walls, long block lengths, single building and housing types and lack of access to goods and services. The Precise Plan(s) which will be prepared for individual projects within the Specific Plan will provide detail regarding internal design. However, the Specific Plan Design Guidelines encourage connectivity for pedestrians and other non - motorized transport; a requirement for dedicated pedestrian access between Planning Area I and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4; the clustering of buildings (in both the residential and commercial components of the project); and discourages long single -building construction. The development of higher density residential is unlikely to generate a need for cul-de-sacs, and its location to the east of Monterey Avenue and the commercial development will lessen the need for sound walls. 3.4 Balanced neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing types, promote a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood in order to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. For development projects larger than five acres, require that a diversity of housing types be provided and that these housing types be mixed rather than segregated by unit type. As described above, the Specific Plan's Planning Area 3 and 4 propose the construction of a broad range of housing types which would include both renters and owners; families and seniors; and income levels. These planning areas could include apartments, townhomes and small lot single family projects. 3.5 Housing affordability. Ensure affordable housing is distributed throughout the City to avoid concentrations of poverty and to be accessible to jobs. The Specific Plan includes a mix of residential products that could include income - restricted units. Because a mix of housing types are anticipated, there will not be a concentration of affordable units within the project. In addition, the Specific Plan 's inclusion of both a commercial and residential component will allow residents access to jobs within close walking distance. 3.6 Senior housing. Encourage the development of senior housing only in neighborhoods that are accessible to public transit, commercial services and health and community facilities. The Specific Plan includes the potential for senior housing in Planning Area 3. This Planning Area will be located immediately adjacent to the commercial .services on the west side of the Specific Plan area, and within walking distance of transit which is currently available on Monterey Avenue. In addition, the project .site is located within a mile of multiple medical services, including a planned medical office complex on the west side of Monterey Avenue, in Rancho Mirage. Finally, should a portion of this planning area develop assisted living facilities, additional services for resident .seniors would be made available. 3.11 Connections to key destinations. Require direct pedestrian connections between residential areas and nearby commercial and public/institutional areas. 3.14 Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that the majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners, laundrornats, farmers markets, banks, hair care, pharmacies and similar uses. The Specific Plan requires the development of an integrated and unified combination of residential and commercial development. The residential component, which could include a variety of housing types, will be within easy walking distance to the commercial component. Although it is not possible to predict what types of businesses will locate in the commercial component, the uses will include those that will be needed by project residents, and when combined with the commercial businesses located in existing projects to the north and south of the site, will provide residents with a broad range of service and shopping opportunities. `53 4.3 Regional retail districts. Facilitate major regional serving commercial centers that provide a mix of uses in a pedestrian oriented format and become vibrant destinations for people to live, work, shop and congregate. Allow a wide variety of uses to locate in Regional Retail Districts including destination retail centers, mixed -use town centers, and hotels, among other uses. 4.4 Regional retail district design. Allow for significant flexibility in the design of Regional Retail Districts so long as city-wide and project -level connectivity standards are met, the uses do not adversely affect adjacent uses and accommodations are made for pedestrians, bicycle and transit users. Design internal streets and parking into blocks and require sidewalks along both sides of these streets. The commercial component of the Specific Plan is proposed for a range of commercial development on a major arterial roadway. Its designation as a Regional Retail and Town Center Neighborhood district is consistent with this Policy, and the anticipated uses within the project. The Design Guidelines encourage the development of an interconnected project which would include plazas and similar public .spaces that provide a destination for .shoppers. Goal 5. Centers. A variety of mixed use, urban centers throughout the city that provide opportunities for shopping, recreation, commerce, employment and arts and culture. The Specific Plan includes both a residential and a commercial component which are to be designed and constructed as a cohesive whole. This type ofproject is not currently present in the Monterey Avenue corridor, and will add residential development to an essentially commercial area, thereby adding a mixed use component to this area of the City. 5.4 Access to transit. Encourage the development of commercial and mixed use centers that are located on existing or planned transit stops in order to facilitate and take advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips and allow residents without private vehicles to access services. As previously stated, the Specific Plan project area is located on Monterey Avenue, a major roadway which currently includes public transit. As the project site is developed, the City will coordinate with SunLine Transit regarding the location of bus .stops at or near the project .site, as demand warrants. Mobility Element Goal 1. Livable Streets. A balanced transportation system that accommodates all modes of travel safely and efficiently. 1.1 Complete Streets. Consider all modes of travel in planning, design, and construction of all transportation projects to create safe, livable, and inviting 5�+ environments for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit users of all ages and capabilities. The project site is located on Monterey Avenue, and will be bordered by Dick Kelly Drive, Gateway Drive and A Street. Monterey, Dick Kelly and Gateway include bicycle lanes in their ultimate right of way, and these will be available to users of both the commercial and the residential components of the project. The Specific Plan area will be developed through the approval of Precise Plans, which will be conditioned to include complete street programs on General Plan roadways and the internal street system, including connections from Planning Area I and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4. Goal 3. Pedestrian Facilities. Integrated pedestrian pathways that connect residences, businesses and educational and community uses. 3.1 Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation system for pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, place to sit and gather, appropriate street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles, shading, and amenities for people of all ages. 3.4 Access to Development. Require that all new development projects or redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external pedestrian network. Specific designs for components of the proposed project will be required to include pedestrian connections both between the project components and between the project and the pedestrian facilities on Monterey, Dick Kelly and Gateway. These connections are supported in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, which encourage the provision of pedestrian connection throughout the project, and require connections from Planning Area I and 2 to Planning Area 3 and 4. Health and Wellness Element 6.2 Healthy buildings. Require new development to meet the State's Green Building Code standards for indoor air quality performance, and promote green building practices that support "healthy buildings," such as low VOC materials, environmental tobacco smoke control, and indoor air quality construction pollution prevention techniques. The Specific Plan includes, in its Design Guidelines, provisions which encourage implementation of the City's Sustainability Plan. The Plan is specifically geared toward green building practices and healthy development. Further, the Specific Plan encourages the implementation of energy efficient construction equal to or in excess of Building Code standards. J5 7.3 Pedestrian barriers. Discourage physical barriers to walking and bicycling between and within neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. If physical barriers are unavoidable, provide safe and comfortable crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. Physical barriers may include arterial streets with speed limits above 35 mph, transit or utility rights -of -way, very long blocks without through -streets, and sound walls, amongst others. As previously stated, the Specific Plan includes Design Guidelines that encourage the connection of all parts of the project with pedestrian facilities. This will allow easy access between the commercial and residential components of the project, and provide safe and comfortable access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Environmental Resources Element Goal 1. Water Resources. Protected and readily available water resources for community and environmental use. 1.1 Water conservation technologies. Promote indoor and outdoor water conservation and reuse practices including water recycling, grey water reuse and rainwater harvesting. 1.2 Landscape design. Encourage the reduction of landscaping water consumption through plant selection and irrigation technology. The Specific Plan's landscaping guidelines include the limitation of turf to functional use only, and the use of desert and drought -tolerant landscaping throughout the project. The project is further required to comply with CMD's water conservation ordinance requirements. Finally, the Design Guidelines encourage exceedance of the Building Code's Green Building standards, and the inclusion of the City :s Sustainability Plan programs, which both include water conservation measures. 5.2 GHG reductions. Promote land use and development patterns that reduce the community's dependence on, and length of, automobile trips. The proposed project will develop residential units at higher densities immediately adjacent to commercial development (both existing and proposed), and interconnect these components. These project features will allow for non -motorized access and encourage residents to access businesses on foot, thereby reducing their roadway trips. 6.3 Energy Efficient Buildings. Encourage new buildings and buildings undergoing major retrofits to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards. As previously stated, the Specific Plan Design Guidelines encourage that projects within the Specific Plan exceed Building Code requirements, and implement the r"� programs of the City's Sustainability Plan. In addition, since it is likely that the project will develop after adoption of the 2017 Building Code by the City, the requirements of that Code, which will be more energy efficient than current standards, will apply to project components. 8.2 Land use patterns. Promote compact, mixed -use, energy efficient and transit - oriented development to reduce air pollutants associated with energy and vehicular use. The Specific Plan includes both residential and commercial development adjacent to each other. Further, the Specific Plan area is located on an existing transit line. Both these features will aid in reducing energy use and vehicle miles traveled. Safety Element 3.1 Flood Risk in New Development. Require all new development to minimize flood risk with siting and design measures, such as grading that prevents adverse drainage impacts to adjacent properties, on -site retention of runoff, and minimization of structures located in floodplains. 3.2 Flood Infrastructure. Require new development to contribute to funding regional flood control infrastructure improvements. The Specific Plan area is not located in a flood zone. However, the Specific Plan area is part of a larger area for which a master drainage plan was prepared and implemented by the City. The project site is subject to the requirements of this plan, and pays its fair share of improvements through the existing assessment district on the property. As projects are developed, they will connect to the storm drain system in surrounding streets. Public Utilities and Services Element 1.1 Stormwater infrastructure for new development. Require development projects pay for their share of new stormwater infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development (regional shallow ground water). 1.6 Collaborative stormwater management. Encourage collaborative, integrated stormwater management between multiple property owners and sites. As described above, the stormwater management planning undertaken for this project site and others in its vicinity established a stormwater management program for the project site. These facilities include existing drainage pipes in adjoining streets, as well as a regional retention basin located to the east of the property. The Specific Plan area is subject to the assessment district formed to implement the stormwater management plan, and as such is paying its fair share for drainage infrastructure. 2.2 Sewer infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new sewer infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that development. As described in the Specific Plan, existing sanitary sewer infrastructure exists surrounding the property. As projects are developed, they will connect to these facilities in A Street, Gateway Drive and Dick Kelly Drive, and pay the required connection fees to CVWD. Further, CVWD will impose conditions of approval on individual projects as Precise Plans are processed through the City. 3.4 Water infrastructure for new development. Require development projects to pay for their share of new water infrastructure or improvements necessitated by that project. As described in the Specific Plan, domestic water is supplied to the project site by CVWD. Existing water lines occur in A Street, Gateway Drive, Dick Kelly Drive and Monterey Avenue. As individual projects are developed within the Specific Plan Area, they will connect to these lines and pay required connection fees to CVGVD. Housing Element Goal I A variety of housing types that meet all of the housing needs for all income groups within the City. Both Planning Area 3 and Planning Area 4 provide for residential development in the Specific Plan. In Planning Area 3, a density of 10 to 22 units per acre is allowed, while Planning Area 4 allows a density of 17 to 22 units per acre. These development standards and the uses described in the Specific Plan allow for the development of abroad range of rental and/or ownership units of varying intensity, ranging from small lot single family residential to apartments or townhomes. The range of possibilities will result in varying rents and sale prices. Goal 2 The preservation and maintenance of the high quality of the City's affordable housing supply. Policy 1 New affordable housing projects shall be encouraged in all areas of the City. Special attention will be made to distributing the units so that large concentrations of affordable housing in any one area are avoided. The project site is described in the Housing Element as having the potential to accommodate 200 housing units. The Specific Plan allows for the development of up to 384 units. 5 cy Policy 9 The City shall continue to address the needs of the senior population in development of housing. Program 9.13 The City shall continue to encourage the development of assisted living facilities for seniors. As described above, the residential component of the Specific Plan includes the potential for senior housing, either as apartments or homes, or in the form of assisted living facilities. The exact development of Planning Areas 3 and 4 will be determined through the approval of Precise Plans for each development project. Policy 11 Promote the jobs housing balance through the development of housing with convenient access to commercial land uses, schools, available public transport and employment centers. The Specific Plan will result in both commercial and residential development. Residents from the proposed residential component could find employment in the commercial component, or in the existing and proposed commercial and office developments to the north, south and west of the site. In addition, the Specific Plan is located on Monterey Avenue, which currently includes a public transit bus route. Finally, the Specific Plan is located in close proximity to planned and existing schools and parks. E [0 ---------- - - — — — — — idl it W. t AM\ :Mw if I CITY OF PALM DESERT CEQA Environmental Checklist & Environmental Assessment Project Title: Lead agency name and address: Contact persons and phone number: MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan SP 16-342, TPM 37234 City of Palm Desert 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Kevin Swartz 760-346-0611 Project location: The ±32 acre project site is bounded by Dick Kelly Drive on the north, Gateway Drive oil the east, "A" Street on the south, and Monterey Avenue on the west. APNs 694-130-016 and 694-130-021. Project sponsor's name and address: Chris Chambers - Chambers Development 805-889-9212 General Plan Designation: Regional Retail (R-R) I Zoning: Planned Commercial (PC-2), Planned Town Center Neighborhood (T-CN). Residential (PR-22). Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Tile MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan ("Project") is proposed for 32.2 acres of currently vacant land located near the City's northern gateway at Interstate-10. The site is immediately adjacent to the easternmost lane of Monterey Drive, I mile south of the Monterrey/I-10 interchange. The Project sets forth a land use plan and long-range development standards that facilitate commercial, residential, open space and mixed use development within the project boundaries. Currently, the proposed site is located within the City's University Park Area which is designated as Regional Retail (R-R) and Town Center Neighborhood (T-CB) within the City's General Plan. The City's Zoning Map currently designates the westernmost part as Planned Commercial Development and the remainder of the site as Planned Residential (PR-22). The Project area is divided into four (4) Planning Areas (PA), three of which are designated for a specific land use (PA 1, 2 and 4) and one of which is designated for alternative land uses (PA 3) (Exhibit 7). The Project is designed to provide a broad range of land uses to be developed in a coordinated, high quality environment. The Specific Plan area can be developed based on the following master land use allocation, as shown in the following table. Table 1: MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan: Zoning and Land Use Allocation Planning Acres Zoning/Land Use Density / Lot Density / Lot Projected Area Coverage Min. Coverage Max. Units/SF 1 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2) 25% 50% 55,000* 2 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2) 25% 50% 65,000* 3 5.87 Planned Residential (PR-22), 10/acre 22/acre 132 Planned Commercial (PC-2) 4 11.44 Planned Residential (PR-22) 17.34/acre 22/acre 200 Max, 252 Total Potential Residential Units 384 Total Commercial Square Footage — Single Story 120,000 Maximum Potential Commercial Square Footage —Two Stories 240,000 *Projected SF represents structure footprint (single story). Totals account for potential second story. GI Plannine Areas 1 and 2 — Planned Commercial (PC-2) Planning Areas 1 and 2 will be developed as commercial shopping center(s) containing one or two story buildings. The Specific Plan Uses are in addition to uses allowed in the Zoning Ordinance for the PC-2 zone. in addition to those permitted in the PC-2 zone, the Specific Plan proposes to allow, with approval of a CUP, drive - through restaurants, mixed -use developments, car wash, hotel(s), convenience stores, automobile service stations without regard to the required site location separation distances per Section 25.34.090, commercial indoor recreation facilities and indoor amusement establishments and combinations of two or more of the uses listed above. Ancillary commercial uses, business support services and personal services are proposed to be allowed as well. Residential units and/or professional office space is proposed to be allowed on a second story. Approval of these additional uses is proposed to be subject to a CUP application, Precise Plan application or administrative use pen -nit application, subject to determination of the Community Development Director. Plannin Area 3 — Planned Residential (PR-22), Planned Commercial (PC-2) The Specific Plan proposes that Planning Area 3 may be developed as part of a large attached residential project and could be combined with Planning Area 4. Alternatively, the Specific Plan proposes that PA 3 may be developed with (i) attached or detached residential units, for sale or for rent, at densities from 10-22/acre,.(ii) as a mixed use project and/or 100% corrunercial using the same development standards as in Planning Areas 1 and 2 (iii) as a variety of specialized housing designed for market rate or affordable housing types. Condominium projects could be developed with a Precise Plan application. Planning Area 4 — Planned Residential (PR-22) Planning area 4 is proposed to be developed with a minimum of 200 attached for sale or for rent residential units at a density of 17.35/acre. Planning Area 4 development standards are provided in Table 4 of the Project Specific Plan. Planning Area 4 will also have the potential to add a total of up to 43 units towards the City's goal of 20% affordability of the 200-unit project through a combination of (i) 10 of the units to be developed and constructed in Planning Area 4 will be restricted to occupants classified as moderate income and (ii) land will be reserved for a development that will be restricted to "low" and "very low" income occupants. This additional component is proposed on the south linear 1.5 acres of Planning Area 4 which could yield up to an additional 33 dwelling units. For purposes of analysis, maximum buildout potential for each Planning Area was used to assess potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Utilities and Service Providers The following utilities will provide service to the Specific Plan area: Sewer: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Water: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Electricity: Southern California Edison (SCE) Gas: Southern California Gas Company Telephone: Frontier (Formally Verizon) Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses North: Dick Kelly Drive, Commercial Development (Kohl's, PetSmart, Auto Zone) South: "A" Street, Partially Vacant Lands, Lowe's Home Improvement, Multi -family Residential (Enclave) East: Gateway Drive, Vacant Lands West: Monterey Avenue, Vacant Lands Other public agencies whose approval is or may be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and ❑ Air Quality Forestry Resources Biological Resources ® I Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ® Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality Emissions Materials ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ I Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ I Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will X not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. t 3-26�i� Kevin Swartz Date City of Palm Desert -3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than signficant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different fonnats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 4 � I PACIFIC OCEAN MEXICO DO o Desert Hot Springs vary Narrcn;�l Aih Palm Spnngs,o # Cathedral Citya Rancho Mirage Palm Dese,t®. Ind, Indian 1 Wells La Quinta` ache la Temecula ...ti\ r L A TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH. INC. I MC Properties Regional Location Map Palm Desert, California N r- Exhibit 1 7 to N D C' a Legend: Costco © Dentist 11 Lowe's Horne improvement O Rancho 16 Cinemo 2 (�7 El Polio Loco . 12 The Enclave Rentai Condominiums O O3 McDonald's ® Sam 's Club i3 Morrioit's Shadow Ridge " ® Home Depot waimart I d Future School Site �5 Storbucks !0 Kohl's . N n r "Ir o Source: MSA Consulting, Inc., 2016 r' CM Exhibit r 1 MC Properties L J TERRA NOVA Vicinity Map 2 PLANNING 6 RESEARCH, INC. Palm Desert, California EX. BOUNDARY EX. SURFACE EX. BOUNDARY Dick Kelly 1— — — A Street — — — — — — — — — — Drive— ------------------ 300' — — — 285' 266' SECTION "A" EX. BOUNDARY ------- EX. SURFACE — 307' — — — — — — — ` EX. BOUNDARY 286'------------- SECTION "B" 259' Source: MSA Consulting, 2017 r L A TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. MC Properties Site Cross Sections Palm Desert, California N t` r Exhibit 91 CffV OF R&MCNO MOR&GE 7- > 2 0 -T T r--i_. -T-- --.� I ii � i Legend: Source: MSA Consulting, Inc., 2017 L j TERRA NOVA PLANNING A RESEARCH, INC. M pg(pn'nr.\ntiin rcorp Dick Kelly Drive A Street 7MUH CEMTE�H L MC Properties Existing City General Plan Palm Desert, California �,N'lf4l[Ce,lril[21(#',IRIHIO*ToeI J PUBLDC F&CULOTV ') L N ti CD 0 Ii C\j Exhibit N RANCHO HURAGIE E -j U -T- I IQ 0 --r- I L-L I ----------- T- ji _7+ -T- Legend: 11 PR-22 PC-2 � P.C.-M Dick Kelly Drive A Street P.C.42) P.R -13 r — Source: MSA Consulting, Inc., 2017, City of Palm Desert, 2018 r, -I L -j TERRA NOVA PLANNING A RESEARCH, INC. MC Properties Existing City Zoning Palm Desert, California COTY OF PALL DESER7 F-1- --FT-7-F-7- 1 Y`1� �-H 1� .. N 00 Ln Exhibit r2ow VE�- 4 „. l2 Water Main' _ yr -- Storm Drain Line Dick Keliy Drt�e s:.` Storm Drain Catch Basin 8"Sewer Main 12" Water Main 12 Water Main 8" Sewer Main Storm Drain Line c s Project Site IL C4 �fi L1 O 8" Sewer Main 12" Water Main - 12'' Water Main 8"Sewer Main Stortn Drain Catc h Sit! A Street u � a Storim Drain Line' Legend: —W-- Existing Water Main —SD Existing Storm Drain Line —S— Existing Sewer Main 0 Existing Storm Drain Catch Basin N ti r!� Cq 0 Source: MSA Consultinq, Inc., 2017 N r Exhibit 1 MC Properties L _J TERRA NOVA Existing Utilities s PLANNING B AESEAHCH. INC. Palm Desert, California 0 M 105' M < A —25% DICK F8% t-20% ...... ............. ..... .............. j-407 -:2 ..... F4 KELLY DR ST KEY INBOUND PERCENTAGE OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE PROJECT SITE DOLE WY M C7 > N Source: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, 2016 : MC Properties Exhibit '�! L _j TERRA NOVA O Trip Distribution Patterns for Planning Areas 1 & 2 PUNNING 3 RESEARCH. INC.' Palm Desert, California 7 / oLr) \ n D IMI'II- 8 b 25% o i Lz°% o0 n m O M Source: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, 2016 I L J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. 8I N a-2% DICK F27. KELLY .................... {{In N. . . . yN... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . .....y�E`°,I Na0O 1..� ............'...........'...'6...)— n"_•—.—_'-- I...•...'...'...'... A 20%j ST DR MC Properties Trip Distribution Patterns for Planning Areas 3 & 4 Palm Desert, California KEY o-- = INBOUND PERCENTAGE +-- = OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE = PROJECT SITE DOLE WY N � '1 n 0 N Exhibit E I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings'? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 94 X K4 Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance; MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan. X Setting The project site, and the City of Palm Desert, is located in the Coachella Valley, surrounded by the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains ranges in all directions. The San Bernardino, Santa Rosa, and San Jacinto mountain ranges have a significant rise over the valley floor and are visible from most locations in the City. The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto foothills extend along the west and southern portions of the City, approximately 4 miles southwest of the subject property. The Little San Bernardino foothills are located to north of city limits and approximately 3.50 miles northeast of the project site. The development of the project site will result in a mixed - use development with commercial and residential components. Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto foothills and higher elevations are a scenic vista for the majority of the Coachella Valley. From the subject site, views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains can be enjoyed from the north and east. As a result of intervening developments in all directions, the lower elevations are blocked, however the upper and middle elevations remain visible. The Santa Rosa and Jacinto Mountains can be seen from the west and south vantage points of the site. Similar to the San Bernardino Mountains, the views to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains' lower elevations are obstructed by existing development. Planning areas I through 3 would allow the development of commercial buildings that will have a maximum building height of 60 feet for a hotel use and a 40 feet limit on retail or office buildings. Planning Area 4 will have a maximum height of 50 feet with the density of the development being 65% lot coverage if the lot size under 2,500 square feet or 55% lot coverage if the lot size is over 2,500 square feet. The height and density standards allowed in the Specific Plan are consistent with surrounding developments to the north of the project. The nearest sensitive receptors, a residential development immediately adjacent to the south, would still enjoy the scenic vistas since the most prominent ones are located to the south of the residential community. A less than significant impact is expected. b) No Impact. The project site is located immediately adjacent to Monterey Avenue, which is not designated as state scenic highway is designated by the City's General Plan as a scenic corridor. It does not contain scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or trees. A less than significant impact is expected to occur. -13- - 5 c) Less Than Significant Impact. Currently the subject site is vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project, a Specific Plan, would allow the development of a mixed -use development that result in a commercial and residential operation. The subject site is divided into four planning areas (see Exhibit 7: Proposed Land Use). Planning areas 1 through 3 would allow the development of commercial buildings that will have a maximum building height of 60 feet for a hotel use and a 40 feet limit on retail or office buildings. Planning Area 4 will have a maximum height of 50 feet with the density of the development being 65% lot coverage if the lot size under 2,500 square feet or 55% lot coverage if the lot size is over 2,500 square feet.. Currently the visual character of Monterey Avenue, a mix of commercial and residential developments, is similar to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to the visual character of the project area are considered less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped and there is no onsite lighting. Implementation of the Specific Plan, and subsequent development of the project area will result in the addition of lighting to supplement the future buildings. Even so, light and glare levels are not expected to create an adverse effect since all development must adhere to the city's lighting standards as stipulated in Title 24.16 Outdoor Lighting Requirements of the Municipal Code. The proposed project, a Specific Plan, will follow all these standards thus reducing the potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. -14- /I q f� Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farniland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; Riverside County Important Farmland Map, 2010. X 0.1 X kN X Setting The project site is located in an area of the City designated for commercial and residential land use. There are no active agricultural lands within the vicinity of the project. Discussion of Impacts a-e) No Impact. Currently, the project site is designated for commercial and residential land uses on City land use maps. According to the Riverside County Important Farmland, 2010 map, the area is considered Other Land and is not suitable for livestock grazing, confined livestock, or poultry. The site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation. In addition, the site is surrounded by lands that are not in agricultural use. The proposed project will result a mixed -use development comprised of both commercial and residential uses. The proposed project will not conflict with zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. It will not result in other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. There will be no impact to agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. -15- III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Oq X 04 94 1t t Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2, SCAQMD AQMP 2016, 2003 CV PM10 SIP, project materials. Setting The project site is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PM10 SIP). The SCAQMD operates and maintains regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The proposed site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes monitoring stations in Palm Springs and Indio. The Indio station has been operational since 1985 and the Palm Springs station since 1987. A new station in Thermal was recently established, but has limited data collected at this time. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by the proposed project's construction and calculate the maximum number of acres disturbed during peak hours per day using crawler tractors, graders, rubber tired dozers, and scrapers. Criteria air pollutants are contaminants for which state and federal air quality standards have been established. The Salton Sea Air Basin exceeds state and federal standards for fugitive dust (PMio) and ozone (03), and is in attainment/unclassified for PM2,5. Ambient air quality in the SSAB, including the project site, does not exceed state and federal standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxides, sulfur dioxide, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, or Vinyl Chloride. Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and will be subject to SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PM10 SIP). The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. Although slight modifications will be made to -16- ,1 (;; the land use breakdown of the site, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Palm Desert land use designations assigned to the subject property. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts associated with compliance with applicable management plans are therefore less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by the proposed project. Criteria air Pollutants will be released during both the construction and operation of the proposed project, as summarized in the tables below. Table 2 summarizes short-term construction -related emissions, and Table 3 summarizes ongoing emissions generated during operation. Construction Emissions The construction period includes -all aspects of project development, including site preparation, grading, hauling, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that construction will occur over a 5-year period from mid 2017 to mid 2022. Although specific grading plans are currently not available, it was assumed that the project would require 500 cubic yards (CY) of material import and export. Maximum buildout according to proposed development standards was also assumed to capture worse case scenario impacts. Table 2 MCP Palm Desert SP Maximum Daily Construction -Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) Construction Emissions' CO NO, ROG S02 PMro PM2.5 2017 48.00 69.85 6.19 0.06 9.95 6.44 2018 52.04 59.76 5.39 0.08 5.77 3.92 2019 49.35 2020 46.72 2021 14.94 28.97 4.70 26.06 4.21 12.72 33.61 0.08 5.56 0.08 5.37 0.02 0.80 2022 5.04 1.75 33.58 0.01 0.79 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 Exceeds? No No No No No Average of winter and summer emissions, 2017-2022. Source: CaIEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 2.45 2.27 0.64 0.27 55.00 No As shown in Table 2, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant. The model was run with two assumptions: that a fugitive dust control program, as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 and the Coachella Valley SIP would be implemented, and that low VOC architectural coatings would be employed. Operational Emissions Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the project. They include area source emissions, emissions from energy demand (electricity), and mobile source (vehicle) emissions. Traffic generation trip rates were calculated by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLC). It was assumed that the project would generate approximately 6,678 daily vehicle trips. Table 3 provides a summary of projected emissions at operation of the proposed project. As shown below, total operations will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and operations of all facilities will be less than significant. -17- ij __] Table 3 MCP Palm Desert SP Operational Emissions Summary Operation SCAQMD Thresholds Exceeds? (pounds per day) CO NO,, ROG 207.82 33.63 43.50 550.00 100.00 75.00 No No No Source: CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2 S02 PMI0 PM2.5 0.29 19.78 6.23 150.00 150.00 55.00 No No No c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin, which is classified as a "non-attairunent" area for PM,o and ozone. In order to achieve attainment in the region, the 2003 Coachella Valley PM,o Management Plan and 2016 SCAQMD AQMP were adopted, which establishes strict standards for dust management and criteria pollutant emissions for development proposals. The proposed project will contribute to an incremental increase in regional PM,o and ozone emissions. However, given its limited size and scope, cumulative impacts are not expected to be considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PM,o or ozone precursors (NOx and CO). The project will not conflict with any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest sensitive receptors to the well sites are multi -family residences located 50 meters south of the project site. To determine if the proposed project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts, the mass rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look -Up Table was used. The City of Coachella and the project area are located within Source Receptor Area 30 (Coachella Valley). Although the project total area is 32 acres, it was assumed that construction would be limited to 5-acres per day. Therefore, the 5-acre site tables at a distance of 50 meters were used to analyze LSTs associated with well site upgrades. The following tables show comparison of maximum daily emissions compared to the LST thresholds. Table 4 MCP Palm Desert SP Localized Significance Thresholds (pounds per day) CO N'Ox PM10 PM2.5 Construction 52.04 69.85 9.95 6.44 LST Threshold 3,237 340 44 11 Exceed? No No No No Emission Source: CaIEEMod model, version 2013.2.2. LST Threshold Source: LST Mass Rate Look -up Table, SCAQMD. As shown in the table above, LSTs will not be exceeded during project development. Therefore, air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during will be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the development of commercial and residential land uses and is not expected to generate objectionable odors during any phase of construction or at project buildout. Short term odors associated with paving and construction activities could be -18- ^� generated; however, any such odors would be quickly dispersed below detectable levels as distance from the construction site increases. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional X plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California X Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) I -lave a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, venial X pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, X such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other X approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Source: Biological Resource Assessment, prepared by Ecologica Consultants, June 9, 2016. Palm Desert General Plan 2016. Setting The project area lies within the confines of a geographical region known as the Colorado Desert (Jaeger, 1957). As is typical of this subdivision of the Sonoran Desert, annual rainfall averages less than six inches (National Climatic Center, 2015). Most precipitation falls during winter and late spring with occasional summer storms accounting for approximately one fifth of the annual total. Winter days are mild, averaging 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Winter nights occasionally drop to near freezing. The month of July brings the hottest temperatures with daytime highs averaging 109 degrees F. -20- The elevation of the project site ranges from 260 feet above sea level at the northeast corner of the project site then rises to 307 feet near the southwest corner. The only topographical relief consists of sand hummocks that rise from one to four feet above their base. The hununocks have been formed by shrubs that interrupt the flow of sand carrying wind coming from the northwest off the Whitewater River Floodplain. The shrubs reduce wind velocity and result in sand deposits or "hummocks" on the leeward or easterly side of the shrubs. The environment of the project site is included as part of the sand field habitat of the valley floor as described in the CVMSHCP. Soil characteristics are uniform over the entire site. Soil is composed of wind-blown alluvium created by persistent air movements from the northwest. This process increased in intensity with the drying out of the Coachella Valley at the close of the Pleistocene epoch ending 10,000 years before present. At the current time residential and commercial developments to the west and north have resulted in some sand stabilization on portions of the site. Based on the literature review and field assessment of the site, the subject property is located within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The site is neither located within nor adjacent to any designated conservation areas. The nearest conservation area is Thousand Palms Conservation Area, located approximately 2 miles northeast of the project site. In the CVMSHCP, the project site is mapped as stabilized shielded sand fields. "The area has been impacted by human developments and activities on or near all boundaries of the project site. Paved roads surround the site and traffic noise could be detected at all times even in the center of the project site. Some native vegetation has been removed from site edges as a result of road shoulder maintenance and the placement of sidewalks around the periphery of the 32 acres. Off -road -vehicle tracks were noted on approximately 4% of the site. Some litter was noted but did not cover more than 1 % of the site. The entire project area has been inundated with the exotic and invasive Sahara mustard, Brassica tourneforiii. The establishment of this non-native, ephemeral species has contributed to the initial stabilization of blowsand on the project site. A Biological Resource Assessment of the project site was prepared by Ecological Consultants on June 9, 2016. The following discussion provides field results and analyzes potential impacts associated with development of the proposed project. Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Field surveys were initiated in May of 2016. Specific dates of biological surveys were May 24, 25, 30 and 31 and June 1, 2, 7 and 8, 2016. Night surveys were conducted on the evenings of May 28 and 29, 2016. Snecial-Status Plant/Wildlife Species on Proiect Site Three sensitive species were detected during the biological field visits that are classified as covered species under the CVMSHCP: Coachella Valley milk vetch, Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and Palm Springs ground squirrel. Several additional sensitive species may occur or near the project site but were not detected. These include the flat -tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket and Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket. All of the above species are covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHC). Mitigation for impacts to these species is accomplished through payment of a fee to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. No additional surveys are required for special -status plant/wildlife species. Burrowing Owl No evidence was recorded of the western burrowing owl, a protected species and one not functionally covered under the Plan. The site is considered suitable habitat for the owl and owls might take up residence on the site at any time. Based upon the recommendation of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, a focused burrowing owl survey should be conducted not more than 30 days prior to site disturbance. See mitigation measure BIO-1, at the end of this section. b, c) No impact. The project site does not contain any streams, riparian habitat, marshes, protected wetlands, vernal pools or sensitive natural communities protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, there will be no impact to such resources. d) No Impact. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is not suitable for a wildlife or migratory corridor. Results of animal tracking performed during field assessments found that the site did not contain any discernable or routinely used corridors. No impacts are expected. Mip-ratory Bird Treatv Act In general, migratory bird species are not covered under the CVMSHCP. However, no evidence of migratory bird species nesting on site was found and the site is not considered a significant food or shelter resource for migratory bird species. No impacts are expected e, f) No Impact. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP, therefore, is subject to payment of the Development Mitigation Fee, which will mitigate potential impacts to covered species. The site is not within or adjacent to a CVMSHCP-designated Conservation Area, so no additional mitigation measures or provisions are required. The project will not conflict with any policies or ordinances that protect biological species, or any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. No project -related impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures BI0-1: Conduct a burrowing owl clearance survey not more than 30 days prior to site disturbance. If burrowing owls are detected during the surveys, avoidance and minimization measures shall be required. Avoidance and minimization measures include: establishing a buffer zone, installing a visual barrier, implementing burrow exclusion and/or closure techniques, in conformance with CDFW protocol Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A. Burrowing owl clearance surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist per BIO-1, above. Responsible parties: Project manager, qualified biologist. -22- 12� Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those X interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X F.4 09 Source: "Phase 1 Historical/Archeological Resources Survey for APN: 694-130-016 and -021" prepared by CRM TECH, 5 August 2016; Palm Desert General Plan 2016. Setting The earliest time period in region for human development is identified as the Paloeindian period that occurred approximately 8,000 to 12,000 years ago when small, mobile bands of hunters and gathers, who relied on a variety of small and large game animals in addition to wild plants for subsistence. The Early Archaic Period, which occurred between 8,000 to 4,000 years ago, saw a decrease in the area's population. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by continued low population with groups of smaller sizes that went on to settle near available seasonal food resources and relied on opportunistic hunting of game animals. The next time period is the Late Prehistoric, which took place from approximately 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions. During the times of its presence the shores of the Holocene Lake Cahuilla attracted settlements and resource procurement. The lake's desiccation around 1700 resulted in the native people moving away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites have been identified along the shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. The City of Palm Desert lies outside of the ancient shoreline. In 1823-25, Jose Romero, Jose Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma. With the exception of traveling along established trails, few non -Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods. The most important was the Cocomaricopa "Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was "discovered" in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and hereafter known as the Bradshaw Trail. In the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon route traversed a similar course to that of present-day Highway 1 11 and served as a main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, up until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The establishment of the railroad stations sparked non -Indian development and spread further in the 1880's after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws. With the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells, made farming the dominant economic activity in the valley. In the 1920's, the hospitality industry began to take effect and eventually led to country clubs. The modem community of Palm Desert is located in the general vicinity of Sand Hole, an unreliable water hole on the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail. The community was founded in 1945-1946 by three brothers, Randall, Clifford, and Phil Henderson, who organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town. Following the footsteps of Palm Springs and other "cove communities" along Highway 111, such as Rancho Mirage and La -23- Quinta, Palm Desert soon joined the rank of winter resort towns favored by the rich and famous of the era. In 1947, the Palm Desert post office was established. Then in 1973 after four unsuccessful attempts, the community became the 171h incorporated city in Riverside County. CRM TECH prepared a Cultural Resources Report in August 2016. Findings and impact analysis are summarized in the subsequent discussions. Discussion of Impacts a-c) No Impact. A literature review was conducted at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California Riverside, and a field assessment was conducted to analysis the potential for cultural resources onsite. In addition, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California's Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission's sacred lands file as well as contacted 25 representatives of local tribes in writing for additional information on potential Native American cultural resources that may be located with or near the project area per AB52 statue. A CRM TECH archeologist and Native American monitor from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians conducted the intensive -level field assessment. According to the EIC records, the project area had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study, and no cultural resources were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project area. The historical resources that were consulted for this area suggest that the project area is low for sensitivity for cultural resources. No development occurred in the surrounding areas until the late 1950's. Within or adjacent to the project area itself, the earliest notable man-made feature was Monterey Avenue. The analysis of the site concluded that there is no potential for any historical resources within or adjacent to the site. For these reasons, the constriction of the proposed development would not result in adverse impacts to cultural resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project area. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. No cemeteries or human remains are known to occur on - site, and it is unlikely that human remains will be uncovered during project development. However, if resources to be uncovered during ground disturbance activities then with the implementation of mitigation measures to conform to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, impacts to the resources will be less than significant. Mitigation measure CUL-1 was provided at the request of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Mitigation Measures CUL-1: Should human remains be discovered during construction of the proposed project, the project contractor would be subject to either the State law regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains or the Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance all destructive activity in the immediate vicinity shall halt and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City and Developer will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The applicant shall immediately notify the City if resources are identified. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Responsible parties: Project manager. -24- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map issued by the X State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including X liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the X loss of topsoil'? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially X result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building X Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016. "Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1980; "Land Subsidence, Groundwater Levels, and Geology in the Coachella Valley, California, 1993-2010," by Michelle Sneed, Justin T. Brandt, and Mike Solt. Setting The Coachella Valley is located in the northwestern portion of the Salton Trough, a tectonic depression roughly 130 miles long and 70 miles wide that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of Mexico. The valley is bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, San Jacinto Mountains on the west, Santa Rosa Mountains on the south, and Little San Bernardino Mountains and Indio Hills on the north. The Salton Sea is located to the southeast. -25- ,g 5 The valley's geologic composition is directly related to its proximity to the San Andreas Fault, which passes through the northeasterly portion of the valley, and other active faults. The region is susceptible to a range of geologic hazards, including ground rupture, major ground shaking, slope instability, and collapsible and expansive soils. Episodic flooding of major regional drainages, including the Whitewater River, results in the deposition of sand and gravel on the valley floor. Strong sustained winds emanating from the San Gorgonio Pass cause wind erosion and transport and deposit dry, finely granulated, sandy soils on the central valley floor. Regional soils range from rocky outcrops within the mountains bordering the valley to coarse gravels of mountain canyons and recently laid fine- and medium -grained alluvial (stream deposited) and aeolian (wind deposited) sediments on the central valley floor. Implementation of the proposed development will have no impacts on Geology and Soils; however, building structures could be impacted by geologic hazards and impact soil resources, and is discussed further below. Discussion of Impacts a.1) No Impact. The subject property is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest earthquake fault is the San Andreas Fault (southern segment), located more than 3 miles north of the project site, which is capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 5.5. Fault rupture is not expected on the project site. a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a seismically active region where earthquakes originating on local and regional seismic faults can produce severe ground shaking. Buildings proposed for the site will be required to be constructed in accordance with the most recent edition of the California Building Code (CBC) and Palm Desert Municipal Code to provide collapse -resistant design. The City has adopted several modifications to the CBC in accordance to local geologic conditions in the area. The Palm Desert Municipal Code provides regulations for collapse -resistant design. Project -related impacts associated with seismic ground shaking are less than significance. a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The California Geological Survey does not identify liquefaction susceptible areas for the City of Palm Desert. The project site is located in an area that has a low susceptibility to liquefaction (General Plan, Exhibit V-5). Onsite underlying soils consist of Myoma fine sand (MaD; 5-15 percent slopes) (See Appendix 2; Custom Soil Resource Report for MC Properties) and is poorly graded coarse grain sediments. Sand is susceptible to liquefaction under water exposure and seismic shaking. The depth of the groundwater in the area is greater than 100 feet below the ground surface. For liquefaction to occur, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface. The City will require a site -specific soil analysis to address design loads with the submittal of grading and building plans. These City requirements assure that project -related impacts associated with seismic related ground failure including liquefaction are less than significant. a.iv) No Impact. The project site lies on the Coachella Valley floor, and is just outside the landslide and rockfall hazard area (General Plan; Exhibit V-1). The site consists of, and is surrounded by, relatively flat terrain; therefore, no impacts associated with landslides are anticipated. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area designated as an area "very severe wind erosion hazards" (General Plan; Exhibit V-3). The City will require the preparation and implementation of a dust management plan as part of the grading permit process for the project site. This plan will include wind erosion best management practices, as prescribed by the SCAQMD. Project related impacts associated with wind erosion will be less than significant. -26- �ZG c) Less Than Significant Impact. Surface soils of the project site mainly consist of poorly graded sand. As described in Section VI a) iv., above, the site has low susceptibility to liquefaction due to groundwater levels greater than 100 feet below the ground surface. The site is not susceptible to lateral spreading, which requires a shallow water table or proximity to a water source that could cause inundation of onsite soils. The site is not susceptible to landslides due to its relatively flat terrain and distance from mountainous slopes. Land subsidence has been documented in the Coachella Valley due to extensive groundwater pumping. The project site is located close to the "USGS subsidence zone study area" which is monitored to record subsidence in the City of Palm Desert. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has indicated a commitment to groundwater replenishment programs intended to limit future subsidence within the Coachella Valley. However, subsidence is considered a regional problem requiring regional mitigation and not site -specific mitigation. Although there has been recent documentation of subsidence occurring in the Coachella Valley, but no fissures or other superficial evidence of subsidence on or near the project site. Therefore, current and near future impacts due to subsidence are expected to be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils typically contain large amounts of clay that expand when water is absorbed and shrink when they dry. As described in VI a) iv., above, the site's underlying soils consist of poorly graded sand, which have a low -moderate shrink -swell potential ("Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1980). Moderate -high shrink -swell potential would expose people and property to hazards such as liquefaction and ground failure. Therefore, the City recommends implementation of Seismic Hazard Mitigation policies prior to any construction to enforce state and local seismic and structural regulations, structural assessment and mitigation of buildings, and state licensed surveys of soils and geology. The City of Palm Desert has no Unreinforced Masonry ordinance or inventory requirements for other potentially hazardous structures. However, it has adopted a code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings under Title 21 of its Municipal Code, which sets forth regulations governing the classification and abatement of dangerous buildings in general. Implementation of City policies, programs, and codes will decrease the project -related impact. Therefore, less than significant impacts associated with expansive soils will occur. e) No Impact. The proposed project will connect to the CVWD existing sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. No adverse impacts associated with wastewater disposal systems will occur. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. -27- VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (CalEEMod) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Development Code; General Plan) Source: CalEEMod Versiond 2013.2.2 Setting Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Kq X No Impact Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), 03, and water vapor (H20). Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N20, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results mostly from off - gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs, which have a much greater heat - absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (IIFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which are associated with certain industrial products and processes. Greenhouse gas emissions are generated by both moving and stationary sources, including vehicles, the production of electricity and natural gas, water pumping and fertilizers. State law mandates that all cities decrease their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S- 3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S-3-05, the legislature enacted AB 32 (N6nez and Pavley), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, 2006. On April 29, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order which identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. Executive Order B-30-15 set an interim target goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05. The SCAQMD has not adopted recommended numeric CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions for lead agencies to use in assessing GHG impacts of residential and commercial development projects. The SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Th-reshold Working Group to work with SCAQMD staff on developing GHG CEQA significance thresholds until statewide significance thresholds or guidelines are established. The SCAQMD proposed three tiers of compliance that may lead to a determination that impacts are less than significant, including the following: 1. Projects with GHGs within budgets set out in approved regional plans to be developed under the SB 375 process. 2. Projects with GHG emissions that are below designated quantitative thresholds: a. Industrial projects with an incremental GHG emissions increase that falls below (or is mitigated to be less than) 10,000 MT CO2E per year. -28- SS b. Commercial and residential projects with an incremental GHG emissions increase that falls below (or is mitigated to be less than) 3,000 MT CO2E per year, provided that such projects also meet energy efficiency and water conservation performance targets that have yet to be developed. Projects that purchase GI-IG offsets that, either alone or in combination with one of the three tiers mentioned above, achieve the target significance screening level. Because the proposed project consists of mixed -use development, the recommended SCAQMD threshold to apply to the project is the Option 2b, 3,000 MT CO2E per year. This analysis added amortized construction emissions to the estimated annual operational emissions before comparing operational emissions to the proposed threshold of 3,000 MT CO2E per year. In 2010, the City adopted the Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP), which demonstrates how the City has been involved on issues relating to environmental sustainability including, energy, waste management, storm water, water reclamation, transportation, and landscaping. The Plan sets out a series of goals for the City that are grounded in the principles of environmental soundness and sustainable development and addresses six resource areas, including the built environment. Discussion of Impacts a-b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project will produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during both construction and operation. As stated in Section III, Air Quality, the CaIEEMod model was utilized to quantify air quality emission projections, which include GHG emissions. Determinations of significance for construction -related and operational greenhouse gas emissions were based on the comparison of project -generated emissions to applicable local policy's and regulations relating to GHG reduction GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group thresholds. Because the proposed project consists of mixed -use development, the recommended SCAQMD threshold to apply to the project is the Option 2b, 3,000 MT CO2F, per year. SCAQMD does not have a threshold for construction GHG emissions. For analysis purposes, the significance of construction -related GHG impacts are also based on the threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year of CO2e, along with the project's consistency with adopted State and local GHG reduction measures. Further, Table 5 shows both construction and operational impacts. All construction related GHG emissions will be temporary and will end once the project is completed. SCAQMD staff recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, so that GHG reduction measures would address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction targets (SCAQMD 2008). The operation of the proposed infrastructure project will generate continuous greenhouse gases through area source emissions, for instance vehicle trips and off -gassing from pavement. Table 5 MCP Palm Desert SP Construction and Operational GHG Emissions Summary (Metric Tons/Year) CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Construction 2,927.51 0.44 0.00 2,936.84 Operation 5,977.49 1.84 0.05 6,032.74 Operation Plus Amortized Construction* 6,130.63 CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2. * 2,936.84 CO2e/yr amortized over 30 years = 97.89 CO2e/yr to be added to operational total. -29- All components of construction, including equipment, fuels, materials, and management practices, would be subject to current and future SCAQMD rules and regulations related to greenhouse gases. Applicable SCAQMD rules include, but are not limited to, source specific standards that reduce the greenhouse gas content in engines, architectural coatings, paving/asphalt, and limit equipment idling durations. In addition, total project constriction GIIG emissions would be below the threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Therefore, since construction -related GIIG emissions are below thresholds, this GHG impact would be less than significant. However, operation of the proposed project would exceed the operational emissions threshold by approximately 3,130.63 metric tons of CO2e per year. This is in large part due to mobile source emissions and energy demand for the project. The project currently does not provide for solar, which would help reduce impacts associated with energy demands. Mobile source emissions are based on daily trip rates provided by the project traffic report, and cannot be reduced via project specific mitigation measures unless overall potential density of the Specific Plan area is reduced. Although the project will exceed the 3,000 MT CO2c threshold (item 2b), the SCAQMD draft threshold tiered approach also states that a project would not have significant GHG emissions if it were consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan (item 1). In August 2015, the City of Palm Desert updated its adopted Environmental Sustainability Plan (ESP) with approaches to reducing GIIG emissions by a total of' 35,829 MT CO2E, a reduction target of approximately 5.8% below the 2008 baseline. To reduce the generation of the GIIG during project's construction and operational phases, the updated ESP goals and policies (such as requiring that new development must exceed Title 24 standards by at least 5 to 15% and complying with the City's current diversion rate of 74%) were incorporated into the CalEEMod modeling. The implementation of the mitigation measure provided below will assure that GIIG emissions from the proposed project will meet the proposed thresholds of the SCAQMD, through compliance with the City's ESP. As a result, impacts associated with GHG emissions will be less than significant. In addition, the project will not conflict with the goals of executive order S-3-05 because it is not considered a "large emitter" of GHGs (25,000 MT CO2e/year) requiring cap -and -trade regulation per CARB's regulatory measure to help achieve statewide GIIG reduction goals. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of GHGs. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures. GHG-1: The following GHG emissions reduction measures shall be implemented: • Use light-colored surfaces and shading mechanisms in parking areas. • Provide preferential parking for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles. • Exceed 2016 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by 10%. • Implement energy -efficient design practices such as high-performance glazing, Energy Star compliant systems and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes, programmable thermostats, solar access, and sealed ducts. • Equip the pool(s) and spa(s) with active solar water heating systems. • Use native species and drought tolerant species for a minimum of 50% of the ornamental plant palette in non -turf areas for to minimize water demand. • Ensure recycling of construction debris and waste through administration by an on -site recycling coordinator and presence of recycling/separation areas. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. None A. Building plans shall incorporate the measures listed in mitigation measure GHG-l. Responsible parties: Planning Department, City Engineer, Building Department. -30- 9C) VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X 94 0 X 0. X X Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste. Setting The project site is located on a flat, vacant, undeveloped land. Within the City of Palm Desert, the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials is strictly regulated. The City implements the General Plan's Hazardous and Toxic Materials Element through regular consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the Department of Environmental Health. The City also monitors and regulates industrial plants and commercial areas through the element's goals, policies, and programs. The State Water Resources Control Board's online database (Geo Tracker) indicates that the City of Palm Desert contains 53 sites that are either listed or permitted as hazardous material sites under the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The majority of these sites are located along Highway I I I and Interstate 10. The nearest LUST site is located approximately 1 mile north of the project site and is beyond the city limits in the community of Thousand Palms. According to GeoTracker, site cleanup has been previously completed and the case is considered closed. -31- Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the development of commercial and residential land uses. Cleaners, solvents, fertilizers and pesticides may be used on -site for routine cleaning and landscaping. During the constriction phase, the storage and use of small quantities of hazardous materials, mostly diesel, will be used. Furthermore, the proposed project will include automotive uses, which have the potential of generating several different types of waste. The materials, if used will be properly stored, handled, and treated according to the regulations issued by the State of California. These cleaners, solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides will not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to humans or cause a foreseeable chemical release into the environment. The constriction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment, which uses small amounts of oil and fuels and other potential flammable substances. During construction, equipment would require refueling and minor maintenance. The contractor will be required to identify a staging area(s) for storing materials. The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction activities would occur in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA) requirements. The proposed project would not result in a significant risk of explosion or accidental release of hazardous substances. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. c) No Impact: No schools are located within one -quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school is Xavier College Preparatory High School located approximately 1.87 miles northeast from the proposed site. There will be no hazardous materials -related impacts to schools. d) No Impact: The subject property is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.3. The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. e, f) No Impact: The Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 6.4 miles northwest of the subject property. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 7.2 miles southeast of the project site. The subject site is not located within the boundaries of either of the airports' land use compatibility plan. The site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project will not result in safety hazards for people living or working in the area. g) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not significantly alter the existing circulation pattern in the project area or adversely impact evacuation plans. Proposed parking, site access, and circulation plans will be reviewed by the Fire and Police Departments to assure that driveways and roads are adequate for emergency vehicles. A construction plan will be required by the City to assure that the project does not interfere with emergency access during development. These standard requirements will assure that impacts associated with emergency response remain less than significant. h) No Impact: The project site is not located in a wildland fire hazard zone and is not susceptible to wildfires. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildfires. No related impact is expected. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -32- 9 Potentially Less Than Significant Significant w/ Impact Mitigation IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site'? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area strictures which would impede or redirect flood flows'? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less "Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X Source: httr)s:Hrainfall.weatherdb.com/l/19812/Paini-Desert-California, Accessed on 12.08.2016; Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (Final Report), January 2012; FEMA Flood Map Service Center; FIRM Map No. 06065CI595G, -33- Setting Domestic Water The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides domestic water to the City of Palm Desert, including the project site. Its primary source of fresh water is groundwater extracted by deep wells from the Whitewater River sub -basin. The Whitewater River Subbasin water resource consists of a combination of natural runoff, recycled water, imported water, inflows from adjacent basins, and ground water system. This subbasin is also artificially recharged through imported State Water Project Exchange and Colorado River water. The total storage capacity of the Whitewater River Subbasin is approximately 28.8 million -acre feet and it currently contains approximately 25 million -acre feet. It is capable of meeting the water demands of the Coachella Valley, including the City of Palm Desert, for extended normal and drought periods. CVWD's domestic water system includes 50 wells with an average depth of 900 feet to serve the City of Palm Desert and its wider custorner base. CVWD has a total of 27 reservoirs, with an average capacity of 1.8 million gallons. Wastewater Collection and Treatment CVWD also provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the City of Palm Desert. CVWD treats and recycles Palm Desert wastewater at the Cook Street Wastewater Reclamation Plant, with a capacity of 20 million gal/day (mgd). CVWD continually increases the capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities by constructing new treatment ponds, aeration, and other structures. CVWD implements all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. The project site is located in the northern portion of the Coachella Valley. It has an average rainfall of 3.76 inches per year. Several watersheds drain the adjoining elevated terrain of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains towards the valley floor. The Whitewater River is the primary drainage course for the City of Palm Desert, which runs approximately 3.44 miles south of the project site. The Mid -Valley Stormwater Channel runs just south of the railroad tracks which is at approximately 0.53 miles to the north of the project site. The Mid -Valley Stormwater Channel mainly collects runoff from the southern portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The project site and areas surrounding it are subject to City requirements relating to flood control. The City implements standard requirements for the retention of storm flows, and participates in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to protect surface waters from pollution. Development projects must retain the 100-year storm flow on site. Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Whitewater River watershed. All water providers in the watershed are required to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards for the protection of water quality, including the preparation of site -specific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) for surface waters. The proposed project will connect to an existing 8-inch water line located in Monterey Avenue, Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. The proposed project will also connect to an existing 8-inch sewer line located in Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. The existing storm drain catch basins and storm drain lines are present on A Street, Gateway Drive, and Monterey Avenue/ Dick Kelly Drive intersection (northwestern corner) (Exhibit 6: Existing Utilities). To better manage the on -site and off -site floods during 100-storm event, the project site will be connected to these storm drain catch basins and storm drain lines. The CVWD is required to meet water quality requirements in its production and delivery of domestic water. The CVWD is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) -34- and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and must maintain strict water quality standards in the treatment of effluent. Wastewater will be transported to and processed at the Cook Street Wastewater Treatment Plant (Water Reclamation Plant No. 10) located in the central portion of the City on Cook Street. The proposed project will extend an 8-inch sanitary sewer line from the project site to connect to an existing 8-inch line along Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. The proposed project will not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project will connect to existing sewer lines located in the immediate project vicinity. The project will also be required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDF_,S) regulations, which minimize the pollutant load associated with urban runoff. The imposition of conditions of approval, local, state and federal standard requirements and the requirements of law will assure that the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No impact is associated. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require water for commercial and residential use and landscape irrigation. The Coachella Valley Water District has developed demand factors by land use that the City has deemed appropriate for this analysis. The commercial demand factor was provided by CVWD staff from the CVWD draft Supplemental Water Supply Program and Fee Study. Annual demand (consumption) factors were developed based on collected data specific to the Coachella Valley and local water purveyors. Commercial land uses for PA 1 and 2 are expected to generate a demand of 1.92 acre-feet per acre per year, which means frill -built out of PA 1 (7.37 ac) and PA 2 (7.37 ac) has the potential to generate a demand of 28.30 acre-feet per year. Residential land uses for PA 3 and 4 are expected to generate a dernand of 2.31 acre-feet per acre per year, which means full -built of PA 3 (5.87 ac) and PA 4 (11.44 ae) the site has the potential to generate a demand of 39.98 acre-feet per year. In the event, PA 3 is developed with only commercial land uses, the site will generate a demand of 11.30 acre-feet per acre per year. For analysis purposes, the total project water demand analyzed is the scenario where PA 3 is built -out as a residential development, therefore, it is estimated to be approximately 68.28 acre-feet per year, which is less than 0.02% of the Coachella Valley's water source. The project will be consistent with the land use designation for the property, on which CVWD's water demand and supply analysis is based. Based on the District's Urban Water Management Plan (2015-2016), CVWD will be able to fulfill the project's water demand. Project impacts associated with domestic water demand are expected to be less than significant. The project will connect to existing water lines beneath Monterey Avenue, Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. No new wells or additional water infrastructure are proposed for the project water requirement. The project will be required to comply with the City's water -efficiency requirements, including the use of drought -tolerant planting materials and limited landscaping irrigation. Implementation of these and other applicable requirements will assure that water -related impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. c-e) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site is generally flat and contains no rivers or streams. Development of the proposed project will increase impermeable surfaces on site, and therefore increase on - site storm flows. Reeional Drainaee Svstem CVWD is responsible for regional stormwater management in the project area. Parcels immediately north of the subject property were once included CVWD easements for the proposed Mid -Valley Stormwater Project. However, the project was retired in January 2012, and all easements were quitclaimed to the respective owners. CVWD has indicated that there are no regional stormwater management concerns for the subject site or its immediate vicinity. The property is not included in a CVWD drainage plan. -35- (�s Local and Project Drainaue Svstem Existing storm drainage facilities are shown on Exhibit 6 and include the following: • "A" Street — 30-inch storm drain pipe from Lowe's east property line to Gateway Drive • Gateway Drive — 36-inch storm drain pipe North of "A" Street to Dick Kelly Drive • Dick Kelly Drive — 54-inch through 66-inch storm drain pipe cast of Gateway Drive • Retention Basin AD 29 acquired the retention basin; reshaped retention basin; added slope protection and constructed pipe outlet structure The majority of the project site will be paved for parking lots and driveway access, which can increase the runoff volumes and velocities to the existing downstream drainage channel. Also, stormwater runoff from the project site may contain numerous pollutants. The site topography gently slopes at 34% from north to south end of the site, cross section A. Based on the cross section B, the site topography gently slopes at 48% from southwest corner to northeast. To reduce discharge of pollutants into urban runoff from the proposed development, the project site shall be properly designed and graded. Rainfall tributary to the project will flow fi-oin buildings, across parking lots and along internal streets to nearby catch basins. Catch basins will collect and convey runoff via an onsite storm drain system. The onsite system will confluence at the north-east corner of the project and connect to an existing storm drain pipe. The existing pipe will conveys flows to the large city -owned retention basin along the railroad tracks. The catch basins and storm drain systems will be designed to carry the 1-hour, 100-year storm event in accordance with the City's drainage requirements. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Section 29 Assessment District (AD 29), which was formed in 2007 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and installing water and sewer lines, storm drainage facilities and street improvements in the vicinity of the project. A hydrology study was prepared for AD 29 in 2007 demonstrating that the offsite stormwater infrastructure can contain flows from the project site during a 100-year storm event. Therefore, individual projects proposed within the project planning area will not be required to contain 100 year storm flows onsite as long as flows are adequately directed to the existing offsite storm water infrastructure. Implementation of these and other applicable requirements will assure that drainage and stonnwater will not create or contribute water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff Therefore, potential impacts will be less than significant with adherence to city requirements. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with all applicable water quality standards, and will implement a Water Quality Management Plan approved by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for both construction activities and long-term operation of the site. Adherence to the City's standard requirements related to water quality will ensure impacts will be less than significant. g, h) No Impact. The project site is not located in the 100-year floodplain and will not place housing or other structures in an area that would impede or redirect flows (General Plan; Exhibit V-6). According to Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the site is located in Zone X, which represents "areas outside of 0.2% annual chance flood." (FIRM Map No. 06065C1595G, December 08, 2016) Although, the project site is not located in a flood zone but is part of a larger area for which a master drainage plan was prepared and implemented by the City. The project site is subject to the requirements of this plan, and pays its fair share of improvements through the existing assessment district on the property. As projects are developed, they will connect to the storm drain system in surrounding streets. -36- i, j) Less than Significant Impact. As noted above, the proposed project is located outside a FEMA or regionally designated floodplain. However, the Mid -Valley Stormwater Channel runs approximately 0.58 miles north of the project site, which is underground. This project site is also in a seismic active region. As a result, seismic waves can cause oscillations in the enclosed water channel called seiche. The project will be required to accommodate the on -site and off -site run-offs, thus reducing significant impacts associated with flooding. The project site is not located near a large body of water and will not be susceptible to tsunamis or mudflow. No impact is expected. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. -37- X. LAND USE AND PI.,ANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016 { Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X X 0 Setting The project site is governed by the policies and land use designations of the City of Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The site is currently designated for commercial and residential land uses. Discussion of Impacts a) No Impact. The subject property is currently vacant and located in an area that is developed for similar commercial and residential land uses. The proposed development will not physically divide an established community. No impact is expected. b) No Impact. Currently, the proposed site located within the City's University Park Area with approximately 21 acres designated as Regional Retail (R-R) and 11 acres as Town Center Neighborhood (T-CB) within the City's General Plan. The City's Zoning Map currently designates the westernmost 21 acres as Planned Commercial Development and the remainder of the site (11 acres) as Planned Residential (PR-22). The project proposes a Specific Plan to address site -specific regulations and standards for the site. The Project area is divided into four (4) Planning Areas (PA), three of which are designated for a specific land use (PA 1, 2 and 4) and one of which is designated for alternative land uses (PA 3). The Project is designed to provide a broad range of land uses to be developed in a coordinated, high quality environment. The Specific Plan area can be developed based on the following master land use allocation, as shown in the following table. -38- q8 MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan: Zoning and Land Use Allocation Planning Acres Proposed Zoning/Land Use Density / Lot Density / Lot Projected Area Coverage Min. Coverage Max. Units/SF 1 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2) 25% 50% 55,000* 1 2 7.37 Planned Commercial (PC-2) 25% 50% 65,000* 3 5.87 Planned Residential (PR-22), 10/acre 22/acre 132 Planned Commerical (PC-2) 4 11.44 Planned Residential (PR-22) 17.34/acre 22/acre I 252 Total Potential Residential Units 384 Total Commercial Square Footage — Single Story 120,000 Maximum Potential Commercial Square Footage —Two Stories 240,000 *Projected SF represents structure footprint (single story). Totals account for potential second story. The Specific Plan proposes to expand the types of commercial uses allowed within the project beyond those current permitted in the PC-2 zone. However, these additional land uses are commercial in nature, and are generally consistent with commercial shopping centers' typical uses. The additional uses proposed will have a less than significant impact on zoning standards in the City. The proposed land uses are consistent with commercial and residential land uses immediately surrounding the site. Minor variations from the Ordinance include increased variations to setback requirements to improve sight distance within driveways. "These variations are not significant changes to the City's standards, and are allowed with approval of a Specific Plan. All activities will be conducted pursuant to the City's Municipal Code requirements and standards to avoid any conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction. No impact is expected. Overall, the provisions of the Specific Plan and the development of the project are not expected to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. No impact is expected. c) No Impact. As described in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project site is located in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) boundaries. Once developments obtain city approval, they will be required to comply with its requirements, including payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. No conservation plan -related conflict is expected. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. -39- 19 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016. Setting Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V.i 91 In 1988, the State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, under direction of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, released a report identifying aggregate materials in the Palm Springs Production Consumption Region. That report also included the City of Palm Desert and focused on three mineral resource categories (MRZ_-1, -2, and -3). The majority of the City of Palm Desert is made up of alluvial fans, which are mainly sand and gravel. Sand and gravels are considered an economic resource and commonly used for road base and other building materials. Small amounts of limestone, copper and gold have been explored from some parts of the city in past. No existing sand or gravel operations occur in the vicinity of the project site. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in Mineral Zone MRZ-3, which indicates an area containing mineral deposits, however the significance of these deposits cannot be evaluated from available data (Palm Desert General Plan; Exhibit IV-7). The site is designated for commercial and residential development, and is not in an area designated for mining activities. Although development of the site has the potential to reduce the area available for sand and gravel mining, the reduction will be minimal, and impacts to mineral resources will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. -40- l C)V XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016. C Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X X X 0 94 X Setting The subject site is located on Monterey Avenue and bounded by Dick Kelley Drive, Gateway Drive, and A Street. Monterey Avenue is designated as an "Arterial" roadway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. As such, noise levels on this roadway would be greater than those experienced on local streets. Traffic noise, as in most communities, is the main source of noise within the City of Palm Desert. Monterey Avenue averages over 40,000 vehicles per day. The noise levels on Monterey Avenue north of Gerald Ford Drive are approximately 74.2 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped. The main noise source in the area is vehicular traffic from Monterey Avenue. The proposed development would create an increase in the noise environment but it would not exceed the existing noise levels by a substantial level since the noise would be contain with the project area. Impacts of Off -Site Noise Sources on the Proposed Proiect The proposed project area will experience noise levels of 74.2 dBA at buildout of the General, which is below the City's standard for commercial development. The residential component of the proposed project would be located along Gateway Drive, which is designated as a local street with lower noise levels making -41- l it compatible to residential uses. Even so, the city requires all new development to comply with the most recent version of the California Building Code noise insulation standards, thus ensuring that the off -site noise impact to the proposed development are minimized to a less than significant level. Impacts of the Proposed Project on Surroundina Development The main source of noise will be vehicular traffic to the subject site, maintenance equipment, and HVAC units. Traffic noise would be comprised of mix of the vehicles that will be comparable with existing vehicles on surrounding roads. Noise that created by the proposed development's residents and customers is expected to consistent with noise levels that are experienced at mixed -use developments. Given that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses, operational noise impacts are not expected to exceed acceptable noise standards for a mixed -use development. Groundborne Vibration Groundborne vibration would only occur during the construction phase. The principal source of ground bome vibration will be as a result of heavy construction equipment. Hence, this will be a temporary impact that is further lessened by following the city municipal code, which limits construction activities. Long-term operation of the project is not expected to generate ground -borne vibrations or noise. lmpacts will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development's primary permanent noise sources will be vehicles traveling to and from the site, HVAC units, and grounds maintenance equipment. The proposed project is not expected to results a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Project -related vehicles will be consistent with vehicles already using area roadways. Less than significant impacts are expected. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The City will require that construction activity comply with Section 9.24.070 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction activity to between 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m, to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. No activity is permitted on Sundays and holidays. Construction of the project will therefore not occur during the sensitive evening hours, when hotel guests would be impacted. This standard requirement will assure that construction impacts on the proposed hotel will be less than significant. e-f) No Impact. The Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 6.4 miles northwest of the subject property and its noise contours are localized, and not located in the vicinity of the proposed project area. No impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. -42- XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact KR X ►a Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; California Department of Finance, Report E-5 accessed December 2016. Setting In 2017, the population of the City of Palm Desert was 50,740 with the average household size being 2.14 persons per household. The City is comprised of a single- and multi -family residential development. 55% of the residential developments are currently single-family homes. The proposed project, a Specific Plan that will allow a mixed -use development that includes a multi -family residential component will add housing to the expected increase Palm Desert will see in its population. Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. Approval of the proposed project will not generate substantial population growth in the area. The proposed project would result in a mixed -use development with a multi -family residential component. Planning Area 3 has the potential to add a maximum of 132 dwelling units. Even so, Planning Area 3 also has an overlay of a commercial development. Planning Area 4 will be designated as a planned residential development with a minimum potential of 200 dwelling units. Within PA 4's 200 unit development, 10 of these units will be restricted to occupants with moderate income. Along the south linear 1.5 acres of PA 4, a 33-unit development will be restricted to low to very low income occupants. This would result in a maximum increase of population to be 840 persons. This increase is not substantial, since the City's population is projected to increase as a result of time in other developments in the region. A less than significant impact is expected. b-c) No Impact. The project site is a vacant property. The proposed development of the site would not result in the displacement of existing housing nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing for displaced people. No impact will occur. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016. Setting Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X X X X X Fire Protection: The City contracts with Riverside County Fire Department for its local service. The nearest fire station is Riverside County Fire Palm Desert Station 71 at 73995 Country Club Drive, approximately 3.7 mile southeast of the project site. The City of Palm Desert also receives additional fire support from station No. 55 in Indian Wells and Stations No. 50 and No. 69 in Rancho Mirage, in addition to the services provided by its own stations. The Cove Communities Fire Department has 84 personnel in total, distributed among the three cities, all of which operate under a Regional Fire Protection Program. The station physically closest to the emergency will respond even if it is outside the station's official jurisdiction. Police Protection: The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for police protection services. The nearest police station is Palm Desert Police Department at 73705 Gerald Ford Drive, approximately 0.9 mile southwest of the project site. The police department consists of 70 sworn officers that include 45 deputies, 10 of which are dedicated to traffic enforcement. The City of Palm Desert currently provides about 1.75 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. The average response time for the highest priority emergency calls was 4.6 minutes. Schools: The City of Palm Desert is located within the boundaries of the two school districts: Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD). Most of the city is served by DSUSD. PSUSD includes the northwestern portion of the city. Both the school districts currently operate four elementary schools, one middle school, one continuation high school, and one high school within the City. The nearest school is Xavier College Preparatory High School, a private school located approximately 3.3 miles northeast from the proposed site. Parks: In the City of Palm Desert, a total of 911 acres are dedicated for parks (General Plan; Table III-2). The three types of parks serving the Palm Desert area are community, neighborhood, and mini/pocket parks. The nearest park to the project site is Palm Desert Civic Center Park, approximately 5.2 miles south. -44- Lf Discussion of Impacts a) Fire Protection Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project will marginally increase the demand on fire service in the City. The project is expected to induce population growth due to residential factor requiring additional fire protection services. The project will require fire protection services comparable to surrounding commercial land uses. The development within the project, however, will contribute to the maintenance of fire services through the City's structural fire tax, which is assessed on property tax bills, and assures that the City can continue to provide fire services as development occurs. Given the site's proximity to a local fire station, fire personnel will be able to reach the site within the target five-minute response time. Emergency access will be provided to the property via the existing public roadway network. The Fire Department will review the project site plan to ensure it meets applicable fire standards and regulations. No construction of new or expanded fire services or facilities are required for the proposed project. Project -related fire protection impacts will be less than significant. Police Protection Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in a marginal increase in demand for police services. Project operations will require police services comparable to surrounding commercial land uses. Police personnel will be able to access the site using Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive. The project will be required to comply with all Police Department regulations and procedures. Project related impacts are expected to be less than significant. Schools Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not require the construction of a new school facility. The project is a mixed -use commercial and residential development and residential portion may increase the City's student population. The proposed project will be required to pay the mandated school development impact fees to offset increases in student population associated with the employees at the facility. The proposed project will be required to pay current PSUSD developer impact fees of $0.56 per square foot for commercial portion (PA 1 and 2) and $3.48 per square foot for residential portion (PA 3 and 4). No impact is anticipated. Parks/ Other public facilities Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes a mixed -use commercial and residential development, and residential part of the project may results in population growth in the area, which would occasionally increase the demand to the existing city's facilities. However, the impact will be less than significant and would not result in the need for new parks and recreation facilities. No additional public facilities are required for the proposed project to accommodate the employees, guests, residents, and visitors. Increase in demand for the city's existing facilities will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. ��[7�L�1:7D1�r�[�P►lQ a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016. Setting Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 0 Within the City of Palm Desert, there are several mini, neighborhood, community, and school parks, one community center, a Conununity Health and Wellness Centers, a senior center, and a museum. Approximately 2,572 acres of land is designated for the "Open Space Land Use" which includes parks, private parks/open space, public reserves, and waterway in the City. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include onsite recreational amenities at all planning areas, as required in the Zoning Ordinance for that use. Future residence, visitors, and hotel guests can be expected to utilize onsite recreational amenities as well as local and regional recreational facilities. The proposed development will not induce substantial population growth that would result in significant impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Project - related impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. -46- XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact FN X X X X Source; Palm Desert General Plan 2016; "Site Access Analysis for the Proposed MacLeod Mixed -Use Project", prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLC) in September 7, 21, 2016. Setting The project site is generally located on the southeast quadrant of the block bound by Monterey Avenue, Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. As the project site will be divided into four planning area (PA "1", "2", "3", "4"), multiple access will be provided to the project site. PA 1 and 2 fronts the Monterey Avenue, while, PA 2 and 3 fronts the Gateway Drive. Access to the PA 1 and 2 (i.e. Planned Commercial (PC-2)) will be provided via a left- in/right-in/right-out only driveway located along Monterey Avenue, two (2) driveways along Dick Kelly Drive, and two (2) driveways along A Street. Access to the PA 3 and 4 will be provided via two (2) driveways along Gateway Drive, one (1) driveway along Dick Kelly Drive, and one (1) driveway along A Street. In the General Plan Circulation Element (General Plan Exhibit III-6), Monterey Avenue is classified as Arterial Street, and Dick Kelly Drive and A Street as Secondary Street. To improve the traffic circulation in the Arterial and -47- � C5-� Secondary streets close to project vicinity, it has been agreed by the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage that the intersection of A Street at Monterey Avenue will be improved to a full -movement signalized intersection. The improvement will be consistent with the "Letter of Understanding and Mutual Agreement" between the City of Palm Desert and City of Rancho Mirage, dated August 25, 2005. The construction and funding of the signal has not yet been determined. The provision of a southbound left turn median break on Monterey Avenue into the PA 1 and 2 of the proposed site will be determined by the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. In addition, Year 2020 AM and PM peak hour Ambient Growth plus Cumulative plus Project traffic volume forecast, Year 2020 Ambient Growth plus Cumulative plus Project traffic condition level of service analysis, and left turn queuing analysis at the proposed PA I and 2 driveway along Monterey Avenue will be considered at that time. The Specific Plan allows for a southbound left turn lane approximately mid block on Monterey Avenue provided (i) there is no conflict with an anticipated northbound left turn lane into Rancho Mirage; (ii) a traffic study acceptable to the City demonstrates that the queuing geometries are sufficient, the LOS is within a reasonable level and the turn lane is safe and, (iii) Rancho Mirage approves the request. Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLC) prepared a "Site Access Analysis for the Proposed MacLeod Mixed - Use Project" for the proposed project in September 2016. The traffic analysis was based upon a variety of sources, including the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers' 9th Edition Trip Generation Manual (2012). The categories used for the existing site condition analysis are No. 220 (apartment; TE/DU), No. 820 (shopping center; TE/1000 SF), and No. 945 (gasoline/service station with convenience market; TE/VEP), which correctly describes the proposed development. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The following traffic analysis was based upon a variety of sources, including the General Plan Circulation Element and the project specific "Site Access Analysis for the Proposed MacLeod Mixed -Use Project," prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLC). Existing Traffic Conditions The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Existing roadways in the vicinity of the project site include Monterey Avenue, Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gateway Drive. Monterey Avenue is designated as Arterial Street and Dick Kelly Drive and A Street as Secondary Street in the General Plan. Monterey Avenue at N of Gerald Ford Drive carried approximately 34,600 (avg.) vehicles per day based on year 2000 General Plan analysis. General Plan conditions and traffic analysis indicated that Monterey Avenue at N of Gerald Ford Drive was operating at LOS C (Palm Desert General Plan; Table III-13). The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for Monterey Avenue/ Dick Kelly Drive were derived based on existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes conducted by Counts Unlimited, Inc. in May 2016. Between 7:45 and 8:30 AM (peak AM hours), total traffic volume along Monterey Avenue was approximately 1,073 (southbound) and 619 (northbound), respectively, from which 90 (westbound) was transferred to Dick Kelly Drive (including right and left turns). Between 4:30 and 5:15 PM (peak PM hours), total traffic volume along Monterey Avenue was approximately 857 (southbound) and 1,323 (northbound), respectively, from which 202 was transferred to Dick Kelly Drive (westbound; including right and left turns). Based on the existing traffic volume, the Monterey Avenue/ Dick Kelly Drive intersection is operating at the acceptable LOS. According to the City of Palm Desert General Plan/Circulation Element, LOS D is the maximum acceptable level of service that shall be maintained. Furthermore, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method for stop -controlled intersections was utilized for the analysis of the unsignalized intersections in the project vicinity. -48- 1 l L�� Project Traffic Generation The trip generation potential of the project is estimated using ITE No. 220 (apartment; TF/DU), No. 820 (shopping center; TE/1000 SF), and No. 945 (gasoline/service station with convenience market; TE/VEP) rates contained in the 9 h Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), [Washington, D.C., 2012]. Table 6 summarizes the project traffic generation rates. Table 7 summarizes the trip generation forecast of the proposed project. The project was revised in 2018 after the project specific report was prepared. Table 7 was modified in order to analyze the change between 360 dwelling units to 384 dwelling units. The total increases would be less than significant. Rased on Table 6 and 7, the proposed project is forecast to generate 6,678 daily trips, with 387 trips (131 inbound, 226 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 530 trips (289 inbound, 239 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday. Table 6 MCP Palm Desert SP Project Traffic Generation Rates Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use Code 2-Way Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Rates: 220 (apartment; TE/DU), 6.65 0.10 820 (shopping center; TE/1000 SF) 42.70 0.60 945 (gasoline/service station with convenience market; TE/VEP) 162.78 5.08 TE/DU= Trip end per dwelling unit TE/1000 SF= Trip end per 1,000 SF of development TE/VFP= Trip end per vehicle fueling position Project Description Generation Rates: Apartments (360 DU) Apartments (384 DU) Increase as of 2018 Update: Shopping Center; 108,000 SF) Gasoline Station with Convenience Market (18 VEP) Project Trip Generation (Sub -Total) Increase as of 2018 Update: Total Project Net Trip Generation Increase as of 2018 Update: 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 5.08 10.16 6.76 6.75 13.51 Table 7 MCP Palm Desert SP Project Traffic Generation Forecast Daily AM Peak Hour 2-Way Enter Exit Total 1,930 37 146 183 2,058 39 W6 395 128 2 10 12 3,246 57 36 93 PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total 111 63 174 L%8 3815 B95 7 4 13 120 124 244 1,374 35 34 69 51 48 99 9,007 191 277 468 409 359 768 9,135 193 12187 48a87 416 48(B63 78116 6,550 129 216 345 282 235 517 6,678 131 226 357 289 239 530 9Z_' ':J, 363 -49- f Q l � l Proiect Traffic Distribution and Assignment As the project site is on the Monterey Avenue, which is an Arterial Street and carries 34,600 during peak hours, the directional traffic distribution pattern is also analyzed for the project. Exhibit 8 shows the directional traffic distribution pattern for the PA 1 and 2 while Exhibit 9 shows the directional traffic distribution pattern for the PA 3 and 4. (Exhibits are provided at the end of this section). Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the subject site have been distributed to the adjacent street system on the following considerations: • Proximity to Monterey Avenue • Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals • Existing intersection traffic volumes • Ingress/egress availability at the project site • Planned improvement at Monterey Avenue/A Street Future Traffic Conditions at Proiect Build -out The project site is located in an area, which is surrounded by a number of Arterial Street (Monterey Avenue, Gerald Ford Drive, and Dinah Shore), Secondary Streets (Dick Kelly Drive and A Street), and commercial development (i.e. Costco, Sam's Club, Walmart, and Auto Zone); therefore, it is important to forecast the future traffic condition in the project vicinity including the proposed project and surrounding development. In order to make a realistic estimate of future on -street condition in the project vicinity, eleven on -site developments (Millennium Palm Desert, Marriott's Shadow Ridge, Starwood Vacation Ownership, Desert Wells, University Park, Catavina, Single Family Homes, Villa Portofino, Gallery, Dolce Development, and Encore) in the surrounding areas are considered to calculate cumulative projects on the traffic volume. The cumulative projects are forecast to generate a total of 56,774 daily trips, with 2,639 trips (1,1 10 inbound and 1,529 outbound) forecast during the AM peak hour and 4,272 trips (2,284 inbound and 1,988 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour. The project with the impact of the surrounding projects will operate at the acceptable level. pueump,, Analysis A queuing assessment was also conducted for the proposed project to assess the potential impacts along Monterey Avenue associated with the proposed development and the construction of the southbound left - turn pocket (median break) at the PA 1 and 2 driveways. Queuing analysis shows that the proposed southbound left -turn pocket along Monterey Avenue will provide adequate storage to minimize impacts to through traffic along Monterey Avenue. Also, motorists entering and exiting the project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. Based on the above analysis, the southbound left -turn movement is along Monterey Avenue forecast to operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour. In addition, the forecast 951h percentile queue for the southbound left turn movement can be accommodated within the available left -turn storage capacity, based on the preliminary left -turn pocket/median break design. Overall, impacts associated with the ultimate development of the site will be less than significant. c) No Impact. The Palm Springs International Airport is located approximately 6.4 miles northwest of the subject property. The development of the proposed project will have no impact on the facilities or operations of regional airports, and will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels. It will also not create substantial safety risks. No project related impact is anticipated. -50- I r d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will be developed in accordance with City design guidelines and will not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. The project's access point will be located with adequate sight distances, and project -generated traffic will be consistent with existing traffic in the area. Improvements along Monterey Avenue will be provided to offset the project related impact from the regular traffic. Therefore, project related impact would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the PA 1 and 2 will be provided via a left-in/right-in/right-out only driveway located along Monterey Avenue, two (2) driveways along Dick Kelly Drive, and two (2) driveways along A Street. Access to the PA 3 and 4 will be provided via two (2) driveways along Gateway Drive, one (1) driveway along Dick Kelly Drive, and one (1) driveway along A Street. All the planning areas are interlinked through inner small driveways. PA 2 and 3 are connected to the Monetary Avenue through the EW street between PA I and 2. All three driveways will also be available for emergency purposes; therefore, emergency access should not impact traffic flow along Dinah Shore Drive, Dick Kelly Drive, A Street, and Gerald Ford Drive significantly. However, prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department will review the project site plan to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access. The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access. Less than significant impact is anticipated. f) Less Than Significant Impact. SunLine Transit operates bus routes along Monterey Avenue and will provide public transit access to the proposed project. SunLine has adequate capacity in its system to accommodate the proposed project. The project design will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Less than significant impact is anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -51- i XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Potentially Less'rhan Less Than no Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Rq X Source: "Phase I Historical/Archeological Resources Survey for APN: 694-130-016 and -021" prepared by CRM TECH, 5 August 2016; Palm Desert General Plan 2016. Setting: The project site is located in an area that within the traditional lands of the Desert Cahuilla. Even so, the project area is not located in within or adjacent to tribal lands. Monterey Avenue borders the site's western boundary and there is existing development adjacent to the proposed site. Please see Section V for greater discussion on the cultural setting. Discussion of Impacts a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section V Cultural Resources, Native American consultation was conducted to evaluate the potential presence of tribal cultural resources within the project area. Correspondence with the State of California's Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) resulted in the recommendation to further consult with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI). The associated correspondence is included in Appendix B. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians identified the APE as part of the tribe's traditional use area, and requests Native American monitoring during the undertaking as well as formal, government -to -government consultation under Section 106 guidelines. These requests have been addressed via mitigation measures provided in Cultural Resources section of this document. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources are expected to be less than significant. -52- C XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a detennination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste'? C Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Source: Palm Desert General Plan 2016; MCP Palm Desert Specific Plan. Setting X X X X 0 1� 0 Wastewater Treatment The City of Palm Desert collaborates with the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to treat and recycle wastewater at the Cook Street Wastewater Treatment Plant. This wastewater treatment plant also serves other communities and has a tertiary water capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities by constructing new treatment ponds, aeration, and other structures throughout the Coachella Valley. CVWD implements all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. Domestic Water CVWD provides domestic water to the project property. Groundwater is the primary source of fresh water, which is extorted by deep wells from the Whitewater River sub -basin. CVWD's service area is located in the Whitewater -53- ` (3 River Watershed. The adoption of Ordinance No. 1422.3 titled "Ordinance of the Coachella Valley Water District Imposing Revised and Additional Restrictions on Water Use to Comply with Statewide Drought Regulations" to implement regional management of water supplies. CVWD, as an urban water supplier, is required to prepare an "Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), California Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656. CVWD's UWMP is a planning tool that documents actions in support of long-term water resources planning and ensures adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future urban water demands. Furthermore, CVWD also prepares an annual report each year to document and analyze the needs and long-term demand for domestic water. This analysis includes conservation measures and replenishment programs to make it possible for CVWD to meet increasing demand of the services area. All water conservation measures required by CVWD will be implemented by the proposed project when the future developments are constructed and operated. More so, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has issued Emergency Order 2014-0718-01E, which mandates water supplier enacteertain water conservation regulations Stormwater Stone water drainage infrastructure within the City of Palm Desert consists of a network of regional and local drainage systems, which are ultimately interrelated. The regional and local drainage system includes natural and improved streams, storm drains, storm channels, and catch basins intended to manage stormwater that flows into the Whitewater Storm Water Channel, Deep Canyon Stormwater Channel, Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, Mid - Valley Stormwater Channel, Dead Indian Channel, Ironwood Channel, and Portola and Haystack Channels. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the Riverside County Flood Control District, and the City of Palm Desert control this drainage system. Solid Waste Waste Management of the Desert provides solid waste disposal, through a franchise agreement with the City, and will be responsible for collection and disposal of solid waste from the project site. Trash and recycled materials are collected from customers in the City and transported to the Badlands Landfill, located at 31125 Ironwood Avenue, Moreno Valley. Other possible alternatives include the Lamb Canyon Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill. The County of Riverside operates all these landfills. Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. The development of the proposed project would result in an increase to wastewater flows. Existing sewer lines will connect to the proposed development without necessitate a major extension. As stated CVWD, provides wastewater services and operates a wastewater treatment facilities in the area, is subject to follow wastewater standards established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Every component will abide to the required design facilities that will be consistent with CVWWD and the RWQCB standards. The standards and requirements will assure that impacts associated with wastewater standards will be lowered to less than significant levels. b, d) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing water lines, located on the adjacent streets, will connect with the proposed developments. The exiting water lines are located on "A" Street, Gateway Drive, Dick Kelly Drive, and Monterey Avenue. The proposed project will be responsible for the connections necessary to tie into existing water lines to the standards set by the City and CVWD. The site is being developed with land uses consistent with the parcel's land use designation for commercial and residential uses, which is consistent with the assumptions made by CVWD in their UWMP. Build out of the project will result in an increase of less than 2% in demand over current conditions. This is within the CVWD's capacity, and impacts associated with water supplies will be less than significant. The City's and CVWD's standards and requirements will assure that impacts associated with water conveyance and water supply will be less than significant. -54- c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located outside of any flood hazard areas. This property is located in Zone X, which represents areas that are outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. Regional stormwater management is administered by CVWD. Currently, there are no regional stormwater management concerns for the subject property or its immediate vicinity. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The City works with Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to treat and recycle wastewater at the Cook Street Wastewater Treatment Plant. This wastewater treatment plant also serves other communities and has a tertiary water capacity of 20 million gallons per day (mgd). CVWD continually increases the capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities by constricting new treatment ponds, aeration, and other structures. CVWD implements all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. There will be less than significant impact to wastewater treatment capacities associated with the proposed project. f, g) Less Than Significant Impact. Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services provides solid waste and disposal services to the city. All waste generated on the project site will be collected and transported to the Badlands Landfill. This landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County. They have the capacity to accommodate waste generated by future development on the project site. BUITICc is required to comply with local, regional and state requirements, thus reducing impacts associated with solid waste disposal to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program None. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife Population to drop below self-sustaining X levels, threaten to elirninate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental X effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse X effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly'? a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Biological Resources The project site is not located within the boundaries of a CVMSHCP-designated conservation area, and does not contain any wildlife corridor or biological linkage area. However, mitigation measures have been included in this Initial Study to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls, to ensure impacts are less than significant. Cultural Resources The site has a low probability of containing archaeological resources, and there are no historic structures on site. However, mitigation measures have been included in this Initial Study to assure that impacts associated with cultural resources remain less than significant. With implementation of the mitigation measures provided in this report, impacts will be less than significant. b) Less than significant. The proposed project proposes a Specific Plan to support the planned land uses discussed in this document. The proposed project will be consistent with the land use designations for the site. The project is also consistent with the commercial and residential development trends in the immediate vicinity. Public utility providers have indicated they will be capable of serving the project with existing -56- 1 and/or planned facilities. Potential environmental impacts are expected to remain at, or be mitigated to, levels below significance, and long-term environmental goals are not expected to be adversely impacted by the project. c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The project will contribute to the cumulative impacts of development in the City of Palm Desert and broader Coachella Valley. Project constriction will contribute to the region's current exceedances of PMio and ozone; however, these impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of City requirements, consistent with the region's fugitive dust reduction measures. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: This Initial Study document identifies potential impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions as a result of build out of the proposed project. The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation. A set of mitigation measures are included in this Initial Study to minimize the greenhouse emissions and assure that GIIG emissions from the proposed project will meet the proposed thresholds of the SCAQMD, through compliance with the City's ESP. As a result, impacts associated with GHG emissions will be less than significant. lid t RUTAN RUTAN & TUCKER. LLP February 8, 2018 VIA E-MAIL and FIRST CLASS MAIL Email: robe rt. har2reavesnbbklaw.com Robert Hargreaves BEST BEST & KRIEGER 74-760 Highway 1 11, Suite 200 Indian Wells, CA 92210 David 1'. Lanferman Direct Dial: (650) 320-1507 E-mail: dlanferman(cDrutan.com Re: City of Palm Desert -- M.C. Properties: Specific Plan and Development Applications — "Affordable Housing" Issue Appeal for City Council direction Dear Mr. Hargreaves: My clients and I appreciate your consideration in discussing our clients' efforts to process their Specific Plan and related development applications and studies with the City staff. It has appeared for some months that the applicants ("MCP") and City staff reached agreements on virtually all of the issues related to this project long ago, and that the project is entirely consistent with the existing general plan and fully compliant with the applicable zoning such that it is ripe for submission for Council consideration and final approval. The only major issue that has remained unresolved is the issue regarding the project including appropriate and lawful provisions for "affordable housing.' Since the project as proposed is fully compliant with all Council -adopted City plans and policies, and since there is no legal (or other) justification for staff's demands for extraordinary contributions of privately -subsidized housing units, it is now time for this application — as proposed by MCP — to be considered and approved. We need to be able to move forward with this application, without further staff -inflicted delays, and are hereby requesting your urgent intervention and assistance in bringing this matter to the City Council for decision and direction. Staffs Unjustified Demand for Exactions of "Affordable Housin;;" Despite MCPs' numerous conversations with City planning staff striving to reach agreement as how the project should make lawful and effective provision for affordable housing, City staff has persisted in demanding that the application be re -written to include staffs desired - ' In addition, there has been an ongoing dialogue about the inclusion of "assisted living" as an allowable use under the PR 22 zoning, which will be discussed at the end of this letter. Rutan & Tucker, LLP I Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814 1 650-320-1500 1 Fax 650-320-9905 2644/033460-0001 Orange County I Palo Alto I www rutan com 119692123a02/08/18 <<f3 RUTAN Robert Hargreaves February 8, 2018 Page 2 -- but unjustified — exaction of 20% of the project's new residential dwelling units available exclusively for restricted below -market occupancy. Those demands have been an unnecessary roadblock, and there is no point in staff s insistence that we "apply" for a project that does not reflect our intentions or lawful conditions of approval. As we and our clients have repeatedly explained, such requirements have no basis or justification in any City Council -approved general plan, housing element, or zoning ordinance. Moreover, imposition of' a 20% below -market requirement as urged by staff would substantially impair, if not destroy, the economic feasibility of the entire project and thus derail the project and deprive the community of the many other benefits and amenities that MCI' has willingly agreed to provide as part of the project as planned. On November 28, 2017, Mr. Swartz stated the City's demand as follows: • Planning Area 4 will be required to provide a minimum of 200 units per the Housing Element. The Developer is required to reserve twenty percent (20%) of the 200 units within the project to be made available at Affordable Rents and in accordance with an approved and recorded Housing Agreement. • "I'he Developer can also dedicate the 20% requirement of the 200 units at Affordable Rents, on a future parcel that is approved by the City in regards to lot size and project location under a Precise Plan application, and in accordance with an approved and recorded Housing Agreement. • if any residential uses are constructed on Planning Area 3 then the Developer is required to reserve 20% of all units within the project to be made available at Affordable Rents and in accordance with an approved and recorded Housing Agreement. MCP's Affordable Housing Proposals: We appreciate the City's concerns about improving the affordability of housing, and MCP has previously made two alternative proposals whereby the project could be voluntarily conditioned to effectively and reasonably address those concerns. To reiterate those proposals, both of which are still on the table: 2017: First, as stated in Mr. Chambers' letter to Ryan Stendell and Kevin Swartz of May 10, MCP would offer, as a condition of approval for the MCP Specific Plan, to pay an affordable housing in lieu fee of $1.50 per square foot of livable interior area for the residential project that will be developed on Parcel 4 of the Specific Plan. MCP would further agree to pay an affordable housing in lieu fee of $1.00 per square foot of livable area for any residential project developed on Parcel 3 and/or will pay 2644/033460-0001 11969212 3 a02/O8/18 l RUTAN Robert Hargreaves February 8, 2018 Page 3 the appropriate lawfully established City fee respecting any other use developed on Parcel 3. This proposal was conditioned on the City and MCP entering into a development agreement with specific terms for the project. Second, MCP subsequently made another good faith offer to respond to and address the City staff s demands in Mr. Chambers' letter of July 2017: MCP would agree to reserve a portion of the Specific Plan area for the provision of affordable housing. The Specific Plan currently provides that on Parcel 4, a minimum of 200 multi -family residential units shall be developed. MCP offers to provide a total of 40 units toward the staffs goal of 20% "affordability" by providing a combination of (i) 10 of the units to be developed and constructed will be restricted to occupants classified as "moderate" income and (ii) land will be set aside sufficient to accommodate a 30-unit project that will be restricted to "low" and "very low" income occupants. Mr. Chambers has repeatedly insisted that such a set aside will occur at the south linear 1.5 acres of Parcel 4 which, at a density of 22/acre, could yield an additional 33 dwelling units. Legal Issues Raised by Staffs Refusal to Process: As you and I have further discussed in our own several conversations, the staffs insistence on exacting 20% of the new homes for restricted below -market occupancy as a condition of processing the long -pending application raises numerous serious le>?al problems for the City. 1. No Justification or Authority In the City's General Plan, Housing Element, or Zoning Ordinances: The City's adopted plans and ordinances provide no legal authority for the staffs extraordinary demands. As we have discussed, there is nothing in any of the City's legislatively - approved general plan, housing element, or zoning ordinance that purports to require such a 20% contribution. Despite our clients' repeated requests to the Planning Department, City Manager and other City staff, the City has never been able to cite any Council -adopted ordinance or resolution to support or justify their demands on this point. It is, of course, undisputed that these kind of legislative policy decisions regarding housing approvals are to be made by the elected City Council — not by the unelected staff. Indeed, the City staff has itself acknowledged that "staff 2644/033460-0001 11969212.3 a02/08/18 RUTAN Robert Hargreaves February 8, 2018 Page 4 lacks clear policy direction to guide entitlement processes" as they may involve affordable housing mandates.z First, the City does not have any "inclusionary zoning" ordinance mandating the provision of any particular number or percentage of new dwelling units on terms restricting occupancy or purchase to certain income levels. Second, in May 2015, the City Council rejected a proposal to consider adoption of an "affordable housing fee" or "in -lieu fee" on market -rate residential developments as a recognized alternative to inclusionary zoning. In the absence of lawful, Council -approved, requirements for contributions of affordable housing by private residential developers, there does not appear to be any valid basis for the Staff to attempt to arbitrarily improvise such requirements as a condition of processing of the MCP Specific Plan application. The staffs demands are not consistent with the general plan. The Housing Element does not include any explicit policy mandating the City to require a 20% "affordable housing" requirement in the new development generally, or in the MCP parcels specifically. It merely reflects a general policy ("Policy I") that "new affordable housing projects shall be encouraged in all areas of the City." According to "Program 1.F" the City undertook to re -zone undeveloped property in the NW corner of the City (including the MCP property) to high density residential zoning — "PR-22" -- in 2012, presumably as an encouragement to develop currently unfinanceable, non -subsidized, affordable housing projects. (Council Ordinances 1233 and 1240A.)3 "PR-22" zoning appears to be a sub -category under the City's "PR" zoning. PR zoning is defined in PDMC § 25.10.020(G): "The purpose of this district is to provide for flexibility in development, creative, and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types and community facilities, both public and private. The district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments. The PR district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval, and to provide the City assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval." (Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) The PR-22 zoning operates to allow an increased density of residential development, allowing 20 -22 units per acre, and, according to the "evaluation" comment in the current Housing Clement, "can accommodate affordable housing." Nothing in the text of the Housing Element or 2 City Staff Report, dated June 18, 2015. 3 The City's zoning ordinance at that time did not appear to track the General Plan precisely. As explained in the Housing Element (p. III-31), the General Plan's Land Use Element designates residential areas as being `'low density" (0-4 units/acre); "medium density" (4-10 u/ac.); "high density" (10-22 u/ac.). By contrast, the Zoning Ordinance include R-1 (up to 5 u/ac); R-2 (up to 10 u/ac); R-3 (up to 17 u/ac); and the hybrid "PR" zone (allowing up to 25 units/acre for projects providing at least 20% affordable units.) The Council, however, has recently re -zoned the MCP property to better accommodate the proposed development as planned. 2644,033460-0001 11969212 3 a02/08/18 RUTAN Robert l largreaves February 8, 2018 Page 5 the Zoning Code indicates any specific requirement to include "affordable housing" in developments tinder PR 22 zoning. Moreover, even if the Housing Element had included text purporting to require (not just "encourage") the provision of "affordable housing" that alone would not suffice to create a lawful or enforceable requirement, in the absence of substantial evidence justifying such a requirement. So far as we are aware, however, the City staff has not provided any such evidence, nor has the Council approved specific mandates or percentages to justify staffs affordable housing demands. 2. Violation of California's Housing Accountability Act In addition, this development would qualify as a project that is protected under the California Housing Accountability Act ("I IAA"). The HAA was recently described by the Court of Appeal, in Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 927, 938-39: The HAA (Gov. Code §65589.5), known as the "anti-NIMBY law," was designed to limit the ability of local governments to reject or render infeasible housing developments based on their density without a thorough analysis of the "economic, social, and environmental effects of the action." (§ 65589.5, subd. (b).) When a proposed development complies with objective general plan and zoning standards, including design review standards, a local agency that intends to disapprove the project, or approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, must make written findings based on substantial evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and that there are no feasible methods to mitigate or avoid those impacts other than disapproval of the project. (§ 65589.5, subd. 0)(1) & (2). Despite staffs insistence on changing the composition of the housing units in the project, there has been no suggestion — much less any substantial evidence — that approval of the project as proposed by MCP regarding the size or density of the project would have "a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety." The City would therefore be at risk of violating the HAA, in the event that it failed to approve the project as currently proposed -- including MCP's voluntarily proposed solution to the quest for affordable housing. 3. Other Grounds for Challenges to City Staff Demands: In the event that the City were to persist in attempting to require a certain percentage or number of price -restricted or rent -restricted housing units as a condition of approval for residential development of the MCP property — or to use such demands as a pretext for denying the specific plan application -- such actions would likely be seen as resulting in violations of constitutional principles, and controlling state law, and could expose the City to substantial liability in litigation for several reasons, including the following: 2644/033460-0001 11969212 3 a02/08/18 RUTAN Robert Hargreaves February 8, 2018 Page 6 (a) The threatened application of such "affordable housing" requirements against this project would also violate federal and state constitutional law which prohibits governments from imposing unconstitutional conditions, i.e., requiring applicants to surrender constitutional rights as conditions of obtaining permits or approvals, unless there is a substantial and reasonable relationship between the conditions and some adverse impact or harm caused by the applicant;' (b) The threatened application of affordable requirements against this project would violate federal and state constitutional law limiting the imposition of unjustified development impact fees or exactions such as these, including the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66000 et seq.), because there is no substantial evidence demonstrating a reasonable nexus and rough proportionality between the proposed affordable housing exactions and adverse public impacts caused by the proposed development;' 4 See, e.g., the United States Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District (2013) 570 U. S. _; 133 S.Ct. 2586, and the more recent California Supreme Court decision in City of Perris v. Stamper (2016) 1 Cal.5'h 576, confirming the constitutional limitations on property exactions and exactions of fees in lieu of property. See also, San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California (2017) 12 Cal. App. 5th 1124, 1159 [applying the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions to invalidate certain fees and conditions of approval].) The unconstitutional conditions doctrine "prevent[s] the government from coercing people into giving" up their property rights. (Koontz, 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2594). The unconstitutional conditions doctrine is implicated when the government approves a land -development project "on the condition that the applicant turn over property" or when the government denies the project "because the applicant refuses to do so." (id.,133 S. Ct. at 2595.) Efforts to contrive evidence to demonstrate an actual "nexus" between new market rate residential development and increased public needs for affordable housing have been criticized as unsound and highly speculative. See, e.g., the scholarly critique of the methodology and unfounded assumptions of such "nexus analyses" in the study published by the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley: The Use of Residential Nexus Analysis in Support of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: A Critical Evaluation, (November 2011). No court in California, or elsewhere, has ever approved or sanctioned any such "nexus" justification for imposing mandatory inclusionary or affordable housing exactions. To the contrary, it is widely acknowledged that the development of market rate housing increases the supply of housing generally, and thus is part of the "solution" to housing affordability. "[W]hile the development of market rate housing may generate a local need for new highway lanes or school rooms, it clearly does not create a need for more subsidized housing." (Alan A. Altshuler & Jose Gomez -Ibanez, REGULATION FOR REVENUE: THE 2644/033460.0001 11969212 3 a02/08/18 � a3 RUTAN Robert Hargreaves February 8, 2018 Page 7 (c) State law limits the imposition of restrictions and exactions on new rental housing and preempts action such as the threatened imposition of rent controls, affordable housing "impact fees," or in lieu housing exactions. ("Costa-I-Iawkins Rental Housing Act" [Civ. Code §§ 1954.50 et seq.]; Palmer v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Ca1.App.41h 1396 [invalidating the City's imposition of `affordability' requirements on rents to be charged in a percentage of newly - developed rental housing units, and invalidating fees "in lieu of providing such rent restricted units in kind].) (d) Such requirements could be viewed as an unconstitutional implementation and levy of "special taxes," for which the State Constitution requires prior approval by 2/3 of the electorate; (e) Such requirements could be viewed as creating additional inconsistencies with other aspects of the General Plan, such as its Land Use and Economic Development elements; (f) The threatened application of the staff's demands for 20% affordable housing requirements would violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process of law, by arbitrarily shifting the public financial burdens of addressing a general, community -wide, need for affordable housing to this one specific project, far in excess of any needs created by this project; (g) The application of affordable housing requirements against this project, without fee waivers, or adjustment, or other financial subsidy, would impose prohibitive costs on the project and render the project infeasible, resulting in an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation in violation of both federal and state constitutional law. (E.g., Jefferson Street Ventures v. City of Indio (2015) 236 Cal.AppAth 1175 [city's imposition of a condition limiting development of a portion of parcel was an invalid taking].) Indeed, the City's own Housing Element (at p. I1I-48) appears to recognize this inconvenient fact of economic reality".6 Responses to City Staff Pretexts for Affordable Housine Demands (a) Old Settlement Agreements are no justification: The City staff has apparently made reference to old `consent decrees' or settlement agreements in litigation from the 1990's against POLITICAL, ECONOMY OF LAND USE EXACTIONS (The Brookings Institution & Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1993), p. 5 [emph. added].) 6 The "affordable housing analysis" commissioned by City staff from Keyser Marston (March 6, 2017) did not acknowledge these portions of the City's Housing Element, and that flawed "analysis" apparently assumed that the "financial gap" created by affordable and/or different uses than current zoning requirements could be subsidized or reduced by imagining development at higher densities — despite these acknowledged market barriers to such high-density/low amenity housing developments. 26441033460-0001 11969212 3 a02/08!18 I RUTAN Robert Hargreaves February 8, 2018 Page 8 the former Redevelopment Agency. However, those do not appear to be applicable in this context, and in any event, would not create or add any new independent legal authority for the City to now try to assert demands for housing not authorized elsewhere under state law or City legislation (See, Trancas Property Owners Ass 'n v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 172; .League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates v. City of Los Angeles ff" Cir. 2007) 498 F.3d 1052 [consent decree approved by federal district court was invalid, purporting to create obligations beyond those allowed by state zoning law]; Keith v. Volpe (9`h Cir. 1997) 118 F.3d 1386 ["the parties could not .use a consent decree to enforce terms which would exceed their authority and supplant state law."']. (b) The threat (or fear) of unspecified retaliatory action, often cited by City Staff. by the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") is unjustified, and does not support the City staff's demands: The City staff has argued that the HCD "requires" the City to impose these affordable housing demands, or that HCD will punish Palm Desert or suspend the City's land use authority to approve new development unless the Council insists on at least 20% contributions of affordable housing from new residential projects. Such arguments are misplaced, since State housing law is aimed at other approaches to improve the availability of housing and we are not aware of any recognized evidence of such retaliatory action having been taken by the HCD. Neither State housing law nor HCD policy provides for such sanctions against local governments that do not implement mandatory inclusionary policies. State law instead requires that cities periodically inventory and zone land at appropriate densities sufficient to enable satisfaction of the city's assigned RHNA targets for affordable housing; it does not mandate exactions such as being demanded by staff, nor does state law authorize HCD to require developers to dedicate or provide rent -restricted or price -restricted housing. To the contrary, state housing law provides that "nothing in this article shall be construed as a grant of authority ... to impose rent controls or restrictions on the sale of real property." (Gov. Code § 65589(b).) The arguments previously suggested by City staff have been explicitly rejected by the California Court of Appeal, in Tuthill v. City of San Buenaventura (2014) 223 Cal.AppAth 1081, 1090-91. The Court there explained that State housing legislation does not impose any mandatory duties or obligations on local governments with regard to State housing policy: [S]ection 65580 constitutes a "general statement of public policy, not a directive to any aaencv ... on how to implement the policy." (Building Industry Assn. v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1641, 1650.) .... Section 65580 only directs public entities to cooperate in the provision of affordable housing and to address regional housing needs. Simply put, State housing law does not authorize HCD to impose punishments such as imagined by City staff. If the City Council were to succumb to the staff s demands, the City would 2644/033460-0001 11969212 3 a02/08/18 RUTAN Robert Hargreaves February 8, 2018 Page 9 not be able to excuse its arbitrary and unlawful 20% affordable demands — or to defend against legal challenges -- by trying to argue that "the State Legislature made me do it." MCP's Request to Allow Assisted I,ivinu Facilities in Parce 4 City Staff has required that the Specific Plan delete any reference to "assisted living" facilities as a permitted use. Applicant has consistently maintained that the use is allowed under current zoning ordinance and understands that the staff report may recommend denial of this use. Applicant believes the use will be subject to the discretion of the City Council upon review of the merits of such a use in a general sense and upon a thorough review of a Precise Plan application. Conclusions: Despite months of discussions and negotiations, MCP and staff have been unable to resolve this matter informally. Accordingly, we believe that it is now necessary to move this dispute to the City Council for resolution, unless there may be some other administrative remedy available and effective for that purpose. We hereby respectfully request that you consider this as an appeal to the City Council and direct City staff to work with MCP in bringing this application for Council review and decision as quickly as possible. Please contact me if you have any questions or additional information. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP David P. Lanferman DPL:mtr cc: Chris Chambers, for MC Properties City Manager, City of Palm Desert 2644/033460-0001 11969212 3 a02/08/18 MINUTES < REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 2018. Rec: Continue to the next regular meeting. Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was continued to the next regular meeting (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER Vlll. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 2018. Rec: Approve as presented. Commissioner Greenwood moved to, by Minute Motion, approve as presented the Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 2018. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 4-0 (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council of a Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map 37234 to subdivide 32+ acres into four (4) parcels bounded by, east of Monterey Avenue, south of Dick Kelly Drive, north of A Street, and west of Gateway Drive; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act .(CEQA). Case Nos. SP 16-342 & TPM 37234 (MC Properties, LLC, Encinitas, ,California, Applicant). Commissioner Greenwood stated the architectural firm he works for was involved with the said project and recused himself from this item. Associate Planner Kevin Swartz presented the staff report (staff reports are available at www.citvofoalmdesert.orq). Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked if there are other projects in the vicinity that have paid in -lieu fees for affordable housing, if so, what were the fees for the basis of a comparison. 2 MINUTES (\ REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Swartz responded that Family Development (The Retreat) agreed to pay a $2.00 a square foot for the affordable housing in -lieu fee. Recently, Palm Desert Country Club agreed to pay a $12.00 in -lieu fee; and The Wolff Company agreed to pay $9.86 in -lieu fee. Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell interjected that Family Development paid a $1.00 in -lieu fee. Based on a $9.00 or $12.00 in -lieu fee, Commissioner DeLuna asked how much of the money is set aside for affordable housing on a project as proposed by MC Properties. Mr. Swartz replied that the money set aside for affordable housing is based on the rentable square footage. Mr. Stendell added that it is difficult to provide a number since there is not a final site plan for the proposed project. He explained the Specific Plan is a broad document so there is not a final number to do the calculation. He mentioned City staff has been trying to keep affordable units on the site because it is a good site for the affordable units. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the $1.50 in -lieu fee is low for the area. Mr. Swartz answered yes. Commissioner Lindsay Holt referred to the 20 percent for affordable housing and asked if the percentage is a policy or a recommendation from staff. Mr. Swartz replied that the 20 percent for affordable housing is an internal City policy. Commissioner Holt asked if there was any consideration to formalize or adopt a policy. Mr. Swartz said the 20 percent set aside for affordable housing policy was in the form of a memorandum from a previous City Manager. Commissioner Holt inquired if it would be easier to first adopt a policy. Mr. Stendell responded that there was an attempt to formalize a policy; however, it was never formally adopted. He said affordable housing is an extremely hard -charging topic because it affects development. The memorandum mentioned by Mr. Swartz was composed in 2012 or 2013 that provided discretionary approvals. Commissioner Holt asked if there is a case law or other examples of cities making similar affordable housing requests. 3 MINUTES 1 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Stendell explained cities used to have a redevelopment agency and the 20 percent revenue stream that helped produce affordable housing units. With the loss of redevelopment agencies, there are cities having a hard time achieving their affordable housing requirements and other cities are adopting thorough inclusionary affordable housing ordinances. Due to a recent increase in development, Mayor Sabby Jonathan asked City staff to provide a report on the current policy and how Palm Desert is compared to other valley cities. It does not help current applicants going through the process, but it will help other people that need clarity on the affordable housing issue. Commissioner Holt asked what is the City's status meeting the Housing Element requirements for affordable housing units. Mr. Swartz responded that in 2012, the City rezoned properties to accommodate the requirements for affordable housing units. He noted the proposed project is one of the parcels rezoned for affordable housing. For this reason, the City has required 40 affordable units for the proposed project. Commissioner Holt clarified that the 20 percent for affordable housing is based on the number of units that would be developed. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt commented that 200 is the minimum number of units; however, the applicant could have a maximum of 254 units. Mr. Swartz remarked that the total is 20 units per acre so the maximum number is approximately 250 units. Commissioner Holt said if the applicant developed 250 units, the 20 percent of affordable units would be 40 units. Mr. Swartz answered that the City is only requesting 20 percent of 200 units. Commissioner Holt clarified that the City is only requesting 40 units for affordable housing if the applicant develops more than 200 units. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt commented that staff's recommendation is not to move forward with a parcel map. Staff is recommending setting aside a section of Planning Area 4. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt felt the City should have learned a lesson about setting aside affordable housing units outside of the project area, and not having them blend into an overall project. 4 1 MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Chairman Pradetto asked staff for what projected rents might be in the market rate housing versus what rents might be in low and very low scenarios. Mr. Stendell answered no, stating he would need to get someone from the Housing Department to speak on market rate and affordable rents. If the Planning Commission is interested in rent information, staff could look into it. Chairman Pradetto commented higher density units are more affordable by nature than single-family stand-alone units are. He assumed that rents for single-family dwelling units would be more than an apartment in a dense development. If the market rate rent for a single-family dwelling unit is $2,000, he assumed that the difference in rent between the $2,000 unit and the low and very low is different from an apartment where the market rate rent is $1,300. Mr. Stendell agreed with Chair Pradetto's broad logic. Chairman Pradetto stated that the Planning Commission has no idea what the proposed units would sell for or what the rent would be. However, the nature of a dense development and the location of the proposed project is going to be more affordable than a development in south Palm Desert or a lower density development. Therefore, the developer would be providing units that are inherently more affordable and asked to what extent is it fair to place a condition to provide an additional burden of 20 percent for affordable housing. He commented that it would have been more helpful to know the numbers on market rates and affordable rents. Mr. Stendell believed that Chairman Pradetto explained the difference between what the City calls for state -mandated affordable housing versus housing that is affordable. He noted the proposed site is identified within the Housing Element for the location proximity, and the City has been after some form of state -mandated affordable housing. He agreed with Chairman Pradetto that by nature, the proposed project is a dense development and most likely will have affordable housing. Chairman Pradetto asked what the repercussions are if the City failed to develop a certain level or a number of affordable and very affordable housing units. Mr. Stendell answered that he does not have a complete answer to this question. However, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has the authority to take control of the City's land use authority. He stated that the HCD could enter the City and approve densities that are uncomfortable for the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Holt mentioned one repercussion is state grant applications could be affected. Chairman Pradetto asked if the state would provide Palm Desert a warning that they would take the City's land authority. 5 l �� MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Stendell responded that a developer can go straight to HCD via legislation or HCD could override the City's land use controls. Chairman Pradetto asked how would building a development at 20 units per acre that would help lead to more affordable units be construed as being a bad actor. He said the Planning Commission is actively considering an application to increase the density and the zoning towards the Housing Element. Mr. Stendell replied that it is a policy decision by both the recommending body and the City Council. Commissioner Holt noted that no matter where the development takes place, the difference between the market rate and the rates for low- and very -low income affordable housing is very different. As a community, the Planning Commission has to consider if they want to create housing that is affordable for people that work in the community or push the people out into other communities where they have to travel far for work. She voiced her concern not having a concrete policy that is consistent with projects. She said if the Planning Commission were to negotiate the 20 percent for affordable housing for the proposed project, she assumed it would set a precedent. However, they could negotiate on future projects and have a different solution, which does not sit well with her. Commissioner Holt calculated and noted the cost for the City to construct a single affordable housing unit, based on the information provided in the staff report. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna commented that the Planning Commission is operating under a basic premise that she would like explained. She pointed out that she keeps hearing affordable housing referred to as a burden. She asked why affordable housing is considered a burden. Mr. Stendell responded that there is no question in his mind that a condition on a project or state -mandated affordable housing affects the financial viability however, deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that there is a state mandate to provide affordable housing. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct, stating that cities are required to plan for affordable housing units. If the proposed project is approved, Chairman Pradetto asked where it would place Palm Desert in meeting state requirements. Mr. Stendell responded that the City of Palm Desert is doing better than other cities. He mentioned the City has a certified Housing Element and the City is able to file a yearly performance report. To date, Palm Desert has not received any correspondence from HCD that the City has to do anything differently. Commissioner Holt asked what the City does with the in -lieu fees. C� �51 MINUTES ( j REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Stendell communicated that the City has constructed and rehabilitated affordable housing units. He believed the City's housing portfolio has 1,100+ units. In addition, the City has worked with private developers to create affordable units by using some of the City's housing funds. Commissioner Holt inquired what would be the City Council's preference if they had to choose between in -lieu fees and the development of affordable units within a certain development. Mr. Stendell responded that City staff looks at each site with practical eyes and asks what the value of affordability in the neighborhood is. He reiterated that staff is using a policy memorandum for discretionary approvals. Commissioner Holt mentioned that the applicant offered alternatives and asked if the alternatives are still standing. Mr. Swartz deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Holt commented that they are mainly referring to Planning Area 4; however, the same requirement is applicable to Planning Area 3. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt asked what if Planning Area 3 was developed as single-family residential and not high -density residential. Mr. Swartz responded that would be ok, but 20 percent of the homes would still be required at affordable rents. Chairman Pradetto asked if the applicant would pay an in -lieu fee if they were developing commercial property. Mr. Stendell answered that there is an established in -lieu fee on commercial development for affordability. Commissioner Holt asked what the in -lieu fee for commercial development is. Mr. Stendell replied that the fee is $1.00 a square foot. Chairman Pradetto inquired how the affordable units would be managed so that the units are rented out to qualifying applicants. Mr. Swartz replied that the applicant would maintain the affordable units, and the City would work with the applicant on the affordable rents. He noted that typically there would be a third party maintaining the units. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that the Planning Commission is considering the 20 percent for affordable housing units, as recommended by staff. 7 � 32- MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt asked if the applicant could return and renegotiate the setting aside of land for affordable housing. Mr. Swartz answered that staff would include language in the Specific Plan so it is set in stone. Mr. Stendell added that the Planning Commission and the City Council could modify the language in the Specific Plan. Since the language is not set in stone, Commissioner Holt commented that the setting aside of land for affordable housing is negotiable. Chairman Pradetto stated that currently there is not a level playing field with objectionable standards and each project could be treated differently based on whether the applicant could negotiate well or not. Commissioner DeLuna commented that there are other considerations, for example, some parcels are closer to amenities that lend themselves to more affordable housing and some are not. Therefore, placing the same requirement on every parcel might be equally inequitable. Commissioner Holt mentioned that the request is a discretionary permit so the Planning Commission does not have to approve the Specific Plan. The Commission could include conditions or make a recommendation to include conditions. As Chairman Pradetto pointed out, Commissioner DeLuna said if the proposed project was considered more affordable because of the high density, then the difference or the disparity between the affordable units and the market rate units generated would be less. Therefore, it is not much of a disparity as it might be if they were high -end condominiums or high -end single-family homes. Commissioner Holt interjected that if the units were at market rate, the rent could be increased. Commissioner DeLuna noted that affordable housing is based on median income. Mr. Stendell added that the affordable housing rent varies based on the area median income (AMI). Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. CHRIS CHAMBERS, Consultant with MC Properties, LLC, Riverside, California, stated that he has been working on the proposed project for two and a half to three years and introduced the other representatives of the project. He said the Planning Commission had good questions and made good comments. Mr. Chambers shared 0 MINUTES l REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 that the MacLeod family has been an outstanding member of the community and early investors in the outlying areas of Palm Desert. He disclosed that Myron Macleod joined an assessment district approximately 10 years ago, and has been paying debt service on $30 million for public infrastructure that has gone in the surrounding proposed site. The development team has wanted to keep the project locally and make sure that they touch the local flavor and the local sentiments surrounding the proposed development. He said the reason for seeking a Specific Plan was to establish design criteria, and in conjunction, he and MSA Engineering Consultants removed as many questions as possible for the ultimate developer. In addition, they wanted a clear path to development when someone decides to develop the site. He pointed out that the proposed site is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan and made clear they are not requesting a change of zone, a general plan amendment, or a development agreement. Mr. Chambers noted that Palm Desert denied a development agreement, which could provide some subsidies for the development, fee deferrals, and contributions by the City from the housing fund. He said cities are better able to exact financial contribution from projects when they are asking for a General Plan amendment or a change of zone. As the Planning Commission listens to all the different exactions on different projects, Mr. Chambers implored the Commission to ask and inquire about the original zoning when the project was approved. He said Palm Desert has affordable housing projects that were developed when there was a redevelopment agency. The extinguishment of the redevelopment agencies has got them all in a pickle today. He said there are affordable housing projects that were open space and were changed to high -density residential communities. The City has to look at what it is doing with the developer on every single project and look at the developer's contribution. He stated that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and the General Plan. They asked for subsidies, however, they were denied by the City. Mr. Chambers took a moment to compliment City staff. He said staff has been extremely responsive and very diligent in what was presented and how it was presented. In the past several years, many issues have been resolved. However, three issues have not been resolved. The first issue pertains to the 100-year storm retention requirement. He noted that he has had at least three discussions with the Public Works Department. He mentioned he has a letter from Public Works indicating that the 100-year storm retention will not be required on the site because of the storm drainage improvements that were done through Assessment District 29. The second issue is regarding assistant living. He said one of the goals in the Housing Element is to generate, assist, and cooperate with a development community for the provision of assisted living facilities. He pointed out that assisted living is a valid use in the City of Palm Desert. As of 2014, 35 percent of the residents are 65 and older. In addition, AARP concluded and reported that almost 80 percent of people want to stay in the community in which they live. Mr. Chambers communicated assisted facilities do provide that option; therefore, the applicant would like assisted living as an allowable use for Planning Area 3. He informed the Commission they are establishing development criteria for precise plans that will go before the Planning Commission for approval. He noted that staff was very resilient in their position of reserving 20 percent for affordable rents or the project would not receive staff's approval. Over the course of two and a half years, he made a list of no less than 10 iterations of what the applicant could do to move the ball toward their goal, but they all have fallen short. He mentioned they proposed an affordable housing in -lieu fee in an 9 13'-f MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 amount of $1.50 and noted that The Retreat at Desert Willow agreed to $1.00 in -lieu fee. He stated the City did not respond to their proposed in -lieu fee amount. Mr. Chambers said the best course of action is to look at the Specific Plan without the affordable housing requirement. It is consistent with the legal position and there is no requirement in the Housing Element. In addition, the City of Palm Desert is not required to grab affordable housing from every project that comes before the City. He referred to Mr. Stendell's comment that Palm Desert is required to plan, but not provide affordable housing. He made clear there is no ordinance, only a general policy that states the City should cooperate with developers in trying to find affordable housing. He noted the applicant provided the Commission with proposed revisions to the Planning Commission resolution. The revisions would allow the project to move to the City Council on a neutral basis. If the City imposes affordable housing on 40 units, he expressed the project would not be profitable or financeable. Based on the approximate cost of $250,000 to construct a single affordable housing unit, the cost would be $10 million. Lastly, he briefly talked about legislature and assessments and offered to answer any questions. MS. KATHY JENSON, Attorney with Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, California, stated if the applicant is required to reserve 20 percent (40 units) for affordable rents, it would be the first project not asking for any concessions such as a development agreement or a density bonus that would trigger a legitimate ask for affordable housing. She mentioned the last time she was in front of the Commission, it related to The Sands project (Canterra il), which the project was a perfect example of justifying the requirement for affordable housing. She pointed out that the land went from open space to high -density land, and the applicant received a density bonus and other incentives. For the proposed project to be treated the same as The Sands project is preposterous. She stated that there is not a city in the Coachella Valley mandatorily imposing an inclusionary affordable housing requirement. She referred to the letter sent to the City from David Lanferman (Rutan & Tucker, LLP) and noted the letter was attached to the staff report. She stated there is no authority when asked; the City Council decided they did not want a uniform policy. Therefore, as other projects asked for concessions, the applicants' negotiated different deals. She reiterated that her client is not asking for any concessions; however, they are being treated the same as the other projects. She mentioned numbers were based on a Keyser Marston Associates study and noted that they did not agree with the study. However, the fundamental premise was that the proposed property was going to have a zone change, which would vastly increase the value of the property and it was only fair that the developer should share a part of the value with the City of Palm Desert. She believed the idea was the City essentially could take two-thirds (2/3) of the upside. She proclaimed that there is no upside. She referred to page six (6), item number four (4), which states "The Specific Plan and future PP (Precise Plan) applications fall under the provision of Section 65915-65918 of the California Government Code." She stated the code does not mention Specific Plans. Specific Plans help physically lay out the best use of the property; it is not an incentive -based program. She noted that the developer was told the Specific Plan was mandatory, which is now the discretionary approval that authorizes a $10 million exaction. The $10 million exaction would make the proposed project infeasible and they will not accept as a condition. She referred to the Planning Commission resolution and recommended the following 10 � 3S MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 condition be added to the resolution, "That the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council decide the issues regarding affordable housing." She communicated a policy should be made by the policymakers. Ms. Jenson noted striking Condition of Approval No. 2 in the resolution since once the map is recorded, it is final and the Specific Plan is a legislative determination. She believed City staff agreed the condition could be stricken. In closing, she said affordable housing units would be produced as part of The Sands project and she is sure there are more affordable units coming to the City in the future. She offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Holt reiterated items the applicant would like to discuss, including the requirement for the 100-year storm retention. She asked if the City typically requires improvements related to the 100-year storm. Mr. Swartz answered yes. He explained that it is not a Condition of Approval, but a sentence that could be stricken from the resolution. Commissioner Holt asked if it is allowed to retain some of the stormwater within the streets. Mr. Swartz replied no. MR. CHAMBERS interposed that when the assessment district was designed, the drainage was designed to accept a certain amount of flow of the proposed site. Commissioner Holt inquired if the improvements were constructed. MR. CHAMBERS replied yes, adding that they expanded the retention basin off -site. Commissioner Holt asked Mr. Chambers if they want the assisted living component to be an allowable use on Planning Area 3. MR. CHAMBERS replied yes. Commissioner Holt noted the applicant would also like to discuss the affordable housing requirement and the requirement for the start of construction within five years (Condition of Approval No. 2). Mr. Swartz interjected that staff was agreeable to eliminating Condition of Approval No. 2. Commissioner Holt commented that the items for discussion are the assisted living component and the requirement for affordable housing. She pointed out that the staff report mentions several alternatives the applicant discussed with the City, including the in -lieu fee in an amount of $1.50 for each livable square foot for each residential unit within Planning Area 4. MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 At this point, MR. CHAMBERS stated he would not want to reopen negotiations. He felt they have laid out their case. He said the $1.50 in -lieu fee that the City never responded to would be an amenable solution to the remaining MacLeod family members. Commissioner Holt said there was a discussion about providing either 40 units with a combination of 10 units at moderate income and the remaining 30 units at low- and very -low income. There was another discussion about 30 units (15 low-income units and 15 very -low-income units). She inquired if the applicant would be amenable to the two options. MR. CHAMBERS responded that there are many complicated factors involved with the latter option, which they never addressed with City staff. He felt the second option is not worth pursuing. He stated providing the 10 units at moderate income would be acceptable to the applicant. For the record, MS. JENSON stated they sent the City documentation that laid out details of the applicant's alternatives, but it was not concluded. MR. CHAMBERS added that the in -lieu fee of $1.50 and the 10 units at moderate income would have to be made clear that it is the contribution for the proposed project in perpetuity. MR. BOB KOLODNY, San Diego, California, commented he is an attorney that has been representing the MacLeod family for approximately 40 years. When the City was moving forward with an assessment district, the MacLeod family invested in the property as a very long-term investor. After listening to comments during the public hearing, he made clear that the MacLeod family are not developers. The family has been trying to decide what the best use is for the property. He said the family considered a zone change because they thought there would be a better use. However, the family was told it would not be a good idea and they elected not to do so. The family was told that the adjacent properties would be developed so they decided to contribute into the assessment district for improvements on and around the property. When Myron MacLeod, who recently passed away, suggested the family talk to Mr. Chambers to help expedite the process with the City. He said the family decided not to seek a development agreement or anything that would be problematic, other than a Specific Plan to create four parcels. Thus, someday the property can monetize since the family has spent hundreds and thousands of dollars in the assessment district. Brokers informed the family that the only way for the property to be viable is to work with the City on a Specific Plan and not ask for any concessions. Before Mr. MacLeod passed away, he met with the City and he was apprised of what he referred to as an exaction, reserving 20 percent of the units for affordable housing without legal authority. He then realized that the project would no longer be viable. Mr. MacLeod asked Mr. Chambers to move forward without asking for anything, and Mr. Chambers contacted Rutan & Tucker to determine if there is legal authority imposing the requirements made by the City. Mr. Kolodny said he wanted the Planning Commission to understand a little of the history about the Macleod family and the property. He asked the Planning Commission if it is not appropriate, without a specific policy to 12 13'I MINUTES ` 1 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 approve the Specific Plan, move it forward to the City Council without the recommendation on the 20 percent for affordable housing. He noted the Council would be addressing the issue of affordable housing in the future, as opposed to creating a precedent on the proposed plan. He felt the City is taking their client's property without any legal authority. Again, he urged the Planning Commission to consider approving the Specific Plan without imposing the conditions for affordable housing. Commissioner DeLuna commented that there is a reference to an assisted living facility, and noted that Commissioner Holt inquired if the affordable housing of 20 percent would act against the assisted living facility. She noted that the assisted living and affordable housing are entirely different. Mr. Stendell said he is not aware of a covenant that has been recorded against an assisted living facility. He agreed and considers affordable housing and assisted living two different uses. Commissioner DeLuna asked if an assisted living facility would be constructed on Planning Area 3, would the 20 percent of 200 for affordable housing units remain the same. Mr. Stendell explained that if the Planning Commission were to recommend the option of an assisted living facility on Planning Area 3, he would not see expanding the affordable housing component. The recommended condition for 20 percent affordable housing units would only pertain to Planning Area 4. Chairman Pradetto stated that the McLeod family is contributing to a $10 million debt service for improvements in the area. MR. CHAMBERS clarified that the family has contributed $10 million towards the $30 million assessment district. According to the City's calculation, Chairman Pradetto clarified that 40 units at affordable rents would equate to an additional $10 million. MR. CHAMBERS replied yes. Chairman Pradetto reaffirmed that the applicant is not asking for a Change of Zone or General Plan amendment, which other developers would leverage for concessions. MR. CHAMBERS replied that is correct. Chairman Pradetto asked City Attorney Robert Hargreaves to address the Commission. Mr. Hargreaves communicated that the proposed request for a Specific Plan has been a cooperative process. There have been many issues and everyone has been successful in working through issues, including issues that have been discussed during the public hearing. However, the process is hindered on the condition for 13 � 3� MINUTES ( t REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 affordable housing. He stated that cities had an informal affordable housing policy that goes back for decades. If you go back, there are development agreements and other approvals where affordable housing requirements have been negotiated and imposed. He asserted that the requirement is not setting a precedent in terms of the substance. He said when the project was originally proposed, he believed the density was five units per acre based on the Keyser Marston study. Keyser Marston indicated if the City increased the density to 20 units per acre, the City can create value and some of the value can go to affordable housing. In this case, the City did not wait for the developer to come in and negotiate. The City went ahead and upzoned the area because of the requirements of the Housing Element, including other areas of the City. He said in a sense, forego the opportunity to use the upzoning as leverage. The question was asked if there is a legal authority, he stated, yes there is a legal authority. Mr. Hargreaves indicated he had that conversation with Ms. Jenson a number of times and she has not shown him that the City has no legal authority. He proclaimed there is no requirement. It is a policy decision that ultimately goes to the City Council, and he does not know that staff or anyone else will know what the Council would decide. He said the current City Council has not faced this type of decision in today's environment; a different environment the City was dealing with when there were a redevelopment agency and a booming economy. He mentioned that the state is crying out for affordable housing, but they have not exactly mandated that cities provide affordable housing. The state has told cities to accommodate affordable housing if cities deny projects coming forward with affordable housing the state can take away the cities land use planning. He also mentioned the state has a very strong policy. In recent legislation, the state has come forward with measures to push for affordable housing. He noted that a Specific Plan is essentially an amendment to the General Plan, which is a legislative act and opens up negotiations. He stressed there is legal authority for the City Council to impose an affordable housing requirement. Concerning the assessment district, the district funds public improvements, which the property owner would be required to contribute to the district. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Holt noted she is not an affordable housing expert; however, she appreciated staff seeking a solution to the affordability crisis in California. She stated it is going to take the State of California to do something so there is consistency. She commented there is not a set in stone policy and the City Council is not encouraging a policy. She said she does not know if it is within the Planning Commission's purview to recommend that the Council create a uniform affordable housing policy. She recommended that the City Council create a policy or they need to state that the applicant or property owner must negotiate with the Council or City staff. Secondly, she said the applicant is willing to pay the in -lieu fee. She was not sure if it is prudent to make a recommendation to the City Council to accept the in -lieu fee or an amount imposed by Council as they see fit. Lastly, she stated she does not have an issue with allowing the assisted living component on Planning Area 3. MINUTES ` l REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Chairman Pradetto clarified that Commissioner Holt would be open to making a recommendation to the City Council to accept the in -lieu fee of $1.50 without the 20 percent affordable housing requirement and ask the Council to make that determination. Commissioner Holt remarked that at the end of the day, it is going to be the City Council's decision. Her personal opinion, she does not see a precedent for requiring 20 percent for affordable housing. However, she does see a precedent for an in -lieu fee but does not know what the fee should be. Commissioner DeLuna stated that the in -lieu fee is too low. If they allow the $1.50 to go through, they will be setting a precedent. She noted other projects have contributed between $7.00 and $12.00. She mentioned there might be a reason why there is not a uniform policy throughout the City. She noted the Macleod property is well suited for an affordable housing component. She said a school and a medical facility proposed is in the area, which would attract an affordable housing developer. In addition, the proposed site is in close proximity to Walmart, Lowe's, Home Depot, and future commercial sites. She conveyed when you rule out an affordable housing component, you are ruling out people who are not looking for a handout but looking for a leg up. In a conscientious community, the City has to address multiple housing needs. She pointed out that the proposed site is uniquely well suited for affordable housing, for that reason, City staff is being firm with the condition for 20 percent affordable housing units. She noted if you do not attach an affordable housing component, then you are setting a precedent. Commissioner Holt asked Commissioner DeLuna if she had a recommendation for the in -lieu fee. Mr. Stendell interjected that the Planning Commission is having some trepidation over the affordable housing component. He communicated that the City Council will discuss establishing a policy for affordable housing. Therefore, the Planning Commission could stay neutral and let the Council decide. Staff will pass on the Commission's comments to the Council. Commissioner Holt asked what the Commission should do with the assisted living component. Mr. Stendell responded that the Planning Commission should address the assisted living component. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the site does not seem like an ideal location for assisted living and she would need to do more research. She also does not know when the proposed medical facility in Rancho Mirage will be constructed, if the assisted living component is being based on the medical facility. She stated she does not have a strong opinion or strongly object to the proposed use on Planning Area 3. 15 LfID MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Chairman Pradetto said that it seems the applicant has made it clear that 40 units for affordable housing is infeasible. However, the applicant seems to be open to 30 units, with 10 units at market rate. Commissioner DeLuna remarked that moderate income could go as high as 60 percent of AM[, which could mitigate some of the concerns about the project becoming economically infeasible. She mentioned that the applicant could also sell a portion of the site and dedicate it to affordable housing to qualify for tax credits so it will not be a burden to the applicant. Commissioner Holt inquired if the Planning Commission must make a recommendation on the parcel map. Mr. Stendell clarified if Commissioner Holt was referring to the set -aside piece of the map. Commissioner Holt replied that is correct. Mr. Stendell answered yes. Commissioner Holt asked the Commission if they agreed to the set -aside piece of the map. Commissioner DeLuna responded that she would prefer to see the piece integrated. However, she would rather see the piece set aside than not allowed for any affordable housing. Commissioner Holt agreed. Chairman Pradetto asked Commissioner DeLuna if an affordable housing developer using housing credits could build a portion of the project or they need their own parcel set aside as it is drawn. Commissioner DeLuna replied that both have existed. She hesitated to give any kind of opinion that she might be held to; however, both options have been successfully developed. She does not know if it would work well in this situation. Chairman Pradetto commented that he knows the easy way out, but does not want to take it and said it is up to the City Council. He preferred that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation. Commissioner DeLuna agreed. At this point, she said she is not willing to write off the affordable housing component. She felt the Commission should send some kind of direction to the Council. Chairman Pradetto asked Commissioner DeLuna if she is open to the 30 units at low - and very -low income and 10 units at moderate income. 16 \+1 MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Commissioner DeLuna replied yes. Commissioner Holt said it would be nice to see some affordable units. She asked the Commission if they are going to make a recommendation on the in -lieu fees. Commissioner DeLuna voiced that she is not comfortable with the proposed $1.50 in - lieu fee. Commissioner Holt asked if the Commission should recommend either the in -lieu fee or the 20 percent set aside for affordable housing. Commissioner DeLuna asked City staff if the Commission is going in the right direction. Mr. Stendell responded that quick negotiations are a bad idea. He felt policy direction from the Commission is important. He said direction regarding the affordable housing component would be appreciated, and provide staff with a broad policy direction to pass on to the City Council. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Commission could recommend requiring affordable housing without specifying the amount or the type. Mr. Stendell replied yes. Chairman Pradetto inquired if it would be the same as a quick negotiation regardless of what the Commission recommends. He said more negotiation would take place between now and the time it goes to the City Council. Mr. Stendell remarked that time is the variable. Commissioner DeLuna expressed that City staff has well researched their point of view over a period of years and she respects the research and the work that staff has done. Therefore, she cannot find a good reason to go against staff's recommendation, unless they slightly modify the recommendation. Commissioner Holt noted that staff's preference is not to make modifications. If the Commission decided to agree with the 20 percent, Chairman Pradetto stated that his vote would be to continue the item for more information or to vote no. He noted that they only have three members present to vote. Mr. Stendell recommended the Planning Commission not to specify the on -site units or in -lieu fees as directives to the City Council. Mr. Swartz added that there is a resolution with Conditions of Approval. Therefore, if the resolution is approved, the Commission is also approving the conditions. He said any modified conditions must be part of the recommendation. 17 MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 MR. CHAMBERS communicated that they provided the Planning Commission with a redlined resolution with their proposed changes. He explained the resolution would go forward without an affordable housing component. It would move forward with the Commission approving the Specific Plan and the Commission's recommendation that the Council takes some form of action in the alternative. Commissioner DeLuna stated she is not comfortable excluding affordable housing from the consideration. Commissioner Holt asked if staff could revise the resolution based on the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Commission would need to make a motion. Chairman Pradetto answered yes; however, the motion must be very specific. Commissioner DeLuna voiced that the representative for the applicant presented the Commission with their revisions to the resolution. She said she has not had a chance to read the revised resolution and did not feel comfortable moving forward without some provision concerning affordable housing. Commissioner Holt inquired if the Commission could make the same recommendation for the conditions that staff make the necessary revisions as City staff, City Council, and the applicant move forward with negotiations. Chairman Pradetto said the Commission could do whatever they want if there is a motion. Commissioner Holt noted they also needed to include assisted living in the motion. Commissioner DeLuna moved to recommend to the City Council accepting staff's report with the inclusion of an affordable housing component or an in -lieu fee to be determined by ... before finishing the motion, she asked Mr. Stendell for assistance in completing the motion. Chairman Pradetto interjected that the Commission would need to remove the specific condition regarding the 20 percent for affordable housing. Commissioner DeLuna added to the motion to remove the specific condition requiring 20 percent for affordable housing and moving forward to the City Council with an affordable housing component. She asked if her motion was specific enough to move forward. Chairman Pradetto clarified that the recommendation is to strike Condition of Approval No. 12, including that the City Council study an appropriate set aside or in -lieu fee for affordable housing. 18 '3 l � 1 MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Commissioner Holt inquired if the Commission needed to make a specific reference to any of the particular items or conditions within the resolution, or recommend that City staff revise the resolution accordingly. Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 7:46 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Stendell reported that staff has two paths the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council. One, take an action recommending approval of the proposed project without the Planning Commission resolution. Essentially the action would be a Minute Motion and not adopt a resolution. Staff would take the broad direction from the Commission and staff would construct a recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Pradetto asked if the Planning Commission has done something similar before. Mr. Stendell replied yes, stating a similar case was the short-term rental policy. He continued with the second path. If the Commission were uncomfortable with the other option, staff would take the direction received by the Commission and revise the resolution. Staff would return to the Commission with a revised resolution reflecting the Commission's recommendations. He stressed the City council would most likely deal with the policy on how to handle the affordable housing issue. Commissioner DeLuna moved to approve staff's recommendation to move the proposed project forward to the City Council. From the audience, MS. JENSON asked if the motion included moving forward with the resolution. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes, moving forward with the resolution presented by City staff. Mr. Stendell clarified that Commissioner DeLuna's motion is the recommendation from the staff report. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes. Commissioner Holt asked if the Commission is going to add the option of an in -lieu fee at the discretion of the City Council. Commissioner DeLuna remarked that she could add it to her motion or Commissioner Holt could amend her motion. Commissioner Holt stated the Commission's recommendation would be to move forward with staff's recommendation to include 20 percent of the 200 units for affordable housing or an in -lieu fee determined by the City Council. MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Commissioner DeLuna said she is comfortable with Commissioner Holt's statement. For the record, Chairman Pradetto clarified that the motion is to adopt City staff's recommendation and request that the City Council look at an in -lieu fee option for funding the affordable housing component. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes. Commissioner Holt inquired if the resolution stands as written by staff. For clarification purposes, Mr. Stendell asked Commissioner DeLuna if she is recommending adopting the resolution as presented by City staff. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes, with the modification to include 20 percent of the 200 units for affordable housing or an in -lieu fee determined by the City Council. Chairman Pradetto explained there is a motion on the table and without a second, then the motion will not be considered. Therefore, the Commission may consider a new motion, which may or may not be recommended by City staff. Commissioner Holt seconded the motion. She communicated she felt comfortable seconding the motion because the 20 percent of 200 is 40 units, which is not far off from the other compromises the Planning Commission had discussed. She pointed out the City Council would make the final decision. She said the Planning Commission's motion would demonstrate that the Commission is seeking some sort affordability component to the proposed project. Chairman Pradetto asked if the project did not receive three votes to move forward to the City Council, the project would still go to the Council. Mr. Stendell replied yes. Chairman Pradetto stated he felt sensitive to the developer and would not vote in favor of the 20 percent of the units for affordable housing. He asked the Commissioners to cast their vote. Mr. Stendell announced the motion failed by a 2-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna and Holt; NOES: Pradetto; ABSENT: Greenwood and Gregory). MS. JENSON interjected that the developer would waive the requirement of the resolution if the Planning Commission could move the proposed project forward pursuant to the second oral recommendation. Chairman Pradetto stated the project would go before the City Council, regardless. Mr. Stendell said that was correct, noting the meeting minutes and the project would go before the City Council without a recommendation for approval from the Commission. 20 �4S MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Hargreaves interjected that there could be another motion. He explained the Commission could consider City staff's suggestion to push the resolution to the side and introduce a new motion that encapsulates a consensus of what they want the Council to consider. Such as, approve the Specific Plan as presented with an affordable housing component and specify parameters, including direction on the assisted living component. Commissioner Holt moved to, by Minute Motion, recommend that the City Council approve the Specific Plan, with an affordable housing component; and allow assisted facilities to be an allowable use on Parcel 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 3-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood and Gregory). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council approving a Change of Zone, a Precise Plan of design, and a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) to construct a senior living project of 164 units, including a clubhouse building located at 74-300 Country Club Drive; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. PP/CZ 18-0003' and TPM 37512 (The Wolff Company, Scottsdale, Arizona, Applicant). Commissioner Greenwood stated he was involved in the said project and recused himself. Mr. Swartz outlined the salient points from the staff report. He noted that the applicant would pay an affordable housing in -lieu fee of $9.86 totaling $1,350,000. Staff recommended approval and offered to answer any questions. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. DAVID TODD, The Wolff Company, Scottsdale, Arizona, stated they are excited about the proposed project and appreciated City staff's diligence in getting them to this point. They are also excited to develop in Palm Desert. Commissioner Holt understood the proposed project is for active adults. She asked if the proposed project would have elevators. MR. TODD replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there are walking paths throughout the project. MR. TODD answered yes, stating they have an internal fitness facility, pool, spa, and pointed to the walking paths on the site plan. Commissioner DeLuna commented that there seems to be little turf to walk pets. WF LI _9�3 - '9-coL STAFF REPOR COMMTO �� %3 CITY OF PALM DES :R PAM TO 2ND KAMNG MEETING DATE: January 23, 2020 PREPARED BY: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk REQUEST: Approval of a Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map 37234 to subdivide 32+ acres into four (4) parcels bounded by east of Monterey Avenue, south of Dick Kelly Drive, north of "A" Street, and west of Gateway Drive; and adoption of a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation By Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of February 13, 2020. Background Analvsis The Department of Community Development notified City Clerk's Office that the subject public hearing had been duly noticed, in accordance with all applicable public notice guidelines for same. Subsequently, Applicant contacted the City to request continuance of their cases to the Council's next regular meeting on Thursday, February 13, 2020. Therefore, your concurrence and granting of a continuance is respectfully requested. Fiscal Analvsis No fiscal impact. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL Approved as to Form or REVIEW Content N/A N/A Robert W. Hargreaves Rachelle D. Klassen ) Janet M. Moore City Attorney City Clerk Director of Finance City Manager Lauri Aylaian N/A APPLICANT: MC Properties, LLC 270 North El Camino Real, Suite F397 Encinitas, CA 92024 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A Andy Firestine Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Kevin Swartz e-mail dated January 14, 2020. 41 Klassen, Rachelle From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 9:18 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: MCP Public Hearing Item Rachelle, Please add the following item under Public Hearings. The applicant has requested a continuance until the February 13th CC Meeting. Sorry for the late notice. Public Hearings. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 37234 TO SUBDIVIDE 32+ ACRES INTO FOUR (4) PARCELS BOUNDED BY, EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE, SOUTH OF DICK KELLY DRIVE, NORTH OF A STREET, AND WEST OF GATEWAY DRIVE; AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Rec: The applicant has requested to continue the public hearing to the February 13, 2020, City Council meeting. Kevin Swartz Associate Planner Ph:760.346.0611 Direct:760.776.6485 kswartzCa cityofpalmdesert.org www.cit of almdesert.or 0 Install the Palm Desert In Touch app to stay in touch with your community Android Apple Mobile Web