HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 04-118 TT 31071 Rilington Communities CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 38.05 acre-site
into one hundred and fifty nine (159) lots for single family residential
homes, eleven (11) lots for common area and landscape purposes,
two (2) lots for school district purposes and a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact as it relates to the above project. The
project is located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive, east of
Gateway Drive, known as Dolce development.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT: Rilington Communities
277 Rancheros Drive, Ste. 303
San Marcos, CA 92069
CASE NO: TT 31071
DATE: October 28, 2004
CONTENTS: Recommendation
Executive Summary
Discussion
Draft Resolution
Legal notice
Planning Commission Staff Report
Planning Commission Resolution
Planning Commission Notice of Action
Comments from other agencies
Exhibits
Recommendation:
That the City Council approve findings and adopt Resolution No. 04-118, approving
Tentative Tract Map No. 31071, subdividing 38.05 +/- acres into 159 single family
lots and two (2) remaining lots for future use by the Palm Spring Unified School
District, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts as it relates
thereto, subject to conditions.
Executive Summary:
The project is located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive, east of Gateway
Avenue. The tentative tract map will subdivide a 38.05-acre parcel into 159 lots
for single-family homes, 11 lots for common open space and landscaping, and
two (2) lots for the K-8 school. The residential lots are designed at a minimum of
4,201 square feet, with an average of 5,212 square feet. The project is proposing
Staff Report
Rillington Communities, TT 31071
Page 2
October 28, 2004
15' front setbacks from curb for the living area and 25' for garages (5'/15' from
property line), 15' to 20' rear yard setbacks, and 5' setbacks on the side yards
(10' street side on corner lots). All the homes are two-story, varying heights of 24'
to a maximum of 26'. The common open space includes a centrally located
recreational area, two pocket parks and a network of landscaped sidewalk and
walkways throughout the project. The density of the project is 4.9 unite per acre,
which is consistent with the zoning and general plan designation.
Discussion:
I. BACKGROUND:
A. Property Description:
The subject property, located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive east
of Gateway Avenue, is vacant with natural vegetation and sand dunes. Its
General Plan designation is Medium Density/High Density Overlay 4-22
dwelling units per acre (R-M/R-HO) and is zoned Planned Residential 5
unit per acre (PR-5).
B. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: PCD /Vacant desert lands and sand dunes
South: PR-5 / Marriott Shadow Ridge Country Club and desert land
East: PR-5 /Vacant (approved Ponderosa Homes)
West: PR-5 /Vacant (approved Sares-Regis Apartments)
C. Planning Commission:
The project was presented and endorsed by the Planning Commission on
October 19, 2004. Because of the applicant's financial commitments that
must be completed in November, the project was noticed for the October
28, 2004, City Council meeting before the Planning Commission reviewed
the project.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project is designed for 159 detached single-family homes,
common open space and internal public streets. Two lots (about 5 acres) along
the northern boundary will be reserved for future use by the Palm Spring Unified
School District as a K-8 school and neighborhood park. Gateway Drive and a
new street at the northeastern corner of the project will provide access to the
development. All the new streets will be public streets and the entryways will not
be gated. The overall density of the project is 4.9 units per acre.
Staff Report
Rillington Communities, TT 31071
Page 3
October 28, 2004
A. Single-family Design:
Residential lots are designed at a minimum of 4,201 square feet, with an
average of 5,212 square feet. There are four (4) model homes with an
average size of 2,330 square feet, a minimum of 2,127 square feet and a
maximum of 2,633 square feet. Each unit includes a two-car garage (20' x
20') with driveways that provide parking for two additional vehicles.
Setbacks:
The proposed minimum setbacks are:
• Front Setback: 15' from curb to the living area, 25' to garages
(5'/15' from property line).
• Rear Setback: 15' to 20'
• Side Yards: 5' / 5' (10' street sides on corner lots)
Architecture:
The four (4) model home designs have three (3) exterior elevations
options per model, totaling twelve (12) different exterior elevations. All
homes will be two-stories. The height for each model is:
• Model One: 'A', 'B' and 'C' are all 24'.
• Model Two: 'A' is 25'6", 'B' is 25'3", and 'C' is 25'6".
• Model Three: 'A', 'B' and 'C' are all 25'6".
• Model Four: 'A' is 25'9", 'B' is 24'6", and 'C' is 25'6.
All the homes are designed with 9 1 high interior space with the second
floor top plate at 19'6". All the roofs are pitched and increase from 19'6" to
the heights described above. The homes are designed with the second
story stepping back providing 10' to 20' separation between the second
story elements of adjacent homes.
The homes' Italian/Tuscan architectural theme includes arches, brick and
stone veneer, wood shutters, and varying roof slopes with tile. There are
various color schemes that use earth tone stucco and trim of beige, tan,
browns and creams. A material board will be available at the meeting. On
September 28, 2004, the Architectural Review Commission granted
preliminary approval of the project.
Staff Report
Rillington Communities, TT 31071
Page 4
October 28, 2004
B. Common Open Space Design:
The common open space includes a centrally located recreational area,
two pocket parks and a network of landscaped sidewalk and walkways
throughout the project. The recreational area includes a swimming pool
(46'x20'), tot pool (20'x12'), bathroom facility, and common turfed area
with a gazebo to accent the Italian/Tuscan theme of the homes. The
common area will be accessible to the community via a network of
sidewalks and paseo walkways transecting the project. The sidewalks are
designed with a street tree program that provides one (1) curb adjacent
shade tree between each home. Landscaping and common area lots total
approximately 1.5 acres.
Perimeter Walls and Landscaping:
A 6' high block wall is required to be constructed around the perimeter of
the subdivision. It will be setback 24' from the curb on Gerald Ford Drive,
18' on Gateway Drive, and 24' on the northerly east-west roadway (Lot J).
Landscaping and sidewalks will be installed in between the walls and curb.
All perimeter landscaping will be consistent with the City's standards for a
desert landscape theme and low water use and will be maintained by the
homeowners association. Landscaping along the perimeter totals 0.9
acres.
C. Project Data:
STANDARD PR-5 ZONE PROJECT
Minimum Lot Size As Approved 4,200 min. / 5,212 avg.
Density 5 units/gross ac. 4.8 units/gross ac.
Project Building 40% 15.5%
Coverage
Height 24' 24'-25'9"
Front Yard Setback As Approved 5' living area/15' garages
(15'/25' from curb)
Rear Yard Setback As Approved 15-20'
Side Yard Setbacks As Approved 5'/5' (10' street side of
corner lots)
Parking 2 covered spaces 2 garage spaces plus 2
per unit driveway spaces per unit
Staff Report
Rillington Communities, TT 31071
Page 5
October 28, 2004
III. ANALYSIS:
The recently approved General Plan has established medium and high-density
land use patterns in the City's North Sphere to address the City's housing needs
within single-family neighborhoods. The PR zone is flexible and allows the
Planning Commission or City Council to approve modified development
standards consistent with General Plan goals and policies. The proposed project
will incorporate similar alternative standards as were approved for the Paseo
Village project currently under construction at Parkview and Fairhaven.
A. Setbacks:
The homes have been design 15' front setbacks from curb for the living
area and 25' for garages. The living area is designed closer to the street
emphasizing more interesting architecture and deemphasizing the
garages. The garages are setback far enough to preserve full driveway
access for vehicles. The applicant has designed a street tree program with
curb adjacent shade trees to provide additional landscaping in front of the
homes. The reduced front yard setbacks also maximize the area available
for usable rear yards.
B. Height:
All the homes are designed with varying roof slopes and angles to create
superior architectural design. The larger homes have a small portion at the
center of the roof ridge that exceeds the 24' height limit (see attached
height diagram). The higher interior ceiling heights creates a high quality
living space that meets consumer demand and is competitive with other
housing product in other Coachella Valley cities.
C. Density:
The projects density is 4.9 units per acre. The project complies with the
zoning and general plan designation.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For the purposes of 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 Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact.
Staff Report
Rillington Communities, TT 31071
Page 6
October 28, 2004
V. CONCLUSION:
The proposed site planning and architectural design effectively accommodates
the proposed density and will provide future residents with a high quality living
environment. The overall project density is consistent with the requirements of
the PR-5 Zone and City's General Plan. The smaller lot size represents a logical
transition between the recently approved Sares-Regis Apartments to the west,
and the recently approved Ponderosa homes to the east. The project design as
proposed provides for a high quality living environment, which implements the
housing quality and supply goals of the General Plan.
Submitted By: Department Head:
Tony agat P it Drell
Assistant Planner Director of Community Development
Approval:
/
\,a
anager
/41r
FO2ACM for Development Services
* 1) By Minute Motion, approved the CITY CQi3Km: CTQN:
findings as presented for this case; APPROVED 'DENIED
2) waived further reading and adopted RECEIVED OTHER
Resolution No. 04-118, approving Case •
, /
No. TT 31071, subject to; a) Review MEETIN DATE f 0`t
by the City's Landscape Beautification AYES: t �
Committee; b) Applicant's willingness NOES: (�l�
PP g
to contribute a fairshare financial ABSENT: �[(
portion to a potential future traffic ABSTAIN:
signal at the project, based upon a VERIFIED BY: I
review of traffic volume. Original on File �1i City Clerk's Office
CITY if . 11111 L.7- S ' Ri
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
• PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
•b� TEL: 760 346-0611
O� P
j�� yf;E`;• FAX: 760 341-6372
••• mfo@)palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: October 20, 2004
Rilington Communities
277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 303
San Marcos, California 92069
Re: TT 31071
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its regular meeting of October 1 9, 2004:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
CASE NO. 31071 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
NO. 2301, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS AMENDED TO REWORD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITION NO. 10 TO SAY, "THE APPLICANT
SHALL ADJUST REAR PROPERTY LINES AND INCORPORATE RETAINING
WALLS INTO THE PROJECT TO DECREASE THE SLOPED AREA THAT IS
WITHIN THE REAR YARDS FOR LOTS 111-121 AND 149-159, AND
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF USABLE REAR YARDS TO THE SATISFACTION
OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT." MOTION CARRIED 3-
0 (COMMISSIONERS CAMPBELL AND FINERTY ABSENT).
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, withi fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
/Lk—Qt.)
Philip Drell, cretary
Palm Desert P anning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2301
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31071 (TT 31071) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 38 ACRES OF VACANT LAND LOCATED NORTH OF
GERALD FORD DRIVE AND EAST OF GATEWAY DRIVE; (RILINGTON
COMMUNITIES).
CASE NO. TT 31071
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 19th day of October, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request by MICKIE RILEY for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 02-60, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to
City Council approval of said request:
1. The proposed tentative map is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
City of Palm Desert General Plan 2020. The General Plan encourages Medium
to High Density residential development with densities up to 22 dwelling units per
acre. The project as conditioned would allow for a maximum of 159 single-family
residential lots and would have a density of 4.2 dwelling units per acre.
2. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision would be consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed subdivision has met the minimum lot
width and density regulations of the Planned Residential Development (5 units
per acre) zone, and lot sizes are adequately sized to comply with building
setback regulations as would be required in the P.R.5 zone.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the site is a
vacant property that will be graded to accommodate future development and
provide for adequate drainage and flood control systems. The property will be
developed for single-family residences, common area lots, recreational lots and
future school uses as proposed for the subdivision.
4. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
PLANNING COMMI,__._.J RESOLUTION NO. 2301
property in that the site has been approved by the city for residential
development. All existing public utility easements on the property, if any, would
be reserved. There are no known public easements traversing the subject site
that would be affected by the proposed project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of Tentative Tract No. 31071, and adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Exhibit "A" attached hereto) as it relates to the
project.
3. That modified development standards for Tentative Tract No. 31071
(Exhibit "B" attached hereto) are hereby recommended to City Council for
approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of October, 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, JONATHAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: CAMPBELL, FINERTY
ABSTAIN: NONE
SABB NAT , airperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DREL4, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMIS; V RESOLUTION NO. 2301
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TT 31071
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. Construction of said project shall commence within two (2) years from the date of
final approval unless an extension of time 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 all 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 contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Sunline Transit Authority
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented
to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building
permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works.
6. All onsite utilities shall be underground.
7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and
which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The
final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying
among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2301
various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic
replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
8. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard,
TUMB, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
9. That residential lots shall comply with the following setback and height
standards:
Front Yard: 15' from curb to living area (5' from property line) / 25'
from curb to garage (15' from property line).
Side Yard: 5' / 5' (10' combined)
Street Side Yard: 10'
Rear yard: 15' from property line minimum
Maximum height: 26' from approved grade height maximum
10. The applicant shall adjust rear property lines and incorporate retaining walls into
the project to decrease the sloped area that is within the rear yards for lots 111-
121 and 149-159 and increase the amount of usable rear yards to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development/Planning.
Department of Public Works:
1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation
of final map.
2. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
3. Installation of a signal at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway
Drive, with the difference in signalization fees to be reimbursed by the city. If the
signal has already been installed, then signalization fees, in accordance with City
of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to
recordation of final map.
4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, General Plan Circulation Element and as shown on the
proposed street cross sections, shall be installed in accordance with applicable
City standards including the following;
4
PLANNING COMMIS: I RESOLUTION NO. 2301
• Improvement of Gerald Ford Drive with a 51' half-street width, 75' total
half-street right of way, landscaping of the center median, and 8' sidewalk.
• A right turn lane shall be provided on Gerald Ford and Gateway Drive.
• Improvements on Gateway Drive to a secondary street standard with a
raised median.
Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced
improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in
accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite
improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety
posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to
recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be
limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an
appropriate size and configuration. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the
improvements by the city.
6. Improvement plans for water and the respective service districts shall approve
sewer systems with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works
prior to project final.
7. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
8. Landscaping maintenance on Gerald Ford Dr., Gateway Drive, south side of Lot
"J", east side of Lot "X", all other common areas, and the "Retention Basin", shall
be provided by the homeowners association, unless an Assessment District for
maintenance is formed prior to map recordation. Landscape treatment shall be
water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert
landscape design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a
declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be
approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder.
The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a
property owners association, (b) the property owners association shall be formed
prior to the recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall
be the responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall
be submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2301
9. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete
grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public
Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. An offsite
grading authorization letter is required prior to grading permit issuance for offsite
grading on adjacent property. Project shall coordinate grading with adjacent
TT31490 to the east so that the 6-10' difference in pad heights shall be
accommodated on TT 31490, allowing the property line to be located at the top
of the slope.
10. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of
Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the
Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
11. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be
provided. Applicant shall be responsible for acquiring all necessary easements
for off-site roadway improvements.
12. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director
of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and
the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
14. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public
Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
15. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
16. Waiver of access to Gerald Ford Drive, Gateway Drive and "Lot J" except at
approved locations shall be granted on the final map.
17. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control.
18. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence
to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit
for storm water discharges associated with construction.
19. Proposed "Lot J" shall align with adjacent street from TT 31490.
6
PLANNING COMMIS N RESOLUTION NO. 2301
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or
any recognized Fire Protection Standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1,500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of:
1500 gpm for single-family dwellings
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4" x
2 1/2" x 2 1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than:
200' from any portion of a single-family dwelling measured via vehicular
travelway.
5. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that
the water system will produce the required Fire flow.
6. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within
150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be
less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where
parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36'
wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150'
shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turnaround 55' in industrial
developments.
7. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates,
barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key
over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width
shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13' 6".
8. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
9. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
//
7
PLANNING COMMISsiunl RESOLUTION NO. 2301
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
EXHIBIT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: TT 31071
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Rilington Communities
277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 303
San Marcos, CA 92069
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map 31071 to subdivide
38.05 gross acres and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact located north
of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Monterey Avenue. The project involves the
development of 159 residential units and 1.08 acres of common open space with an
amenity area including pool, tot pool, restroom, turfed area with focal point, and paseos.
The two remaining lots in the northern portion of the project encompass 4.99 acres and
will be set aside for the School District. The Dolce development generally complies with
set standards within the P.R. 5 zone.
-0 ber 19, 2004
PHILIP DREL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
8
PLANNING COMMIS: 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2301
EXHIBIT B
MODIFIED PR STANDARDS FOR TT 31071
Two Story Homes:
Front Yard: 15' from curb to living area (5' from property line) / 25' from
curb to garage (15' from property line).
Side Yard: 5' / 5' (10' combined)
Street Side Yard: 10'
Rear yard: 15' from property line minimum
Maximum height: 26' from approved grade height maximum
9
P.. AFT SUBJECT T(
"I REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004
G. Case No. TT 31071 - RILINGTON COMMUNITIES, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of
a tentative tract map to subdivide 38.05 acres into 159 lots for
single family residential homes, 11 lots for common area and
landscape purposes, two lots for school district purposes and
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates
thereto. The project is located on the north side of Gerald Ford
Drive east of Gateway Avenue.
Mr. Bagato explained the salient points of the staff report and recommended
approval.
Chairperson Jonathan asked about the side yard setback. The staff report
indicated that it would be five and five, meaning five feet. That is from the
main structure. What he noticed in many cases is they have five feet per
side, but 10 feet combined, and what happens is that the roof extends past
the structure. The roofs of adjoining residences seem to be almost touching.
If they have five feet combined, and he asked if that was going to be the
case, because in some of the designs the roof extends beyond. Mr. Drell
clarified that it would be five and five, so there would be 10 feet of building
separation.
Mr. Bagato explained that from exterior wall to exterior wall there would be
10 feet, but there was typically an 18-inch to two-foot overhang for some of
the eaves. What this project did which wasn't done on the project at
Parkview and Fairhaven, is they have (except for one model) the other
models step back. The second-story elements will step back from each other
10 to 20 feet additional. So from the second story elements it would be wider
than what is typically seen right now.
Chairperson Jonathan said he misunderstood the staff report because where
it said 5 feet/5 feet, he thought Mr. Bagato was saying five feet and then five
feet combined. So he was saying five feet minimum on each side, so 10 feet.
Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said if they subtracted two feet
from each side, if there are two adjoining (and it looked like many would not
be) there would still be six feet worst case scenario typically from the eaves,
but from the structures themselves they would have 10 feet. Mr. Bagato
1
SUBJECT Tt
Le; M, - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004
concurred and said that was the worst case. Most of them because of the
design of the other three models there would not be that situation.
Commissioner Lopez asked how many of the homes would be 25 feet 9
inches high and where they were going to be located; staff didn't know, so
he said he would ask the applicant.
Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. PAUL DEPALATIS, a local planning consultant with an office at
73-360 El Paseo, Suite 15, stated that he was the project manager for
Rilington Communities on this project. He said that also present were
David Hacker of Hacker Engineering; Nancy Keenan and Jim Jackson
from the Dalil Group, the architects; and Andy Sable from Randy
Pernell Landscape Architects, who did the landscape design. They
were present to answer any questions.
He informed commission that they are excited about this project. They
thought it was a needed product in the area, a sort of higher single
family detached product that maybe wasn't available everywhere.
They also thought it was a good location for it as it would be a
transitional density between the Sares Regis apartment complex on
their west side and the Ponderosa project, a more typical larger lot
single family product, on their east side. They thought this was a good
location and they talked to those different developers and they were
all in accord with what was happening in that area.
He said they thought this was a good product with some interesting
architecture and a good, strong landscape program with a central
parkway, walkways and a street tree program. They believed it would
be a very attractive product for buyers.
They were in agreement with the staff conditions and appreciated the
input from Mr. Drell and Mr. Bagato to their design, as well as from the
Architectural Commission. They had some comments that were
incorporated and he thought it was a better product because of those
changes. He asked if there were any questions.
2
h"� tr3, r"":"'
SUBJECT Tt
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004
Commissioner Lopez asked if these homes would have enough room for a
pool.
Mr. Depalatis said that was one of the intentions in bringing the
buildings forward. The thought was to make something that looks nice
in the front and since people don't use their front yards that much and
they wanted to maximize the space in the backyards, all of these
units, except one, would have a full 20-foot rear yard and that was big
enough for a pool. There was one unit that put one component of the
building back to 15 feet, but it also left part of the building open to 20
feet, so there would be room for a pool on these lots.
Mr. Drell explained that right now if they looked at the tract map, they would
see some lots that are very deep and some that are shorter. The reason is
in some cases 20 feet of the lot is taken up by slope. The last condition
added by staff was given the premium of space, that by simply adding three-
foot retaining walls they could add six feet which meant a difference between
20 and 26 and that determined the difference on whether or not they had
room for a pool, and in some cases it was between 26 and 30. He thought
they were proposing a rewording of that condition to give them a little more
flexibility. They would be working with the applicant to maximize those rear
yards and not waste it in long slopes that need to be maintained and
stabilized and don't provide any usefulness. Mr. Bagato said he forgot to
mention that there was a revised condition handed to the commission. He
noted that it was distributed to the commission right before the meeting and
was Condition No. 10.
Mr. Depalatis said they were in agreement with that whole concept.
They really wanted to make these lots and homes as liveable as
possible. There was also some opportunity kind of late in the game.
They were given some right-of-way along Gateway Drive, but given
the time to the hearing they didn't have time to work on a revised
map. They also thought in the final engineering phase they could
probably redistribute some of the land to increase the yards in the
appropriate places.
Commissioner Lopez said that when they have a centralized pool area for
159 lots, that pool would be very crowded if other folks don't have sufficient
room to have their own pools and that leads to parking problems, etc.
3
FT:.
. , r SUBJECT T(
Vi �, rt - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004
Mr. Depalatis said that those of us who live out here know the value
of pools in the backyards.
Commissioner Lopez asked about the 25-foot 9-inch height. He was
concerned about the height being taller than the other homes there. He
asked if there were a lot of homes of that particular model.
Mr. Depalatis said they hadn't determined the mix yet. They would
probably want a certain evenness in providing the different ones.
They looked at that height issue and the main reason to do the
building heights is to try and get a little higher plate height in the
interior rooms. But he didn't know if he could spot the difference
between a 24-foot home and a 25-foot 9-inch home. They were very
similar and he didn't think the eye would be able to tell.
Mr. Drell concurred. He said that staff had the same problem when reviewing
the elevations given the complexity of the roof structures. It was difficult to
determine which one was the higher one.
Commissioner Lopez said that he was thinking more from the backyard to
backyard. If it is the ones that are along the land that has the center
walkway, it isn't a problem, 141 and 146 back to back. Mr. Drell said the
eave lines were all the same height because the plate heights were the
same. The eave lines were all identical.
Mr. Depalatis said there is actually quite a bit of movement on the
sides and rears in terms of the second floors. There is a certain
amount of movement and separation between adjacent lots.
Commissioner Lopez said they were done well. Mr. Drell indicated that
another consideration is that as seen from Gateway or Gerald Ford, the
property is sloping away and down the hill.
Mr. Depalatis said they were a little lower from those roads.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the home sizes average 2,330 square feet
and on lot sizes they average 5,212 square feet. So they were jamming a lot
of home on pretty small lots, which is part of what they expected in this area.
But he was curious about the market as Mr. Depalatis saw it. He said they
4
I .,.
µ SUBJECT TC
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004
were expecting to see more moderately priced homes in that area. That is
generally what the expectation was for medium and higher density homes.
To him that implied maybe to some extent starter home type situations. He
wanted to be careful to not to prejudice his expectations with his own
experience, but his starter homes was maybe 1,300 square feet. They never
felt they needed more space. In fact, they thought they were in heaven. It
was great. So his question to Mr. Depalatis was if he was finding that the
market now with starter homes, young families and so forth, really want
these pretty good sized larger homes for starter homes.
Mr. Depalatis said that Micky Riley, the President of Rilington, dealt
with most of the architectural aspects of the product. He knew that Mr.
Riley had a concern for affordability because he has said that on
many occasions. He sees the escalating value of land and the homes
prices going up. So he didn't know if this was a starter level, but it
would be lower than comparable homes around it that have the larger
lot sizes and, therefore, the higher cost of land associated with them.
But beyond that he couldn't respond to that question.
Mr. Drell thought it was a good question. Relative to implementing the goals
and objectives of the general plan, he thought the commission as they see
more of these projects coming in might want to make a motion or make its
direction that they are looking for a mixture of product and not just what is
necessarily the most profitable product in the market. It was hard to tell. But
two years ago people were telling him that the product that they are talking
about now wasn't profitable. So what is profitable changes rather radically.
His hope was that they would get five or six of these kinds of projects and he
hoped some of them would include a variety, some of which were smaller.
Mr. Depalatis said that looking at the affordable range, they would get
more into an attached product versus detached.
Mr. Drell said that instead of 2,300 square feet, these could be 1,300 square
feet. Obviously the houses would be half as large and they could probably
make the lots a little smaller, get more of them, and the cost per square foot
would be cheaper. And including an attached product would get greater
economies.
5
iti
7, r-
7 SUBJECT T(
rt - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004
Chairperson Jonathan said that in the process of the changes made to the
general plan and the vision for that area was such that they as a city from a
planning standpoint would be fulfilling their obligation to create opportunities
for lower priced homes or reasonably priced homes. He understood from a
builder's standpoint there was probably great profitability in maximizing the
size of the home. So he thought part of their challenge in the future would be
to find a fair balance between the owner's desire and expectation of profits
versus the City's planning goals and objectives to create affordable housing
options. He wasn't talking about subsidized or low income, he was talking
about an affordable product. That might require creativity, subsidizing
builders or creating pockets of smaller, more affordable homes within
projects, but he thought they were going to have to think outside the box a
little bit and get creative and get into partnerships with our future developers
out here to make that happen. Otherwise, they would see this kind of thing
every time.
Mr. Drell informed commission that they would be seeing something from the
Housing Authority, a single family product around Hovley Gardens which
would be in the 1,400 to 1,600 square foot range, but he was right. He hoped
to, and with the Commission's support would, be encouraging developers to
provide variety throughout the economic range.
Chairperson Jonathan said he was just suggesting, and it might take
creativity on staff's part as well to work with them where there is a tradeoff.
If we create pockets of smaller sized homes, there might be a tradeoff of
giving them an exception they are after and find a way to work together. That
was a planning issue he thought they would be dealing with.
Mr. Depalatis mentioned that Rilington has been historically a San
Diego-based homebuilder, but they were moving their operation out
here to the desert, so they would be a long-term fixture in cities out
here. He knew that Mr. Riley had a concern about affordability, so if
there were appropriate places they were looking at something like
that, he might consider being partners with the City for something that
would work for everybody.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if every street in the proposed project had a
sidewalk.
6
SUBJECT It
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004
Mr. Depalatis said yes.
In addition, Chairperson Jonathan said they had palm paseos or walkways.
He liked that design feature very much and thought it was very desirable.
Regarding the parking, he asked if the pool areas and pocket parks had
parking areas.
Mr. Depalatis said they didn't. Part of the thought was they didn't want
to encourage driving in the neighborhood. They wanted to encourage
people to walk to places in the neighborhood.
Mr. Drell pointed out that there is a lot of street parking around the park, but
no separate off-street parking. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was the
same for the pool area. Mr. Drell said yes; there were probably 15 or 20
parallel spaces adjacent to the park, which was similar to what the City was
doing with the park on De Anza. The goal of these parks is to get people to
walk to them, not drive to them. Chairperson Jonathan said he understood
that, but he had a concern. In his experience, and he used to live in a project
like this with 100 homes, but it had a pool like that and it got used for
gatherings like family celebrations, birthday parties, board meetings, HOA
meetings, etc., and people, not only that live in the project, but visitors
tended to congregate and he was a little concerned that when they have
those kinds of functions, not so much the pocket parks, but in the central
amenity pool area, that they would be creating a problem. Mr. Drell indicated
that the streets are designed for parking on both sides. He said there is a lot
of parking that typically goes unused in these sorts of subdivisions. He was
driving around Merano recently and he was amazed at the massive amount
of asphalt. When they provide two-car garages and driveways, there are very
few cars parked on the street. So given the City's effort to maximize the utility
of space, he didn't want to see them devote any more significant space to
asphalt in this project. Chairperson Jonathan said he wouldn't have a
problem with a grass parking lot. But from the applicant's planning and
design standpoint, he asked if they thought that was a desirable feature to
have additional parking beyond the street parking in the pool area.
Mr. Depalatis said they didn't consider it and he thought it was as Mr.
Drell said, he thought the reason was because there was a lot of
street parking and he knew from being a father, when going to a
location just being able to park on the edge was good and provided
7
=,v SUBJECT Tf
_ REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004
more convenient parking for people. They looked at one point for a
drop off area, but they decided not to do that given the idea of not
encouraging people to drive. He thought it was similar to a shopping
center where they don't usually design for the maximum peak day, but
something less than that because they end up with so much asphalt
and it goes unused most of the year. So he thought there was
adequate parking given the size of the community and the level of
street parking around it.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was
closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments.
Commissioner Lopez stated that he liked the project. He thought it was
tastefully done. They talked about the concerns, and he would echo them as
they move forward on the project itself. Being in the desert, people would use
the pools when it is the hottest time of the year. When it's 110 degrees out
and it isn't a pleasant walk from any where to get to the homes, they might
want to consider some access area where people could either drop off or
pick up or some parking in that area at the least. He thought they would find
that need. Street parking is fine. If something does happen in the evening,
it might be something that surrounding homes might not care for.
Nevertheless, overall he thought the project was very well done and he was
excited to see it come on board.
Commissioner Tschopp agreed. Taken as a whole, he thought it was a very
good project. He too would like to see Commission and staff look at in the
future how they can integrate some of the thoughts behind the general plan
to make affordable housing. How they would do that he didn't know, but they
should take a look at that. He had a concern whether these would be truly
affordable once they are built, but it was a nice plan. He didn't share the
same concerns regarding parking for the swimming area or the common
area. He always found it funny that people had to get in their cars to drive
two blocks so they could exercise. There are some nice paseo areas to walk
to it and he thought people could do that and he liked the idea of having
people walk the neighborhood instead of driving.
Chairperson Jonathan said he shared the feelings of his fellow
commissioners. As they get into the implementation of the general plan out
8
SUBJECT Tt
,,,, REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2004
there, particularly the residential element, the challenge would be to maintain
the quality to the level they are accustomed and envision for our future. And
by quality he didn't just mean the appearance of the homes, but for example,
different models and different versions of each model so there is variety,
architectural interest, there are sidewalks, and it is well planned. He thought
all of that militated in favor of approval. The challenge would be to do all of
that, to maintain quality, and at the same time recognize the vision for the
north sphere to incorporate students and manual laborers and a cross
section of the socioeconomic and demographic background that makes up
our city who need a place to live. So he was looking forward to the City staff
working together with property owners recognizing those objectives and at
the same time meeting the financial objectives which the land owners have
a right to expect.
He didn't mean to pontificate, but he was really concerned about that issue.
They have a vision for the north sphere and he could see a situation here
where it could take a left and he thought they needed to keep it going. The
project itself certainly accomplished what he envisioned for a residential
development. It is vastly different from anything they have done before in
terms of lot sizes and the coverage, but he thought it was in the right place
and being done in the right way. So he concurred.
Commissioner Lopez moved for approval and Commissioner Tschopp
seconded. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that the motion and
second incorporated the added condition of approval, Condition No. 10.
Commissioners Lopez and Tschopp concurred.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2301, recommending to City
Council approval of TT 31071, subject to conditions as amended. Motion
carried 3-0.
9
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Tony Bagato
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: TT 31071 Rilington Homes
DATE: October 1, 2004
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project:
(1) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of final
map.
(2) Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
(3) Installation of a signal at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway Drive,with
the difference in signalization fees to be reimbursed by the city. If the signal has
already been installed,then signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert
Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
(4) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, General Plan Circulation Element, and as shown on the
proposed tract map shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards
including the following;
• Improvement of Gerald Ford Drive with a 51' half street pavement width, 75'
total half street right of way,landscaping of the center median,and 8'sidewalk.
A right turn lane shall be provided on Gerald Ford Drive at Gateway Drive.
• Improvement of Gateway Drive to a secondary street standard with a raised
median.
(5) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance
with Sections 26.40 and 26.44,complete improvement plans and specifications shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval before construction of any
improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the
Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required
offsite improvements priorto recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall
include, but not be limited to,curb and gutter,asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in
an appropriate size and configuration. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and
approved by,the City Engineer prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city.
(6) Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective
service districts with"as-built"plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final.
(7) All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
(8) Landscaping maintenance on Gerald Ford Dr., Gateway Drive, south side of Lot J,
east side of Lot X, all other common areas and the "Retention Basin", shall be
provided by the homeowners association unless an assessment district for
maintenance is formed priorto map recordation. Landscape treatment shall be water
efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape
design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions,which declaration shall be approved by the
City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall
specify: (a)the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association;
(b)the property owners association shall be formed priorto the recordation of the Map;
and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property
owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously
with grading plans.
(9) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for checking and
approval prior to issuance of any permits. An offsite grading authorization letter is
required prior to grading permit issuance for offsite grading on adjacent property.
Project shall coordinate grading with adjacent TT 31490 to the east so that the 6-10'
difference in pad heights shall be accommodated on TT 31490, allowing the tract
boundary to be located at the top of slope.
(10) Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the City Engineer. A
traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by,the City Engineer prior to
the placement of any pavement markings.
(11) Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided.
Applicant shall be responsible for acquiring all necessary easements for off-site
roadway improvements.
(12) Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
(13) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and
the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
(14) A complete preliminary soils investigation,conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
(15) Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification
in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
(16) Waiver of access to Gerald Ford Drive,Gateway Drive,and Lot J except at approved
locations, shall be granted on the final map.
(17) Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12,
Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control.
(18) Prior to the start of construction,the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the
City Engineer of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System(NPDES)General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated
with construction.
(19) Proposed Lot J shall align with adjacent street from TT 31490.
Mark Greenwood, P.E.
G:WubWorks\conditions of Approval\TMAPSITT 31071 Rilington Homes-GF Dr
• CAUfOR"" RIVERSIDE RUNTY
O�;pF RE PRO TECrio k
C FJRESTi
FIRE DEPARTMENT
OF '��„sm[eoo In Cooperation with the
�FIRE� *.
•
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 • (909) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910
N[Ml C e
Tom Tisdale
Fire Chief
Cove Fire Marshal's Office •
73710 Fred Waring Drive #102
Proudly serving the Palm Desert CA 92260
unincorporated
areas of Riverside (760) 346-1870
County and the
cities of:
T
Banning TO: / u� - 1-?\4"- DATE: 7/7/1
0 y
Beaumont
� I � � 07 / T)
Calimesa REF: (19 - S ��
Canyon Lake If circled, conditions apply to project
Coachella �
( I.�� With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
'
Desert Hot Springs L referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire
Indian Wells protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal
in Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection
Standards:
Lake Elsinore The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
La Quints remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
SF A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual
Moreno Valley pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed
Palm Desert on the job site.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a
Perris ��,, gpm flow of:
Rancho Mirage C3 1500 gpm for single family dwellings
4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings
San Jacinto
5 3000 gpm for commercial buildings
Temecula The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super
Hydrant (s) 4"x 2 'A" x 2 %Z", located not less than 25' nor wore than:
6 200' from any portion ofa single family dwelling measured via
Board of Supervisors vehicular travelway
7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via
Bob Buster vehicular travelway
District 1
8. 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via
John Tavaglione
District 2 vehicular travelway
Jim Venable
Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include
District 3 verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow.
10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the
Roy Wilson
District 4 existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow.
Tom Mullen
District 5
11. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all
buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire
Marshal shall approved the locations of all post indicator valves and
fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be
less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved
hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
12. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler
systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per
CBC Chapter 9.
13. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
14. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one
2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking
distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial
kitchens.
15. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFI'A 96
in all public and private cooking operations except single-family
residential usage.
16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an
operation that produces airborne particles.
aAll building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story.
The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and
13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on
both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide
with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall he
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial
developments.
18 Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a
"Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle
access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical
clearance of 13'6".
19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access,
sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire
—' Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be
accepted.
A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main
,�G access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an
adjoining development.
21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to
facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and
dip occupancy type.
All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by
the city.
23. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm
plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval
prior to construction.
(_____
Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances,
laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve
months.
25. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to
the Fire Marshal's Office at (760)346-1870 in Palm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred Waring Drive #222, Palm Desert CA 92260
Other:
v
6.&-&(_ /i,e/667,9
Sincerely,
David A. Avila
Fire Marshal
PALivi DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT .,M Is Es
`� - #' Served by the 4p '
0
Riverside County Sheriffs Department 4
3, '41N�` 1
,_, V.........0
Bob Doyle, Sheriff-Coroner r�e� c�
73520 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert,CA 92260
(760)836-1600 Fax(760)836-1616
September 01, 2004
14]( FIVED
SEP 0 8 2004
City of Palm Desert
Planning Department {IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
73510 Fred Waring Dr. CITY OF PALM DESERT
Palm Desert, CA 92260
ATTN: Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner
RE: APN 653-260-030.
Dear Mr. Bagato,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plan to subdivide the 38.05-acre site into 159 single-
family lots located on the north side of Gerald Ford, east of Gateway Drive(APN 653-260-030). Since
complete plans were not submitted showing the specific designs for the houses, floor plans, lighting, and
landscaping, I will comment on the overall exterior design. The following issues of concern related to
public safety and law enforcement are presented:
1. Addressing:
The name of the complex should be visible near the front gates of the complex and illuminated at
night. This will assist police and fire department personnel responding to the location.
2. Exterior Lighting:
I recommend landscape lighting along the length of the exterior walls in all areas along the public
roadways. This could deter any potential thieves from attempting to climb over the
walls during darkness and could help prevent vandalism to the walls.
3. Exterior Wall/Fence:
The exterior wall should be a minimum of six feet high and should not have any landscaping
boulders or trees placed close enough to the wall that would allow a potential thief the assistance
for climbing. The exterior wall should have landscaping of the type, and situated in locations, to
maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. An example of this would
be the Bougainvillea that has green foliage with red flowers but also has thorns throughout the
bush that would deter climbing over it. These plants along the wall could also prevent graffiti.
4. Exterior Gates:
If electronic entry/exit gates are to be installed at the two entrances, Knox Boxes should be
installed on the outside of each gate to allow police and fire department access in the event of an
. emergency response.
Page 2
5. Common Area:
The plans show a common area in the center of the complex. If this area is to include grass and
landscaping for families to visit, I suggest either fencing the area off with decorative metal fencing or
installing decorative metal posts in cement around the perimeter. This could deter people driving their
vehicles into the area at night, damaging the landscaping. These posts or gates could also possibly
prevent a vehicle from driving into the complex from Gateway Drive and accidentally continuing east into
the common area, resulting in the injury of residents or damaging property. This area should also
maintain lighting to cover all areas of the common area at night.
Should the Planning Department, developer, or construction staff have any questions regarding the above
law enforcement and public safety concerns, they may contact Deputy Robert Bishop at (760) 836-1671,
between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
Res ctfully Submitted,
eputyB -
ho
ID # 2759
Palm Desert Police Department
vi ATE, ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
k‘v•
/STR►G COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 •COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 •FAX (760) 398-3711
DIRECTORS: OFFICERS.
JOHN W.McFADDEN,PRESIDENT STEVEN B.ROBBINS,
PETER NELSON,VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS MARK BEUHLER,
RUSSELL KITAHARA ASST.GENERAL MANAGER
PATRICIA A.CARBON Se tember 28 2004 JULIA FERNANDEZ,SECRETARY
p DAN PARKS,ASST.TO GENERAL MANAGER
} REDWINE AND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS
File: 0163.1
. : L 0421.1
0721.1
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Gentlemen:
Subject: Tentative Tract Map 31071
This area lies on the sandy area in the northern portion of Palm Desert and is considered safe
from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at
this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Drainage from this area is contributory to the Mid-Valley Stormwater Project. The city shall
require mitigation measures to be incorporated into the development to prevent flooding of
the site or downstream properties. These measures shall include on-site retention of water
from the 100-year storm, dedication of right-of-way for regional flood control facilities or
other participation in the financing of regional flood control facilities.
Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need
to review drainage design further.
The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with
the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain
fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert -2- September 28, 2004
The District will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its
domestic water and sanitation systems. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs,
booster pumping stations and sewerage facilities. The developer will be required to provide
land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract
map as lots to be deeded to the District for such purpose.
Additional domestic water and sewer pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider in
order for the District to provide service to all parcels.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 58 and 81 of the District for
sanitation service.
Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for
review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Kesi Sekhon, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2290.
Yours very truly,
Patti Schwa z
Assistant Director of Engineering
cc: Majeed Farshad
Riverside County Department of Transportation
82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209
Indio, California 92201
Jeff Johnson
Riverside County Department of Public Health
82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209
Indio, California 92201
KS:les\eng\sw\sep\ttm-31071
040629-1
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
INTEROFFICE MEMORADUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: TONY BAGATO, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
SUBJECT: TT 31071: RILINGTON COMMUNITIES
DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
The Tentative Tract Map 31730 has been reviewed to determine the need for a bus
shelter/stop and bus turnout and inclusion of the required trash/recycling enclosure as
part of this project.
Bus Shelter: I have discussed this project with Leslie Grosjean of SunLine regarding
the need for a bus stop/shelter and turnout lane at this project site. This project is
located on an existing or future bus route expansion plan along (north side) Gerald Ford
and Gateway Drive; therefore, a bus shelter/stop and turnout lane will be conditioned as
part of this project. As this project is located on north/east corner Gerald Ford and
Gateway, the location of the bus stop/shelter and turnout lane should be on east side of
Gateway.
Trash Enclosure: This is a 270 single-family project that will require trash and
recycling disposal services to be picked up at the individual home site; therefore, no
trash enclosure will be required. If, however, central waste system is being proposed or
a clubhouse and/or recreation facilities are proposed as part of the project, then the
project must be in compliance with the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The construction
of trash enclosures shall be consistent with PDMC, Chapter 8.12. The issues that
would need to be addressed are (1) location of trash enclosures need to provide for
waste trucks, (2) size and design of trash enclosures, and (3) required number of trash
enclosures to properly meet tenants (complex) needs. Then plans should address size,
location, disposal needs for complex in order to determine number of trash enclosures
required, and traffic circulation for Waste Management trucks. To determine the
location, circulation needs of disposal (waste) trucks, and number of enclosures contact
Jennifer at Waste agement of the Desert at (760) 340-6445.
FRANKIE RIDDL
SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
cc: Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building and Safety
Mark Greenwood, P.E. City Engineer
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Dolce Development (TT 31071)
2. Lead Agency and Name and Address:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
3. Contact person and Phone Number:
Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner
Community Development Department
(760) 346-0611 ext. 279
4. Project Location:
East of Monterey Avenue, north of Gerald Ford Drive. A.P.N. 653-260-030
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Rilington Communities
277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 303
San Marcos, CA 92069
6. Existing General Plan Designation:
Medium Density/High Density Overlay (R-M/R-HO) up to 22 dwelling units per
acre.
7. Zoning:
PR-5 Planned Residential
8. 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 sheet(s) if necessary.)
Approval of Tentative Tract Map 31071 to subdivide 38.05 gross acres
into 159 single family residential lots, 11 common area/landscape lots,
and 2 lots for future school use and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as it relates thereto.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
The project is surrounded by desert land, sand dunes and Interstate 10 to the
north and west, desert land to the east, and Gerald Ford Drive and the Marriott
Shadow Ridge Country Club to the south.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
CVWD
Riverside County Fire Marshal
City of Palm Desert Public Works
APPENDIX "G"
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environment 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 Resources ❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ® Geology / Soils
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/ Water Quality
❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise
❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation
❑ Transportation / Traffic I I Utilities / Service Systems
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this evaluation:
(X) 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 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 an earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only those 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 adequaltely 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 proposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
.9/22/4"
Signatur Da e
Printed Name For
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 cities in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the reference
information sources shaow that the impact simply does not apply to the projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the
project will not expose senstative receptor to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
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 significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
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 Analyses 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 formats; 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.
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 3 of 15
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.
SAMPLE QUESTION
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impa
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ L�'
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑
limited to, tress, 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 ❑ ❑ El
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
a) -Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ (Ly
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland 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?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 4 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Im
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ ET
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [19/
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ kr.
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ❑
of people?
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 plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 5 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp
Impact Incorporated Impact
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
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ [�
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal 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 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, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [e}�
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 interred ❑ ❑ ❑ ��
outside of formal cemeteries?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 6 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Iran
Impact Incorporated Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ F
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ El ❑ C
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? El El ❑ Q.'
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ El ❑
llY
iv) Landslides? ❑ El El
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ El ❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or El ❑ ❑
filg
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q'
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ Qr
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
CITY/RVPUB/2002/3 1 3 785 FORM "J"
Page 7 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp.
•
Impact Incorporated Impact
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1r
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1�
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?
0 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?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 8 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp
Impact Incorporated Impact
VIII. 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 ❑ ❑ (f ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ d
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 ❑ ❑ [q ❑
capacity of existing or planned storm water 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 structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ [/
would impede or redirect flood flows?
C1TY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page9of15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp
Impact Incorporated Impact
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ Er
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or darn?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ [�'
DC. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ [g'
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ (g"
natural community conservation plan?
X. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [vf
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [R/
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "1"
Pane 10 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ (k-
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ Qr
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ 2/
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0/
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ (r ❑
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension
of road 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ V
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
CITY/RVPUB/2002/3 1 3 785 FORM "J"
Page 1 I of 15
Less Than
I55ueS: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp
Impact Incorporated Impact
a) 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? ❑ ❑ 0
Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Schools? ❑ ❑ [i( ❑
Parks? ❑ ❑ [W' ❑
Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project
a) 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 have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑ (t ❑
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Paue 12 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Im1
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ Uf. ❑
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ❑ ❑ ❑ a•
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ E"..
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ [V
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ El ❑
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ El Mr
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or D ❑ ❑
Ce-
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 ❑ ❑ El
EIK
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/3 13785 FORM "J"
Page 13 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp
Impact Incorporated Impact
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ Er
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this
determination, the City shall consider whether the project
is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of
Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB 610), and the
requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB
221).
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑
provider which 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q�
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ [
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ❑ ❑ ❑ [�/
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate 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 impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM ".1"
Page 14 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imi
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ❑ ❑ Qr
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 15 of 15
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. TT 31071
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE
MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
AESTHETICS
a,b,c. The site has a distant scenic vista to the mountains to the west and north.
Gerald Ford Drive is not a scenic highway. There are no trees or rock
outcroppings on the site.
The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive
due to blow sand problems. The Palm Desert Architectural Commission
must approve the proposed development.
d. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent
lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting
plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a, b, c.
The site is vacant desert with minor amounts of native desert vegetation.
The site has never been used for agricultural purposes nor shown on
maps as agricultural.
III. AIR QUALITY
a & b.
During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a
short-term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in
which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by the City
of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance.
Because the site is already an urbanized setting, its development will not
result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. Completed
development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site than
currently occurs with the site's vacant condition.
c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due
to its size and identified uses.
d. The proposed development does not call for uses that would create
substantial pollutant concentrations.
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. TT 31071
OCTOBER 19, 2004
e. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The property is in the designated area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed
Lizard and may contain other dune species, which are of statewide concern
(i.e., Coachella Valley Milk Vetch). This project will eliminate all fringe-toed
lizard and other dune habitat within the project boundaries. Pursuant to the
Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, the loss of
lizards and habitat can be mitigated by payment of a $600 per acre fee for each
acre developed. Project will be conditioned to pay said fee. Mitigation fee will
be used by Nature Conservancy to purchase land in special preserves. The
Coachella Valley Preserve will create suitable permanent habitat areas for
lizards and other dune species.
A multi species habitat conservation plan is also being prepared by CVAG
which will establish preserves and conservation practices to insure the future
survival of dune species. The project may be subject to mitigation requirements
of the MSHCP which may be in effect at the time of the development.
b. No riparian habitat present on site.
c. No wetlands habitat present on site.
d. No migratory fish or wildlife present on site.
e. No local policy or ordinance protecting biological reserves other than that
delineated in item (a) above.
f. See (a) above. The dune species of concern are not migratory in nature. The
site has been designated by the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan for development with payment of mitigation fees.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-d. The cultural resource study performed as part of the General Plan Update
found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical significance on this
site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during
construction, construction must cease and the site cleared.
2
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. TT 31071
OCTOBER 19, 2004
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a (i-iv).
The area is subject to earthquakes and seismic shaking. Various studies have
concluded that with proper building design, which is required by the Uniform
Building Code, people will not be exposed to substantial adverse effects.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures require detailed
geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and
expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed to UBC
requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk
set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed.
b. Development will reduce blow sand erosion, which is common in this area.
There is no topsoil present.
c. See mitigation measure above.
d. See mitigation measure above.
e. Sandy soil is capable of supporting septic tanks but they will not be used, as
sewers are available.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Site and immediate area are not subject to routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials.
b. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards.
c. There is presently no school within 1/4 mile of the site.
d. The site has not been identified on the list of hazardous materials sites.
e. Site is not within two miles of a public airport.
f. No private airstrip in area.
g. Project will not interfere with city's emergency response or evacuation plan.
3
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. TT 31071
OCTOBER 19, 2004
h. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or
trees.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount
otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District
assures that there is a sufficient water supply to accommodate this growth. In addition,
the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the
Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development.
a. Project will be required to comply with Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage
and the grading ordinance.
b. Project will use water provided by CVWD and will not interfere with groundwater
recharge.
c, d, e.
Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to
accept the water from the site.
f. Project will not substantially degrade water quality.
g. Site is not within a 100-year flood hazard.
h. See (g).
Area is not subject to flooding.
j. Area is flat desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The site is zoned for residential use and that is what is proposed.
b. Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning.
c. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan, other than that discussed in Section IV (a1).
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. No known mineral resources.
4
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. TT 31071
OCTOBER 19, 2004
b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local general
plan.
Xl. NOISE
a, b, c, d.
Construction and residential use of the project will increase ambient noise level.
The increase is not expected to create an annoyance to adjacent residential
properties as they are vacant and will be developed with compatible uses in the
future.- All uses on the site will be required to comply with the city noise
ordinance.
•
MITIGATION MEASURES
Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures
to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise levels will be mitigated
so that noise levels in the General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded.
e & f.
Project is not within two miles of a public airport or in vicinity of a private airstrip.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a-c. The proposed project is a 161-lot tract map consisting of 159 residential lots
and two lots being made available as part of a future school site to the north.
The 161 lots to be created are consistent with general plan and zoning
intensities and densities. The site is currently vacant so the project will not
displace people.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to
urban uses was made as the 'area surrounding the study area has been developed,
and the general plan and zoning maps designated for residential development. On-site
infrastructure improvements (i.e., streets, utilities) will be installed by the developer.
An Assessment District is being formed to provide areawide infrastructure
improvements (major streets, sewer, water, drainage). The proposed land use would
increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater
economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land.
Fire and Police Protection
Police and Fire service has indicated that they can service the proposed project.
5
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. TT 31071
OCTOBER 19, 2004
Schools
The project will be required to pay school mitigation fees per state law at time of
building permit issuance and is creating two lots to be used as part of a future school
site.
Parks
The project is a residential development of just under 5 units per acre which will
generally be family oriented. Existing and proposed parks will be adequate to serve
these families. In addition, the project provides on-site recreation areas. Applicant will
be required to pay necessary statutory park mitigation fees.
Other Public Facilities
Libraries and other public facilities are adequate to serve the project.
XIV. RECREATION
The project is consistent with general plan densities and as a result the population
generated was considered as part of the recreation element. Onsite recreation
facilities will include a pool, tot pool, restroom building, two pocket parks and
landscaped walkways and are not expected to have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a-b. Single family dwelling units typically generate ten daily trips for a projected trip
generation of 1,590 vehicles per day. As part of the conditions of approval the
applicant shall be required to provide road improvements as provided by the
Circulation Element of the General Plan. Except for additional vehicular
movements discussed above, the project should not generate additional
demands on existing transportation systems. Current circulation systems have
sufficient capacity to accept any additional traffic produced by the proposed
residential project. The project will not deteriorate LOS on Gerald Ford Drive.
Principal access to the project area will be via Gateway Drive, which is
designed to handle vehicular traffic for this type of use.
c. Project will not change air traffic patterns.
d. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and
the project will not include incompatible uses.
6
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. TT 31071
OCTOBER 19, 2004
e. Emergency access will be acceptable.
f. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities, which will be supplied by
the project on site in compliance with city code.
g. Off street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists. Street
improvements will minimize traffic hazards to motor vehicles.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Project will not exceed limits.
b. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project.
c. Construction of said facilities are currently under review. They will occur with or
without this project.
d. See (b) above.
e. See (b) above.
f. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term will be available
at Eagle Mountain.
g. City will enforce these statutes through Environmental Conservation
Department.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. None.
b. None.
c. None.
7
25.24.010
Chapter 25-24 25.24.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of the PR district to provide for flexi-
PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT bility in development,creative and imaginative design,and
the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects
Sections: involving a mixture of residential densities and housing
2524.010 Purpose. types,and community facilities, both public and private.
25.24.020 Uses permitted by approval of The PR district is further intended to provide for the
precise plan. optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within
2524.025 Conditional uses. developments.The PR district is also established to give
25.24.027 Large family day care homes. a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land
25.24.030 Prefling procedure. development techniques will be given reasonable consider-
2524.040 Filing procedure. ation for approval and to provide the city with assurances
2524.050 Maximum project densities. that the completed project will contain the character envi-
25.24.055 Maximum density for"affordable sioned at the time of approval.(Ord. 94§ 1 (part), 1975:
projects." Exhibit A § 25.14-1)
25.24.060 Rezoning and precise plan
requirements. 25.24.020 Uses permitted by approval of precise
25.24.090 Design review of project. plan.
25.24.110 Development standards applicable_ Permitted uses in the PR district are as follows:
25.24.120 Off-street parking and loading A. Residential real estate developments, as defined
requirements. in the Business and Professions Code;
2524.130 Utilities. B. Mixtures of residential with country club related
2524.140 Signs. commercial uses;
2524.150 Outside storage. C. Related accessory uses;
2524.160 Screening. D. Small family day care homes(Ord.742§ 15, 1994;
25.24.170 Trash handling. Ord. 516 § 2 (Fxhibit A) (part), 1987: Ord. 299 (part),
25.24.180 Site plan review. 1982; Ord. 128 § 1 (part), 1976: Ord.94§ 1 (part), 1975:
25.24.190 Special standards. Exhibit A § 25.14-2)
25.24.200 Minimum project area.
25.24.210 Minimum project width 25.24.025 Conditional uses.
25.24.2.20 Minimum project perimeter setback. The following uses may be permitted subject to a condi-
25.24.230 Maximum project building coverage_ tional use permit
25.24.240 Minimum lot area A Community facilities;
2524250 Minimum yards--Development B. Commercial recreational uses not directly related
standards. to a permitted residential development;
2524.260 Minimum separation between sides C. Institutional facilities;
of buildings. D. Resort hotel with a maximum eighteen units per
25.24.270 Minimum common open space. gross acre, and related commercial uses;
25.24.280 Building height. E. Utility facilities;
25.24.290 Maximum dwelling units per F. Private schools and colleges;
building. G. Recreational vehicle parks.(Ord.516§2(Exhibit
25.24.300 Required width of private roads. A) (part), 1987: Ord. 445 § 2 (part), 1985; Ord_441 § 2,
25.24.301 RV park standards. 1986; Ord. 427 § 2, 1985)
25.24.310 Exceptions.
25.24.320 Building setbacks from the planned 25.24.027 Large family day care homes.
street line. Large family day care homes are permitted subject to
25.24.321 Two-story single-family detached a use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.27A of this code.(Ord.
building setbacks from project 742 § 16, 1994)
perimeter.
25.24.330 Approved criteria. 25.24.030 Pret-iling procedure.
Prior to the submittal of the complete official application,
an applicant must pre-file a preliminary draft of the required
(Palm Desert 7-95) 380
25.24.030
documents and sketch plans for the project with the director
of environmental services for review.It shall be the respon-
sibility of the director of environmental services to contact
interested department and agency personnel regarding
necessary meetings with the applicant.After review, the
director of environmental services shall furnish the applicant
with written comments regarding the project, including
380 1 ;Palm Dcsen 795)
2524.030
appropriate recommendations to inform and assist the proved precise plan as set forth in Chapter 25.73 shall be
applicant prior to preparing the final components of the required prior to any development.
application. (Ord. 94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § B. Rezoning initiated by any person or agency other
25.14-3.01) than the city must be accompanied by a precise plan as
set forth in Chapter 25.73. (Ord 299 (part), 1982: Ord
25.24.040 Filing procedure. 94 § I
To initiate the reviewprocess,the (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-5)
applicant shall file
a petition for a change of zone to a PR district along with 25.24.090 Design review of project.
a precise plan and supporting documentation as required Within one year following the final approval of the pre-
in Section 2524.060 with the planning commission through cise plan,the applicant shall file for the design review of
the planning division office of the department of environ- the project by filing the information required in Chapter
mental services. The planning commission shall hold a 25.70.The design review process,in addition to its normal
public hearing to consider the petition fix a change to a finding, shall deem the precise construction plans and
PR district and the accompanying precise plan. The change precise land -'ipr plans in substantial compliance with the
of zone and accompanying precise plan shall be subject precise plan,provided modification by the applicant does
to approval by ordinance of the city council. (Ord 299 not involve a change of one or more of the following:
(part), 1982; Ord 94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § A_ Violate any provision of the zoning ordinance;
25.14-3.02) B. Vary the lot arta requirements by more than ten
percent;
2524.050 Maximum project densities C_ Involve a reduction of more than ten percent of
The maximum project density shall be as expressed in the area reserved for the common open space and/or usable
dwelling units per gross acre of not more than the number open space;
following the zoning symbol PR D. Increase or decrease the floor areas proposed by
The city council shall determine the densities to be al- more than ten percent;
lowed within each PR district at the time the involved E. Increase the total ground area coveted by buildings
properties are rezoned and as designated on the zoning by more than five percent.
map within the following range one to eighteen dwelling If it is determined that the plans are not in substantial
units maximum per average gross acre-The density design- compliance,an amendment and/or a new precise plan shall
Lion shall mean dwelling units per average gross acre. be processed through the city as appropriate. (Ord 299
For example,PR-7 means a planned residential devel- (part), 1982; Ord 94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §
opment with seven units per gross acre.(Ord 94 § 1 (part), 25.14-5.03)
1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-4)
25.24.110 Development standards applicable.
2524.055 Maximum density for "affordable All arras on the precise plan shall be subject to the fol-
projects." lowing:
For projects containing at least twenty percent units The standards for development of PR districts set forth
affordable to low income households as defined by the in this chapter and any supplemental standards for the
Riverside County Housing Authority,a maximum density planned community designated in the precise plan_
of twenty-five dwelling units per acre may be allowed by In addition, the following development standards of
precise plan.To be eligible for this program,the developer Sections 25.24.120 through 25.24310 shall apply. (Ord
must enter into a development agreement per Chapter 2537 299 (pan), 1982; Ord 94 § 1 (part). 1975: Exhibit A §
which will tie the zoning designation and the precise plan 25.14-6)
approval to affordable housing performance standards.(Ord
341 Exhibit A, 1983) 25.24.120 Off-street parking and loading
requirements.
25.24.060 Rezoning and precise plan All parking and loading shall comply with the provisions
requirements. of Chapter 25.58. (Ord. 94 § I (part), 1975: Exhibit A §
A. The planning commission may initiate at its discre- 25.14-6.01(1))
lion the rezoning of properties,according to the provisions
of Chapter 25.84. In cases of city initiated rezoning, the 25./4.130 Utilities.
change of zone petition may be processed alone: an ap- For provisions regarding utilities,see Section 25.56.090_
(Ord. 94 § I (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-601(2))
381 (PILIsn 7.91)
2524.140
2524.140 Signs. • Projects of seven to eighteen dwelling units per acre
All signs shall be in compliance with Chapter 25.60. shall have a minimum width of five hunched feet. (Ord
(Ord. 94 § I (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.01(3)) 94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.02(2))
2514.150 Outside storage. 7.5.24..220 Minimum project perimeter setback..
No outside storage shall exceed the height of actual The minimum perimeter setback shall be twenty feet
perimeter screening. (Ord_ 94 § 1 (part), 1975:Exhibit A from all property lines adjacent to existing or proposed
§ 25.14-6.01(4)) public streets. (Ord 94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §
25.14-6.02(3))
2514.160 Screening.
All screening requirements for developments within the 25.24-230 Minimum project building coverage_
PR district shall be determined by the design review board Projects of less than seven dwelling units per acre shall
during its site plan review proceedings.(Ord.94§ 1(part), have a maximum building coverage of forty percent.
1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.01(5)) Projects of seven to eighteen dwelling units per acre
shall have a maximum building coverage of fifty percent_
2524.170 Trash handling. (Ord. 94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.02(4))
Trash handling facilities shall be provided for all devel-
opments within the PR district with the exception of 2514_240 Minimum lot area.
single-family detached dwellings. A trash enclosure will For a single-family detached the minimum lot arta shall
be provided for all but excepted uses,unless the proposed be as approved by the development plan_
location of the trash area is completely enclosed by walls For a single-family attached the minimum lot area shall
or buildings. The freestanding trash enclosure shall be be two thousand five hundred square feet.
constructed of masonry block-No trash shall be allowed For a two-family dwelling the minimum lot area shall
to extend above or beyond the enclosure. (Ord. 94 § 1 be three thousand square feet_
(part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.01(6)) For multiple-family buildings the minimum kit area shall
be as approved on the development plan. (Ord. 94 § 1
2524.180 Site plan review. (part). 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.02(5))
A site plan review as prescribed in Chapter 25.70 shall
be required before a building permit is issued for any 25.24..250 Minimum yards—Development
development in the PR district(Ord_ 94§ I (pan), 1975: standards..
Exhibit A § 25.14-6.01(7)) A. For single-family attached, two-family dwellings
and multiple-family buildings, the minimum front. side
2524.190 Special standards_ and rear yards shall be as approved on the development
In addition to requiring all development plans to comply plan. However.there shall be a separate private yard with
to the following special standards of Sections 25.24.200 a total area of at least three hundred twenty square feet
through 2524.310 the city council and/or planning corn- adjacent to each dwelling unit unless equivalent alternative
mission may impose such other conditions to the Bevel- arrangements of patios are approved and provided.
opment plan as it deems necrec-rry or desirable in carrying B. All single-story,single-family detached buildings
out the general purpose and intent of this chapter. (Ord. shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 25.16 with
94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.02) the majority of lot sizes determining the standard
C. All two-story,single-family detached buildings shall
25.24.200 Minimum project area comply to the following development standards:
Projects of less than seven dwelling units pa acre shall 1. Minimum front yard, twenty feet;
have a minimum area of five acres. 2. Minimum rear yard, twenty-five feet:
Projects of seven to eighteen dwelling units per acre 3. Minimum side yard, fifteen feet:
shall have a minimum area of ten acres. (Ord.94§ 1 (pan), 4. Maximum building coverage,twenty-five percent_
1975: Exhibit A § 25.14- 6.02(1)) D. Second-story windows facing side yards of single-
story homes shall be five feet eight inches minimum in
25.24110 Minimum project width. height from floor.
Projects of less than seven dwelling units per acre shall E. All two-story,single-family homes shall be compati-
have a minimum width of two hundred fifty feet_ ble with surrounding uses. (Ord. 665 (Exhibit A (part)),
1992. Ord. 94 §I (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.02(6))
P1rn [knelt 7g2) 382
2524260
25.24.160 Minimum separation between sides of provides for adequate off-street parking facilities. (Ord.
buildings. 94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.02 (11))
For single-story,single-family detached buildings there
shall be a minimum of ten feet between sides. 2.514301 RV park standards.
For two-story,single-family detached buildings there The following standards apply to recreational vehicle
shall be a minimum of thirty feet between two-story eke- panes:
ments. (Ord 665 (Exhibit A (part)), 1992: Ord 94 § 1 A_ Minimum project size of five acres;
(part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.02(7)) B. Maximum density of twelve spaces per acre;
C. Minimum space area of one thousand five hundred
25.24.270 Minimum common open space. square feet, minimum dimension thirty feet by fifty feet;
A. Projects of less than seven dwelling units per acre D. Minimum forty percent common open
shall have a minimum common open space of fifty percent space/recreation anea;
of the net area. E Front t setback adj
acent}aceru to public sheet of
B. Projects of seven to eighteen dwelling units per twenty-five feet with combination of six-foot masonry wall
acre shall have a minimum common open space of forty and landscaping to screen all recreation vehicles;
percent of the net area F. Interior property lines to be bounded by six-foot
C. At least fifty percent of all required common open masonry wall and at least ten feet of landscaping;
space shall be approximately level, defined as not more G. Projects may be single-use or developed as part
than thirteen and one-half percent grade. of a larger resort or residential development;
D. The common open space shall be land within the K RV parks shall be taxed as a transient occupancy
total development site used for recreational,including build- use;
ings used for recreation purposes,parks or environmental L Permitted Accessory Uses. Private recreational
purposes for enjoyment by occupants of the development facilities and limited commercial directly associated with
and their guests,or dedicated to the city for public parks. primary use as approved by planning commission. (Ord
E. Common open space shall not include public or 445 § 2, 1985)
private streets, driveways, private yards, or patios and
parking areas. (Ord- 94 § I (pan), 1975: Exhibit A § 2524310 . Exceptions.
25.14-6.02(8)) The standards of Sections 2524.120 through 2524.300
shall be required unless modified by the development plan.
25.24.280 Building height_ (Ord. 94 § 1 (part). 1975: Exhibit A § 25.14-6.02(12))
The maximum building height in a PR district shall be
twenty-four feet or two-story,whichever is less.(Ord-665 2524.320 Building setbacks from the planned
(Exhibit A (part)), 1992:Ord.94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit
street line..
A § 25.14-6.02(9)) The minimum setback in all residential developments
within the PR district shall be the designated distances from
25.24.290 Maximum dwelling units per building, the ultimate right-of-way line of the streets specified in
The maximum number of dwelling units per building this title unless otherwise provided in this section:
shall be as approved. (Ord_ 94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A. Freeway, fifty feet;
A § 25.14-6.02 (10)) B. Arterial, thirty-two feet;
C. Secondary, thirty-two feet;
25.24300 Required width of private roads_ D. Collector, twenty feet;
With no parking, the private roads shall be thirty feet E. Lam!,twenty feet(Ord 94 § I (part), 1975:Exhibit
wide. A § 25.14-7)
With parking on one side, thirty-two feet wide. With
parking on two sides, forty feet wide_The roadways shall 2524321 Two-story, single-family detached
be a minimum of asphaltic concrete with concrete curbs building setbacks from project
and gutters as approved by the director of environmental perimeter.
services.Standards of design and construction of roadways, A. The minimum setback from the project perimeter
both public and private,within the project may be modified for two-story single-family detached buildings shall be one
as is deemed appropriate by the city, especially where it hundred feet or one lot depth, whichever is more.
is found that the development plan provides for the separa-
tion of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and
383 P, Deszyi 7 Sr2)
2524.321
B. The planning oomminion may waive intrrior setock
requirements when adjacent developments are planned
simultaneously. (Ord. 665 (Exhibit A (part)). 1992).
25.24330 Approval criteria.
The planning commission and/or city council may ap-
prove a development plan only after finding that the require-
ments of this tide and other ordinances affecting the proper-
ty have been satisfied.In granting such approval,the city
council may impose and enforce such specific conditions
as to site development,phasing and building construction,
maintenance and operation as it deems necessary to carry
out the purposes of this title and the general plan.
All development within the PR district shall comply
with the development plan as approved and adopted by
the city council. (Ord. 94 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §
25.14-8)