Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appeal ABD Palm Desert 118 LLC - DA 00-1 GPA00-7 CZ00-5 TT29468 TT294555 12-14-2000
CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to the City Council of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space, a Tentative Tract Map for 270 single family lots (8,000 square feet minimum) and 1 lot for park purposes, a 9 lot Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes, and a Development Agreement on 117.5 +/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. III. APPELLANT: ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 IV. CASE NOS: GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-05, TT 29468, TT 29555, DA 00-01 V. DATE: December 14, 2000 continued from November 9, 2000 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Background C. Draft Resolution No -00-137 Draft Ordinance No. 973 , Draft Resolution No. 00-138 and Draft Ordinance No. 974 D. City Council Staff Report dated November 9, 2000 E. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-05, TT 29468, TT 29555 and DA 00-01 F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020 G. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 5 and November 21 , 2000 H. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . That City Council adopt Resolution No.00-137approving GPA 00-07. 2. That City Council waive further reading for C/Z 00-05 and pass Ordinance No. 973 to second reading. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-05, TT 29468, TT 29555, DA 00-01 DECEMBER 14, 2000 3. That the City Council adopt Resolution No0O-138 approving TT 29468 and TT 29555, subject to conditions. 4. That the City Council waive further reading for DA 00-01 and pass Ordinance No. 974 to second reading. B. BACKGROUND: On November 21 , the Planning Commission reviewed the project revisions, additional information and staff analysis previously presented to the Council at the November 9 hearing. A representative of Regency Estates reiterated their opposition to any reduction from the current R-1 12,000 zone. After considering the new information, the Planning Commission concluded that the variety of lot sizes and design quality of the proposed homes were appropriate for the site considering its location, proximity to the railroad, public park and school. The commission unanimously voted 4-0 (Commissioner Jonathan absent) to recommend approval to the City Council. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: Review and Concur: PHILIP DRELL I ARD LKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA DIR. OF COMMUNITY DEV. ASST. CITY MANAGER FOR CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES /tm CITY COUNCIL ACTION:APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETIN DATE AYES: {'i,' . . ,:. .�'�� ��� ��*�� ��� •-�. A i . ,.�. �i�� NOES: A . ABSENT: ABSTAIN: -- VERIFIED BY: Lint Original on File with Ci Clerk' s Office 2 RESOLUTION NO. 00-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/ INDUSTRIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/PARK AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARISK ROW DRIVE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. CASE NO. GPA 00-7 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 9th day of December, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to December 14, 2000, to consider the request of ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC, for approval of the above; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said general plan amendment: 1 . The land use resulting from the general plan amendment would be compatible with adjacent existing land uses. 2. The density resulting from the general plan amendment would not be incompatible with densities permitted in the adjacent areas. 3. The proposed general plan amendment will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A", and GPA 00-07, Exhibit "B", are hereby approved. RESOLUTION NO. 00-137 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK 2 RESOLUTION NO. 00-137 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO.: GPA 00-7 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A general plan amendment from low density residential/industrial to low density residential/park at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. The Director Of The Department Of Community Development, City Of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 ' II I I I I , 11 1 I ' i I I \\ \ .ii:::.N.1. / / -1 I I . - r--.. ___. Si v..fix:;--.v 4. , I I •0„ RD mar ;:'?k:•r.:c;:;:.}:>??.;:i:,y• ` I .--Ar:�}'• 1K•I OR y ••`r • I•C I I I �{ r� 1 I 1 a •�'L I �1, v •o 0 i i :Low Density...Res.�/: ::::::: i :4,:::. ...•. � RI 1• r•C Sit?�'`:ci 1 Znd i •- ust rial h i O� .............:............... J `mow •}•Lo w Density }:<..}..s r S y Residential: � - I � (0, ?‘Will.:...... ...... o:} .s.,.?.:..'t>.::;...,,• :2,'c•.. .;fE '�:.'::: -i:;:;.' :at {....i Kiiii �l :}.s ;» .... `Low Densit .:.;:":::.}fig.... y<`'`>?<<>�: Y;J):+�i:?�i���ii4•jk�.�iii':(4-*'- ,v,:1})•i!4} ' t . 111111ill[i.:5•;.fiy:::::7::: ii}`i'i';:v:i:}�ii:ii :j•:iii•'.;}:ij yy 7 ..<::•;i:P.:_„ ,..*:, I:i::. idential/ cl - -:.t:yn'•.;��+ ••r it r uN a • 'P.C.-•• I Indus trial i :t: /i Z 1 I t o Par k COUNIRY CLUel DRIVE I girlI IIIf 'it sr i r / - ol 1 '.f I I �� ( wilorle r-,CiRC l�7111-1 f — `\\ , , l r .I i :.y ; I' 1-17�I7 c 71-' r' < I r`r- R.-3 1 _11�'�I- �,T,—...., CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. GPA 00-7 CITY COUNCIL �`; � P7 GEN. PLAN AMEND • RESOLUTION NO. 00-137 geo :2J=r ED) j1—y� Date ORDINANCE NO. 973 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 12,000 TO PR-4/OPEN SPACE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARISK ROW DRIVE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. CASE NO. C/Z 00-05 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 9th day of December, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to December 14, 2000, to consider the request of ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC, for approval of the above; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said change of zone: 1 . The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with adjacent existing land uses. 2. The density resulting from the change of zone would not be incompatible with densities permitted in the adjacent areas. 3. The proposed change of zone will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. 4. The PR-4/open space zoning designation will be consistent with the General Plan as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A", and C/Z 00- 05, Exhibit "B", are hereby approved. ORDINANCE NO. 973 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK 2 ORDINANCE NO. 973 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO.: C/Z 00-05 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A change of zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/open space at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. The Director Of The Department Of Community Development, City Of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 • • �•• ! I I 1 i \ ,•• I r I i� \ I I:I 11 ., •\‘ \ :i,:.:.s>„.,,,z.. // I I I e---, I •0 ' .\ ih;i�q.Irv.'k''..t•^::tt3:`i}}�.,+.r:-} }•••. ' c. r \ \ :}."+lid"-,..`,at•?,-,4,. },,'.•..:v :.'.j+': .$f �.1,:tt't.i.'•,.• •` I JACKAL OM 1 - ,,}i'}•t;,t:.C}�'*�;'4'Y.':4,ety�s,�.,.?.tv .rJ: :�'tt�� r.,r;.•,'::;':�fti+•...�•; �l r::/^7'trJi ,v os:;�'#.;.,;;t;:,:.};::: •r.:,ys'..: y�..�r.;C� ny'�"t-"'` •�•�a ' ...... ��`! • •1 —a ).,}>>}u .:ry��$$```�:,��.`�;�Ct:l�'�+k{]t,^•.;Y,�y '.i•. �4yi�yy,�;f \}r}i:'til,'}.}i+;'.::ty�� ' .}•r tir:'•,:�. r4.-x :J 9' - :.:••.7, ::fits};0;:: ,i:: :: - •• `v I I �:y:•�3r�"3+,.�'fir' #<�-l-`�t•�,�:""�J •:,•t:}:ta'r: ;��:• }i. r:;:o:.::`: `•::::;:j:::`::::�•'� . 1 `e sLT�_ 1 r• _ '-.4:;, a} .„i,:t;!;}r cif:; ;r:' :;;; 1 I ,:rtn { -1Ilk� I ::4. v,. t>}t}O 10 .. �?h:.tr..v. . t .}i+:.;3 •::s• }y.n:w:: ::3j • o�'6� I J' :::: ::::yyf Sri�v}".''K''•.'3.XWO:v'R'''' :•``':.r,};:•,.cy2�}•:...K.ii:,'"4;1}. ��p��•••�•- t-rf , 1 .Jel ,>«' #`i`?'• PR-4 £'.T2:: •':3,a: . a'•a• .?3:`. £ '}.*" -}- `� ••. • �•,v�, / �f yy: °)•,;, ,.•ram ( � � � •t�:'' "+-,�,•.��'��z' '•'"`fc. } Fig :t :}?,::. 3.::.{t»t•�.�'.:s•• ..y. ',�Y't: ▪•'�.� .;'.•,Lcit'},�` %i.;:}�:t' z,e:tf� y:;$��:'4'��..'.',v.:�.l���,;r:.: �.,;v,..,.:i_Y!{.:;!:t{k::�:;;�cr: {Y:j_ f N l,f :�- -/ I I I -::cj::'''' ':�.:'::3:3 6 •�' 'V'y:..�,6:;`.: ,fk..j{c`,:rt}:tt:.-.ti6 �c.. .. a I .,`�. `}f„.�P•. �, •C.. >t ::_':}`•:fit:: I >•:%t<<:v:;}.{ vsw3b,::b.�:•:tJ.•,•,+:V"`:t•.s�.• r r}:%•.�.;.:.::ter:t-s:•`3::::. \ \ 1 W1 LI - o;:.RiAn.E.:ty- tt�.t•w+!`- .v.}�#; - .rb-. }4'" '>-.o.Y}y;Ct$;}}}:t}."tR: Rti.'.lg:E.:Eg ii; 1 TUDOR r N :...c2 �: .:iwatt•..y.t`.***3t`•.':^o+i: Ax., }"t..-.'"w• '} .�...��- •,S;▪ •�I� 1 1 1.1 1: —•11 ;_ nt`�}:: ,1f 3 r '�' g::3 % . ..R-1 12,000 `>> 1 Ix e �.., 1 I :rw , ::3:}v n.:,.>,ysn.vrw.::.; . .}:;:;::,}� To I I`1 u c . '};ivE?'<'% ;iy :`.'`:;: }-�''. •`:r:'Jct}?` {ii}?3: _szk;.'.< I 3} . :. t,..,.;}'. `S.' .. tt:s::.: S•RINGf 1[LC lAN I I • . -;Iii:s �,'?.,,;:',C,Y:.ors}:>:,.h.;,:v.A.:i,.3T: - :::•:f Open Space^ F I I ..I }.cti.,:.ft:•:•:: :3F.tt':xf:::.t`3.}}:uS:'' :..t. .;tf,�':)Y:f<�''it,.. A N OR t N `r}}.'•:tt::,:,_:.}:3.•` z•:::£.:..:}:v.3'3: t• : :•:.•:t::}.'•}..::xti•`}it•^::::v:.:}:•}}}^:.}:: �::i�.. u Ir._-_ • .:..'.}:}t»..._}y:r::t3:•-i 3•,,..t:!r£.::: :-::o:t:•:-:3?..'..::•':::E :;. r1 •:.::.+.:...,::..r..,:.... ...::::::., .......:.:.. .....::: ::�'::ter::;':::: COUNTRY CLUB1 DRIVE I r '. r I , I 1 r r t�.ipr_____ --•iGi--� `osjron__ _ I I -/�s.y�WS��� r i i I r. �I % \���� I -,AI,N - - ,�,1�1T1I--- f0- -- - " ———• I-I ? O� ):)i-_-_-e7ri--_.\ 1� eOI1Ru1 t ♦ .■ • i c� 1 �k c � f— ��T,�� CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. C/z 00-5 CITY COUNCIL p-..__V o �+� oORDINANCE NO. 973 � y1T / ©haK lJ U --.ay. © O , O [ lJ \ �, :' L! U o - Date RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 270 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 1 LOT FOR PARK PURPOSES AND A 9 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR FINANCING PURPOSES ON 117.5 +/- ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARISK ROW DRIVE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. CASE NOS. TT 29468 AND TT 29555 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 9th day of December, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to December 14, 2000, to consider the request of ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC, for approval of the above; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said tentative tract maps: 1 . That the proposed maps are consistent with applicable general and specific plans, as amended. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivisions are consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish, wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the project or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed tract. RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 8. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not impact solar access to the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That Case Nos. TT 29468 and TT 29555 are hereby approved, subject to conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK 2 /2 RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. TT 29468 AND TT 29555 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 a portion of said project shall commence within the time coinciding with the 12 year term of the approved development agreement 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 Agency 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 new utilities shall be underground. 7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping 3 RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 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. 9. 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, TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees. Fringe Toed Lizard fee shall be paid at $600/acre. 10. All applicable Planned Residential standards shall apply. 1 1 . A noise study shall be conducted and mitigation measures shall be implemented to insure compliance with the city's noise ordinance. 12. Access points along Tamarisk Row Drive shall be reserved for residents only. 1 3. Perimeter wall and perimeter landscaping adjacent to Tamarisk Row Drive, Country Club Drive and the entry road off Country Club Drive shall be installed with phase one of the tract. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map for TT 29468. 2. Any drainage facility construction required for this project 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. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100-year storm. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79- 55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. Project shall be responsible for the modification of the existing traffic signal on Country Club Drive at the project entry. Said responsibility shall be limited to one-half of the cost of the modification. Those costs may be used as a credit against the subject signalization fees. Such a credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert City Council. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 5. 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. 6. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 7. 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 permit issuance. 8. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 9. In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of the northerly half landscaped median island in Country Club Drive shall be provided. Landscape shall be drought tolerant in nature. Developer may pay cash in lieu of actual construction. 10. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Landscaping maintenance for said landscape shall be provided through a property owners association. 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 final map TT 29468; and c) the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 11 . Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 12. 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. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 13. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 14. Traffic safety striping on Country Club Drive, Tamarisk Row Drive and "I" Street shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: Installation of curb and gutter at 43 feet from centerline, AC paving and meandering sidewalk along the Country Club Drive frontage adjacent to property. Installation of curb and gutter at 38 feet from centerline, AC paving and meandering sidewalk along the Tamarisk Row Drive frontage. Installation of street improvements (curb and gutter, AC paving and sidewalk) for"I" Street as shown on the tentative map exhibit and as described within the project development agreement. Modification to the existing traffic signal on Country Club Drive at "I" Street to provide for full intersection operation. Installation of transit facilities shall be as follows: a. If Sunline provides bus service to this area prior to commencement of construction, the developer shall install a bus shelter. The bus shelter is to be constructed to aesthetically match the architecture of the complex or building(s). The bus shelter dimensions shall be at minimum 8' x 18' x 8'; the bus shelter shall include, but not be limited to, electrical lighting, bench(es), and other components (i.e., trash container) not listed. The bus shelter and pad to be ADA compliant. The pad dimensions shall be a minimum of 10' x 20' and 3.5" thick. b. However, if Sunline does not provide bus service to this area prior to commencement of construction, the developer shall place a bus 6 RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 shelter pad on the site. The pad dimensions should be a minimum of 10' x 20' and 3.5" thick, the pad shall be ADA compliant, and the electrical conduit to be run from the house panel to within 12" but no closer than 6" to the bus shelter pad for future bus shelter installation. Regardless of the timing of Sunline service, a bus turnout shall be installed to Sunline Transit standards during construction of phase one. * Lots 272 and 273 along the northerly project boundary shall be dedicated to the City of Palm Desert for pedestrian/bicycle route purposes. Residential street sections shall be as shown on the tentative tract map with a minimum width of thirty-six feet. Rights-of-way necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided on the Tract Map. 16. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 17. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation. 18. Waiver of access rights to Country Club Drive, Tamarisk Row Drive and "I" Street except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 19. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. 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, UFC, and UBC 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. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 2. A fire flow of 1500 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 1 500 gpm for single family dwellings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4" x 21/2 " x 2 Yz ", 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 buildings 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 turn-around 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 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 12 months. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 00-138 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS.: TT 29468 and TT 29555 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A tentative tract map for 270 single family lots and 1 lot for park purposes and a 9 lot tentative tract map for financing purposes on 1 1 7.5 +/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. The Director Of The Department Of Community Development, City Of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 ORDINANCE NO. 974 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ABD PALM DESERT 118, LLC, AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT FOR 117.5 +/- ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARISK ROW DRIVE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. CASE NO. DA 00-01 AS IT RELATES TO CASE NOS. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-5, 1T 29468 AND TT 29555 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 9th day of November, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to December 14, 2000, to consider the request by ABD PALM DESERT 118, LLC, for approval of DA 00-01 ; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, City Council heard and considered all testimony and arguments of all interested persons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That DA 00-01 Exhibit "A" as attached hereto is hereby approved. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of , 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to the City Council of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space, a Tentative Tract map for 270 single family lots (8,000 sq. ft. minimum) and 1 lot for park purposes, a 9 lot Tentative Tract map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 117.5+/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. III. APPLICANT: ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC 16830 Ventura Blvd., Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 IV. CASE NOS: GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 V. DATE: November 9, 2000 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos. GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, DA 00-1 D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020 E. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 5, 2000 F. Related Maps and/or Exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . That the City Council open the public hearing to take testimony on the amended application, refer the changes back to the Planning Commission for a report and continue the public hearing to December 14, 2000. 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to the City Council of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space, a Tentative Tract map for 270 single family lots (8,000 sq. ft. minimum) and 1 lot for park purposes, a 9 lot Tentative Tract map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 117.5+/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. III. APPLICANT: ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC 16830 Ventura Blvd., Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 IV. CASE NOS: GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 V. DATE: November 9, 2000 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos. GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, DA 00-1 D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020 E. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 5, 2000 F. Related Maps and/or Exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . That the City Council open the public hearing to take testimony on the amended application, refer the changes back to the Planning Commission for a report and continue the public hearing to December 14, 2000. 1 MEMORANDUM November 9, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 B. DISCUSSION Project History: The applicant has been working with City staff over the past year to design a single-family residential subdivision which would meet the City's desire for a regional park (and possibly a school site) and its own development goals. After a series of alternative plans which saw the park site incrementally expand from 25 acres to 38.3 acres, an application was submitted which appeared to meet the objectives for the park site and a compatible 270-lot residential subdivision. The proposed project density is 3.4 units/acre with lots ranging in size from 8, 120 sq.ft. to 18,000 sq.ft. and an average of 9,650 sq.ft. (See chart for details.) Project access was originally planned with a Country Club Drive entrance shared with the park site aligned with Palm Desert Resorters entrance and two entrances on Tamarisk Row Drive. At the Planning Commission hearing on September 5, 2000, correspondence and testimony was presented from the Regency Estates Homeowners, the residential neighborhood to the west, in opposition to the application. Based on that testimony and some of their own concerns, the Commission unanimously denied the application. The applicant has appealed. In response to the issues raised at the hearing, the applicant has provided staff with additional information and modified their proposal. Although each commissioner emphasized different concerns in reaching their decision, the following summarizes the issues which led to the denial and the response resulting from new information and amendments of the application. 1 . APPLICANT REQUEST FOR EXCEPTIONS TO ZONING ORDINANCE SIDEYARD SETBACKS AND DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING STANDARDS The developer had requested reductions in sideyard setbacks from 14 feet combined (5 feet - 9 feet) requirement to 10 feet (5 feet - 5 feet) for the smaller lots in the project. He also requested exception from the recently enacted prohibition on detached accessory buildings in the rear yard on lots smaller than 12,000 sq.ft. 2 MEMORANDUM November 9, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 Response: The applicant has withdrawn the request for these exceptions. All homes will be in full compliance with established standards. 2. LOT SIZE AND DENSITY Regency Estates was developed with a minimum 12,000 sq.ft. lots. The current zoning requires 12,000 sq.ft. lots. The HOA felt that small lots would lead to lower priced homes, lower property values and corresponding negative impacts. The proposed project would lower minimum lot sizes from the current zoning of 12,000 sq.ft. to 8,170 sq.ft. Response: Through redesignation of the park site, the residential subdivision was also reduced in size from 117 acres to 79 acres. The proposed 270 units and 3.4 units/acre on 79 acres still meets the low density residential definition in the General Plan (3-5 units/acre). Although lot sizes will be decreased, the designation of a park site will actually decrease the total number of units constructed in comparison to the original potential based on 12,000 sq.ft. lots on 117 acres. A 12,000 sq.ft. lot minimum typically allows densities of between 2.4 - 2.6 units/acre yielding between 282 and 306 units. The associated impactsunder existing zoning would have been slightly greater and the homes might have have been larger and more expensive. While the proposed average of 9,640 sq.ft. lots will be smaller than the 12,000+sq.ft. lots at Regency Estates, they are in the middle of the range for single family projects on Country Club Drive which includes Whitehawk which is at 8,000 sq.ft. At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant did not propose a specific home design. He has now included conceptual plans for homes which will range in size from 1 ,700 sq.ft. to 3,100 sq.ft. with prices from $229,000 to $366,000. While it is not the City's goal to maximize the cost of housing, these prices are within the range of recent home sales in the area. The stated goal within the City's housing element (required by State law) is to provide a diversity of housing opportunities. The proposed mix of lot sizes, unit sizes, and prices are consistent with that goal and appropriate for the 3 MEMORANDUM November 9, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 neighborhood considering the gated nature of the project and surrounding projects and its proximity to a regional park and school site. 3. TRAFFIC The HOA objected to the potential increase in traffic on Tamarisk Row resulting from the 270 new units and potential turning conflicts resulting from the alignment of one of the Tamarisk Row entrances with their entrance. Response: As was mentioned in the density discussion, the project will not generate more traffic on Tamarisk Row than was originally anticipated by the R-1 12,000 zone since there will now be fewer homes developed. It was always assumed that the residents of Regency Estates would be sharing Tamarisk Row with future residents of the subject vacant property. To eliminate potential conflicts at the entrances, the developer has revised his plan combining the two Tamarisk Row access points into one midback entrance 460 feet from the Regency Estates entrance. Current traffic on Tamarisk Row has been measured at 5,000 daily trips in August and recounted in October at 5,262 taking into account school traffic. When widened to four lanes, as part of the project, capacity is 26,000 trips/day with service level "C". Based on The Institute of Traffic Engineers residential trip generation ratio of 10, the project will add 2,700 trips per day to surrounding streets. Assuming two thirds of these trips will enter and exit on Tamarisk, 1,800 daily trips will be added for a buildout ADT of 7,062 trips, 27% of the capacity at service level A. 4. SCHOOL IMPACTS The Regency Estates HOA believes that the project will result in overcrowding of local schools. Response: The project will have fewer units than anticipated under existing land use and therefore, fewer students. The 270 units will be developed over five years and will generate approximately $1 ,383,700 in school facility impact fees. The City is reserving a school site as part of the park. It is the school district's responsibility to utilize these fees and provide adequate facilities. 4 MEMORANDUM November 9, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 The change of zone and tract map do not represent an increase in school impacts above those anticipated by the General Plan and existing zoning. 5. IMPACTS OF THE FUTURE PARK The park design is currently only in a conceptual stage. Once the property is acquired, the formal park planning process will be initiated which will include creation of an advisory committee made up of representatives from all the neighborhoods in the vicinity, including Regency Estates and Regency Palms. Ultimately, the park plan will be subject to a precise plan review process with public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Once the park is constructed, it will be managed and supervised at the same level as our Civic Center Park which has been experienced very few significant problems over the past thirteen years. Parks can be a mixed blessing. They confer significant benefits to the general community, but can generate specific impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. In this case, the vast majority of impacts will be confined to the new proposed residential neighborhood. It has been our experience, supported by a broad consensus throughout the City, that the benefit of parks for both the adjacent neighborhoods and the greater community far outweigh the negative impacts. The applicant has submitted a package of new information in support of their request. The Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to review the amendments or the additional information. We are, therefore, recommending that given their unanimous decision, the changes be referred back to them for report and the City Council public hearing be continued to December 14, 2000. C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The applicant is requesting a general plan amendment from the current Low Density Residential/Industrial designation to Low Density Residential/park. The Low Density Residential designation will apply to the 79.2 acre residential property and the Open 5 MEMORANDUM November 9, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 Space designation will apply to the 38.3 acre park site. This amendment will clean up the general plan designation for the property by removing the current Industrial portion of the designation and applying the appropriate designation for the proposed residential and open space uses. In addition, the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan will be revised to include the 38.3 acre parcel as a designated park. Based on the annexation of the Palm Desert Country Club area and the need for additional recreation facilities citywide, the subject site is ideally sited for a regional park. It is in the Palm Desert Country Club area, adjacent to a major arterial (Country Club Drive) and close to freeway access. In fact, it is the last unencumbered vacant piece of property east of Cook Street that meets the size, visibility and access requirements of a regional park. Therefore, Table 2 of the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan shall be revised to include the 38.3 acre Northside Regional Park and Section VI of the Element shall be revised to include the following: Regional Parks Land dedicated or acquired for use as a regional park shall be a minimum of 30 acres in size and shall be developed to provide recreational facilities that will serve the needs of the City as a whole in addition to the neighborhoods surrounding the park. D. CHANGE OF ZONE A change of zone from the current R-1 12,000 zoning to a PR-4/Open Space zoning is being requested. The R-1 12,000 zoning permits single family residential developments with a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. The proposed PR-4 will permit low density residential development with a maximum of four dwellings units per acre. The PR-4 zoning will apply to the residential portion of the project only and the Open Space designation will apply to the park site. The PR-4 zone will allow the developer flexibility to build two-story single-family homes with a maximum height of 24 feet on the interior of the project. No two-story homes will be permitted on the perimeter lots of the project. 6 MEMORANDUM November 9, 2000 GPA 00-7, C!Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 Prepared by: PHIL DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed and Concur: Reviewed and Concur: RICHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. CARLOS ORTEGA ACM FOR DEVELOPMENT CITY MANAGER SERVICES Attachments 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 they spoke about Mike Homme's picture and how great it was to have that in front of them. She couldn't begin to approve anything that she had no clue what it would look like and the fact that there was going to be an overhang just further confused her and for that reason she had to vote against it. She pointed out that Mr. Smith did explain how it would actually be a 1 :1 ratio with the 12 foot landscaped area and the 15%2 curb property line because that was an issue she raised as well. Chairperson Beaty asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated for the record that the only reason he would be voting in opposition was because he was in favor of a continuance to allow them to see a rendering. At this point having heard staff's comments that would be his only concern. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Finerty and Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014, approving Case No. PP 00-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Finerty and Jonathan voted no). F. Case Nos. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-05, TT 29468, TT 29555 and DA 00-01 - ABD PALM DESERT 118, LLC, Applicant (Continued from August 15, 2000) Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space, a Tentative Tract Map for 270 single family lots (8,000 square feet minimum) and one lot for park purposes, a nine lot Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 11 7.5 +/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. 30 �9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Mr. Winklepleck stated that this item was before the commission at the last meeting. It was continued for two reasons. The first was an error in the labels that the city received to mail out legal notices. Between the last meeting and this meeting staff revised those labels and notified all the folks in Regency Estates as well as Regency Palms to make sure everyone that could be affected by the project would know about the meeting. The other item was that at the 1 1 th hour there was a request by the applicant to allow two story units on the interior of the project. Thus, the application was revised from R-1 12,000 with a request to allow R-1 8,000 to this one which was R-1 12,000 to PR-4. The PR zone allowed two story units on the interior. The tract map showing the 270 units was on display as well as the tract map for financing purposes showing nine lots and the landscaping plan for Tamarisk Row and Country Club. The project was a 117.5 acre parcel. The project consisted of 270 single family lots on 79.2 acres with a park lot on the remaining 38.3 acres. The park was a separate lot and the park project would come before Planning Commission and City Council as a separate public hearing item. Staff would also at the point of conceptual design be presenting the park site to Regency Estates, Regency Palms and the other effected neighborhoods in the area. Regarding the general plan amendment, the current general plan was low density residential with an industrial designation. The request was to continue low density residential with a park designation. The park designation would apply to the park parcel, a 38.3 acre site. Also, this request would be to change the open space recreation element of the general plan to reflect this change. The second item would be the change of zone. The change of zone request affected the current R-1 12,000 zoning. The request was to go to PR- 4 which was planned residential, four units per acre, and open space. The current R-1 12,000 zoning permitted developments with a minimum 12,000 square feet. The proposed PR-4 would permit low density residential with a maximum of four dwelling units per acre. The PR-4 zone would only apply to the residential portion of the project. This zoning would allow the developer the flexibility to build two story single family homes with a maximum height of 24 feet on the interior of the project. No two story homes would be permitted on the perimeter lots of the project. There were two tentative tract maps as discussed. The first would divide the property into a total of 270 single family lots with one park lot. There were three additional lots for utility purposes along the north and east portion of the property. The second map, TT 29555, would subdivide the property into nine lots. This was for financing purposes. The layout of the first map with the 270 single family lots was designed to create two separate projects. The northernmost project which 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 would consist of 133 lots and have dedicated access off Tamarisk Row and access off of Country Club. The southern project would consist of the remaining 137 lots and would also have a single dedicated access off of Tamarisk Row and shared access from Country Club. Both projects were designed to be private, walled, gated communities. The southern access point was designed to align with the Regency Estates access point and the access point for the project on Country Club would align with the access at the Palm Desert Resort Country Club. For comparison purposes, if the park site were removed and the entire 117.5 acres was subdivided according to the current zoning, approximately 304 units could be built. It would depend upon the layout of the streets. If they took the 270 lots with the proposed standards along with the park site, the overall density of the units on the overall site did not increase. The perimeter landscaping and entryway landscaping along Country Club Drive and Tamarisk Row had been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission and received preliminary approval. All the homes going into the project would go through the Architectural Review Commission. In addition to the zone change, general plan amendment and the tentative tracts, there was a development agreement with the project. The development agreement essentially detailed the requirements and conditions as specified. Also, it identified conditions of land purchase and anything else associated with the requirement of the park site. The development would give the applicant vested rights for the project. There were a couple of requested exceptions to the setbacks. Those were detailed in the staff report, particularly with regard to the side yard setbacks. The smallest side yard setbacks which would occur would be on the smaller lots which would be lots less than 73 feet wide and that would allow for a ten foot combined side yard setback, five feet and five feet which had been granted in the past on other projects along Hovley. As the lots got wider the setbacks also increased up to a 12-foot setback. The general plan amendment and change of zone to allow single family development and the park site would not be out of character with other projects in the area. With the exception of the project to the west, Regency Estates and Regency Palms, the other projects in the immediate area were similar in size. That included Whitehawk and smaller lots in the area of the project including Palm Desert Resort and Country Club and Indian Ridge Country Club. Those projects had golf courses. The proposed tentative tract met all the PR-4 zoning requirements. There was one additional request the applicant was asking for which was detached accessory structures to allow them in the rear yard area to within six feet. Staff's stance was that these would not be allowed on perimeter lots which would affect public 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 streets, but only on interior lots. Also, there was a condition requiring that the builder of the lots inform any potential buyers of the potential for these detached accessory structures and the impacts they may have. The city received a number of phone calls and quite a few letters from adjacent property owners. Specifically there were a couple of letters from Regency Estates Homeowners Association, one which was dated about a year ago, and another dated August 24, 2000. The letters indicated some concerns and those concerns were listed in the staff report. Their concerns included traffic on Tamarisk Row and access onto the street. Staff's response to that was two fold. One, Tamarisk Row was identified as a major thoroughfare in the general plan circulation element and when it was widened to four lanes, it was identified to have a capacity of approximately 26,000 trips per day while maintaining a service level of "C". There was a traffic count conducted in August of this year. While it was off season, they knew it was probably a low number compared to what would happen during season. The numbers showed approximately 5,000 trips on Tamarisk Row. Even if that number was doubled adding to the numbers produced by the proposed project which, according to the National Transportation Engineers at 10 trips per day per household, the total trips coming out of this project would increase that number by 2,700. Even if two-thirds of the additional traffic came out onto Tamarisk Row, this would still be at a service level "A". Basically Tamarisk Row was designed to handle additional traffic and the increase of new units would not significantly the traffic to a point that it could not handle. One of the other concerns was the aesthetics of the gate entryway. As seen on the landscape plans and as indicated the plans received preliminary approval from the Architectural Commission. The landscape was similar in nature to what was provided around Desert Willow and to the south along Oasis, although it hadn't been maintained very well by the association. It was in keeping with previously approved projects as far as aesthetics. There was also a concern of lighting. That the applicant work with the City of Palm Desert to make sure no street lighting was installed along Tamarisk Row. The response to that was that at this time the City didn't have any intention of installing lights along Tamarisk Row and would not install lights if there was an agreement from adjacent property owners. There would most likely be safety or accent lighting installed at the entrances. These would be required to conform with the city's lighting ordinance in order to minimize impacts, if any, on the adjacent properties. There was also concern with the type of development and there was a statement that basically said they strongly believed that the development of this property should be residential with homes in the $250,000 to $350,000 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 price range. The proposed zoning didn't include any commercial and according to the developer's representative, the estimated average price for the homes would be in the mid $200,000. He noted that the city typically didn't regulate cost of housing; that was something that the market would take care of. Another concern was with the Southern California Edison lines along Tamarisk and the under grounding of them. Staff investigated this and there were 115 kilovolt transmission lines. They were not currently part of the city's undergrounding program. The lines would most likely not be under grounded unless they became part of the citywide undergrounding district as the cost to underground these lines was approximately $1 million a mile. Item number six on the list was if the lots would be a minimum 8,000 square feet in size. He said yes, the minimum lots would be 8,470 square feet and the average lot would be 9,695 square feet. There was one additional item from the letter asking if there would be a minimum of 25% lot coverage by the residential units and the answer was yes. Additional concerns raised by the August 11 letter included density of the construction and the appearance that the developer was trying to concentrate far too many homes into the project. The response by staff to that was that the density as proposed still continued to meet the city's low density criteria of three to five dwelling units per acre as defined by the city's general plan. Another concern was that there hadn't been any information provided pertaining to construction of the homes. They were concerned about lot sizes, subsequent home sizes and the architecture of the homes. The developer as previously noted was requesting some side yard setback exceptions to allow larger homes and the architecture of the proposed single family homes would be reviewed by the city's architectural commission. In the past they had invited adjacent concerned associations and neighbors to be part of that. He was sure whoever took the project before the Architectural Review Commission would have that same attitude. The last concern as noted was that the park size would lead to additional traffic congestion in the area and perhaps an increase in crime. They wanted some clarification for the city's plans for patrolling the area. When a conceptual design was available, Mr. Winklepleck said he would present the project to surrounding residential neighborhoods for review and comment. In general the traffic created by park usage would occur on Country Club Drive which was designed to handle the additional traffic. Based on the park design if any additional safety measures were warranted, including increased patrols, those would be installed. He noted that there were a couple of items in the conditions and development that he wanted to address. Specifically under Department of Community Development, condition 8 where it read that the 34 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 applicant agreed to maintain the landscaping required, he wanted to add the word "perimeter" before landscaping as they would be responsible for that. The city would take over the maintenance of the island along Country Club. Also, the next condition, number 9 where it read that the project would be subject to all applicable fees at issuance of building permits including but not limited to Art in Public Places, Fringe Toed Lizard, TUMF, and school mitigation and housing mitigation, housing mitigation should be removed. Also, they needed to add "or as otherwise provided in the development agreement". There were some specifics as far as costs associated with the project. If it didn't occur quickly and if costs were to arise, they were locked into the current standards. The next condition would be number 9 of Public Works which read, "In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of the landscape median" should instead read "installation of the north half of the landscape median" since the developer of this project would only be responsible for their half of the portion of the median. The other half in this case would be picked up by the city. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant would install the entire median and be reimbursed 50% of the costs by the city. Commissioner Finerty noted that there was no mention of a median in number 9. Mr. Winklepleck explained that there was a new resolution passed out to commission before the meeting and the changes were to the new resolution. He apologized for the confusion. Chairperson Beaty asked if there were any other changes in the new set of conditions as opposed to the one they received in their packet. Mr. Winklepleck said yes, the conditions in the staff report were old ones, so the handout with the amendments mentioned were correct. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Winklepleck could tell the commission the changes between the ones in the packet and the ones distributed at the meeting. Mr. Winklepleck went through the conditions and noted any changes. Chairperson Beaty asked when the applicant received the correct conditions. Mr. Winklepleck said that the applicant actually received them late Friday. Commissioner Jonathan asked out of the 277 lots, how many were below the 14-foot combined side yard setback. Mr. Winklepleck said the majority would be located in the northern half and estimated that it was approximately 100- 1 10 units. Mr. Drell asked if they would all be subject to it. Mr. Winklepleck said yes, with the exception of some of the cul-de-sac units. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there were two story units with 15 foot side yards and asked if all the one story units would be an exception to the 14-foot requirement. Mr. Winklepleck said yes. Mr. Drell clarified that they could be, 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 but might not be. Commissioner Jonathan said he was asking how many there were and if staff knew. Mr. Drell said no and explained that typically people choose difference houses on different lots and depended on how they fall out. It wasn't predetermined. Mr. Winklepleck said that it would also depend on whether they went single or two story on the interior. That would definitely affect it. Mr. Drell said that if someone picked a smaller unit on a bigger lot, the setback would end up being 14 or more. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were saying that potentially it was all of them. Mr. Drell said yes, potentially they all could be 10-12 combined. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the right to build accessory structures went with the life of the property or the 12-year term of the development agreement. He asked if the right to construct the accessory structure ever expired. Mr. Erwin stated that it expired at the end of 12 years. Whatever was not built at the end of 12 years that was it, unless the city's ordinances otherwise permit it. Commissioner Campbell said unless the ordinance didn't permit it. Mr. Drell said that technically in the PR zone standards were as approved by the Planning Commission. So if they did these exceptions pursuant to the development agreement, then they had the term of the development agreement. If they did it pursuant to the standards under the PR zone to grant exceptions, then they could specify any term in excess of that as they might want. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the application was silent, it would be based on the development agreement. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff could confirm it for him, but he didn't see any common area amenities such as green space, tennis courts, pools or anything on the plan in the residential section. Mr. Drell said there weren't any. There was going to be a park next door. They created the minimum 8,000 square foot lots with the understanding that in lieu of meeting the typical PR standards as to lot size which was considerably smaller with common amenities, which was why they created the larger lot size without the amenities. Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALLAN LEVIN, of Allan Levin Associates at 76-768 Bishop Place in Palm Desert, thanked staff. He explained that it has been close to 15 months going through the process of the park and establishing the values, sizes and various configurations they dealt with and the conditions. He did have a couple of questions regarding some of the 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 conditions. In the latest version of the conditions, Community Development Condition 15 dealt with the perimeter wall and perimeter landscaping and it required that both the wall and landscaping adjacent to the public streets be installed with phase one of the project. Due to the cost implications of putting all that in up front, what they would request was that they go ahead along Country Club since that was the scenic corridor and the window into the entry of the project and along the entry road, both the wall and landscape be installed with phase one, however, on Tamarisk Row the wall would be installed with phase one but the perimeter landscaping could be installed commensurate with the phasing of the project development as it developed along those areas. One reason was because of the cost and another was that they might not have water available until the internal infrastructure was there to provide for irrigation for the landscaping. Under Department of Public Works on Condition 15, he requested a clarification. The third bullet item said installation of full street improvements for street "I" as a requirement. Per the terms of the development agreement, that public street was split between the development and the adjacent park site in terms of requirements for cost of installation. It would be split between the City and developer. On that same Condition 15, the second to the last bullet item, it said that the installation of transit facilities as may be required by Sunline Transit and he wanted to read into the record that it was their understanding at this point that those improvements were limited to a curb turnout and providing electrical service for a future bus line. At the present time there was no bus line running on Country Club Drive between Washington Street and Cook Street. They understood from staff in their discussions with Sunline that it was on Sunline's future program, but at this time there was no bus. By placing anything more than the turnout and the provision for electricity for the future would be an unfair burden to this project. The last bullet item was installation of pedestrian/bicycle route facilities along the northerly project boundary. Conceptually there was a nexus question there since it wasn't adjacent to a public street. It was a regional bikeway and he questioned if it was up to the project to install. More than that it was vague. He asked what they were being asked to do. Were they just being asked to put in a concrete or asphalt bike path? Did it take benches? Did it take shade structures? Did it take landscaping? Who would own it? Who would maintain it? Who would be responsible for the liability? Those questions had not been answered. It was his 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 understanding that this had been something that council wished to see in the city. The increase of the bike circulation or bike paths but they wanted to get some clarification on exactly what was being asked of them so they knew going in what was being required. Mr. Greenwood said that starting with Lot "I," it was his understanding that they would like the project to build the complete road and then maybe there would be some agreement as to reimbursement from the City. He said that was something he would be happy to work with the applicant on. Regarding the transit facility, at this time the bus turned at Cook Street. He had recently seen Sunline's seven year plan and it did include service on Country Club by the year 2003. Those facilities were at Sunline's discretion, but his understanding was that they were a turnout, a bus shelter and all the amenities include water and electricity. As far as the pedestrian and bike route, he believed all they were asking for was dedication of the right-of-way and no physical construction. Mr. Levin asked if that would just be through an easement to the city or actually if it was street right-of-way dedication and dedicated on the map. Mr. Greenwood said it would be dedicated on the map. That was his understanding and Public Works would be happy to work with the applicant to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Levin asked if the Planning Commission had the authority at this time to set the requirements of Sunline Transit or if it had to be left open ended where they had no idea what they would want done. Personally, his experience was at Indian Ridge Country Club. Sunline came in and asked for a full-blown turnout, shelter, electricity and everything which at the time Sunrise Company provided and built it and it sat there, and this was in 1992, and it was now the year 2000 and there was still no bus and eight years ago they were required at an expense of $60,000-$75,000 to put in that facility for a bus line that doesn't exist. Not to mention that it looks a little silly having a bus stop in front of their project and people standing there waiting eight years for the bus to show up. They would agree to the turnout and providing the electrical facilities for it, but as far as the shelter since there was no current bus route along there he didn't feel it was fair for the applicant 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 to provide a shelter at this time when they couldn't guarantee when there would be bus traffic there. Mr. Greenwood said he thought he misstated something and wanted to clarify it. In the case here where there was no current bus line, he didn't believe the applicant would be required to provide a shelter and that it would be Sunline's responsibility in the future. Mr. Levin asked if it would just be the turnout and a power stub for future use. Mr. Greenwood replied power and water. Mr. Levin said that with the agreement of the other changes that staff made in previous conditions tonight that were noted, they had no other comments and he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Finerty said that by reducing the side yard setbacks to facilitate larger homes, she asked how much larger Mr. Levin anticipated the homes to be. Mr. Levin said that in terms of square footage, the homes had not been designed. They were trying to provide capability to put larger homes which would then be commensurate with whatever the market was requesting right now and what was going on in the neighborhoods, but he didn't have square footages at this point. There hadn't been any designs done. Commissioner Finerty reiterated that they had no idea as to the square footages of the homes. Mr. Levin said that would come to the commission at a future time. It was his understanding that when they come up with floor plans and elevations that those would go through the Architectural Review process for their approval. He asked Mr. Drell if that required Planning Commission approval. Mr. Drell said it would not come back before Planning Commission. It would be not unlike a custom lot subdivision like Bighorn or Summit where lots were 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 created, perimeters were done, the infrastructure was done and then individual homes were approved through the architectural process. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Levin if he had any idea what the homes would sell for. Mr. Levin said that at this point in time they were looking at an average sales price in the mid $200,000 range, which meant that some would be less and some would be more. Commissioner Finerty asked if the average lot size was 9,695. Mr. Levin concurred. Commissioner Finerty asked how important detached accessory structures were. Mr. Levin said that again, they were just making provisions as to what the marketing studies said was wanted out there. As they looked around the desert, they saw more developments providing the detached units whether it was for an office or granny flats. It was a provision there so that if that was what the market wanted, they could accommodate the market and provide it. Commissioner Finerty asked if he knew that was inconsistent with the proposed amendment that was coming out of ZORC and Planning Commission, which was going before the City Council this month. That recommended that they not be allowed. Mr. Levin said he knew it had been in discussion, but wasn't aware that it was ready to go to council. The other thing was that as stated by staff, these would not be allowed along the perimeters, either on the public streets or adjacent to the park. Only within the interior and they were obligated to notify all respective buyers that there was a potential for these detached structures to be constructed within the development. Commissioner Finerty asked what the time table was for the homes. Mr. Levin deferred the question to the subdivider. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 MR. DAN SHINE, representing American Beauty Development, stated that at this particular time they hadn't finalized any specific agreement with a local builder but they were in current negotiations and had been working with them and it was their belief, which they couldn't guarantee with any certainty because they hadn't concluded that and they weren't building the homes themselves, that they would see construction starting within the next 12 months or so. In the very near future. Commissioner Finerty asked how long it would be to completion. Mr. Shine said the project was designed for two product lines and depending upon market absorption, etc., and the ability to meet the construction he would anticipate a construction period of slightly over two years approximately. Again, it was his understanding and was not something that he could guarantee. Commissioner Finerty said give or take three years in total. Mr. Shine and Mr. Levin concurred. Mr. Levin said that would be approximately 100 units per year. Mr. Shine thought that was a reasonable estimate given the current market conditions. Chairperson Beaty asked how many phases were planned. Mr. Shine said they planned four phases for each product line. The financing map was designed to try and accommodate that. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JOHN YOUNG, 76-984 Sheffield Court, addressed the commission and said he was also the President of the Regency Estates Homeowners Association. As they bought their homes from approximately 1991 through 1995, the project next door was zoned R-1 12,000. The developer was obviously trying to change it. There had been so many numbers spit out tonight, some of which didn't make sense not the least of which was the traffic count in August which had to be the all time worst month. There was no traffic coming from Palm Valley or 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Desert Falls now. There was future traffic coming from Cal State. Everyone running east would probably be running down to Gerald Ford and down the Tamarisk corridor, so he would expect to see the traffic count increase dramatically. He knew it did in the winter because he had to come out of their gate and that was without having an opposing gate across the street. Notwithstanding that fact also, it was relatively known in the area as the Tamarisk raceway. Traffic was exceedingly fast there and there was a somewhat blind corner coming around also as it comes around the back side of their project. A lot of care needed to be taken with that. There was an accident there a couple of days ago. It was a single car which ended up in a field which would be part of that project. He noted that this developer was obviously not the builder. They were obviously setting the project up to shop and sell. They got it at a good price and want to make the most amount of money. He didn't begrudge them that. He did begrudge them that it was known that the property was R-1 12,000 and they were trying to come up with different ways to pack a lot of houses on small lots so they could build more of them. The build out absorption rate of any of the projects was not anywhere near the numbers just quoted. If the commission looked at Palmyra and some of the other projects, they were not delivering that many homes. They also had density issues. The numbers quoted varied widely. There was one elementary school that would most like pick up that area, Carter School. It was currently ranked fourth in the county. They have been dropping temporaries there since the school was built. His understanding was that there was also a school site originally on the property which had been declined. The schools would be impacted by any extra homes built, especially family homes. The other elementary school in the area would be Gerald Ford which was also highly filled at this point. They had only one middle school which was stretched to capacity also. So all these numbers had to be taken into account. The 304 number which was the number given for the amount of homes built also included just taking out the park. No recreation or common area amenities. There was a mention from the Association of 8,000 square foot lots. That was a request for confirmation of a previous board approval. That letter was about a year old. There were some prior discussions. They had not heard back from the developer until just prior to the last meeting which was postponed to tonight. They also had a number of residents who had called and e-mailed him. A lot of them were just getting back from 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 vacation and had just opened up their mail and found out about tonight's meeting but couldn't make it tonight since it was the first day of school so there were a lot of people that were impacted by that. He thought they would have more and more people with concerns that would come to the commission periodically within the next couple of weeks unless a decision was made to hold them to the 12,000 square foot lots that were originally on the plan when they bought their properties. Chairperson Beaty asked what the average lot size was in Regency Estates. Mr. Young said they were a little over 14,000 square feet. That was the average. MRS. LESLIE TODD, 38-981 Palace Drive in Regency Estates, informed commission that she is the Vice President of the Homeowners Association. She agreed with everything Mr. Young said except the part about a somewhat blind alley. It was quite a blind curve on Tamarisk Row. She too purchased her home thinking that the zoning would be 1 2,000 square feet across the street from Regency Estates and she was devastated to get the letter saying that someone wanted to build something with only 8,000 square foot properties. Listening to building homes with five foot side yards was quite appalling to think that. In their neighborhood that was quite unacceptable. The comparisons that were made to other associations to other housing developments, for example, the lot sizes at Indian Ridge and the lot sizes at Palm Desert Resort, those were two developments that had condominiums and were not separate houses, so the lot sizes should be greater when they were building homes than condominiums. The traffic was a problem now without the development being there. The idea of putting in a gate across from their gate and then a second gate on Tamarisk Row would create all kinds of traffic problems. It was very difficult now to get out on Tamarisk Row as Mr. Young previously said. It was the racing cars as well as the number of cars which would increase. The two gates facing each other would create a problem because they wouldn't be facing each other like Palm Valley Country Club and Indian Ridge face each other with huge setbacks allowing for lots of cars and lots of turnouts. They would be directly on Tamarisk Row which would create a problem with turning in traffic and children 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 waiting for school buses. The development that was also mentioned was Desert Willow with its desert scape type landscaping. In their development and in the surrounding areas all the developments had lush green landscaping and not desert scape so it wouldn't be as compatible with the developments there now. She said she had some others issues that were addressed in a letter and was sure that the commission would get that information. MS. CANDACE JOHNSTON, 39-820 Regency Way, stated that she agreed with the two previous speakers. She also wanted to remind commission that just as a reminder, she remembered that in the 90's Equity Directions tried to get a change of zone on this parcel and she thought they were turned down. At the time she recalled that the city said that they were going to make sure that this stayed with the existing R-1 12,000 so historically this was attempted once and declined and she would like to cast her vote that it again be declined. MR. BUCK PRUETTE, 76-800 Lancelot Court in Regency Palms, stated that he wasn't initially sure whether he was for or against the proposal. He wanted to see the property developed and would love to see the park. The idea of having a school he would have embraced since he has two children. In sitting here tonight, it seemed like a big round peg trying to go into a small square hole. There were all sorts of things in the previous issues in terms of setbacks and trying to have carports. They talked about what buildings looked like on Hovley versus Fred Waring versus El Paseo and it was five feet and they would like to have it 15. It seemed like they were trying to make it fit and it wasn't supposed to fit there unless the commission granted all these variances and down sized them to 8,000 square feet or 8,400 square feet or 9,600 if they counted the park and that kind of thing. It seemed like it just didn't fit. The commission mentioned right at the beginning that they didn't like to have things dropped in their laps and there were all sorts of things coming in at the last minute back and forth. He didn't know how many different concerns there were and commented on the changed conditions. There were probably 18 different things and three quarters of them were different issues. Again, with the landscaping and the things they were talking about before, it was not what has been there and it seemed like they were trying to change it so that it would fit and he was now in agreement with the others and he was also on 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 the Board of Directors there and with the ten people he had spoken within the last week that were against it. He now agreed with them for all sorts of different reasons. It seemed like it wasn't supposed to fit there and they were trying to make it fit. MR. KEN MAXWELL, 76-802 Ascot in Regency Palms, stated that he wanted to briefly say that he hoped the commission would consider all the things that had been said. The lots were too small. The houses were too many. MR. DAVE NICHOLSON, 76-820 Castle Court, said that he was in agreement with everything that everyone said prior to him. It was the beginning of September and there were still a lot of people away from their residences and they had three people out of town on his block alone that weren't back yet. They were told it would remain R-1 12,000. MR. RICH WARFIELD, 76-920 Sheffield Court and the Property Manager for Regency Estates Homeowners Association, stated that he was present at the first meeting when this development was originally proposed to their Board of Directors and one of the major concerns they had at that time was the alignment of the gates and traffic coming to and from. He suggested that the commission look into a study as to the distance from Country Club to the gates where these cars would be turning in and out of. He thought that was a major concern for their development and should also be looked at very seriously by the commission. The other issue was it being August and people were on vacation and so forth and he had received a number of phone calls from people out of town voicing their displeasure that this was taking place while they were away on vacation and now returning to start school and so forth. They were opposed and had some legitimate concerns over what the commission had seen in their letter and wanted to have those answered. Specifically the home sizes. They were concerned that this was just going to be mapped and sold without much concern about the neighborhood and they weren't sure this developer would be around to speak to when those concerns did arise. MR. GARY BROWN, 76-893 Coventry Circle, agreed with all that had been said. He wanted to mention that their lots were about 18,500 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 square feet and at the time he bought his home in 1993 they were concerned about what would be developed across Tamarisk and they only bought in Regency because they felt assured by the action of the previous commission in not allowing a down sizing. MR. TIM GILBERT, 39-685 St. Michael Place in Regency Palms, agreed with everything that everyone said. He certainly didn't want to see any homes that were on 8,000 square foot lots. He was worried about his property values going down and didn't want to see traffic problems and had been in an accident. At 7:00 a.m. with the sun shining in the eyes, cars came barreling around that corner. It was bad enough right now. MR. BRUCE ROMAN, 39-847 Newcastle Drive in Regency Estates, supported his neighbors and agreed with everything they brought before the commission. He thought it was an act of the developer to down size lots to maximize profits. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Levin would like to readdress the commission to rebut any of the comments. Mr. Levin said that he would respond to them. One of the overriding concerns expressed had dealt with traffic. That property would be developed whether it was developed as proposed tonight or developed otherwise. The configuration of those streets was not the fault of the developer. That was the way the streets were configured and they talked to staff and the sight lines had been reviewed by staff and were approved. The objection to the entry being directly across from the existing entry, if they offset those entries, they would exacerbate any traffic situation there. For example, there was Oasis Club Drive, Kansas Street and Howley. That was what happened when they offset them. They started getting into more problems with people not looking at each other when making turns. Regarding traffic counts, if the project was developed completely at R-1 12,000 without the park, as staff stated it would be 304 units. They were proposing 270 and those were more than what was proposed. The project proposed a gated community whereby the entrances and exits along Tamarisk would only be for the residents so they would be limiting it to the number of people that live there. They could develop the property with all public streets and make them public accesses which would then change the traffic 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 configuration. The traffic as stated by staff and irrespective of the traffic counts, the amount of traffic developed by this low density project was not an impact on what the streets were designed to accommodate. With respect to the density, they had not changed the density of the project. The project was designated as residential low density. It stayed residential low density. If the park was deleted and was developed at R-1 12,000 for the entire site, they would get more houses then now so the density was not a factor. As far as the schools, the school district reviewed the project and they said they could accommodate it. Whether or not a school site came to fruition on this site was anyone's guess. The school district had been approached. Whether they come forward and picked a site and whether it's a middle school they had no control over. As far as the landscaping along the perimeter, Indian Ridge was designed with a drought tolerant, not a lush, landscaping. Regency Palms and Regency Estates were approved under the County and the County had different concepts as to what they wanted to see for perimeter landscaping. If they looked at the landscaping on both sides of Oasis Club Drive adjacent to Indian Ridge and the recently installed landscaping by the City adjacent to The Resorter that was the same type of landscaping that the city has shown they want to see. The city spent a lot of money taking down medians and taking out the turf and a lot of the landscaping and going with a drought tolerant landscaping. Those weren't really relevant arguments with respect to the project. The bottom line was the only issue that had really been presented tonight was the people's perception of 8,000 square foot lots and what that was going to do. All the other issues were a smoke screen which had been explained both by staff and himself. It didn't really come into account because when the property was developed, all those things were going to happen. This was probably as minimal as they could expect by gating the community, by reducing the number of lots because of the 32-acre park site rather than developing the entire project. The city couldn't dictate the size of the houses. They could build acre lots in there and build 1 ,500 square foot houses. They couldn't set the minimum that way. Just because of the size of the lot didn't necessarily predicate what the size of the house was. An 8,000 square foot lot was allowed a 25% lot coverage, which was 2,000 square feet. If they were allowed two story, they could build a 4,000 square foot house in there which was pretty much at the very top end of what Regency Estates had to offer. One of the 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 comments made was with respect to Indian Ridge being condominiums and that was only half true. Half the product was condominiums and currently Indian Ridge was selling single family lots. Those single family lots were 7,150 square feet and he didn't think that anyone could contend that the houses were tiny, underpriced or devaluing property. Again, the size of the lot didn't necessary predicate the product that was on it. He thanked the commission for its time. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was in opposition to the side yard setbacks to facilitate larger homes. She thought that if they wanted larger homes they needed larger lots. She also would be in opposition to the request for the detached accessory structures. She agreed with what ZORC and Planning Commission had approved as far as the ordinance and hoped it carried through to the city council. Not knowing the square footage yet knowing the approximate price was a bit confusing to her and she tended to agree with the gentleman that described it as putting a square peg into a round hole. She wanted a little more information and a little more of the product before she could move for approval. Commissioner Campbell stated that she didn't have any problems with the size of homes on those lots. The minimum would be 8,400 square feet with more of an average of 9,000+ square feet. She would not vote for the accessory buildings. As Commissioner Finerty stated before ZORC made an amendment to the code that was going to come before Planning Commission at the next meeting and going to council. Also, she had a question about having two story homes in the development. Chairperson Beaty noted for the record that Commissioners Jonathan and Lopez were not at the last meeting. Mr. Drell stated that there was no testimony and in fact it wasn't a legal hearing because there wasn't adequate noticing. Chairperson Beaty commented that he was just clarifying that for the record. Commissioner Jonathan said that the most intriguing feature of the application was the park. He doubted there was anyone in the desert that wanted the next park more than he did. However, he was persuaded by the comments of 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 the existing neighbors and he thought they were in a situation that they were in a position where they as a city would be giving up too much in order to get that park. He was persuaded by the comments by the residents particularly with regard to the lot sizes, setbacks, the traffic issues relative to the flow, the gates, the acceleration and deceleration lanes which he thought could be accommodated, but the one thing that couldn't be mitigated without significantly altering the project was lot sizes and setbacks and once they got into 12,000 square foot lots, 14,000 and 16,000 then they weren't going to put a 1 ,500 square foot home on it. They were going to put larger homes there and he thought that just as importantly they were going to create some amenities such as open areas, green areas, tennis courts and they wouldn't have as much density. He understood and was persuaded by the comments of the residents in that regard. On that basis he would be opposed to the application. Commissioner Lopez tended to agree. He understood and listened to the residents in the nearby neighborhoods and if they really looked at the plot plan and at all those homes there in a relatively small area, it was very concerning. He felt the setbacks were a problem, the side yard setbacks, the size of the lots was a problem, he wasn't sure if there was a compromise between R-1 12,000 and something in between. Maybe 10,000 square foot lots. He didn't know but it was definitely concerning to him to look at that amount of traffic. Traffic was a problem and he had been on that road and it was an area where kids liked to "step on it". As they developed, they would have to take those situations in hand. The park was wonderful and he didn't know there was even a school considered for this area, but he knew that schools were an issue. It continued to be not only for the middle school, but even the high school. The high school now couldn't accommodate the students at present. There were issues, but the primary thing that he had difficulty dealing with was how much was there. He would deny the request. Chairperson Beaty said he was torn on this one also. He lived on a small lot by everyone else's standards in a 2,000 square foot home and didn't have any problem with his lot size. That didn't bother him tremendously. The traffic issue he thought the city engineer could design and if it needed a signal with opposing entrances that wasn't a problem. But he wasn't comfortable with the fact that staff and the city had been dealing with this for 15 months and they have a lot of people who weren't available to comment and they had a 49 A MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 new set of conditions and he was unhappy with current state and would be in favor of denial himself. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting, September 19, 2000. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF EL PASEO SQUARE (OFFICE MAX CENTER) - ALLEN SAPOSNIK, Applicant MR. ALAN SAPOSNIK addressed the commission. He stated that he was with Klaff Realty from Chicago, Illinois, so his address wouldn't mean as much as some of the local addresses. He said they were involved with the property known as El Paseo Square, which was bounded by El Paseo, Lupine, San Pablo and Highway 1 1 1 . They purchased the property back in the spring of this year and were involved in a partnership. They wanted to discuss some of their plans for the property to get some feedback from the commission. It was a preliminary discussion that they wanted to present to give the commission an idea of what some of their thoughts and ideas were and get their feedback and come back with a more formal presentation over the next couple of months. To give the commission some sense of the site from their perspective, they felt it had been under utilized. This was one of the oldest pieces of property on El Paseo that was developed in the early 70's about the time of city incorporation. Many of the buildings were still around from that date and they thought that it was time for them to be renovated and improved. At the same time they thought that the density of the site could be improved upon and the former owner was an offshore owner that owned it through a bank and had not spent much time or effort on the site. They were taking a look at the various opportunities they had. They purchased the site with the expectation that it had a cash flow income stream just like any real estate investment. It could stay the same way it was. At the same time they thought there were ways that they could improve it and improve the community and provide a more attractive property. They were looking at doing a couple of things. With the existing building on El Paseo, they wanted to refacade that structure entirely with what they called the service retail, which was the other building 50 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/ INDUSTRIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/PARK, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R- 1 12,000 TO R-1/OPEN SPACE, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 270 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 1 LOT FOR PARK PURPOSES, A 9 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR FINANCING PURPOSES AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 117.5 +/- ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARISK ROW DRIVE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. CASE NOS. GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, DA 00-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of August, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to September 5, 2000, to consider the request of ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC, for approval of the above; 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 denying said general plan amendment, change of zone, tentative tract maps and development agreement: 1 . The proposed reduced lot sizes resulting from the change of designation would not be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. 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 Case Nos. GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555 and DA 00-1 are hereby denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, BEATY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE PAUL R. BEATY, Chairp son ATTEST: PHIL DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert lanning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 5, 2000 CASE NOS: GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 REQUEST: Recommendation of approval to the City Council of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/ Industrial to Low Density Residential/ Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space, a Tentative Tract Map for 270 single family lots (8,000 sq. ft. minimum) and 1 lot for park purposes, a 9 lot Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 117.5 +/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. APPLICANT: ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC 16830 Ventura Blvd, Suite 401 Encino, Ca. 91436 I. BACKGRODUND: A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: Southern Pacific Railroad, Interstate 10 SOUTH: P-R 4/ Palm Desert Resort and Country Club EAST: SI/ Industrial WEST: R-1 12,000/ Single family B. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential/ Industrial II. PROJECT DESCRIET_ION: The site is located at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. The subject parcel is 117.5 +/- acres in size. The proposed project consists of 270 single family lots on 79.2 acres. The City will acquire the remaining 38.3 acres to develop as a park. The park will include baseball fields, tennis courts, and other needed recreational amenities. The property is adjacent to single family STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5,TT29468,TT29555,DA 00-1 developments on the west and south, Southern Pacific Railroad and Interstate 10 on the north, and industrial developments on the east. The property is currently vacant and unimproved with no substantial vegetation existing on the site. A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The applicant is requesting a general plan amendment from the current Low Density Residential/ Industrial designation to Low Density Residential/ Park. The Low Density Residential designation will apply to the 79.2 acre residential property and the Open Space designation will apply to the 38.3 acre park site. This amendment will clean up the general plan designation for the property by removing the current Industrial portion of the designation and applying the appropriate designation for the proposed residential and open space uses. In addition, the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan will be revised to include the 38.3 acre parcel as a designated park. Based on the the annexation of the Palm Desert Country Club area and the need for additional recreation facilities citywide, the subject site is ideally sited for a regional park. It is in the Palm Desert Country Club area, adjacent to a major arterial (Country Club Drive) and close to freeway access. In fact, it is the last unencumbered vacant piece of property east of Cook Street that meets the size, visibility and access requirements of a regional park. Therefore, Table 2 of the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan shall be revised to include the 38.3 acre Northside Regional Park and Section VI of the Element shall be revised to include the following: "Regional_Parks Land dedicated or acquired for use as a regional park shall be a minimum of 30 acres in size and shall be developed to provide recreational facilities that will serve the needs of the City as a whole in addition to the neighborhoods surrounding the park." B. CHANGE OF ZONE A change of zone from the current R-1 12,000 zoning to a PR-4/ Open Space zoning is being requested. The R-1 12,000 zoning permits single family 2 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7 , C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 residential developments with a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. The proposed PR-4 will permit low density residential development with a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre. The PR-4 zoning will apply to the residential portion of the project only and the Open Space designation will apply to the park site. The PR-4 zone will allow the developer flexibility to build two story single- family homes with a maximum height of 24 feet on the interior of the project. No two story homes will be permitted on the perimeter lots of the project. C. TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS There are two tentative tract maps associated with the proposed project. The first, TT29468, will subdivide the property into a total of 270 single family lots and 1 park lot with three additional lots for utility easment purposes along the north and east side of the project. The second tentative tract map, TT29555, will subdivide the property into 9 lots for financing purposes. The layout of the 270 single family lots is designed to create two separate projects. The northernmost project will consist of 133 lots and will have a dedicated access off Tamarisk Row Drive and shared access off the Country Club Drive entryway. The southern project will consist of the remaining 137 lots and will also have a dedicated access off Tamarisk Row Drive and shared access off the Country Club Drive entryway. Both projects are designed to be private, gated communities. The southern access point off Tamarisk Row Drive is aligned with the access for Regency Estates and the access point for the project on Country Club Drive is aligned with the access for Palm Desert Resort and Country Club. If the entire 117.5 acre site was subdivided according to the current R-1 12,000 zoning, approximately 304 units could be built. Therefore, the 270 lots at the proposed standards along with the park site does not increase the density of the overall site. 3 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 PROJECT DATA Project(PR-4) Ordinance R-1 12,000 Site Area 117.5 +/- ac. Lot size 8470 sq.ft. minimum 8000 sq.ft. minimum 12,000 sq.ft min. Gross Density 3.4 du/ac 5 du/ac 5 du/ac Setbacks: Front yard (1 story) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet (2 story) 20 feet N/A N/A Rear yard (1 story) 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet (2 story) 25 feet N/A N/A Side yards: (1 story) Lots 76 ft. wide+ 12 ft. comb/5 ft min.* 14 ft. comb./5 ft min. 20 ft.comb/ Lots 73'-<76' wide lift comb./5 ft min.* 8 ft.min. Lots < 73 ft. wide 10 ft comb./5 ft min.* (2 story) 15 feet/ side N/A N/A Street side yards: (1 story) 10 feet 10 feet 15 feet (2 story) 15 feet N/A N/A Minimum lot width 70 ft 70 ft. 90 ft. Maximum height 24 ft 18 ft. 18 ft. *Exceptions are discussed below in analysis. The perimeter and entryway landscaping along Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on August 8, 2000 and received preliminary approval. All of the homes in the project will also be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. 4 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7 , C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 The 38.3 acre park project will be presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for review at a future date. D. Development Agreement The proposed draft Development Agreement details the requirements and conditions of the development and the land purchase by the City for the park site. ABD Palm Desert 118,LLC has been extremely cooperative in working with the City with regards to the configuration and size of the park site. In return, the applicant is seeking some guarantees and some exceptions to the code. The development agreement will give the applicant vested rights for the project. The requested exceptions relate to reduced side yard setbacks and detached accessory structures. These items are discussed below. II. ANALYSIS: A. A general plan amendment and change of zone to allow a single family development and park site would not be out of character with other projects in the area. In fact, with the exception of the project to the west (Regency Estates) which is zoned R-1 12,000, the other projects in the immediate area have lots similar in size (Whitehawk) or lots smaller than those being proposed for this project (Palm Desert Resort and Country Club and Indian Ridge Country Club). The proposed tentative tract map meets all of the PR-4 zone requirements with the exception of the sideyard setbacks. The proposed sideyards setbacks based on the lot width will provide adequate separation between units while allowing the developer the flexibility to provide larger units based on market conditions. The standard sideyard setback is 14 feet combined with a mimimum of 5 feet. The largest reduction requested would result in a 33% reduction in the overall setback. The City has permitted this in the past for tracts along Hovley Lane and other locations. In addition, the applicant is proposing to be permitted detached accessory structures in required rear yards within 6 feet of the property line and sited so 5 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7 , C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 as not to negatively impact adjacent residential projects or the park site. Therefore, detached accessory units would not be permitted along Tamarisk Row Drive, Country Club Drive, the entry off Country Club Drive, or along the park site. Detached accessory units would be permitted in front of the residential units, but will be required to meet the front yard setback of 20 feet and the sideyard setbacks as identified above. All purchasers of homes in the project shall be notified of the potential for detached accessory buildings being built on surrounding lots and their potential impacts. As conditioned, all physical improvements meet the requirements of both the Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance and California State Map Act. The proposed density of 3.4 units per acre is consistent with the designation of Low Density Residential 3-5 units per acre. The project is designed similarly to the adjacent subdivisions and is compatible with those existing and adjacent developments. The City has received a letter from the Regency Estates Homeowner's Association regarding the proposed project which references another letter dated August 26, 1999 when the project was first presented to them. The original letter identified a list of concerns with the development. The letter dated August 24,2000 indicates that, according to the Association, the proposed development does not adequately address those concerns. Following is the verbatim list of concerns identified in the original letter as well as responses to those issues: "1 . Traffic.The preliminary plans indicate two gates on Tamarisk Row and a main entrance into your development on Country Club Drive across from Palm Desert Resort. Our concern is with noise and traffic that might be generated by additional traffic in front of our development, especially through the use of the two entrance/exit onto Tamarisk Row. You indicated that these two back gates would be for residents only and that visitors and service contractors would have to enter at the main entrance. We are also concerned about the difficulty in access in turning into and out of Regency Estates with another development entrance directly across from our main entrance." Response: Tamarisk Row Drive is identified as a major thoroughfare in the Circulation Element of the Palm Desert General Plan. When it is widened to 4 lanes as part of the project construction it will have a 6 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7 , C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 capacity of 26,000 trips/day at level of service "C". The proposed development will create an additional 2700 trips/day based on the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) standard of 10 trips/house/day. A traffic count was conducted August,2000 which showed 5000 existing trips/day on Tamarisk Row Drive. If two-thirds of the additional trips created by the proposed development occurred on Tamarisk Row Drive, the trips would still only total 6800 trips/day which is still well within level of service "A". The additional traffic noise created by the project will not be significant given the existing ambient noise levels created by Country Club Drive, Interstate 10 traffic and train traffic. The gates along Tamarisk Row Drive will be for residents only and is so conditioned. Tamarisk Row Drive being widened to 4 lanes. Locating an entrance directly across from the Regency Estates entrance as opposed to offsetting the access provides for more efficient and safe turn movements. "2. Aesthetics at your back gate. If one of your back gates is located directly across Tamarisk Row from our main entrance, we would hope that the landscaping would not detract from our main entrace, where we are presently upgrading our entrance." Response: The project has received preliminary landscape approval from the City's Architectural Review Commission which includes the entrances on Tamarisk Row Drive. The landscaping will not detract from Regency Estates main entrance. "3. Lights. We would hope that you can work with the City of Palm Desert, so street lighting along Tamarisk Row Drive is not installed in the future. Installation of street lighting would cause a night lighting impact, which we would like you to avoid." Response: At this time, the City has no intention of installing street lights along Tamarisk Row Drive near the proposed project and will not install street lights unless there is agreement from adjacent property owners. If safety lighting or accent lighting is installed at the entrance gates along Tamarisk Row Drive, it will be required to conform with the City's lighting ordinance which will minimize the impact on surrounding properties. 7 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 "4. Type of Development. We understand that you prefer not to have any of this development zoned commercial and it will contain approximately 280 single story residences. We strongly believe that any development of this property should be residential, with homes in the $250,000 to $350,000 price range." Response: The proposed zoning does not include any commercially zoned portions. According to the developer's representative, the estimated average price for the homes will be in the mid $200,000s. Typically, it is not the City's role to regulate the price of housing. "5. Is it possible to work with SCE to have them reroute the electrical transmission line existing on the east side of Tamarisk Row Drive and/or have them underground it?" Response: The 1 1 5Kv SCE transmission lines are not currently part of the City's undergrounding program. The lines would most likely not be underground unless a city-wide undergrounding district were formed. The approximate cost to underground these lines is $1 million per mile. "6. Will your lot sizes be a minimum of 8,000 sq.ft. in size?" Response: Yes. The minimum lot size shown on the plan is 8470 square feet and the average lot size will be 9695 square feet. "7. Will there be a minimum of 25% lot coverage by the residential units?" Response: Yes Three additional concerns were listed in a letter from the Regency Estates Homeowners Association dated August 1 1 ,2000. These additional concerns and responses are as follows: "We are concerned over the density of the construction. It appears that the Developer is attempting to concentrate far too many homes into this project." 8 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 Response: The density, as proposed, meets the Low Density Residential criteria of 3-5 dwelling units per acre as defined by the City's general plan. "There has been no information provided pertaining to the construction of the homes. We are concerned over the lot sizes, subsequent home sizes and architecture of the homes." Response: The developer is requesting some sideyard setback exceptions to allow larger homes and the architecture of the proposed single family homes will be reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Commission. "The park size will again lead to additional traffic congestion in the area and perhaps an increase in crime. We would like some type of clarification of the city's plans for patrolling the area." Response: When available, the conceptual design for the park will be presented to surrounding residential projects for review and comment. In general, the traffic created by park usage will occur on Country Club Drive which is designed to handle the additional traffic. Based on the park design, if additional safety measures are warranted,including increased patrols, they will be installed. C. FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as amended. • The proposed tract map is consistent with the proposed general plan designation of low density residential. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. • All streets will be privately maintained and improved. Sufficient drainage facilities will be provided in conformance with the general plan guidelines and city ordinances. 9 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7 , C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development • The site is physically suitable for residential development. The existing sand dunes do not create any significant problems for development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. • The proposed density (3.4 units per acre) is under the maximum allowed 5 units per acre. The project is physically suitable for the proposed development density. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish, wildlife or their habitat. • For purposes of CEQA, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as the subject property is surrounded by project of equal or greater density. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. • The design of the subdivision will be in compliance will applicable health, safety, and building codes. The site can be served by respective utilities, will provide adequate traffic circulation and is designed in conformance will all city codes, as conditioned. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. • Subdivision improvements will not conflict with any public easements. 8. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not impact solar access to the property. 10 STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 • The project will meet all code requirements, as conditioned. The design of the subdivision will not impact solar access to the adjacent properties or the subject property. All single family homes shall be reviewed and approved prior to construction. C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Director of Community Development has determined that, for purposes of CEQA, the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment ans staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending approval of GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, and DA 00-1 to the City Council, subject to conditions. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Initial study E. Exhibits and supporting data Prepared by Jeff Winklepleck Parks and Recreation Planning Manager. Reviewed and Approved bye Philip Drell Director of Community Development 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/PARK, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 12,000 TO R-1/OPEN SPACE, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 270 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 1 LOT FOR PARK PURPOSES, A 9 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR FINANCING PURPOSES AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 117.5 +/- ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARISK ROW DRIVE AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. CASE NOS. GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, DA 00-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of August, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC, for approval of the above; 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. 97-18," in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; 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 general plan amendment, change of zone, tentative tract maps and development agreement: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE: 1 . The land use resulting from the general plan amendment and change of zone would be compatible with adjacent existing land uses. 2. The density resulting from the general plan amendment and change of zone would not be incompatible with densities permitted in the adjacent areas. TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS: 1 . That the proposed maps are consistent with applicable general and specific plans, as amended. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivisions are consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish, wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the project or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed project. 8. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not impact solar access to the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555 and DA 00-1 is hereby recommended to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of August, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHIL DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, DA 00-1 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 a portion of said project shall commence within the time coinciding with the 12 year term of the approved development agreement 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 Agency 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 new utilities shall be underground. 7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8. 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. 9. 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, TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees. Fringe Toed Lizard fee shall be paid at $600/acre. 10. The project shall meet all PR-4 standards with the following exceptions: • Sideyard setbacks: - Lots 76 feet wide and larger: 12 feet combined sides, 5 feet minimum - Lots 73 feet wide to lots under 76 feet wide: 11 feet combined sides, 5 feet minimum - Lots under 73 feet wide: 10 feet combined sides, 5 feet minimum • The minimum common open space requirement is not applicable to this project. • The minimum project perimeter setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. 1 1 . The project shall be permitted detached accessory structures in the rear yard with a rear yard setback of no less than 6 feet from property line. Detached accessory structures in the rear yard shall not be permitted on lots adjacent to Tamarisk Row Drive, Country Club Drive, the entry road off Country Club, or the Park site. All purchasers of lots in project shall be notified of potential detached accessory buildings being built on surrounding lots and their potential impacts. 12. Casitas shall be permitted in the front yard with a minimum 20 foot front yard setback from property line and applicable side yard setbacks. 13. A noise study shall be conducted and mitigation measures shall be implemented to insure compliance with the city's noise ordinance. 14. Access points along Tamarisk Row Drive shall be reserved for residents only. 15. Perimeter wall and perimeter landscaping adjacent to Tamarisk Row Drive, Country Club Drive and the entry road off Country Club Drive shall be installed with phase one of the tract. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION KESOLUTION NO. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2. Any drainage facility construction required for this project 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. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100-year storm. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79- 55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. The costs associated with the modification of existing signal systems for this project may be used as a credit against the subject signalization fees. Such a credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert City Council. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5_ 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. 6. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 7. 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 permit issuance. 8. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 9. In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of a landscaped median island in Country Club Drive shall be provided. Landscape shall be drought tolerant in nature. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Landscaping maintenance for said landscape shall be provided through a property owners association. 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 final map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 11. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 12. 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. 13. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 14. Traffic safety striping on Country Club Drive, Tamarisk Row Drive and "I" Street shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15_ Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: Installation of curb and gutter at 43 feet from centerline, AC paving and meandering sidewalk along the Country Club Drive frontage. Installation of curb and gutter at 38 feet from centerline, AC paving and meandering sidewalk along the Tamarisk Row Drive frontage. Installation of full street improvements (curb and gutter, AC paving and sidewalk) for "I" Street as shown on the tentative map exhibit. Modification to the existing traffic signal on Country Club Drive at "I" Street to provide for full intersection operation. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION HFSOLUTION NO. Installation of transit facilities as may be required by Sunline Transit. Installation of pedestrian/bicycle route facilities along the northerly project boundary (lots 272 and 273). Residential street sections shall be as shown on the tentative tract map with a minimum width of thirty-six feet. Rights-of-way necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided on the Tract Map. 16. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 17. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation. 18. Waiver of access rights to Country Club Drive, Tamarisk Row Drive and "I" Street except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 19. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. 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, UFC, and UBC 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 1500 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 1 500 gpm for single family dwellings. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4" x 2'/2 " x 2'/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 buildings 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 turn-around 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 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 12 months. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS.: GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, DA 00-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC 16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A general plan amendment from low density residential/industrial to low density residential/park, a change of zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/open space, a tentative tract map for 270 single family lots and 1 lot for park purposes, a 9 lot tentative tract map for financing purposes and a development agreement on 117.5 +/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. The Director Of The Department Of Community Development, City Of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 • • I I 11 It11 \� ` I 1 r ,,-i.,_-,.,). ,__l.._.i.." ItfrM3 .. ._1t.1•_ ..)ti.n:'I0 1• ./•'.,'?.:Esk,•,,••.4..,.,,-.i'..i+k' ' it+!< %,‘1 ,~' ?svSYAN; r ,; Cb•4 t` i 111 .w..n .%....,"-..-I.-.L%.4j ' r` ' 1 1 x '6`:la 3 �r` .r4yWeM. Lt 4A- 1 I F;jam ,, r xF era':..`•i ;-•<}�. . y-s:44•r'T 3"dY _ s� :.,�ryJ ., r,T, ........,.,....................._. I 1I ` . s:•' R-1 12,000 to PR4.. 4 '�•`,:..;. "a rF% � a:: r ^• YY . I V �ry:Y rYYe s � �� •••-. -� 1 1 I � � s^,' ,�•v:.c?c.:v''' •>},t' � ,}? r`�ti".':` ` irairallai ,:�'•ll::l: it -`i 1eA lf�yJ 1311 ►- u .• f��`•.'�fj,"•,r<`>>:SY.:. .I,"`. fir, �•f..t..=•N•t-3 •„•:'. 1 .'' 'R-1 12 001 •::z :;;:• : �»i;::;; 1 • • Y� II I \� llar �}r6�� i:: �+"F Ar' 'A!+• to[1:h2..,:OFF,:`. r Y.1e.nitr UMl ..-�P.C.-��I=. • 1 I l /e1 - '::9Di�'", ,e,'2t�., i95c r'.s ;2'J•'+:'Lr.:; i :'. 1 t`i��wl a � tA' .�rl •.•wry• en Space* ,,,, ":"-C�i,i-,i :*:::: -- I „, ,: ,-,.....v.?„..,,,,, a �:rii: :?» r,: ,A zs ; :'s� b9.....:•: H <tiS:> s: i`' I t3� _:':.._..__.'i•.:' COUNTRY CCPPi OIIIVf 1 - " �y�'- l 11 ,i=aWf `mil _ �� Rr"-'- r Tjy ' srr,--_ :J _ T LI r tR- --=ern- -- -�-- Q`Y -_ - [( \ 1 % 1:4,-..; -•,,, !...40t r- �, %,' `• 'cam 1 1 4: i r R.-3 �,T^ CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. PLANNING COMMISSIO ,I 0RESOLUTION NO. tel b�� •.1,f, �.LU .o) 0) 8 Date 7/ ;lei •( - I .I 1 I I A ` // 1 ti=:-• \ .• . any; • �, I III 3a y <�. f tvah ' • %-\.‘,‘.I.V 4.\.1-.‘. • 1 I _ .. , &-::R` `2 .1 y'\ .irk a .• �' <'£:ciik .,c.xfn 'a`, .:' �`:`ti.}iyw.-.•:•-JI:)?' \ d 1 ,•02_ I r..r,, ";?:Low density reS./•- ''-;'.',.:.•';�{'Yyi'G <';rfi 1 . • J J ' 0¢ Industrial ':::;<"; zc .3r,: •i•••• -. I I 1e; I f 7 - +>S --4fct-- I r 1 . ��w d e n s it re '; . •`Q : : . r -3L-/,, II • ny x<: .,,i 4« �.N • ankt .� � o, . . • e mo • :t'':t::•:ttt \ \ rz1 i , < 4 { . . .: w • 3u_'<`: `' A 'I •■ r. sy�,,m;,,.. ,... .: . q „ . : ,..-. E.., .::::: ._:I:.. : 1r , rI r . i f N < ; a ..Low densit = - ':P.C.-(t1 1 m1 m iax "4rc ^«� .es./ Industria _ ` r.l.e'n .N C 'f. ; . ! . COUNTRY CLUII DRIVE Teri fir= __ 11 . iI ' IIII __ i TfiiN7L fi4� 11 r• !.I I , I - ��s \ 1 1 S- -1 11- 1 r 1 F- 4-1,11-.---its --_s'�_ - _--_'U-�� 1.-11-- -_�D` --_-_L•-__-♦ % •0-1 Rt •Y C � f 1 r-- gk //•, 4••`,V�- `i I �1 ,'IOF14-.�'g1.-- A.-3 • ,..--..T...—.... CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. °°-7 PLANNING COMMISSION ' S . RESOLUTION NO. ,I ` \%-% ,. 2ZliOL3OLuJ C Date 7 c. I IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR. q 1. Project Title: � r c&-7 ( ZCO-r rT2°W T1-2-i555 T�P�Oz -1 2. Lead A cy Name and Address: e r1 �.T „ v1 W,.IE• rat, „ -r cL4 22a t I 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: -'F C'11 0 �F � �t�1�t. �l,�G� )344 b Ole) 1 4. Project Location: CL v _ A TAmAs>l- Dom, 5. Project SRansor's Name and Address: A f + f%� 118 u.-e, I 161b 0 V 1'rvkg-A 5WQ. .tt401 PAU N10 t Gam. °Ity 6. General Plan Designation:L012- 3-5 8,1,04 1)-IDUW-7. Zoning: 12'\ )2) toD ' 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.) �ll hi • . , . ,. .,e d .• • _ It.... .11 Jr• !7 L.• '<.. C a • a ei 1 el-41•r '.ram �e "%' - b:14117 S at-fe s -r kr%c; • I � GMct 4 Vt.\Qc M e r- r-Q 9. Surrounding Land Uses an Settin : (Briefly describe the roject's surroundings.) A a�T>-k- ' I. .Vert . , I ((tk. L 1�o €2bN t h - (la `dint Cc�nen�" cA tAt) - %5c�5�t n 4 irk ro‘Q& Yt - I 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): C•1u.V)1 RAJ tt2510t- Ct,. 1tP- - 114GN, , CITY/RVPUB/1999/31 7 3 85 FORM"J" ' Page 1 of 14 3 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FAI :S POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following p involving least one ❑ Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils 0 Hazards& Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning 0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise ❑ Population/Housing 0 Public Services 0 Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic El Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the enviro NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be Prepared nment,and a . ❑ 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 en ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required vuonrnen�andan 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially mitigated"impact on the environment,but at leastt one effect significant )has been adequatelyly significant in unless earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)haste an measures based on the earlier been addressed by mitigation analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envir potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE�e all DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECL ARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impo upon the proper project,nothing further is required Si a 3 Dat Printed ame < ror CITY/RWUB/1999/313785 FORM"T, Page 2 of 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIR( LENTAL IMPACTS: I) 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 arc 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 tieing,program FIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration Section 15063(cX3XD). In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they arc 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 form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T' Page 3 of 14 9) The explanation of each iss ould 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 Thin lssues: t Potentially With Lea Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 1- AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not ❑ 0 ❑ limited to,tress,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 0 ❑ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 0 ❑ ❑. 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 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 ❑ 0 0 Williamson Act contract? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 85 FORM "I" Page 4 of 14 Less Than Issues Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact impact Incorporated impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, 0 0 ❑ 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 0 0 0 air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 0 0 0 to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 ❑ ❑ 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 0 ❑ 0 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 0 0 0 12( people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through 0 ❑ ❑ 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/1999/313785 FORM "J" Page 5of14 Less Than Issues Significant Potentially With Las Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact impact incorporated Imps b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 0 0 0 ii' 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 0 0 0 d wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act JQ' (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 0 0 0 2/ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with T — 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 ❑ 0 0 17{ biological resources,such as a treepreservation ��" `policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 - 0 . 0 Pei— 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 0 ❑ 0 historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ 0 ❑ /21 archaeological resource pursuant to§ 15064.5? 3�`' c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 0 0 resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside ❑ 0 0 of formal cemeteries? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 785 FORM"J" Page 6 of 14 1 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ 0 0 effects,including the risk of loss,injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the ❑ 0 0 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? 0 0 ❑ "i- iii Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 0 brf iv Landslides? ❑ 0 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 0 0 1210 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 ❑ 0 0 the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? c) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ 0 0 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: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ 0 0 through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? CITY/RVPUB/19991313785 FORM"J„ Page 7 of l4 Less Thais Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact incorporated impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 0 ❑ 0 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 0 ❑ ❑ hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 0 ❑ ❑ 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? c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ 0 ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would 0 ❑ 0 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 0 0 ❑ 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 0 0 0 requirements? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM"7" Page 8 of 14 Less Than Significant Issues: Potentially With Less Than Significant NMtigatioo Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ 0 0 711 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ 0 0 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 err 0 0 0 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 ❑ ❑ 0 capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff! f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ 0 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ O 0 mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a I00-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ O ❑ )61 would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 0 ❑ 0 14, injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ 0 0 CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM"I" Page 9 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact hnpect Incorporated Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? 0 ❑ ❑ _ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or 0 ❑ ❑ _ 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 ❑ 0 0 natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ 0 0 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 0 ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in • ❑ ❑ 0 __21 the project vicinity above levels existing without the 7�' project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ 0 0 noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"l" Page 10 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ 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- 0 ❑ ❑ 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, ❑ ❑ 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the 0 ❑ 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ,. Schools? 0 ❑ 0 CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"r Page 11 of 14 Less Than lssucs: Signi ,camt Potentially With Less Than Si Incorporated gnificantSignificantNo ImpactpactImpact Parks? 0 0 ❑ Other public facilities? 0 0 ❑ — XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional 0 0 0 IX- 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 relation ❑ 0 _ n( a trafficto the existing load and capacity of the street C 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)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of ❑ ❑ 0 ,2 service standard established by the county congestion Tomr management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either ❑ ❑ ❑an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ 0 (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) 0 p or incompatible uses (e.g,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 CITY/R VPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM 71 Page 12 of 14 lcst Than lssucs: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 4 Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs 0 0 0 r supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILTTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 0 0 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 0 0 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 . 0 0 0 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant • environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the - 0 0 0 project from existing entitlements and resources,or are /a- new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment - 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 Yr- to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and 0 0 0 regulations related to solid waste? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM"Jn Page 13 of 14 Lea Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mmgatioo Significant No Impact Impact b corpotatod Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 0 ❑ 0 71;4- 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 cormnunity,reduce the number or restrict the range of a ran 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 0 0 ❑ 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.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 0 0 ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T' Page 14 of 14 84° INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA 00-1 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) AESTHETICS: d. New light will be produced when vacant lots are developed into single family residences. All new residential lighting will be required to comply with the City's adopted Lighting Ordinance Chapter 24.16, eliminating any adverse impact to day or nighttime views in the area. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a. Site may contain Fringe-Toed Lizard and other related dune species. The project is within the area covered by the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.Although that plan currently sets mitigation fees at$100/acre,the need to expand the existing preserves to include sand source areas, as identified by the California Department of Fish and Game, the required mitigation shall be $600/ acre. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: c. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved,displaced,overcovered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural development which will take place. Said activity will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures nor create unstable earth conditions in that all grading will be persuant to the grading ordinance. VII. HYDROLOGY AND SOILS: c.,d., and e. The site's slope varies throughout the site. An approved grading plan will assure changes in topography and surface relief will ensure proper drainage patterns and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property and better direction of the water. Runoff resulting from the project will be adequately handled by existing and new storm drain systems. XI. NOISE. d. Construction on vacant land will create temporary noise not normally found on the 7 site. Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required by the Building and Safety Department, minimizing any noise impacts to the adjacent residents. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Projected trip generation per single family dwelling unit per day is 10. The project will have 270 units creating a total of 2700 trip ends. Country Club Drive and Tamarisk Row Drive have sufficient capacity to accept any additional traffic produced by the proposed residential project. As part of the conditions of approval, the applicant shall be required to provide road improvements as required by the circulation element of the general plan. The project will not generate significant additional demand on the existing transportation system. CITY Of PALM AESFRJ • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ie Val j.`., .1 PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 i\ __ 4` TEL: 760 346-061 I . '� -_�;.4. FAX' 760 341-7098 °2,:��� infoep+lm.dererr.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS.GPA 00-7,C/Z 00-5,TT29468,TT29555,DA00-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by ABD Palm Desert,LLC for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact,A General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park,A Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space,a Tentative Tract Map for 270 single family lots(8,000 sq.ft. minimum)and 1 lot for park purposes, a 9 lot Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 118 acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. (APN'626-140-043) A: \ jl I ' li _ _-- r �l�l ;••1 �14-iz3 --I\i lg. , - \\ \ 3� �/ 4 I I � -A_ .____-y,i -i‘ i.yd@='I r R-1 12,000 i Y , J:I PR (i .:;;,r:;_ : ',, 1 , 't,rt k R-1 12 000ibm, *:-.. I, NI lati to © -• P C t2)i 11 alP., S i : . 1 1 t, I I r- ' .is+-:iii:::ia.Open Space tile 1,I COUNTRY CIUUI DRIVEI II 'i - - M� /,�z,,�-- 1,1 II ,1-1 , lj., -tilt- R.-3 _ 1 J41-1 _ .J-g1,=: SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,September 5,2000,before the Palm Desert Planning 0 „,nCgmmission at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall,73-510 Fred Waring _ _ Drive,Palm Desert,California,at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL,Secretary August 23,2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission REGENCY ESTATES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 520 Cathedral City, CA 92235 American Beauty Development Co. 16830 Ventura Blvd. Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 Attn: John M. Morrisette, Vice President/Development Subject: Residential Development in Palm Desert at the Northeast Corner of Tamarisk Row and Country Club Drive Dear John: On behalf of the board members of Regency Estates Homeowner's Association, I would like to thank you for taking time to visit with us regarding your proposed development across Tamarisk Row from Regency Estates in Palm Desert. Early communication by developers with their potential neighbors can help facilitate a better development. At our meeting on August 24 you made a brief presentation on your preliminary plans for the property. During that meeting you addressed a number of questions we had and indicated a willingness to work with us. Below is a list of the issues and concerns we have and would like to see addressed as you proceed with your planning and design: 1. Traffic. Your preliminary plans indicate two gates on Tamarisk Row, and a main entrance into your development off Country Club Drive across from Palm Desert Resort. Our concern is with noise and traffic that might be generated by additional traffic in front of our development, especially through the use of the two entrance/exits onto Tamarisk Rdw. You indicated that these two back gates would be for residents only and that visitors and service contractors would have to enter at the main entrance. We are also concerned about difficulty in access in turning into and out of Regency estates with another development entrance directly across from our main entrance. 2. Aesthetics at your back gates. If one of your back gates is located directly across Tamarisk Row from our main entrance, we would hope that the landscaping would not detract from our main entrance, where we are presently upgrading our entrance. 3. Lights. We would hope that you can work with the City of Palm Desert, so that street lighting along Tamarisk Row is not installed in the future. Installation of street lighting would cause a night lighting impact, which we would like you to avoid. 4. Type of Development. We understand that you prefer not to have any Of this development zoned commercial and it will contain approximately 280 single story residences. We strongly believe that any development of this property should be residential, with homes in the $250,000 to $350,000 price range. A couple of issues that we discussed internally after you left that we would like to see addressed are: 1. Is it possible to work with SCE to have them reroute the electrical transmission line existing on the east side of Tamarisk Row and / or put it underground? 2. Will your lot sizes be a minimum of 8,000 sq. ft. in size? 3. Will there be a minimum of 25% lot coverage by the residential units? Again thank you for meeting with us. We look forward to meeting with you again as your plans progress. We are hopeful that our concerns can be taken into account as you proceed with your plans. Please call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Schultz President, Regency Estate Homeowners Association Cc: Allan Levine, Allan Levine Associates 76-768 Bishop Place Palm Desert, CA 92211 August 24, 2000 City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Proposed Residential Development on Northeast Corner of Tamarisk Row and Country Club Drive I am writing concerning the proposed development referenced above. As a member of the Regency Estate Homeowners Board of Directors I and other members visited with John Morrisette of American Beauty Development and Allan Levine of Allan Levine Associates on August 24, 1999, almost one year ago. At the meeting they presented their proposed plans. We detailed our concerns in the meeting and followed it up with a letter to them (sec attached). They assured us that homeowners in the area would be notified of any public : _eetings regarding the development. I learned today, that a public hearing was held with the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission a few weeks ago. I, like all of my neighbors,was surprised to hear this, as none of us were notified. I understand that the hearing as been continued until September 5. It is my understanding that their proposed development does not adequately address our concerns as we clearly outlined last year. I would hope that the City Planning Department and City Council would take our concerns into account when considering this development. I would also hope that notices would be sent to each homeowner in the area prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me if you have any questions. cerely, Gary . J son 7694 Sheffield Court Palm Desert, CA 92211 760/779-5894 gary(c�eaglemtn.net 68-910 Adelina Rd. • Cathedral City,CA 92234 • Phone(760)325-9500 Fax(760)325-9300 Regency Estates Homeowners Association August 11,2000 11EC F1 VE WC) 1 2000 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission - .u'4iTY CEYELOPWC.:r•>EPART✓ItEI: 73-510 Fred Waring Drive CITY 0'r PALM Gt6ERT Palm Desert,CA 92260-2578 Re: Proposed project on northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Tamarisk Row • • Dear Commission Members: • The Regency Estates Homeowners Association consisting of 92 detached homes located on the northwest corner of Country Club Drive and Tamarisk Row oppose the proposal before you entitled • Case Nos.GPA 00-7,CZ 00-5,TT29468,TT 29555,DA00-1 Our community is concerned and in • need of clarification on several matters related to the proposed project. These items include but are . . • ...,,..M„I ..vv- ie not.lulited to the following: s. +' sires,..:i - • • 1. Lack of proper notification to our community and those owners within the required 300 feet of. • • .: this project. A sampling of our ow ersperformed by qur,$oard of Directors show that not pe ,.. leas received the attached notification • • • 2. We are concerned over the density of the construction. It appears that the Developer is attempting to concentrate far too many homes into this project. • • . 3. There has been no information provided pertaining to the construction of the homes. We are concerned over the lot sizes,subsequent home sizes,and architecture of the homes. 4. The proposal to have an auxiliary gate installed across from our main gate is of great concern. The additional traffic that will result from the construction,coupled with the short distance from Country Club to the gate(headed north)will result in severe delays for our owners attempting to turn into or out of our development. 5. The park size will again lead to additional traffic congestion in the area and perhaps an increase in crime. We would like some type of clarification of the city's plans for patrolling the area. These concerns are just a few issues that have been raised by the members of our community that we have discussed this matter with. The fact that this project is even being considered at this time of the year when a large number of our seasonal residents are out of town and unaware of the proposal is particularly concerning to us. We respectfully request that you delay any decision on this matter until the aforementioned concerns are addressed and ALL duly entitled residents notified of the proposal. Community Living at it's Finest Sincerely, ! n FELT LV . it —t John Young President Regency Estates Ho eowners Association (4"Mr Richard 'iy d A.M.S., C.M.C.A., C.CA.M. Community Manager Regency Estates Homeowners Association • 1. RECEIVED r A U G 1 7 2000 • x MUUWEAHCflTF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEDEPARTMENT ! MOUND:1111611T CfTY Or PALM DESERT AT INDIAN WELLS • August 15 , 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission i City . of Palm Desert • 73-510 Fret. Waring Drive • Palm Desert , Ca . r RE : General Plan Amendment Case No . GPA 00-7 • • and Change of Zoning Case No . C/Z 00-5 • Commissioners , • I strongly oppose the proposal to change the zoning of this parcel from 12 ,000 sq . ft . minimum to 8 ,000 sq . ft minimum based on several factors . Homeowners at Regency Estates , and other neighborhoods surrounding • the subject parcel , have been promised. a continuation of " like-kind " zoning: no commercial /industrial zoning abutting Tamarisk Row Drive , and only residential usage with 12 ,000 sq . ft . minimum lot size . A minimum lot size of less than 12 ,000 sq . ft . is not in harmony with the character of development along the Country Club corridor . Parcels contiguous or in close proximity to the subject parcel are either low density residential with 12 ,000 sq . ft . lots ( Regency Palms & Regency Estates ) , or low density country club ( Indian Ridge , Palm Valley , & Palm Desert Resorter ) . The only medium density residential development located within i mile proximity (with 8 ,000 sq . ft . lots , Whitehawk ) , is itself adjacent to R-3• & located across from Commercial /Industrial zoning . 45-483 Box MOUNTAIN Rom),INDIAN WELLS,CA 92210 (760)360-5240 • (760)360-5047 FAx UT ! CiF AT INDIAN WELLS I believe smaller lots give the future owners of these homes a more crowded , less open feel . They lessen homeowner views of our spectacular surrounding mountains . Homes with a more crowded , higher density feel , generally will have lower future demand & lower long-term resale value than more open , spacious homesites . These lower resale values also affect the surrounding neighborhoods ' property values . With so little land left to develop in our precious Palm Desert , why not enhance the quality of life for the future homeowners of the subject parcel , & the existing homeowners in close proximity , who are entrusting you to look out for the greater good of our City ' s residents . Respectfully , Dave Parks Real Estate Broker Trans West Housing , Inc . PS : I own a home at Regency Estates and was the Broker for the Regency Estates developer for most of the home sales . I have been selling new homes for twenty -five years , twenty years in the Desert . Most of the new-home communities I have been fortunate to represent have been in Palm Desert , including Belmonte Estates , Sunterrace , Regency Estates , The Lakes Country Club , & Ironwood Country Club . • • 45-483 Box MOUNTAIN ROAD,INDIAN WELLS,CA 92210 (760)360-5240 • (760) 360-5047 FAx David and E bara David and Batten Nicoison 76 820 Castle Court Nicolson Pakrt Desert,CA Phone:780 345 MI 9221 t nieotsontbearthrink net August 8,2000 RECEIVED AUG 1 0 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commision Members et.al• coMMUNm EEVELOPMENT DEPARTIENT CITY OF PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert Dear Cbmmitiee members; • We were only notified today on the hearing on the 15th of this month with reference to the rezoning of the property at Country Club Dr.and Tamrisk Row Drive. We should have been noted earlier and by mail as such down sizing will hurt our property values. About eight years ago there was an effort to re-zone the same property and we were assured that it would remain R-1-12000.Please do not allow this rezoning to occur. We would have liked to attend the meeting on the 15th but, like many of our neighbors we will be away on vacation the last half of August. if needed please reschedule the meeting to September so more home owners may attend and voice their opinions on this important matter. Yours v truly • Mr. and Mrs David Nicolson Aug . 7. 2000 11 :02AM MINISTRELLI COMPANY 160 116-1151 No .3415 P . 1 MINISTRELLI FAX TRANSMITTAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. r0 Date 4 No.of pages Ind • g cover sheet: 2." . M / Fro►"' Atten: Of �� Phone: 760-776-4450X' Fax phone: %% "/ Location: CORPORATE OFFICE Fax phone: 7 60 7 7 6-115 7 REMARKS: Urgent For your review Reply ASAP Hard copy to follow US mail f )4/6&e' / 144' V fic-ije9-i,e/ d*/ — , ,,,_,,,. , . Ir 47? 1 _,..1 Ai /../ ,Al -/M1,77-14,- - 1,11011r14.2.., _ ., ...___ so. / .1.K.,- --vi .....-"./ /.. ,, _ Irli- 7 ' 7 -'41°.,1 .g/ ii.i.. / '-, 6/ -T922ZL - 7//-7 MINISI'RELLI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. 74-785 HWY 111 STE. 105 / INDIAN WELLS, CA. 92210 / (760) 776-4450 / (760) 776-1157 FAX INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Jeff Winklepleck FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager/Public Works Director SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 29468 & 29555; AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DATE: August 8, 2000 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: (1) Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. (2) Any drainage facility construction required for this project 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. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100-year storm. (3) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. The costs associated with the modification of existing signal systems for this project may be used as a credit against the subject signalization fees. Such a credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert City Council. (4) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. (5) 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. (6) Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. (7) 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 permit issuance. (8) All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. (9) In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of a landscaped median island in Country Club Drive shall be provided. Landscape shall be drought tolerant in nature. (10) Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Landscaping maintenance for said landscape shall be provided through a property owners association. 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 final map; and © the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. (11) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. (12) 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. (13) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. - (14) Traffic safety striping on Country Club Drive, Tamarisk Row Drive and "I" Street shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. (15) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Installation of curb and gutter at 43 feet from centerline, AC paving and meandering sidewalk along the Country Club Drive frontage. * Installation of curb and gutter at 38 feet from centerline, AC paving and meandering sidewalk along the Tamarisk Row Drive frontage. * Installation of full street improvements (curb and gutter, AC paving and sidewalk) for "I" Street as shown on the tentative map exhibit. * Modification to the existing traffic signal on Country Club Drive at "I" Street to provide for full intersection operation. * Installation of transit facilities as may be required by Sunline Transit. * Installation of pedestrian/bicycle route facilities along the northerly project boundary ( lots 272 and 273). Residential street sections shall be as shown on the tentative tract map with a minimum width of thirty-six feet. Rights-of-way necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided on the Tract Map. (16) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (17) As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation. (18) Waiver of access rights to Country Club Drive, Tamarisk Row Drive and "I" Street except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. (19) Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. RICHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. (tmaps\tm22946B.cnd) RIVERSIDE COUNTY cmUFORNIA e.�... FIRE DEPARTMENT o FRE PROTENT of CT IN COOPERATION WITH THE n' —'s• CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY '' 1 C UNT Y • AND FIRE PROTECTION +.JRESTr;e RIVERSID .... OilI ° ifIREI ♦ 4+a RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE COVE FIRE MARSHAL 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE 70-801 HWY 111 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92570 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 TELEPHONE: (909) 940-6900 TELEPHONE: (760) 346-1870 'ZOO FAX (7601 328-1071 TO: k E FF W 1 aka,LEC R REF: T T 2 9146g If circled, conditions apply to project 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, UFC, and UBC 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. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 1500 gpm for single family dwellings 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings 5. 3000 gpm for commercial buildings The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than: 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 8. 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway C2Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 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 approve 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. ',mired on recycled paper...* 12. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC 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 that 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 NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 16. Install a dust collecting system per UFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. WAll 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 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. 20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main 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 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. (O� Qonditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws , or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Marshal Office at 760-346-1870; 70-801 Hwy. 111, Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270 Other: Sincerely, Mike Mc Connell Coves Fire Marshal STAFF REPORT November 21, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 21, 2000 CASE NOS: GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT 29555, DA 00-1 REQUEST: Request for comments on revised plans for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to PR-4/Open Space, a Tentative Tract map for 270 single family lots (8,000 sq. ft. minimum) and 1 lot for park purposes, a 9 lot Tentative Tract map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 117.5+/- acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. APPLICANT: ABD Palm Desert 118, LLC 16830 Ventura Blvd., Suite 401 Encino, CA 91436 I. DISCUSSION: Project History: The applicant has been working with City staff over the past year to design a single-family residential subdivision which would meet the City's desire for a regional park (and possibly a school site) and its own development goals. After a series of alternative plans which saw the park site incrementally expand from 25 acres to 38.3 acres, an application was submitted which appeared to meet the objectives for the park site and a compatible 270-lot residential subdivision. The proposed project density is 3.4 units/acre with lots ranging in size from 8, 120 sq.ft. to 18,000 sq.ft. and an average of 9,650 sq.ft. (See chart for details.) Project access was originally planned with a Country Club Drive entrance shared with the park site aligned with Palm Desert Resorters entrance and two entrances on Tamarisk Row Drive. 1 /ofr STAFF REPORT November 21, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 At the Planning Commission hearing on September 5, 2000, correspondence and testimony was presented from the Regency Estates Homeowners, the residential neighborhood to the west, in opposition to the application. The Commission unanimously denied the application. The applicant has appealed. In response to the issues raised at the hearing, the applicant has provided staff with additional information and modified their proposal. Although each commissioner emphasized different concerns in reaching their decision, the following summarizes the issues which led to the denial and the response resulting from new information and amendments of the application. 1 . APPLICANT REQUEST FOR EXCEPTIONS TO ZONING ORDINANCE SIDEYARD SETBACKS AND DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING STANDARDS The developer had requested reductions in sideyard setbacks from 14 feet combined (5 feet - 9 feet) requirement to 10 feet (5 feet - 5 feet) for the smaller lots in the project. He also requested exception from the recently enacted prohibition on detached accessory buildings in the rear yard on lots smaller than 12,000 sq.ft. Response: The applicant has withdrawn the request for these exceptions. All homes will be in full compliance with established standards. 2. LOT SIZE AND_LIENSITY Regency Estates was developed with a minimum 12,000 sq.ft. lots. The current zoning requires 12,000 sq.ft. lots. The HOA felt that small lots would lead to lower priced homes, lower property values and corresponding negative impacts. The proposed project would lower minimum lot sizes from the current zoning of 12,000 sq.ft. to 8,170 sq.ft. Response: Through redesignation of the park site, the residential subdivision was also reduced in size from 117 acres to 79 acres. The proposed 270 units and 3.4 units/acre on 79 acres still meets the low density residential definition in the General Plan (3-5 units/acre). Although lot sizes will be decreased, the designation of a park site will actually decrease the total number of units 7 STAFF REPORT November 21, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 constructed in comparison to the original potential based on 12,000 sq.ft. lots on 117 acres. A 12,000 sq.ft. lot minimum typically allows densities of between 2.4 - 2.6 units/acre yielding between 282 and 306 units. The associated impacts under existing zoning would have been slightly greater and the homes might have have been larger and more expensive. While the proposed average of 9,640 sq.ft. lots will be smaller than the 12,000+sq.ft. lots at Regency Estates, they are in the middle of the range for single family projects on Country Club Drive which includes Whitehawk which is at 8,000 sq.ft. At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant did not propose a specific home design. He has now included conceptual plans for homes which will range in size from 1 ,700 sq.ft. to 3,100 sq.ft. with prices from $229,000 to $366,000. While it is not the City's goal to maximize the cost of housing, these prices are within the range of recent home sales in the area. The stated goal within the City's housing element (required by State law) is to provide a diversity of housing opportunities. The proposed mix of lot sizes, unit sizes, and prices are consistent with that goal and appropriate for the neighborhood considering the gated nature of the project and surrounding projects and its proximity to a regional park and school site. 3. TRAFFIC The HOA objected to the potential increase in traffic on Tamarisk Row resulting from the 270 new units and potential turning conflicts resulting from the alignment of one of the Tamarisk Row entrances with their entrance. Response: As was mentioned in the density discussion, the project will not generate more traffic on Tamarisk Row than was originally anticipated by the R-1 12,000 zone since there will now be fewer homes developed. It was always assumed that the residents of Regency Estates would be sharing Tamarisk Row with future residents of the subject vacant property. To eliminate potential conflicts at the entrances, the developer has revised his plan combining the two Tamarisk Row access points into one midback entrance 460 feet from the Regency Estates entrance. Current traffic on Tamarisk Row has been measured at 5,000 daily trips in August and recounted in October at 5,262 taking into account school traffic. When widened to four lanes, as part of the project, capacity is 26,000 3 STAFF REPORT November 21, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 trips/day with service level "C". Based on The Institute of Traffic Engineers residential trip generation ratio of 10, the project will add 2,700 trips per day to surrounding streets. Assuming two thirds of these trips will enter and exit on Tamarisk, 1,800 daily trips will be added for a buildout ADT of 7,062 trips, 27% of the capacity at service level A. 4. SCHOOLIMPACTS The Regency Estates HOA believes that the project will result in overcrowding of local schools. Response: The project will have fewer units than anticipated under existing land use and therefore, fewer students. The 270 units will be developed over five years and will generate approximately $1 ,383,700 in school facility impact fees. The City is reserving a school site as part of the park. It is the school district's responsibility to utilize these fees and provide adequate facilities. The change of zone and tract map do not represent an increase in school impacts above those anticipated by the General Plan and existing zoning. 5. IMPACTS OF THE FUTURE PARK The park design is currently only in a conceptual stage. Once the property is acquired, the formal park planning process will be initiated which will include creation of an advisory committee made up of representatives from all the neighborhoods in the vicinity, including Regency Estates and Regency Palms. Ultimately, the park plan will be subject to a precise plan review process with public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Once the park is constructed, it will be managed and supervised at the same level as our Civic Center Park which has been experienced very few significant problems over the past thirteen years. Parks can be a mixed blessing. They confer significant benefits to the general community, but can generate specific impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. In this case, the vast majority of impacts will be confined to the new proposed residential neighborhood. It has been our experience, supported by a broad consensus throughout the City, that the benefit of parks for both the adjacent neighborhoods and the greater community far outweigh the negative impacts. 4 STAFF REPORT November 21, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 The applicant has submitted a package of new information in support of their request. The City Council referred the project back to the Planning Commission to review on the proposed amendments and additional information. C. GENERALPIAN_AMENQMENT The applicant is requesting a general plan amendment from the current Low Density Residential/Industrial designation to Low Density Residential/park. The Low Density Residential designation will apply to the 79.2 acre residential property and the Open Space designation will apply to the 38.3 acre park site. This amendment will clean up the general plan designation for the property by removing the current Industrial portion of the designation and applying the appropriate designation for the proposed residential and open space uses. In addition, the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan will be revised to include the 38.3 acre parcel as a designated park. Based on the annexation of the Palm Desert Country Club area and the need for additional recreation facilities citywide, the subject site is ideally sited for a regional park. It is in the Palm Desert Country Club area, adjacent to a major arterial (Country Club Drive) and close to freeway access. In fact, it is the last unencumbered vacant piece of property east of Cook Street that meets the size, visibility and access requirements of a regional park. Therefore, Table 2 of the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan shall be revised to include the 38.3 acre Northside Regional Park and Section VI of the Element shall be revised to include the following: Regional Parks Land dedicated or acquired for use as a regional park shall be a minimum of 30 acres in size and shall be developed to provide recreational facilities that will serve the needs of the City as a whole in addition to the neighborhoods surrounding the park. D. CHANGE OF ZONE A change of zone from the current R-1 12,000 zoning to a PR-4/Open Space zoning is being requested. The R-1 12,000 zoning permits single family residential developments with a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. The proposed PR-4 5 STAFF REPORT November 21, 2000 GPA 00-7, C/Z 00-5, TT 29468, TT 29555, CA 00-1 will permit low density residential development with a maximum of four dwellings units per acre. The PR-4 zoning will apply to the residential portion of the project only and the Open Space designation will apply to the park site. The PR-4 zone will allow the developer flexibility to build two-story single-family homes with a maximum height of 24 feet on the interior of the project. No two-story homes will be permitted on the perimeter lots of the project. II. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the revised proposal. Prepared by: PHIL DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Attachments 6 Dec-06-00 04 :47P P_O1 Y.1I. 'ED' NAHABEDL N Consulting Engineer LED Civil • :Municipal • Traffic 1C.E. 13440. T.E. 25S) SE TTO. CITY COUNCIL COMPANY. c li Y LIP. Pm" p tn RT FAX:---- 1 (.Q 3 41D 057 4 DATE SENT: I OF PAGES .INCLUDING THIS ONE RE: ft.kit P 1 DE\I LAfMENT Al Tnt N-E 1211kbt#r*1 01 Tkrilh& 'SV RAM MAD GOUNTR1 GUI a DRWE MESSAGE: I rim %JJ Akt_5 � t-r ' ' �t a Q n �k t Owed . , , . J ,wti* , .a l era e� Li r" .. , . . . ,. • •n..... . - 1 A OP AA,. A 1. t•�a, wc.�. xh t ibp . 1 a 4LE 4k. buy42LI t fa-41 lel co-( .�'� 1cy1�,� S• :� eAitd vts' wisa,cc s i„,„+toh i e a yet ioty rr mittiAlArt LONIA1p, 1)(.1 OLE adu,tigrA4 4.444 eAtikK44 tS? " "4 4 ak .r t4 614 `S cifvti.?p Ntswt • T`om' e r 1► ar , .� -�-tiv iL0 pI t4 I t G,t, r- lAki ti dr„r'N t 4.e b. 604 1 4a,446$1,r 4 b I,c ro4) 4 I'D 014 r h,e J b ttY -rt c.te at�-c w p s e 4.44 to �j t st u s • A&It44En' Ity, IPAp* kewlotis wit) Ka roadie. our la ri ib s k t i.r3 cud. tr w t m e$ a T ur e “. pit,* 1.•7 cL. ve.tor 4441* - mil D S /-y LAW OFFICES DALE S. GRIBOW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 73-255 EL PASEO.SUITE 19,PALM DESERT.CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(760)341-4411 FACSIMILE(760):340-0623 rn () cD December 6, 2000 m -.1 c7 ms - 3 < 3 m Jim Ferguson, Mayor 'A'°� C...)Palm Desert City Council Members ma City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Re: Case No.: GPA00.7, C/Z 00-5, TT29468, TT29555, DA00-1 Dear Mayor Ferguson and Honorable Members of the City Council: I am writing this letter to voice my support for the need for a park site on the above- captioned matter. It is my opinion that the site should remain at the 38 acres. I believe this is the same project that was discussed at the Building Industry Association Legislative luncheon at Desert Willows last week. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Happy holidays to all and keep up the good work. Very truly yours, Dale S. Gribow Attorney at Law DSG/bas f/2 RECEIVED , 7 - oo HO - 7 zoos COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ( /1- ' (11)" ( CITY OF PALM DESERT s ffl 7a[ ryi ' 0 - rel 7, - OUZ) e.5-e(-f--- /.?e. 01-•-r- c(i. , v i- P.e. ( 'cki, c, e (it-, X-e Ga q 7L 1 -- --/-X / /-e. in 4,(i--6) CO -7-7-ih 1 / S. iv 0 ot) b-e 6 v---e I me LeNI IUo r 2-c? /---/-/ /) e i? a , 1% 1,,,,, ,, 0 ___ tAl /. / 4 -ef -61,/,4- ., e) ///n-- // Ka-464-te-,4 __7--' --gil.'W I',,ateht e - 6 7 72 a//-7p; /