HomeMy WebLinkAboutChaparral Homeowners Association - Signalization Fees (0,2 _09,2_
atili
CITY OF PALM DESERT /ok,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Reimbursement of Signalization Fees to Chaparral Homeowners
Association for the proposed traffic signal at Portola Avenue and
the ChaparralNenezia gates
SUBMITTED BY: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
DATE: September 25, 2003
CONTENTS: Correspondence
Vicinity Map
Recommendation:
By Minute Motion; decline the request for reimbursement of$40,000.00 in
Signalization Fees by the Chaparral Homeowners Association for the proposed
traffic signal at Portola Avenue and the ChaparralNenezia gates.
Executive Summary:
The Chaparral Homeowners Association has requested reimbursement of $40,000.00 in
signalization funds for its obligation of the proposed signal on Portola Avenue at the
ChaparralNenezia gates. Chaparral is requesting the reimbursement because it has
committed itself to share the cost of the signalization that the City required of the project
across the street (Venezia). The developer of the Chaparral Country Club paid
$31,250.00 in signalization fees when the project was developed in the late 1970's to
early 1980's. During deliberations for the Venezia project, the developer (GHA Paloma)
stated to the City Council that his project would fully fund the signal in question (see
attached minutes). Also, at no time has City staff requested or required any financial
participation in the signal by the Chaparral Association.
The signalization fees levied were for general signal construction needs throughout the
city, arising from the increased traffic from the Chaparral development, not specifically
for the project's gated entry. Those funds have long since been expanded, and
residents of the Chaparral Country Club have enjoyed their use throughout the city for
quite some time. The signalization fund does not contain a surplus, and in fact, does
not have enough funds to support the current city's needs.
Staff Report
Reimbursement of Signalization Fees
Page 2of2
September 25, 2003
Therefore staff recommends denial of the request for reimbursement of $40,000.00 in
Signalization Fees by the Chaparral Homeowners Association for the proposed traffic
signal at Portola Avenue and the Chaparral/Venezia gates.
Submitted By:
Mark Gree wood, P.E.
City Engineer
Approval:
Ill/ I�
ACM fur D-vel•, - -nt Services
v' ,
nc, Dire•)•r
City Manager
CITY COUNCILTION:
APPROVED DENIED
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETING. AT 'd'D
AYES:I fI e , ISO')
NOES: NI
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIED BY:—n< ITNYA
H:tword tiles\Chaparral Signal Reimbursement Staff Report doc Original on File itli.) City Clerk's Office
4110
S
PETERS & FREEDMAN, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
74-075 EL PASEO, SUITE C-4
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
Tel:(760)773-4463
Tel:(760)773-2626
Fax:(760)773-0919
a*l 41101114444,4 a mail@hoalaw.com
0**TO M4V11.4 www.hoalaw.com
*i11*444* 00kt*
ENCINITAS OFFICE
01001 191 CALLE MAGDALENA
ill►WINO MO* SUITE 220
411.- _i iii41011 f*t ENCINITAS,CA 92024
041l$• I & is Tel:(760)436-3441
0 44014 l Fax:(760)436-3442
4000011
June 24, 2003
David J. Erwin, Esq.
BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP
74-760 Hwy. 111, Ste. 200
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Re: Chaparral Association/Signalization Cost Sharing
P �"
Our File No. 1052
Dear Mr. Erwin:
Thank you for your letter dated June 5, 2003. I would suggest that we mediate or arbitrate this
matter.
I appreciate your conclusion that the Association was not"strong armed." I believe any trier of fact
will agree the threat was i f the Association did not agree,the entire project would be prohibited from
taking a direct left turn.
Ivy way of this kiwi, the Board wishes to be placed on the City Counsel Agenda to address this
issue.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
PETERS & FREEDMAN, L.L.P.
David M. Peters, Esq.
DMP\tmf
cc: Board of Directors
G:\1\1052\DMP\Ltrs\Erwin 1.wpd
• •
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
RIVERSIDE LAWYERS SAN DIEGO
(909) 686-1450 74-760 HIGHWAY III. SUITE 200 (619) 525-1300
INDIAN WELLS. CALIFORNIA 92210
ONTARIO (760) 568 261 t ORANGE COUNTY
(909) 989-8584 (760) 340-6698 FAX (949) 263-2600
BBKLAW.COM SACRAMENTO
(916) 325-4000
DAVID J. ERWIN
DJERWIN Q@BBKLAW.COM
June 5, 2003
VIA FAX: 760-773-0919
David M. Peters
Peters & Freedman, LLP
74-075 El Paseo, Suite C-4
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Chaparral Association/Signalization Cost Sharing
Dear Mr. Peters:
I received your letter dated May 21, 2003 addressed to the City of Palm Desert
regarding the Chaparral Association Signalization Cost Sharing. It is not known to me why any
sharing agreement was entered into between Chaparral and the developer but I find nothing in the
approvals of that project that would impose any financial commitment for signalization on behalf of
Chaparral. The City did not impose any requirement on Chaparral to participate in that project. The
cost of the signal was imposed upon the developer, GI-IA Paloma Group LLC. Previous funds
coming from the Chaparral development, went into the traffic signalization fund. That fund has long
since been expended.
I specifically dispute your comment that "the City is strong-arming Chaparrel into
contributing more funds". The City has had nothing to do with Chaparral agreeing to commit more
funds and, in fact, their responsibility had long ago been fulfilled.
Sin rely,
avi J. twin
of BES BEST & KRIEGER LLP
DJE:alr
Enclosure
cc: Mark Greenwood
Carlos Ortega
RMPUB\DJE\217895
LIlY I
• . 73 510.*FRED WARING DRI
rw
. 4" ' PALM DESERT,
cALIF0RNI A92260—{ 78 at
. L: 760 346-06t ,1rt �K e-„
*n 1 3 r
+i ' FAX 760 341-7098 5
Ii�► info®palm-de:ert.org
{ fice - PogRx_A UI A-Mici2►gL-
January 14, 2003
Mr. John Ballje, President
Chaparral Association
75061 Mediterranean, Suite B
P.O. Box 12920
Palm Desert, CA 92255
SUBJECT: REIMBURSEMENT OF SIGNALIZATION FEES
Dear Mr. Ballje:
In response to your letter of January 2, 2003, as explained in our previous letter, each
development pays a relatively small signalization fee for signals throughout the city.
These funds are used at any of the 65 traffic signals in the city, and Chaparral residents
have enjoyed the benefit provided by collection and expenditure of signal fees for
approximately 20 years. Because our signalization fee is small, the signal fund has no
reserves. Further, the City has had a policy for several years, requiring private
communities to pay their fair share for new traffic signals at gated entries. Therefore we
can not grant your request to contribute funding for the proposed signal.
Please contact me if there are any questions.
MARK GR EN 00D, P.E.
ENGINEERING MANAGER
cc: Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer
\mgreenwood\wpdocs1Chaparral Signal Fee Re,mbursement Letter 2 wpd
w
C�ruuuoulrKwruu
. It
oa '4
Cha arral Association ?` ^ r� T ' '14.0�ic �A Soto
CITE �'is S.
FYI • w. cr;ry
January 6, 2003
Mark Greenwood
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Dear Mr. Greenwood,
I am in receipt of your letter of December 20, 2002, needless to say, I am disappointed in your
decision to disapprove reimbursement of the "Signalization Funds" deposited some 20 years ago by
Chaparral Country Club.
These funds were deposited in good faith with the City of Palm Desert in anticipation that they
would be available when and if needed. That need is now.
possible service to
MyBoard is charged with the fiduciaryresponsibility of providingthe bestmy
P Y
a
community at costs commensurate with the best value for the money. These responsibilitiesinclude:
1. Safety and security of all its members, both internal and external.
2. Provide an attractive environment to insure maximum property value for the benefit of
its members and the overall Palm Desert Community.
3. Preserve reserve funds required to insure the future restoration and preservation of all
assets.
4. Provide operating funds for current expenses, keeping them within the bounds of good
budgeting and current costs of living which are continually growing.
These goals are the same for the City as we all attempt to stay within reasonable boundaries.
Now to the crux of the concern. In accordance with California State regulation, we cannot expend
"Reserve Funds" for new capital equipment. This would include the likes of a traffic signal. Such
funds would have to come from our "Operating Budget" which is already overstrained. The other
source of money is, of course, a special assessment. This is already becoming necessary because of
the skyrocketing insurance and electrical costs.
The argument that the Signalization Fund was spent years ago does not seem to be a valid argument
for not having the funds available now, since many developments have been added in the past 22
years, presumably all having contributed to the fund. Accordingly, we believe there should be funds
available for reimbursement from the large surplus in your cash reserves.
75061 Mediterranean, Suite B, Palm Desert, CA (760) 346-9000
P.O. Box 12920, Palm Desert, CA 92255 Fax(760)346-9997
ems `
A.
Chaparral o n ' ers s �}+� is a g ood 4 Wien r o ., Y' , ,- } �{:#) ► i1 8 -
maintain our own sfreets, collect garbage and'provide safety.and security jt is believed t�att e ityq r
can well afford to provide safety to our citizens and to assist us in our $50,000.00 pledge o he r a
developer of the property across the street from Chaparral.
If this letter is not sufficient to prompt the action required, we can do whatever you recommend
necessary to appeal your decision.
Very Truly Yours,
...... .N....z_41,1)7;,_
E. Jo Ballje
Board President
Chaparral Association
cc Jim Ferguson
Jean Benson
P. Drell
_ ......�..... . CITY Of P �1 DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRI
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
:r`•'. /� t' TEL: 760 346-06I I
FAX: 760 34r-7o98
Li info@palm-descrr.org
/br .A (fl f-Pr?-RP,L
December 20, 2002
Mr. John Ballje, President
Chaparral Association
75061 Mediterranean, Suite B
P.O. Box 12920
Palm Desert, CA 92255
SUBJECT: REIMBURSEMENT OF SIGNALIZATION FEES
Dear Mr. Ballje:
We have reviewed your request for reimbursement of signalization fees collected during
development of Chaparral Country Club. These fees were collected to offset the general
increase in traffic resulting from the development, and the resulting need for traffic signals
at various locations, not specifically for the proposed signal at Portola Avenue and the
Chaparral driveway. Those funds have already been expended on traffic signal
improvements throughout the city and are unavailable for the proposed signal. Therefore,
the request must be declined.
Please contact me if there are any questions.
A
MARK GR ENWOOD, P.E.
ENGINEERING MANAGER
cc: Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer
H:4ngreen oodlwpdocslChaparral Signal Fee Reimbursernentwpd
w
�..�NUM Mr(Ml1Snn1
•
Chaparral Association CEIVED
DEC 1 3 :CO:
December 9, 2002 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Attn: Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager
Subject: Chaparral Country Club-Traffic Signal
Gentlemen:
It appears that the housing project, "Venezia", on Portola Avenue opposite Chaparral
Country Club is on schedule and that construction will soon begin.
As you know, the builder, GHA Paloma Group, with the cooperation of Chaparral Country
Club has agreed to absorb the cost of the new traffic signal at the intersection of the two properties,
approximately $150,000.
It has been brought to our attention that Chaparral Country Club, circa 1978, contributed a
"Signalization Fee" to the City of Palm Desert in the amount of$50.00 each for 625 units, a total of
$31,250.00. These monies have been available to the City for some 22 years and have earned some
simple interest, perhaps 1% or more.
It is our request to now be reimbursed some $40,000.00, which could be applied to our
obligation of$50,000.00 toward the cost of the new traffic signal.
An early reply to this request would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
E. Joh allje, Presi ent
cc: P. Drell
75061 Mediterranean, Suite B, Palm Desert, CA (760) 346-9000
P.O. Box 12920, Palm Desert, CA 92255 Fax(760) 346-9997
MINUTES
EGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 200
NOTE: At thi e, Councilman Crites moved to add an item to the A.- •a regarding a
Habitat for Huma •roject. Motion was seconded by Ferguso d carried by a 4-0
vote, with Councilman . •iegel ABSENT.
CONSIDERATI• SF REQUEST FO' EET AND LANE CLOSURES
FOR HABITAT FS ' HUMANI HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ON
GOLETA AVENUE.
Mayor Pro-Tem Ben • reques -. hat the City provide the Habitat with
$1,000 for food f• e workers who •e working on the project.
Councilman Cri - - moved to, by Minute Motion, aut• . ed: 1) Closure of Goleta
Avenue cul-de-sa adjacent to Portola Avenue; 2) closure o oleta Court between
Fred Waring I ' - and Goleta Avenue; 3) closure of the northbou ight-turn lane on
Portola Av- e/Fred Waring Drive;4)use of the City-owned lots on Goleta -nue at Deep
Cany. *rive; 5) provide funds in the amount of $1,000 for food and refre •.ents for
ev- tone who will be working on the project, all on Saturday, December 7, 2002,fr. -.30
..m. until the house is completed that day. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and Carrie•
by a 4-0 vote, with Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
B. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PROVISIONS OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PLANNING CONDITION NO. 9 OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2160 AS IT RELATES TO
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30738 (GHA Paloma Group, LLC,
Applicant/Appellant).
Associate Planner Francisco Urbina reviewed the staff report , noting that
when the Planning Commission approved the Applicant's 94-lot subdivision
on October 1, 2002, it did not have the benefit of seeing full-color elevations
or a plotting plan for the tract. The Commission,therefore, approved the tract
map with the standard R-1 Zone development standards. The purpose of
tonight=s appeal was to amend Planning Commission Condition of Approval
#9 with respect to front yard setbacks, maximum height limits, and combined
side yard setbacks. He said the project site was zoned PR (Planned
Residential), and the Zoning Ordinance allowed averaging of front yard
setbacks by up to 25% as long as there is a 20-foot minimum front yard
average setback maintained. The applicant=s tract map did comply with that.
With respect to the 20-foot height limit being requested by the applicant,that
is also not an issue given that the Applicant's designs have hip roofs, and
only a small portion of those hip roofs would extend above the 18-foot typical
height limit found in the R-1 Zone. In addition, the PR Zone had a maximum
height limit of 24 feet specified. With regard to reduction of combined side
yards from 14 feet to 12 feet, this would only apply to 16 of the 94 lots that
have a width of 70 feet. The applicant is requesting reduction to 12 feet and
13 feet to accommodate his models to meet market demand. He noted that
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2002
Architectural Review Commission had reviewed the plotting plan for the
subject map and the proposed models and gave preliminary approval. He
said the intent of the PR Zone was to allow flexibility in development
standards by encouraging innovative and imaginative design. He said staff
believed that the superior architecture of the proposed homes, the variety of
color palettes, varied setbacks to enhance the streetscapes, and the
Applicant's desire to have flexibility in meeting market demands for plotting
certain models on certain lots justified the Applicant's appeal. Staff
recommended that Council waive further reading and Resolution No. 02-147
granting the appeal and amending Planning Commission No.2160 Condition
of Approval No. 9 as it relates to Tentative Tract Map No. 30738, which will
amend the required side yard setbacks from 14 feet combined to 12 feet
combined for 16 lots, amending the 20-foot front yard setbacks to 20-foot
average with a 16-foot minimum, and increasing the maximum allowable
height from 18 feet to 20 feet.
Councilman Crites asked if staff was suggesting that if the Planning
Commission had seen this, it might have acted differently, and Mr. Urbina
agreed. Councilman Crites asked why staff was not recommending that the
matter be returned to the Planning Commission. Mr. Urbina said he felt the
applicant would probably not want to be delayed by having to wait for another
Planning Commission meeting if the Council can grant his appeal tonight.
Councilman Crites asked whether this set of appeals resulted in any units
that are larger in square feet.
Mr. Urbina responded that there would be no change to the floor plan square
footage for any of the models. He added that there were only 16 lots affected
by the combined side yard setback request. He noted that the applicant was
entitled to apply for a maximum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre based on
zoning and the General Plan; however, his density with this project was
substantially below that at 3.2 dwelling units per acre with 9,000 square-foot
minimum lots.
Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or
in OPPOSITION to this request.
MR. MARIO GONZALES, Applicant and developer of the property, 28-561
Avenida Deosa, Cathedral City. He said the most important thing was that
they did not want to compromise any type of quality or sacrifice any type of
issues in order to have this appeal granted. He added that it was most
important to maintain strong curb appeal. Although they had not been able to
provide the Planning Commission with the proper documents normally
submitted, they had subsequently gone to the Architectural Review
Commission, which had been able to review all of the documents and had
then endorsed the project.
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2002
Councilman Ferguson asked if the applicant would have any problem making
sure the Planning Commission concurred with the Architectural Review
Commission on the new information.
Mr. Gonzales responded that his organization had just purchased the
property and had just taken ownership approximately a week ago. Although
this was a timing issue for them, he said they were always willing to work with
all levels of the City.
Councilman Ferguson said it was a timing issue for him as well. He said
when the majority of the Planning Commission says no to something and
then Architectural Review Commission overturns them on the basis of new
information, and he does not have Minutes in his report so he can read what
the PlanningCommission concerns were to tell whether or not theywere
met, he felt it would be a slap in the face to the Planning Commission for the
Council to agree with the Architectural Review Commission without at least •
allowing the Planning Commission have the same benefit as Architectural
Review.
Councilman Crites said his first reaction was to deny this because what he
sees are taller buildings and shrinking yards. He said it often seemed to be
that, in the name of architecture, things get bigger, yards get smaller, and
open space diminishes.
Mr. Gonzales noted that they had also accommodated several issues in
respect to the stacking issue for the school district. He said they had lost
some property against their northern boundary at the south side of Hovley; in
addition, at the corner of Portola and Hovley, they had provided a
deceleration lane which would hopefully help mitigate some of the problems
experiencing at the school in that location. They had also solved some
issues with the Chaparral Country Club people in putting a signal light out
front, which had been a real issue with Them, and the developer would be
absorbing 100% of that cost. He said he did not really want this matter sent
'MR toPtanrrllrlg Commission if the Council could approve it now.
Councilman Ferguson said that everything he had seen so far looked good,
the staff recommendation made perfect sense, and the developer was really
seeking to meet the needs of all the folks. Yet he wondered why three
Planning Commissioners voted against the project, and he did not have the
Minutes of that meeting so that he could read why they did so. He said he
felt it would be an easy thing for the developer to go back and make his
presentation to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Drell said the significant delay that would normally occur would be
because the public hearing would have to be re-noticed. If, as part of this
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2002
action,the Council would delegate back to the Planning Commission without
hearing, the matter could probably be placed on the next Agenda for
consideration, and the next meeting was on Tuesday. If the Planning
Commission approves the project,the matter is over; however, if it denies the
project, the developer could come back to the Council at the next meeting.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Kelly declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Ferguson moved to, by Minute Motion, refer the appeal back to the
Planning Commission for final disposition, subject to appeal process available to the
Appellant, if necessary. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 3-0 vote, with
Mayor Pro-Tem Benson and Councilman Spiegel ABSENT.
C. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN O•
DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, INCLUDING A PARKING LOT, F
A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH FACILITY ON THE NORTH SI► OF
ALESSANDRO DRIVE BETWEEN SAN JOSE AND SAN -CINTO
AVENUE, 73-900 ALESSANDRO DRIVE
Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment#1 (PathfinderCommu► of the Risen
grist Church, Applicant) (Robert King, Appellant).
Mr. D . reviewed the staff report in detail, noting tha is matter was before
the City . ncil previously and was referred back • 'lanning Commission to
try to resol 'ssues with the neighbors. 0 • issue was location of the
building on the • -, and there was objection • e possible evening activities
that would be dist •ing. The applicant h. • moved the building, it would be
set back as a residen. • would be, and t• • impact of the building would be no
different than if a house as there, • d the activity area would now be on
Alessandro. To address th- -co • ssue,the applicant secured a long-term
lease of two parcels to the ea '4 which they have now produced a parking
lot to provide 100%of their or, a --required parking on-site. He said there
was some direction from e Plann • Commission that the parking area
directly adjacent to the •sidence not be 'lized at night and only be utilized
on Sunday. Staff's •gestion was to elimi . - that parking altogether since
there was plenty - parking on the street to re. • e those four spaces, and
that could pro. .ce a significant buffer between t parking lot and those
residences.
Counc' an Crites and Mayor Kelly asked if a cul-de-sa ould now be
incl ed since there is now this additional parking. Mr. Drell re- 'ended that
t► e would now be room to construct a cul-de-sac. Councilman es said
e City had indicated it would do that for the neighbors, and he felt - City
should follow through with that.
27