Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTT 19847 PP 27-83 HOVLEY LANE EAST 1986 PRED;ESE PLANT .-.._ - I� TENTATIVIL TRACTL;r4 ZONE CHANGE_ : `PARCEL MAP VARIANOE REFC-:R TO �J-- 3 a S �y tl —AnPPI ICfANT: �'=r°�, •:�c'zTr_ LAC/OICN . _ [."l/2221 RLQUEST _ ----- ! EXISTING ZONE:— PREPARATION PROGRESS DATE -BY COMMENTS APPLICATION RECEIVED /2 ->-,f — L.[GAL PUBLICATION SENT NOTICES SENT iL-ems ss _ FIELD INVESTIGATION DEPTS. NOTIFIED BUILDING iz- UIGINEERING 12 - FIRE « ) POLICE RECREATION & PARKS _SCHOOL DISTRICT - DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FLOOD CONTROL " 'T 8L-n pp '1 -1B � PRELIMINARY MEETING STAFF REPORT FINAL_ PLAN APPROVAL PRECISE PLAN (6) LANDSCAPING PLAN (5) - - PLAN. DIRECTOR MOD. (6) HEARINGS & ACTIONS DATE ACTION VOTE REVIEW BOARD HEARING i P.C. HEARING PUBLISHED PC. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT NOTIFIED C.CCPUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. RESOLUTION NO. f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 21, 1986 2:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-5I0 FRED WARING DRIVE • w w • • • w • w w w w w • • • • a • , a w w w w • « NO STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Crites called the meet.inq to order at 21:00 c.m. If . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Wood lead in the pledge of allegiance. Ill . ROLL CALL Members Present: Buford Crites, Chairman Bob Downs Richard Erwood (arrived after roll call ) Ralph Wood I Members Absent: Jim Richards ., Staff Present: Ray Diaz Steve Smith Doug Phillips Joe Gauaush Ph i L ,lov Donna Gomez IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of minutes from the January 7. 1986, meeting. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs. seconded by Commissioner Wood, approving the minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith gave a summary of the council actions from the January 9. 1986 meeting. as it pertained to planning commission. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos. TT 19 447-2 8-31 - IMPERIAL BANK, Applicant Request for a two vear extension to allow completion of remaining phases of Mountain View Falls project located on the north side of Hovley Lane east of Cook Street. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21 . 1986 Action: Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs. approving the two year time extension of TT 19847-2 & 3 by minute motion. Carried 3-0. Vil . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PP 85-43 - FRANK GOODMAN 8 DOUG GRIFFITHS, Applicants Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and precise plan to allow construction of a commercial office building (one story) with 6298 square feet in the C- 1 .(general commercial ) zone on 15.000 square feet located at the southeast corner of San Pablo and Alessandro. Mr. Smith outlined the staff report and indicated that the applicant had revised the site plan after receiving direction from the archi- tectural commission. Chairman Crites stated that he would prefer to continue this case as suggested by staff. Mr. Diaz indicated that the applicant had requested this case go before the architectural commission prior to planning commission approval , which was done. At that time, the architectural commission had concerns with the building and with the parking lot layout. He noted that the concerns of the architectural commission could impact the site plan design and that staff would recommend a two week continuance. Chairman Crites opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. FRANK GOODMAN. 77-900 Avenue of the States. Palm Desert, explained that this site was previously three lots and that it is now one parcel . He indicated that speed was essential in completing this project and that he had completely worked over the plans which should address all of the architectural commission's concerns. He stated that the project meets all city requirements. 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: January 21 , 1986 REQUEST: Two year extension of TT 19847-2 8 3 to allow completion of remaining phases of Mountain View Falls project located on the north side of Hovley Lane east of Cook street. APPLICANT: IMPERIAL BANK c/o Ronald Marmer P.O. Box 92991 Los Angeles, CA 90009 I. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Imperial Bank, took over the project when the original developer, Tavaglione Construction, experienced financial difficulties after completion of the first phase of the 352 unit condominium project. Imperial Bank now plans to complete the remaining phases and has been discussing with staff plans to upgrade the project's architecture and landscaping. The tentative map time extension is necessary for the completion of the project. The basic design of the subdivision remains acceptable. 11. RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, approve two year time extension of TT 19847. Prepared by yt Reviewed and Approved by /dlg € 6 oo-D 47 �� 00� ;d- ,l�L- ,D6� 4 3 3z0 : A � l D RESOLUTION NO. 84-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESE_RT,. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT 19847,� APPROVING THE AGREEMENT RELATING THERETO. BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: (1) The Final Subdivision Map of Tract 19847, City of Palm Desert, i California, is hereby approved as the official subdivision map of said tract, subject to the conditions of.the Tentative Map. (2) The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute on behalf of the city a Standard Subdivision Agreement guaranteeing completion of the public improvements required by law. (3) The city engineer is authorized to receive the improvement security, as required by law on behalf of the city, subject to the approval of the city attorney as to form. (4) The city engineer is directed to process the final map for recording upon receipt of the required improvement security and the payment of all fees. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, on this 22nd day of March 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: JACKSON, KELLY, PULUQI & SNYDER NOES: NONE ABSENT: WILSON ABSTAIN: NONE WALTER H. SNYDER, MAYOR ATTEST: t 4SHEIL , CI LERK q CITY OF PALM DESERT, E IFORNIA -s a s �.Y L73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 March 23, 1984 Tavaglione Construction Company 900 Arlington Avenue Riverside, California 92503 Subject: Final Subdivision Map Tract 19847 Gentlemen: At its regular meeting of March 22, 1984, the Palm Desert City Council approved the subject final map. Enclosed for your records is a copy of Resolution No. 84-31, approving the tract and the bonds and agreements relating thereto. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, SHEILA R. GILLIGAN CITY CLERK SRG:mpf Enclosure INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: City Manager and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR DATE:March 22, 1984 TRACT 19847 41 RECOMMENDATION: $r `3� Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. approving Tract 19847 and the bonds and agreements relating thereto. BACKGROUND: Tract 19847, commonly known as The Falls, is located on the north side of Hovley Lane east of Cook Street. This tract is slightly more than 56 acres in size and proposes the construction of 352 condominium units. Tract 19847 involves the completion of what was formerly identified as Tract 13407, Vista Del Montanas. The original developers of the first phase allowed the tenta- tive tract map on the remaining phases to lapse. The new tentative map was approved by the Planning Commission on January 17, 1984. All necessary bonds, fees and agreements have been filed with the city for Tract 19847, and it is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that the reso- lution approving this final map be adopted. BAR Y LELLAN, P.E. E*EWEAND C CUR CITY MANAGER DK:BDM/ms APPLICANT: TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 900 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92503 �1 RESOLUTION NO. 364 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP OF TRACT 19847, APPROVING THE AGREEMENT RELATING THERETO. BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: (1) The Final Subdivision Map .of Tract 19847, City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby approved as the official subdivision map of said tract, subject to the conditions of .the Tentative Map. (2) The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute on behalf of the city a Standard Subdivision Agreement guaranteeing completion of the public improvements required by law. (3) The city engineer is authorized to receive the improvement security, as required by law on behalf of the city, subject to the approval of the city attorney as to form. (4) The city engineer is directed to process the final map for recording upon receipt of the required improvement security and the payment of all fees. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, on this day of 1984, by the following vote, to i wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER H. SNYDER, MAYOR h ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIG N, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA ..46 , STAFF REPORT TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: TAVAGLIONE AGREEMENT RESALE DATE: MARCH 13, 1984 LIMITATIOIkJS I. DISCUSSION: At the city council's March 8 hearing, staff was directed to develop a system for controlling resale of the moderate priced units. The proposed limitations are based upon the following philosophy. The degree of city intervention into resale transactions should be related to the amount of the density bonus or other assistance received. Units within projects which receive large density bonuses enjoy substantial cost reductions and therefore need strong long-term controls to maintain these cost savings. Units within projects which receive smaller bonuses receive lesser benefits and therefore should be subject to less controls. Real estate investments involve a certain amount of risk. While many homeowners made substantial profits during the 1975-1980 period, many (including this staff member) would have suffered losses if they had to sell their home during the last 4 years. Since resale controls do not protect the owner from the risk of los:;, they should not prohibit reasonable gains. If the controls eliminate the major benefits of home ownership, then the entire program will be self-defeating. The Ta.vaglione project is receiving a small density increase from 5 dwelling units per acre to 6.25 units per acre. While this bonus contributes to the projects affordability, the primary cost. savings involve efficiencies of design and construction. The proposed controls will limit resale price increases to increases in the Consumer Price Index to a maxinrurn of 10% per year. Additional price increases will be allowed .for capital improvements. The term of the controls will be related to how the developer spreads the cost savings achieved by the density bonus. If he spreads these savings equally to each unit in a particular phase, then controls shall be in effect for 2 years. If -:hose savings are concentrated in the required 25% affordable units, reducing their trice at leas: $5,000 below the price of the remaining units, then they will be subje::t to controls for 5 years. Since the buyers of the higher priced units would not receive benefit :from the density, *.hey will be exempt from controls. -I.- RESALE LIMITAT IONS CONTINUGL) MARCH 13, 1984 Under these provisions the city staff will have to review each resale for up to five years. Another modification to the agreement would extend the moderate income target group marketing priority program from 90 to 120 days for each phase. The price and resale limitations will continue to apply after the marketing program expires,. U. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed agreement reasonably protects the city's interest in the preservaton of moderate income housing while allowing home buyers to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Staff recommends the council waive further reading and pass to second reading. III. ATTACHMENTS: {. 1. Ordinance 2. Agreement Prepared Reviewed by: Am 2 Y CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. _ EXHIBIT "A" TAVAGLIONE/PALM DESERT MODERATE INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This agreement' is made and entered into this day . of 1984) by and between the City of Palm Desert, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" and Nick Tavaglione Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as the "DEVELOPER" provides: 1. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm Desert, California, which property is described in "Exhibit All attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter "PROPERTY"). 2. Pursuant to the goals and objectives of the Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element and provisions of California State Government Code Section 65915 designed to facilitate the construction of housing affordable to moderate income households, DEVELOPER has applied and been granted conditional approval of Tentative Map 19847 and Precise Plan of Design 27-83 (hereinafter "PROJECT") to construct 352 residential condominium units on the PROPERTY. These approvals included a 25% density bonus increasing the density from 5 du/ac to 6.25 du/ac. 3. As used herein, "moderate income households" shall refer to families or individuals whose gross income does not exceed 120% of the Riverside County median income based upon financial and demographic information received from the United States Department of Housing; and Urban Development (HUD) or its successor agency. This information is contained in "Exhibit IN" and shall be updated automatically as data is -1- CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. obtained from HUD. If in the future more current data is made available by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics or other officially recognized agencies, the applicant rnay request amendment to this AGREEMENT to include this data. 4. State Government Code Section 65915 requires that at least 25% of the units (hereinafter referred to as "AFFORDABLE UNITS") within the PROJECT be affordable by moderate income households. Pursuant and in addition to this requirement, the DEVELOPER hereby agrees to price 100% of the units within Phase I of the PROJECT consistent with the incorne limits of moderate income households. This maximurn selling price shall be based upon a monthly payment (mortgage, taxes and insurances) approximately equivalent to 30% of the maximum gross monthly income of a moderate income household. This figure shall be adjusted according to size and type of unit. The following selling maximurn prices shall apply to Phase I of the PROJECT. - 42 two bedroom two story 991 sq. ft. $68,000 - 16 two bedroom one story 961 sq. ft. $70,000 - 42 three bedroom two story 1288 sq. ft. $78,000 5. Resale Controls: In an effort to discourage speculation and preserve the affordable nature of this project, the following resale controls shall be made a part of the covenant conditions, and restriction of the PROJECT. r a• Resale Price Increase Limitations: The price increase allowable upon resale of the units subject to this agreement shall be based upon the increase in the C.P.I. from the date of the close of escrow of the original sale to the escrow opening of the resale. -2- CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. If for any reason there is any change in the method of calculation of the C.P.I., or that price index is no longer published, then another index generally recognized as authoritative shall be instituted. Price increases shall not exceed ten percent (10%) per anum or the annual increase in the C.P.I., whichever is smaller. b. Ca ital Improvement Price Increase Limitations: A price increase shall be allowed for any capital improvements installed pursuant to a building permit issued by the City of Palen Desert, or such capital improvement as distinguished from maintenance which qualify under the Internal Revenue Code Section 263. C. Term of Resale Restriction: 1. When all units in a particular phase are priced within the affordable limitations set forth in section 4 of this agreement, resale controls shall apply for a period of two years. If within a particular phase there exists a price differential of $5,000 or more between the lower priced 25% AFFORDABLE UNITS and the 75% remaining units, then the • AFFORDABLE UNITS shall be subject to resale limitation for 5 years. The units priced $5,000 over the affordable level shall be exempt from resale limitations. When the price differential is less than $5,000, section 5, c, l shall apply. -3- CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. d. Enforcement: 1. Prior to the entering into escrow, the seller shall submit a maximum price proposal to the city for review and approval. The city's report will become part of the escrow docurents. The city shall receive all escrow documents prior to closing to certify compliance with this agreement. 6. The marketing program for the PROJECT shall give priority to moderate income households and shall include the following features: a. 30 days prior to the opening of each phase, the DEVELOPER shall advertise and receive applications from eligible moderate income home buyers. The minimum qualifications shall be: 1. I'Ainimum 2 person household. 2. Maximum income for the following household sizes- 4 persons or less - $30,150 (two bedroom unit) 5-6 persons - $33,900 (three bedroom unit) 3. The unit must be the purchaser's sole permanent residence. b. If the number of applicants meeting minimum qualifications exceeds the number of units offered, then the following priorities shall apply: 1. First time home buyers: Households which have not oviritA a home within the last 5 years. 2. Single parent households. -4- I CITY COUNCIL. ORDINA14CE NO. c. If 25% of the units within each phase are not sold to the target group during the pre-opening application period, sufficientt units shall be reserved during the next 90 days to insure that the 25% moderate income target can be achieved. Units remaining after this 90-day period may be marketed without restriction other than price provisions of section 4 and 5 of this agreement. d. At least 120 days prior to the opening of each subsequent phase, the DEVELOPER shall submit a price schedule to the CITY consistent with the requirements of this AGREEMENT. A minimum of 25% of the units in each phase must conform to HUD moderate income guidelines. e. The DEVELOPER agrees to allow the city to audit DEVELOPER'S records to determine that terms of this AGREEMENT are being complied with. 7. The DEVELOPER shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, sex, national origin or age. 8. The terms of this 'AGREEM ENT shall run until all units of the PROJECT are sold. 9. The provisions of this AGREEMENT shall run with, burden and bind the DEVELOPER and his successors. The provisions hereof shall be enforceable by appropriate legal action brought by the CITY. In the event legal action is brought to enforce any provision hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees together with other legally allowable costs. -5- CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 10. This AGREEMENT shall be reviewed by the CITY planning commission every 6 months, at which time the applicant or his successor shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the ,terms of the AGREEMENT. If as a result of this review the commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that the applicant has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of the AGREEMENT, it shall recommend to the city council that the AGREEMENT be modified or terminated. If the city council concurs with the planning commission recommendation, the AGREEMENT shall be modified or terminated. Proceedings before the city council shall be a noticed public hearing. If at the time of the hearings substantial improvements have not yet occurred on the site, termination of the AGREEMENT will also involve revocation of all previous approvals and permits associated herewith. If substantial improvements are already in place and modifications acceptable to the CITY cannot be negotiated, then enforcement of provisions of this AGREEMENT shall be pursued through legal action per No. 8 of this AGREEMENT. II. The AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. If any portion of the AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be e.nenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. 12. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal capacity to make the AGREEMENTS herein contained, that each sucl•I AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the year and date first above written. THE CITY OF PALM DESERT 6- CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. By By 6 nNICK TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION (Notarized) By ATTEST: -7- NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Negative Declaration TO: (X) County Clerk O Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth,St., Pm 13.11 4050 Main Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92MLra'im�)-�t7" T FROM: City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane ; Palm Desert, CA 92260 etavu:otvrv;eru ni. s:„ n�.:.:. SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of DLmtEW►nlatshu6ij:yrf<compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the public resources code. Project Title/Common Name: PP 27-83, TT 19847, The Falls Date of Project Approval: 0 1-17-84 State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted): N/A Contact Person: Phil Drell Project Location: 1200 ft. east of Cook Street, north of Hovley Lane Project Description: 352 condominium units on 56 acres This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project ( ) will, (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2._ An environmental impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. X A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures (X) were, ( ) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations ( ) was, (X) was riot, adopted for this project. BDARD 0 OE yUPcR�1`•�I�'!1S ��1) Signa� —ale FEB 2 71984 Date Received for Filing CLf.Nl:a1i Tan; t'o'ai)��R'Ia�tita S,e,ec Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope. CYE MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING; COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1984 Commission concurred that Commissioner Crites' clarification should be added as a condition. Chairman Wood asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. JOHN VELI, owner of property at 44-311 Monterey, stated he was in favor of this proposal. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 919, recommending to the city council approval of C/Z 12-83. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 920, approving PP 25-83, subject to conditions as amended. Carried unanimously 5-0. C. Case Nos. PP 27-83 an2t5-TT 19�,/TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan, tentative tract map and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow development of 352 condominium units on 56.4 acres in the PR-5 zone (with a 25% affordable housing density bonus) generally located north of Hovley Lane, east of Cook Street. Mr. Drell gave the staff report and reported the issues of concern were density and design. He explained that this matter should be continued to finalize the negotiations between this development and the adjoining development, Vista Del Montanas. It was noted several written communications were received in opposition. Commissioner Crites asked if the latest plans show the road system to be separate from the Vista Del Montanas. Mr. Drell replied affirmative. Commissioner Crites asked if there would be a wall dividing the projects. Mr. Drell replied affirmative. The buffer zone being one story buildings. Commissioner Crites asked if the city had purview of any previous agreements made with existing homeowners in the existing development. Mr. Drell replied no. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. NICK TAVAGLIONE, 9000 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, stated he had met with the Vista Del Montanas Homeowners Association's attorney and had reached an agreement.. He agreed with recommendation to one story buildings along the buffer zone; a six foot block wall would be installed; give up a piece of residential land for recreational amenities; and, landscape and maintain a strip of land along the wall and deeding this strip to them also. He requested approval without a continuance. MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, attorney for homeowners association, also outlined the agreement they had reached with Mr. Tavaglione, adding that the block wall around the perimeter would be slumpstone to match the one from the existing development with a 5 to 10 ft, setback; this wall is to be constructed within two months after building permits are pulled to prevent building imparts; he specifically stated 21 single story buildings would be built for the purpose of buffering; and drainage problems would be taken care of by Mr. Tavaglione due to the construction of the block wall. He -4.. b MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING; COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1984 requested that this agreement be part of the conditions. Mr. Diaz stated that the motion can include a statement "the plan shall be modified per the agreement reached by the homeowners association and Mr. Tavaglione." Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request. MR. JIM RE.SNEY, 75-005 Country Club Drive, asked if the single story buildings would be bordering The Lakes Country Club. Mr. Tavaglione replied affirmative. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Richards asked staff for the proper procedure on this request. Mr. Diaz explained that since there was no resolution prepared, commission's action could instruct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption at the next meeting. Mr. Diaz noted that final details of the agreement made between the homeowners association and Mr. Tavaglione needed to be made with staff in regards to substituting residential homes for tennis courts. Mr. Guralnick agreed. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Erwood; to instruct staff to prepare a resolution of. approval, to include all the changes and agreements made by and between Nick Tavaglione and Wayne Guralnick, attorney for the Vista Del Montanas Homeowners Association. Carried unanimously 5-0. Mr. Diaz added, for the benefit of the homeowners present, that the commission had instructed staff to investigate the preparation of a "perspective homeowners awareness package" which would illustrate what can or cannot happen in future developments. D. Case Nos. C/Z 10-83 and TT 19775, LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from O.S. to R-1, 10,000 and a 23 lot tentative tract map for 6 acres generally located on the north side of Haystack Road between Highway 74 and Portola Avenue. Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report and indicated that the proposal would be inconsistent with the general plan. Therefore, staff. recommended denial. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. BILL SULLIVAN, regional manager for Lewis Homes, explained that since there were several issues in the staff report that he could not respond to because of lack of time to review, requested a continuance. He gave the background for this property. He submitted a letter from Lewis Homes which gives reasons for the design concept of this matter. He believed this; proposal was consistent with the general plan and asked commission to consider the proposal on its merits. He reviewed some issues that were not addressed in the staff report and asked staff to address these issues. MR. STAN MORSE, engineer, requested approval. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Diaz noted staff did receive a petition by homeowners indicating they were in favor of this request. He felt this was a good planning solution in and of itself but -5 1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: January 20, 1984 Tavaglione Construction Co. 900 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92503 Re: TT 9847 and PP 27-83 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of January 17, 1984. Approved by Adoption of Resolution No. 926 Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/Icr cc: Coachella Valley Water District File PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 926 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 368 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 352 CONDOMINIUM UNITS r� ON 56.4 ACRES IN THE PR-5 ZONE (WITH A 25% AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS PURSUANT TO SECTION 65915 OF THE STATE CODE) GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HOVLEY LANE, EAST OF COOK STREET. CASE NO. TT 19847 and PP 27-83 WHEREAS, the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of January, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing and a continued public hearing on January 17, 1984, to consider the request by TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for approval of a 368 lot tentative tract map and precise plan of design to allow construction of 352 condominium units on 56.4 acres (with a 25% density bonus pursuant to section 65915 of the state code) generally located north of Hovley Lane, east of Cook Street more particulary described as: APN 632-030-002 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implemention the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that as mitigated, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: TT 19847 1. The proposed map, its design, improvements, type of development, and density are consistent with the State Subdivison Map Act, the Palm Desert Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan. 2. The design of the subdivision and required mitigation measures insure that the project will not result in environmental damage, injure fish or wildlife, degrade water quality or create public health problems. 3. The map will not conflict with public easements. 4. The map will allow unrestricted solar access to all lots. 5. The applicant has agreed to sell 25% of the project (88 units) at prices affordable to moderate income households. PP 27-83 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: -1- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 926 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in these cases. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby aprove TT 19847 and PP 27-83, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of January, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, ERWOOD, RICHARDS and WOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Am -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 926 Conditions of Approval Case Nos. PP 27-83 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 3. Twenty-five percent of the units shall be reserved and be affordable for moderate income households. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall execute an agreement with the city specifying the terms and conditions by which the required moderate income units shall be sold and controlled. 4. All on-site utilities, including cable TV, shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of environmental services. 5. All dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert or other appropriate agency, without cost and free of all liens and encumbrances. 6. The CC&R'S for this development shall be submitted to the director of environmental services for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 7. Prior to submittal of the final map, the applicant shall provide the department of environmental services with a list of proposed street names with at least three alternatives. The approval of the final street name shall be made by the director of environmental services. 8. The project shall contain three swimming pools, minimum dimensions 20 feet by 50 f eet. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall make a contribution of $42,000 to the Fringed Toad Lizard Fund. 10. The terms of agreement between Tavaglione Construction Company and the Vista del Montanas Homeowners Association shall constitute conditions of approval of this resolution. Department of Public Works: 11. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by City ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 12. Drainage facilities shall be provides: per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 926 13. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance. 14. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. 15. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the City Engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built".plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the City. 16. All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard private engineer. 17. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. 18. Landscaping maintenance on Hovley Lane shall be provided by the homeowners association. 19. Traffic safety striping on Hovley Lane 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 before placing pavement markings. 20. Complete grading plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of any permits. (Soil report to be included in submittal). ( Fire Marshal: 21. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow from any fire -- hydrant for a two hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured. Fire flow requirements will depend on built- in fire protection provisions of buildings. 22. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants located at each intersection: a.but not greater than 400 feet apart in any direction. b.so that no point of any building is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. c.exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. d.curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. e.hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. 23. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. 24. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 25. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in TT 19847, PP 27-83, is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal.' 26. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 926 27. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval. Am Ir� r -5- e PROOF OF PUBLICATION (20109 2015.5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICE TT 19847 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I as over the age of eighteen yearss and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE principal clerk of the printer CASE Nos.T1"47 AND PP of THE DESERT POSTS NOTICE E IS HEREBY REaBBY GIV- will EN newspaper of general cireula— be held oe�orelthe Pal" De- f tion printed and published weekly sect der a r�neepqquyCees5amm TAV to * consider aCDNSYRUCTION in the city of Riversides Count coRnPANr for'MWval of a y COMPANY plan,. ten�aflave tract of Riversides and which newspaper �pap and Negative Declaration I allow de men�teali mmloSalc�Iwo has been adjudged a newspaper of istory conndomap'rin�um units an general circulation by the (with acres In the able hone Superior Court of the County of tng eensnv moms*/ ge, LonIly e, Riversides State of California* east of Coo hStree Imore par- under date of October 5s 1964* ncu'or'y z`�c-0aaos2 as. Case number 83658; that the I, S lonpTaluesdw Ig will be .19U at 7:00 P.M., In the ab notices of which the annexed is minlstralive conference room at a printed copy* has been published term-510Fr�alnoorive Pofm Desert, California, a{ in each regular and entire issue which time and place all inter- ested persons are Invited to at. of said newspaper and not in any tend and be heard. supplement thereof on the following RAMON A. DIAZ Secretary dates* to—wit: Caiponfla aim Desert PDP-12/23 12/23 91983 I Certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated December 23s 1983 at Riversides California -- -- ---------- CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: January 6, 1984 Tavaglione Construction Co. 900 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92503 Re: PP 27-83 an TT 198 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of January 3, 1984. Minute Motion Instructing Staff to Prepare a Resolution of Approval Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRLYARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/lcr cc: Coachella Valley Water District File i i City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: January 17, 1984 CASE NOS: TT 198 7 and PP 27-83 REQUEST: Approval of tentative tract map, precise plan and a negative declaration of environmental impact to allow development of 352 condominium units on 56.4 acres in the PR-5 zone (with a 25% affordable housing density bonus) generally located north of Hovley Lane, east of Cook Street. APPLICANT:TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 900 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92503 L BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This item was continued from the January 3 meeting. At that hearing an agreement was reached between the developer and the Vista del Montanas Homeowners Association involving perimeter walls, landscaping and one story construction adjacent to existing development. A representative from the Lakes Country Club was present at the hearing and concurred with the compromise agreement. The features of the agreement have been incorporated into a revised map and site plan. The plan conforms to applicable zoning standards, public works and five code requirements. II. FINDINGS: The following findings can be made in support of the proposed map: 1. The proposed map, its design, improvements, type of development and density are consistant with the State Subdivision Map Act, the Palm Desert Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and General Plan. 2. The design of the subdivision and required mitigation measures insure that the project will not result in environmental damage, injure fish or wildlife, degrade water quality or result in public health problems. 3. The map will not conflict with public easements. 4. The map will allow unrestricted solar access to all lots. 5. The applicant has agreed to sell 25% of the project (88 units) at prices affordable to moderate income households. The following findings can be made in support of the precise plan: 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. _ 1 _ II CASE NOS. PP 27-83 and TT 19847 JANUARY 1771984 III. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolutions 2. Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact 3. Maps and Exhibits 4. Letters from adjacent property owners IV. RECOMMENDATION: Approve findings and adopt Resolution No. and approving TT 19847 and PP 27-83 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto. - 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 368 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 352 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 56.4 ACRES IN THE PR-5 ZONE (WITH A 25% AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS PURSUANT TO SECTION 65915 OF THE STATE CODE) GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HOVLEY LANE, EAST OF COOK STREET. CASE NO. TT 19847 and PP 27-83 WHEREAS, the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of January, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing and a continued public hearing on January 17, 1984, to consider the request by TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for approval of a 368 lot tentative tract map and precise plan of design to allow construction of 352 condominium units on 56.4 acres (with a 25% density bonus pursuant to section 65915 of the state code) generally located north of Hovley Lane, east of Cook Street more particulary described as: APN 632-030-002 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implemention the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that as mitigated, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: TT 19847 1. The proposed map, its design, improvements, type of development, and density are consistent with the State Subdivison Map Act, the Palm Desert Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan. 2. The design of the subdivision and required mitigation measures insure that the project will not result in environmental damage, injure fish or wildlife, degrade water quality or create public health problems. 3. The map will not conflict with public easements. 4. The map will allow unrestricted solar access to all lots. 5. The applicant has agreed to sell 25% of the project (88 units) at prices affordable to moderate income households. PP 27-83 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: -1- I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. I. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in these cases. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby aprove TT 19847 and PP 27-83, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of January, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Am -2- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Conditions of Approval Case Nos. PP 27-83 Department of Environmental Services: I. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall execute an agreement with the city specifying the terms and conditions by which the required moderate income units shall be sold and controlled. 4. All on-site utilities, including cable TV, shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of environmental services. 5. All dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert or other appropriate agency, without cost and free of all liens and encumbrances. 6. The CC&R'S for this development shall be submitted to the director of environmental services for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 7. Prior to submittal of the final map, the applicant shall provide the department of environmental services with a list of proposed street names with at least three alternatives. The approval of the final street name shall be made by the director of environmental services. 8. The project shall contain three swimming pools, minimum dimensions 20 feet by 50 f eet. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall make a contribution of $42,000to the Fringed Toad Lizard Fund. 10. The terms of agreement between Tavaglione Construction Company and the Vista del Montanas Homeowners Association shall constitute conditions of approval of this resolution. Department of Public Works: 11. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by City ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 12. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. 13. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance. 3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. 15. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the City Engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built" plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the City. 16. All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard private engineer. 17. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. 18. Landscaping maintenance on Hovley Lane shall be provided by the homeowners association. 19. Traffic safety striping on Hovley Lane 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 before placing pavement markings. 20. Complete grading plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of any permits. (Soil report to be included in submittal). FIRE MARSHAL: 21. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured. Fire flow requirements will depend on built- in fire protection provisions of buildings. 22. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants located at each intersection: a.but not greater than 400 feet apart in any direction. b.so that no point of any building is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. c.exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. d.curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. e.hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. 23. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. 24. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 25. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in TT 19847, PP 27-83, is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal." 26. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 27. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval. Am -4- POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE(619) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. Case No: TT 19847 and PP 27-83 Applicant/Project Sponsor: TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 9000 Arlington Avenue Riverside, California Project Description/Location: 352 condominium planned development on 56.4 acres located north of Hovley Lane east of Cook Street. The Director of the Department of Environmental Services, 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 of ts, may also be found attached. e IV 'f�" RAMON A. DIAZ &ATE r.�7� Director of Environmental Services RAD/tm l CASE 1170. ikty Z 3 (D$e� ®1z aa.n rn-r,, ='171R0N-'1= TAL SERVICES DEFT. INITIAL STUDY S1`TVIR01TSIE111TAL EVALUATIOIT CHECKLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — -- b. Disruptions , displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soil ? — — c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering , or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in : a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of Objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement , moisture , or temperature , or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? — — Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a.t. Changes. in currents, or the course or 4 direction of water' movements? b. Changes in-absorpt7bn rates, drainage Patterns, or the rate and-amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration Of-the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, i either through direct additions or with- I drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water er- wise available for public waterSupplies? suupplieies? _ 4. ------------ Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants (including trees , shrubs , grass , and crops)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? . C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ✓ 5. Anima_ l�p Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals Into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration tO existing wildlife habetnt 4. Yes Maybe No 14. Emolo ent. Will the proposal result in additiona new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 16. Housing. Will the proposal result in: e ✓ a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? _ b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? ✓ . 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the pro r e s posal u t in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ✓ e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists , or pedestrians? 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ _ v b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including ` roads? _ _ v f. Other governmental services? 18. Pub] i_ic pascal Balance. Will the Yes Maybe No result in a ne`an-ge in government proposal scal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19• Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? — d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? v 20. Huma Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? b. A change in the level care provided? of community health ✓ 21 . Social Services. Will th a e proposal result in ✓ n increased demand for provision of general _ social services? 22. Aesthetes . Will the proposal result in: y ✓ a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive ✓ site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood ✓(or area ) attractiveness , pleasantness, and uniqueness? 23. ht and nGlare. Will the proposal produce ✓ ew light or g are? 24. Archeolooical/Historical . Will the resu t in an a teratton of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, Object, or building? 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findinqs of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which oc curs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: �`'�— ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST EXPLANATION OF MAYBE RESPONSES CASE NOS. TT 19847 and PP 27-83 5.b ANIMAL LIFE: Development of the site will destroy the blow sand habitat of the 'Threatened" fringed-toad lizard. As a mitigation measure, the developer will contribute $42,000 to the Fringed- Toad Lizard Fund for the purpose of purchasing and preserving critical habitat north of Interstate 10. 116 Running Spring Drive Palm Desert, Ca . 92260 BAN ' 01984 January 4 , 1984 ECITM N ENTAL sERVICES OF PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca . 92260 Re: Case Nos. TT 19847 and PP 22-83 Gentlemen: It is my understanding that the proposed development on the southwestern border of The Lakes Country Club has an approved tentative tract map calling for 156 condominium homes on 34 acres. According to my calculations, this is 4� units per acre , considerably higher than the surrounding developments in the Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage areas . I purchased at The Lakes Country Club because of the low density and openness afforded by the golf course . I understand that the condominiums are two stories and I find that especially objectionable as I know of no residential development in the immediate area that utilizes a two story design. As an owner adjacent to this property, I strongly object to the proposal based on the density as well as the two story design. As you might suspect, many of the residents at The Lakes Country Club are not full time residents of this area, but I can assure you after they 've learned of the proposed project, I believe you will find a very discontent group of people . I trust that better judgment will prevail and the Planning Commission will deny approval for this project. The project is not in keeping with the low density and low elevations that are so prevalent in our beautiful city . Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Warren W. Smith WWS : jm VITA- RESH Vitamin Co, Inc. 7366 ORANGEWOOD AVENUE,GARDEN GROVE,CA 92641 P.O. BOX 3185,GARDEN GROVE,CA 92642•(714) 898-9936 January 2, 1983 D ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Case Nos. TT 19847 & PP 22-33 Gentlemen: I would like to object to this two story housing project. My home is on Running Spring Drive which is on the border of this planned development. If this two story project is allowed to proceed with their current plans, I will lose the complete view of the mountains in the front of my home. All the other planned developments in this area are low density and single story and I believe that this new proposed project is not compatible with existing and proposed land uses. I , hereby, register my objection to this project. AJimSierely, B. Z tin Chairman of the Board CHICAGO OFFICE 333 NO. MICHI AVE.,SUITE 1500-CHICAGO. IL 60611 (312) 782-1119 GAN r �d, (Bowermaster-Oastiam &Rssoei&s �' j; Y� � rJnsurana�gtn�p �Jnc. ra January 4, 1984 0 t J9 7z r `n,ni y IR7 �vvl.zur,n�rr43:;I s_,r�� City of Palm Desert ^ITl' GF Pn.L ir•E�, Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re : Case Nos. TT 19847 and PP 22-83 Gentlemen: I've just received notification to the effect that the Planning Commission is considering the above cases. As a resident of The Lakes Country Club, I am very much concerned about the proposed density and structure of the buildings. As a homeowner who enjoys the area of Palm Desert, I was certainly not anticipating having to be blocked by 2-story buildings from the view we enjoy so much. I wish to register my strong objection for the consideration of 2-story design in the particular area involved. We have purchased in this particular area because of the beauty of the mountains which are currently accessible, and certainly would not desire that our view of the mountains be blocked. Your consideration of our objection will be greatly appreciated. ))very truly yours, Y v, �4CzvYJ1�+2 u W. F. Bowermaster 184 Running Springs Drive Lakes Country Club WFB:am 10631 Paramount Blvd. Downey.Cali fornia 90241 • (213)923-9631- (714)522-4700 9767 Babbitt Avenue Northridge, California 91325 / "ORTIC1921VID�?, December 30, 1983 ,l€N(! - l 1984 / ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF pALM DESERT City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-'510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CAlifornia 92260 Re: Case Numbers TT 19847 and PP 22-83 Gentlemen: I just learned about a proposed two story housing project involving the referenced case numbers. As a homeowner, in the rather expensive, well designed Lakes Country Club, I am both surprised and concerned. Our family has made a significant home investment to enjoy the natural beauty and quality of life offered in the Palm Desert area. I believe The Lakes Country Club is a quality development consistent with that of several other developments and hotels in the area either currently in place or under construction. Based on what I have seen, I strongly believe the proposed two story project will detract from the scenic beauty of this immediate area. My home, which is at 268 Running Springs Drive, would look towards a two story structure vs. the beauty of the mountains which was a large attraction to us when we made our recent purchase. I am also concerned that in addition to obstructing the natural beauty, if this project is undertaken it may detract from the value of my investment. I understand there is a public hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission on January 3, 1984. Unfortunately, I cannot attend this meeting. However, I hope that this letter clearly expresses my strong objection, and, I know I speak for several other neighbors on my street. Sincerely, 1n Ol�/r vV� Bruce Kanter BK/mm beneficial Income Tax &rvice of California, Inc. 3230 E. Imperial Highway 203 Roy B. Gerber Brea, CA 1te 92621 Tax Supervisor RT023TID 714/996.7990 JA N - 5 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES " CITY OF PALM DESERT December 29 , 1983 Atten: Planning Commission of Palm Desert We do not want any two story units on or near our property at Vista Del Montanas . In addition to that it was my understanding that five per acre was the maximum 'allowed. Seriously concerned, 0 ya ado cc : Elaine Kaplan President of Association o Beneficial' Aailialea cdmpdnl9e wM oftes Inrougnow lee United Slates.Canada.Australia.Valaw.Ja0an New Zealand.lne United x.nqaom a West Germany 4 19M ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES �,:,; i CITY OF PALM DESERT �a �ek-erg" 35 .E 7j� o - �l 60 alc EPALM * DESERT MARILY TAMPGER RIVER CA 92260 02AM a . - • • • 4-0101315002 01/02/84 ICS IPMRNC2 CSP LSAB 6193400757 MGM TORN PALM DESERT CA 59 01-02 02SOP EST CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION �� 73-510 FRET CARING DR PALM DESERT CA 92260 Jq AI' 4 1984 ENVIRONMENT CIS OF p ocsii S REGARDING CASE OTT19847 AND PP22-83 AS RESIDENTS OF THE LAKES COUNTRY CLUB WE BELIEVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND WE -HEREBY REGISTER OUR OBJECTION TO THE PROJECT, JOHN AND MARILYN STAMPLER 166 LOST RIVER DR PALM DESERT CA 92260 14151 EST MGMCOMP N m r a N N TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM MESSAGE, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL- FREE PHONE NUMBERS i C' �° - n� � JAN - 4 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES r CiTY OF PALM DESERT T T P? 7 -003 � . kA-� tol- 5 w V Y/ 44, ��� - g zy2- 73 ZZU AN 91984 Oi IqMet(TALSERVICES ENVIV110 DESERT 7 / gFg7 � fit' as - X3 ad eneficial Income Taxwervice of California, Inc. 3230 E. Imperial Highway Suite 203 • Roy B. Gerber Brea. CA 92621 7141996.7990 Tax Supervisor JF�N�91 aDecember 29 , 1983 OVIRONMEPNTA DESERT SERVICES CiT[ OF -- — Atten: Planning Commission of Palm Desert We do not want any two story units on or near our property at Vista Del Montanas. in addition to that it was my understanding that five. per acre was the maximum allowed. Seriously concerned, .a r 64 �ZZ�cU cc : Elaine Kaplan President of Association o Beneficial AMabMa CMMaws wvn otlCes OKOugmul Ine United slates.Ganaaa.Aust0lsa.Ireland.Japan.Now ZeaieM.tM Untm KingOOM b wev Germany �I t g Beneficial Income Tax ervice of California, Inc. 3230 E. Imperial Highway 203 \� Roy B. Gerber Brea, CA Suite 92621 Tax Supervisor 714/996.7990 J1nvf v T3!, � F JAN- a 1se4 ENVIRONMENIAL SERVICES CITY OF PAIM DES£ December . 29 , 1983 Atten: Planning Commission of Palm Desert We do not want any two story units on or.- near our property a-t—v-i-stz�'Del-Montana-s-.-r" that it was my understanding that five per acre was the maximum allowed. Seriously concerned', ©lam-it-�YL 7� Z2�✓��'+ Co2o,�,r1_ Sz�o cc:,,: Elaine..Kaplan r _ President of Associaiion --`�" `—�` M Beneficial Affiliated comoen!os with offices mrde9how the UniIEC awes.Canada.AUSVdIia.Ireland.Jadan.New Zealano,me Vmled King=-6 wesi Garman, r Beneficial Income Tax Service of California, Inc. 3230 E. Imperial Highway 203 Roy B. Gerber Brea, CA1te 92621 Tax Supervisor 714/996-7990 December 29 , 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL SEfi?YICt.�. CITY OF PALM DESERT Atten: Planning Commission of Palm Desert We do not want any two story units on or near our property at Vista Del Montanas. In addition to that it was my understanding that five per acre was the maximum allowed. n ' co n , Roy B. Ge ber crg- fZz.Go cc: Elaine Kaplan President of Association 1 o Ac 7f 36u _ 0e.•-n-4>2.- 7,1/ny4 s `� Pc 7cytioL�t« R AA ex0o s e-yt—' VIA D0-ri1,60 (�vCl7Ta2.K� 7f Zzf/iSTgCo2oNq o Beneficial Affiliated companies with offices throughout the United Slates,Canada,Australia.Ireland,Japan.New Zealark,the United Kingdom 6 West Germany TT I PP 23-%S Neels Brea Morfuari NEEL FUNERAL DIRECTORS, INC. ESTABLISHED 1911 January 11, 1984 619,84Piresideni C_d OTIS D.WEDDLE - ECUY OF ANTAL SERVICES Vice President Mr. Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner PALM DESERT CAROL D.WEDDLE City of Palm Desert Toressuirer VTHA NEEL WEDDLE 73-510 Fred WaringDrive THA Secretary Palm Desert, California 92260 VIVIAN H.WEDDLE Dear Mr. Sawa: I would appreciate it if you would forward this letter of protest to your Planning Commission. I am referring to Mr. Keith Andersen's Wolf Lodge project adjacent to Monterey Country Club. I have several objections to this project with number one being the density, which is proposed to .be changed from 5 units per acre to 7 units per acre. I feel the density would have a detrimental affect on the environment and tranquility we enjoy at our Monterey location. I am also disturbed by the 21'-3 story height for this project adjacent to the surrounding 1-story projects at Monterey and other country clubs in the area. We have no objection to development in this area but would like any development to be within the current guidlines of 5 units per acre, which we understood to be the maximum density of this property when we purchased our condo at Monterey Country Club. Our address is 445 Sierra Modre North, which is part of the property that would be affected the most. Thank you for considering this matter. I will make every effort to be present at the hearing to watch your Planning Commission exercise prudent judgment regarding projects surrounding this area. S- cer ) F4DT154S-r CDW/jC arol Wedd 835 S. BREA BOULEVARD • BREA, CALIFORNIA 92621-5386 • Telephone (714) 529-2194 0 (213)694-3974 r ' LV''PcIO: i�ICI: P,�_i;E02AP:DUh1 City of Palm Dcscrt TO: CITY dANAGFR ZO."A: DIRE(:TOR OF E,A1V11ZONMENTAL SEIZVI(-ES SUBJ2CT: Ri=c 15E PLAN 27-53 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19547 DATE: JA NI1,''IRY 5, 1954 The planning commission at its regular meeting of January 3, 1954, in effect ^)roved an applic=. lion perrnitting the development of 352 condominium units on 56.4 ,a(-res in the PR-5 zone (,with a 25% affordable housing density bonus). The project is located north of Iiovley Lane, east of Cook Street, it is the vacant portion of tl,e partially completed Vista Del PAontanas development. An agreement between the developer, Tavaglione Construction Company, and the Vista Del S,ontanas Property Owners Association was reached during the meeting. The net impact of this action means that Palm Desert will receive 70 owner occupied moderate income units at no expenditure of public funds. It should be noted that this f,ct .vas made clear at the hearing and both adjoining property owners' r r,_ natives (Sunrise Corporation and VD,MPOA) approved of the project. I should also clarify that this approval is consistent with council directive relating to higher densities. Chapter 4.3 of the California Government Code states that if a developer provides at least 25% of his units within a housing project affordable to low or moderate income households, the city or county shall grant a density increase of at least 25% over the density allowed by the zoning ordinance. If the increased density is not granted then an equivalent in financial incentives must be granted. In this project the additional seventy units roust be affordable to households earning less than $30,120 yearly. Attached is a copy of Chapter 4.3 of the California Government Code. I believe that this is the most ideal way for Palm Desert to meet its legally mandated housing obligations, we are providing the housing without any expenditure of city or redevelopment funds. The action taken by the commission is final except for possible approval of the required agreement to deliver the affordable units to the appropriate low to moderate income groups. �ZA 40N A. DIA'Z RD/lr :nt to zny other p:ov;on of I .w. For t`u 1,irfr__-s of tS°s 5L-c-Z-411 ,.dministrc five e,tti.y" , On or ens .�.�•_n,'y dx.-s:y:::f�-d by the legislative body of tlr_ city co-' ty, or uty .-Id c_,u•ity to owns--- review of all pn-ruits or app!i itiau rcq red by tic local a—,cncy. (,added by Stats. ls80, Ch. 1152.) 65913.4. This d.nptcr sf >ll eY,ly to all c_ _s, including darter Finding �t;.s, counties, and cities =� c-inties. The Legislature finds and declares that the development of a sufficient supply of ho;.,sing to meet the nee. of all Copine nians . is a matter of statewide concern ;added by Stats. 1930, Ch. 1152.) Chapter 4.3. D<nsity Bonuses And Other Incentives 65915. When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least Housing development 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons for low, and families of low or moderate income, as defined by Section in or moderate50093 of the Health and Safety Code, a city, county, or city and cot e county shall enter into an agreement with the developer to either grant a density bonus or provide not less than two other bonus incentives for the project. For the purposes of density increase of at least 2 this chapter, "density bonus" means a 5 percent over the otherwise allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance. The density bonus shall not be included when determining the otherwise allowable density. The density bonus shall apply to housing develop menu consisting of five or more duelling units. Other bona, incentives which a city, county or city and county may agree to provide under this section include the following: (a) Exemption of the development from the require- ments of Section 66477 and any local ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. (b) Construction of public improvements appurtenant to the proposed housing development, which may, include, but shall not be limited to, streets, sewers and sidewalks. (c) Utilization of federal or state grant moneys or local revenues to provide the land on which the housing development will be constructed at a re- duced cost. (d) Exemption of the development from any provision Of local ordinances which may cause an indirect increase in the cost of the housing units to be developed. Nothing in this section shall preclude a city, county, or city and county from taking any additional actions which will aid housing developers to construct housing developments with 25 percent or more of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low or moderate income. The determination means by which a city, county, or city and county will comply with this chapter shall be in the sole discretion of the city, county, or city and county; provided, that no developer shall be required to enter into an unacceptable agree-ment as a prerequisite to 79 ��rcval of a :_ _ ing d:nv•!i: ..'c:�t. (%,:d•:d ':y S . ;s. 1979, Ch. i ticr a :t ,=-.i iS 65916. Where th:rc /,_ . is a dir::ct l contributicn to a Scr,:ng direct fi:i. cial development pursuant to Section 65915 through participation in cost contribution of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost of C'siructiOn, the city, county, or city and county shall assure continued availability for low- and moderate-income units for 30 years. When appropriate, the agreement provided for in Section 6,915 ,shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry out this section. (Added by Slats. 1979, Ch. 1207.) Lcgk!ative ir.*ant 65917. In enacting this chapter it is the invent of the 1_egi5!2.ture that the agreement offered by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of low- and moderate-income housing in proposed housing developments. (Added by Slats. i979, Ch. 1207.) Charter cities 65918. The provisions of this chapter' shall apply cities. to charter (Added by Slats. 1979, Ch. 1207.) Chapter 4.5. Review 'and Approval of Daveiopmcat Proj,� Article 1. General Previsions Applicability to public 65920. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provi- agencies sions of this chapter shall apply to all Public specified in this chapter. To the extent that athe provisions of gencies to the extent chapter conflict with any other provision of law, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. (Added by Slats. 1977, Ch. 1200.) Policy 65921. The Legislature finds and declares that there is a state- wide need to ensure clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development Projects and to expedite decisions on such projects. Consequently, the provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to all public agencies, including charter cities. (Added by Slats. 1977, Ch. 1200.) Fxempticxtis 65922. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following: (a) Activities of the State Energy Resources Develop- ment and Conservation Commission established pur- suant to Division 15 (commencing with Section 25000) of the Public Resources Code. (b) Administrative appeals within a state or local agen- cy or to a state or local agency. (c) Approval or disapproval of a final subdivision map pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision h'ap Act (commencing with Section 66410); provided however, that the approval or disapproval of a final 80 oap TPD811IlrnMI IlD®=Pnp-C�, 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: January 6, 1984 Tavaglione Construction Co. 900 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92503 Re PP 27-83 d TT 19847 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of January 3, 1984. Minute Motion Instructing Staff to Prepare a Resolution of Approval Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. 4 //99 RAMON A. DIAZ, SEICRATARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/lcr cc: Coachella Valley Water District File I City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: January 3, 1984 CASE NOS: PP 27-83 an�preciT 19847 REQUEST: Approval of a se plan, tentative tract map and a negative declaration of environmental impact to allow development of 352 condominium units on 56.4 acres in the PR-5 zone (with a 25% affordable housing density bonus generally located north of Hovley Lane, east of Cook Street. APPLICANT: TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 900 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92503 L BACKGROUND: A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-4/Residential Condominiums South: S.I./Industrial Park East: R-1, 12,000/Vacant West: PR-5/Residential Condominiums B. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, 3-5 d.u./acre. H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the completion of what formerly was Tract 13407, Vista Del Montanas. The original developers experienced financial difficulties after the completion of Phase I and allowed the tentative tract maps on the remaining phases to lapse. Phase I was completed with 146 single family detached condominiums. The proposed project will use essentially the same circulation pattern as was delineated in the original tentative maps. The proposal departs from the original concept in regards to density and unit type. A. DENSITY: The base zoning of the property is PR-5 which permits five dwelling units per gross acre. Chapter 4.3 of the State Planning Law (California Government Code No. 65915) states that if a developer provides at least 25% of the units within a housing project affordable to low or moderate income households, the city shall grant a density increase of at least 25 percent over the density allowed by the zoning ordinance. If the city does not grant the increased density, then it must provide equivalent financial incentives. In this particular case, the developer is requesting the 25% bonus increasing the project density from 5 d.u./ac. to 6.25 d.u./ac. The additional seventy units must be affordable by households earning less than $30,120.00 per year. The actual terms by which the sale of these units will be controled will be the subject of an agreement between the city and the developer. The increased density will not result in significant negative traffic or aesthetic impacts. The type and design of the proposed units may change the appearance of the project. - 1 - CASE NOS. PP 27-83 AND TT 19847 JANUARY 3, 1984 B. DESIGN: In place of the 12 foot high, one-story conventionally sited single family detached unit originally planned; the applicant proposes twenty-four foot high two-story fourplexes with detached garages. While the existing units have minimal private open space, the proposed units would have 600 square foot private backyards between the unit and the garage. The units will either front or side onto the street. Short alleys will serve the rear garages on the front-facing units. The contemporary Spanish style architecture is compatible with the existing units. Although the PR zone allows two-story units up to thirty feet in height, it is important that there be a smooth transition between the existing one-story units and the new two-story units. This is especially true when the existing residents purchased into what they believed to be a uniform project. The two-story design does offer new residents an unusually large private yard without sacrificing common open space. It also complies to ordinance standards in regards to coverage, open space and parking. The Vista Del Montanas Homeowners' Association has reviewed the plan and strongly objects to many features of the proposal. Of special concern are the two-story units and the increased density. Sunrise Company has also reviewed the plans and has requested modification of the configuration of the units on the north side adjacent to The Lakes Country Club. C. STAFF ALTERNATIVE: Of the two major issues, density and design, the city only has discressionary control over the latter. The 25% density bonus or equivalent is mandated by state law. The extra 1.25 units will not result in significant observable impacts. The impact of the two-story design will be significant. While one cannot expect the applicant to continue building a product type which was partially responsible for the failure of the original project, the concerns of the existing residents must be addressed. Since the zone allows two-story units, it would be difficult to totally prohibit any two-story construction simply because the orignial developer chose a one-story design. The proposed two-story design is vital to the private yard concept, an unusual feature within a condominium project. The design alternative recommended by staff, would substitute one-story units along the streets which form the boundary between the existing and new phases (Via Domingo and Vista Corona). This would result in the existing residents fronting on units of similar design and height as their own. The buyers of the new one-story units would know in advance of the existence of the two-story units. Along the boundary with "The Lakes", the modules can be reoriented resulting in an 80' setback for the two story units.This alternative is similar to the ordinance design standards required for the boundaries between R-1 and multifamily districts. D. SECONDARY ISSUES: The applicant proposes that the new phases will constitute a distinct project with its own homeowners' association. This raises questions concerning how the two associations will interact. The new project will use the entrance and private streets presently maintained by the Vista Del Montanas Homeowners' Association. Recreation and open space will be maintained and regulated separately. The existing project has two 20' x 40' pools for 146 units (one pool/73 units). The applicant is proposing three 24' x 40' pools for 352 units. (1 pool per 117 units). Existing residents report these two pools are quite crowded during the summer months. To avoid the possible impact on the existing pools, staff recommends that the three pools be enlarged to a minimum of 50' in length. This will create a pool area equivalent to a fourth pool lowering the unit/pool ratio to 88. - 2 - I CASE NOS. PP 27-83 AND TT 19847 JANUARY 39 1984 SECONDARY ISSUES (CONTINUED): The old phase was without tennis facilities. The new project will have four courts. The applicant has proposed that the court could be available to existing residents on a second priority basis. E. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A negative declaration of environmental impact was filed on the original tract map. Since that time, one new significant impact has been identified. The project does involve the Fringe Toed Lizard habitat and will be subject to the mitigation formula developed for the Marriott project. That mitigation would be a payment of $42,000 to the Fringed Toed Lizard Trust Fund. This payment will increase the project cost by approximately $120.00 per unit. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue the public hearing and direct the applicant to incorporate staff alternative into site plan and continue working with staff and Vista Del Montanas Homeowners, Association to resolve remaining issues. 4V. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Government Code Section 65915 2. Site Plans and Elevations 3. Letters From Adjacent Property Owners Prepared By:���- Reviewed and Approved By 1 /pa - 3 - pursuant to any other provision of law. For the purposes of this section, "administrative entity" means a person or agency designated by the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county to oversee review of all permits or applications required by the local agency. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1152.) 65913.4. This chapter shall apply to all cities, including charter Finding cities, counties, and cities and counties. The Legislature finds and declares that the development of a sufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of all Californians is a matter of statewide concern. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1152.) Chapter 4.3. Density Bonuses And Other Incentives 65915. When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least Housing development 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons for low, or moderate and families of low or moderate income, as defined by Section income 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, a city, county, or city and county shall enter into an agreement with the developer to either grant a density bonus or provide not less than two other bonus incentives for the project. For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a density increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance. The density bonus shall not be included when determining the otherwise allowable density. The density bonus shall apply to housing.develop- ments consisting of five or more dwelling units. Other bonus incentives which a city, county or city and county may agree to provide under this section include the following: (a) Exemption of the development from the require- ments of Section 66477 and any local ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. (b) Construction of public improvements appurtenant to the proposed housing development, which may v include, but shall not be limited to, streets, sewers and sidewalks. (c) Utilization of federal or state grant moneys or local revenues to provide the land on which the housing development will be constructed at a re- duced cost. (d) Exemption of the development from any provision of local ordinances which may cause an indirect increase in the cost of the housing units to be developed. Nothing in this section shall preclude a city, county, or city and county from taking any additional actions which will aid housing developers to construct housing developments with 25 percent or more of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low or moderate income. The determination of the means by which a city, county, or city and county will comply with this chapter shall be in the sole discretion of the city, county, or city and county; provided, that no developer shall be required to enter into an unacceptable agreement as a prerequisite to 79 r approval of a housing development. (Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 1207.) Further action if 65916. Where there is a direct financial contribution to a housing direct financial development pursuant to Section 65915 through participation in cost contribution of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost of construction, the city, county, or city and county shall assure continued availability for low- and moderate-income units for 30 years. When appropriate, the agreement provided for in Section 65915 .shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry out this section. (Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 1207.) Legislative intent 65917. In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that the agreement offered by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of low- and moderate-income housing in proposed housing developments. (Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 1207.) Charter cities 65918. The provisions of this chapter( shall apply to charter cities. (Added by 5tats. 1979, Ch. 1207.) / Chapter 4.5. Review and Approval of Development Projects Article 1. General Provisions Applicability to public 65920. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provi- agencies sions of this chapter shall apply to all public agencies to the extent specified in this chapter. To the extent that the provisions of this chapter conflict with any other provision of law, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. (Added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 1200.) Policy 65921. The Legislature finds and declares that there is a state- wide need to ensure clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development projects and to expedite decisions on such projects. Consequently, the provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to all public agencies, including charter cities. (Added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 1200.) Exemptions 65922. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following: (a) Activities of the State Energy Resources Develop- ment and Conservation Commission established pur- suant to Division 15 (commencing with Section 25000) of the Public Resources Code. (b) Administrative appeals within a state or local agen- cy or to a state or local agency. (c) Approval or disapproval of a final subdivision map pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410); provided however, that the approval or disapproval of a final 80 a . ,r 1 l i JYv l\�i 40.4 i I ( _ W !B v = f 0 71,z� 77 =8 g El � / Z R . F . WATERS "��o�H ,. " I 7101 MAGNOLIA AVM. RIVER810E lil, t r at lC_t— A A! t� t fi Wes. -- � •. S y.y.}�•. f � ��'- Fl R i': a t e � r , � � y L• �a,E��o-✓/ � is LC�:[�� c Z e: :L. ``i sy%�.�[-C� .��t�C<-tc���-C��L� , 2 8 1983 ENC�nl,Whilrya�lAl SQ?YKES cy C lie .� dnz �?f Flu ti C� � fit.?-'.C.�c•����ec�..c.��e".�..«yG(�esv,�.tiv�ztZ�i�G // .�� � �J�'iza-tf�-,c�..o���i�.,ev � .�/i.C• �>T-cee.e.� �6'-a�, ��t�4✓ �=-��' . .��r;yK�sG�-�e� «e.<� a-,r✓ � •..�� ��-e�, .GGr,.2e�ce��.Ge�ti, �i��''f'.e.-a G��K ,e�u�� ✓ �.�inv eX'7y,���z��cc¢�c-%Ga�¢.c-tC »Ly �/>�-inc:�n ,�I.Lc-�L*�-� ,iGG/�-!WG� �'�l� cis �l/i-°�,�t`'�%`.e�GO �y b'/�.�,•,, -'L/tC/ �a•G'sL/uLGGI✓�y� ,�'-u�, �;t �JL(� �t-�-e2�.c.�iGl7.'� .��.�LG2c' ✓k.�liL-t% c�L�' ->� ,,�/u. �,o���yC -�-tom:-.�-tiQ-Kz>�� �J`'�c. ,�e� a�r� ✓ �,�/'� -�--�-�" G?n-u-F�, �.�c�ct�r,,��,�.•'s�,,f'�a-,�-u� ,��.,2-�a� � �``r / ��, l� „t,!'uai ar�a,Z�o�•ry����-'� I ��,f,��.,r�erG ���el'�-��2��'�.r,�' .1 AP eccing 5 inturior5 at the Arbor rn cu to LO L > in X 9 �L LL�-tZiZ ` 'G4-�ti✓✓I..w� l�� _.--7Zl.Gt-a� �i Y._ c � ez� lFt•"��-Gi PiZ'� L.:(.t7 /�//�c9-7�.c�,.,:a�-��. �.Iit KJ / ��V Ccxee,LN r-c/u ,t, e �//�"���°-��x• � 7/�at� �Q�fLer SL.�v��ees� caauee� ez- i � Q —jy',Yf.r�Zc- '-l'���'Z.e`�G� ��E G�--�c c„z�2.�c� �A�/ � ULe�-� G�c.� /Zc�x�w.u�y' Gu. G���a�-� ----- 3 SA CD ayo l�S — - _ , � '� tu.�C 1�9�s win 4G4 4un7C ....... N-s 0w- L,(4- _LA., soLA— ovlr� Y ry.J,A UL M- , -a-mou COMPANY• December 23 , 1983 EN'.•IaLrtatE;�:,,. City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re : Case Nos. TT 19847 and PP 22-83 Gentlemen: we believe that the proposed two story, "affordable" housing project referenced above is inconsistent with surrounding land uses , both existing and proposed. The area can probably be best described as a low density, resort area. The project wraps around two sides of an existing single family subdivision and is bordered on the north by The Lakes Country Club, currently under construction with nearly half of the homes sold. Sales prices of the condominium homes in The Lakes average well over $200 , 000 with full country club amenities and a density of only 3 homes to the acre . We understand that J. M. Peters Company has a development planned adjacent to the northwestern border of this project; its approved tentative tract map calls for 156 condominium homes on 34 acres for a density of approximately 4h units per acre. Other projects in the area are also low density, resort developments such as Silver Sands Racquet Club, Palm Valley Country Club and the new Marriott Resort Hotel. The two story design is especially objectionable; no residential development we know of in the immediate area utilizes two story design. The surrounding residents ' views would be adversely affected, especially those resi- dences closest to the proposed project. The site plan shows several two story structures only about 20 feet from the property line and just a short distance away from homes at Sunrise Company ' s The Lakes Country Club. In addition, two story design is not in keeping with the low profile architecture prevailing in the area. In short, the proposed project is not compatible with existing and proposed land uses and we hereby register our objection to the project . V, truly yours , Jack M. Conlon President 75-005 Country Club Drive. Palm Desert, California 92260 • Telephone 619/568-2828 BUILDER OF AMERICA'S FINEST COUNTRY CLUB COMMUNITIES 1 December lb, 1983 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19847 AND PP 22-83 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for approval of a precise plan, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow development of 352 two-story condominium units on 56.4 acres in the -PR-5 zone (with a 25% affordable housing density bonus) Generally located north of Hovley Lane, east of Cook Street, more particularly described as: A.P.N. 632-030-002 The „0 Lakes +ra r l to P.R,-4 Country Club _ ru„I,a srn(o o(Itt ro(�li(_sr�l_i,( orvn - i : P.P. fq- S.P. p.,enw., P.R.-4 � (D.P. 1948) /�'.:a�"=..`'rt. l vl�Fi ....._ ...yr S.I., S.P S.L, .P. •ryyy;�,�y,. +' I ( S.I. , T — I' air a•.[ .* COVNLY C[ Glv[oyOE L SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 3, 1984 at 7:00 P.M., in the administration conference room at Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred 'Haring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RA:\ION A. DIAZ, Secretary Citv of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post December 23, 1983 /Da LA Telegram westErn union MESSAGE\ ' / / ORIGINATING\ ,n �/�L % E FIL' SH NUMBER /�. L ./ OFFICE / ' ..- TO: ADDRESS. r:.75 CITY - STATE & ZIP CODE: - �`!c >ti -/�i�/T't✓. ��>v:_,.._/' l''�� �iC l�G��. �'C �r�, .�i�"7 G7i2p f✓�+'t�� SIGNED: ENVIkJIV MEN 7.CL SCF:Vtt'(:� //�✓j� western union Telegram MESSAGE ORIGINATING DATE FILING TIME NUMBER c)o� �� s OFFICE T O: y J C(�/ ADDRESS: CITY - STATE & ZIP CODE: �`I /, ,, 1 �/ / f i%L:''<.✓ -ll ,4d C"�`-C'/�� i�j1S, W�-i-: & / 44Y )1-Z C'i LiV-I'U/L C� R20,'661 M'C �.�L.• IL-1� l/Cti-e.ctix� U. '�� �CJw�.��c�L-c-ce.�e / I/i c�,r,�� /,� ,4l , C' C7��: w/� A,Cl " 1a '� 'U i 1 w� y F3o � G'-a c-Ll- �I ..LU_'c�'0 ��'�"• AM C� /IL e6-P�-ft l C -J--j C�ti�Cc,v,�s'I cL� SIGNED: C) 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVIOES C'TY OF PALM DESERT Aio 17, J -k " 1 7 61� Jaw ;mj 71 ��-�'9roiy Cep A January 3 , 1984 MI(C1'b�'IIT DD Mr . Ramon A. Diaz , Secretary City of Palm Desert, California ti?84 and the Palm Desert Planning Commission ENVIR0NMENTAL SERVICE$ CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Sirs : I should like to voice my objection to the proposed develop- ment by Tav _ ' ne_Construction Company on a site adjacent to The Lakes Country Club. As a condominium owner at The Lakes, I have invested con- siderable money to live in a low-density, completely low- profile area which provides quiet, serenity and unobstructed view of mountain and sky. I feel that many other people have come here in the twilight of their years for the very same reasons as I have. It does not seem appropriate to me that you would even consider allowing multi-story dwellings in this area. There are already too many towns and cities in California where lack of sound planning has resulted in a devastating mumbo-jumbo of ill-suited architectural styles juxtapositioning and little or no allow- ance for green belts and recreational areas . Let this not happen in this marvelous desert soot! Surely there are other areas that the Tavaglione Construction Company people might do well to consider for their development , for which, I am sure, there is a need. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. Charlene C. Smoot 286 Ruuning Spring Dr. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 619-340-6029 P. S . I am not a weekender here, but, rather, a permanent resident.CCS ENVIRONMIWAC SERV.,- San lemente, California Cl7y OF p4W D£S£R7- 125 East Avenida San Juan December 28, 1983 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Warring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: Palm Desert Planning Commission Gentlemen: It.has come to my attention that there is a proposal for multi-unit housing at the south side of the Vista Del Montanas development on Hovely Street. I was appalled that there could besuch utter disregard of the plans as presented to potential buyers of this property when we purchased our homes, might even be considered. I have a home at 75-265 Vista Huerto and have spent considerable money on upgrading the home with the thought that I will occupy it even more as I have retired this year and I am a widow. With the plot plan in your office and at the sales office of Vista Del Montanas, we were assured that these would all be free standing, single family, one story homes. What has happened to the intregity of a city that would allow two story, density housing, low cost condos in the remainder of this property. We understood from Covington and Kavanaugh that the property in question would be like the present housing, and now it seems the proposal is totally different than that. I feel that all of us who have homes here have been totally mislead and would create a real hardship on many of us who have spent money on our homes, if this were considered. I sincerely trust that the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission will completely turn down this unjust proposal on the property inside Vista Del Montanas on Hovely Street. Very truly yours, 1. Frances a. Beshears THE S TAT L E R H i LTO N AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN SEVENTH AVENUE, 32nd to 33rd STREET . NEW YORK N. Y. 10001 TEL. Area Code 212 PENNSYLVANIA 6 511000 r\ es ehT Pr k iv� CC G".y "3'rA 3 cif JA 1 S '` 7�l / l� p ENVIRpN 1984 Clry. Qp ANrq� S � o l�RvlTFs ��rr-t-1erv,p,Jl� I V�Q S I /n� LA)1 1" 1�0 1 et�' -1'h•e Y'oL�¢a+ �e l-1, f�r"e .Sid a/ SSaY H-F�d-r d A 16 I e TI OCIV..S/ t.I� 11�'\'o \ e6` YL�6YeI�I(C�C RTpoY'�. . �\ S /1�C/I ISC/ S*ANT Wl� g t.��rowNd\nIQ VI_AN� 4-S P.-.f � btl� EWLC'�'t rsG V- � IAN NEC. M I 7, SV-f"ovy �etl''r� t,i cs pco in � � lfy a.bI_\e� towlc� Rr11�?�ide NY-t f1� cie4 r-.o t�wl 4JC 11�Koi,7 o F t N '{-�,Q c �n'hgd.t pcYte n i/t i.�d .0 Vim\,- y �'�-w� y �Jpw�•vr� 3 I913q 5U a N b S FT 1 V1 d ` ,3 FNvrRo Y� Crly OF EM s e FREES i �.�. �vA � � yr�'7 YN Ls YQ n Ilv , Ct 1 to p OF Al II J �1' mil . � � ` �,J�1- '�c�rt�•-.Ca,�1 \9 11`D 14 D s&o r) c�ea • �^ ` , , �i' Ze \ e\7 h o a 4\ c q,- \. \ \\ \IZ-A�>1 CL S��V A9-S I `�`'� \��. 4 100 .-11resf �cC\v"o �oa I\/( QC�1 v�` \2,v..oIA � \\_ 1177 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE �.�•, -�I PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 PHONE 17141 3Z55591 n,� `i Gayle Bostwick JANUARY 3, 1983 Running Springs 5Dr. The Lakes C.C. Palm Desert i 9 . CA 92260 t Members of the Planning Commission Palm Lesert, Ca. 92260 REFERENCE: Case No. TT 19847 & PP 22-83_ Please Note, sirs, my OBJECTION to the above planned pro- jeact for the following reasons 1) Thursday, 12/_*�,&/83, 1 met and spoke to the builder, Fir. Tavaglione regarding his planned Droject inthat I live, as a full-time homeowner, directly behind the wall and planned four-plexes included in his plans. 2) He showed me his renderings and plot plans, also the par- ticular section was pointed out planned behind my home. He told me,plus illustrated on the plans, "You will be facing the tot one-half of the four-plex's or. . .a plain stucco side of the bldg. plus tile roof with two(2) small bathroom windows." He explained a single story garage would be north of the bldg. , yard'. (not maintained by the assoc.) and NO trees whatsoever, then the upper half visible to me as described above. Certainly not a desirable building and would detract from the area tremendously . 3) I particularly asked then as to any trees planned , "NO, why should I . . .?V was his direct quotei and as to price, he first told me"from the $70,000's to $80's" , however, as we parted company he changed those figures tot"$60's to$70's" I had hoped. to attend tonights meeting as I am very up- set altho donotdeny any builder the right to build as long as it does not hinder, hurt or blight an area. Due to a spinal injury I am afraid I cannot sit through the meeting. Thus my letter and objection. Thank you for your kind attentiioon� and hopefully the project will be voted down. 5T A Al F. Q. C � ��FnF'�is1► 9 RIV-1652760-RWJ DESCRIPTION: IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: TENTATIVE TRACT 13407-4, BEING A DIVISION OF: PARCEL A: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13,406, AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 64 PAGES 66, 67 AND 68 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND; THAT PORTION OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 10; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45' 26" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, 1140.12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 44' 03" WEST, 578.44 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 15, 57" EAST, 108.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 44' 03" EAST, 23.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 15' 57" EAST, 41.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 44' 03" EAST, 51.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 15' 57" EAST, 63.10 FEET, TO THE BEGINNING OF TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 615.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE ON ARC DISTANCE OF 186.83 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE SOUTH 46 DEGREES 51' 35" EAST, 104.59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43 DEGREES 08' 25" EAST, 8.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 45' 26" EAST, 930.23 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 04' 21" EAST, 717.00 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM LOTS 1 THROUGH 106 AND COMMON LOT "A" OF TRACT 13407-1, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 103 PAGES 68 TO 72, INCLUSIVE, OF "LAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFOR- NIA. PAGE 6 l 5.0 A Al ER / Q. C RIV-1652760-RWJ PARCEL B• THAT PORTION OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DF,SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 10; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45' 26" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, 1140. 12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 44 ' 03" WEST, 578.44 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 15' 57" EAST, 108.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 44 ' 03" EAST, 23.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 15' 57" EAST, 41.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 44' 03" EAST, 51.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 15' 57" EAST, 63.10 FEET, TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 615.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE ON ARC DISTA14CE OF 186.83 TO A TANGENT LINE: THENCE SOUTH 46 DEGREES 51' 35" EAST, 104.59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43 DEGREES 08' 25" EAST, 8.83 FEET; THFNCF.. NORTH 89 DEGREES 45' 26" EAST, 930.23 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 04' 21" EAST, 717.00 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. « « w w « PLAT ATTACHED/PC/SAX, PAGE 7 w t y r.„o £ I VET FU OD La s z 5 x m n hn � /~ i `a' , `��\,., 1,�.' j v• r�� .I &u L1�1 `e s�i C��4�1 Old PQL� iI DC �C � FORK 65 2751qr-r0cfft0y Pur fLanag PeOm f eau Ca.9228® SUBDIVISION MAP APPLOCA'nON FORM : departmant d m w1mIDoummenUP emrAlm s a pilau nit d0w0clon a -TAVAGuouE Co►J6' Jcnortl 0005JLErNor COHPANH Applicant (pleoss print 9 000 as "m&T-om Avc GS'?- s?tea Mailing Address slephone (Z�JE2SIb6 F CA 97_.So3 City State Zip-Code REQUEST: (Descrtbe specific nature of approval requestedJ. 35Z U►JtT 'PLAWNE� 2ES� Di�u`rtdl DEd�c.oDM>�.crr- PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Po2�io�J © � PAlLeFL Z PAaegn_ ~ I g., 406 PMB L¢ 49 C I T� DE PAW Co uA= 2E 12( ✓�Sroe ai TSS , (L6E•) ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 6 Z- D5O^� OZ. EXISTING ZONING l.1 e-'S Property Owner Authorization The undersigned states that they are the owner(*) of the property described herein and hereby give author- oration for the filing of thls applimtlot . IZ-R-83 Date greement absolving the of Palm Desert of all liobllltla relative to any deed restrictions. I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, Absolve the City of Polm Dem" of oil liabilities regarding any deed restrictions that may applicable b the pi rty described herein. Signature Dote Applicants Signature J7•Q-d 3 Sigr0ture Date fFOR STAFF USE ONLY) E ranrerMr11 Status Accepted by: ❑ Ministerial Act E.A. No. ❑ Categorical Exemption CASE Ha ❑ Negative Declaration ❑ Other Reference Case No. rem. exn azevxzs fArs 647re . f t o Tr 1pfgh a RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: C1 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER (WCE) 600 E. Tahquitz Way w a _ Palm Springs , California W � cc SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ANNEXATION FOR MOUNTAIN VIEW FALLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THIS SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ANNEXATION is made this 14 day of �uAl4e , 1988, by MOUNTAIN VIEW FALLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit. mutual benefit corporation ( "Association" ) , and DOUGLASS BUILDING SYSTEMS, a California corporation ( "Developer" ) , with reference to the following facts: A. On or about June 19 , 1984 , a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Mountain View Falls Homeowners Association ( "Declaration" ) was recorded as Instrument No. 130398 , Official Records of Riverside County, California. B. Section 3 of Article XVII of the Declaration provides as follows : "Upon approval in writing of the Association, pursuant to the two-thirds majority vote of members other than Declarant, any person who desires to add property other than the property described in Exhibit "B" to the plan 'of this Master Declaration and to subject such property to the jurisdiction of the Association, may record a Supplemental Declaration. The approval requirements of this section shall also apply to the property described in Exhibit ' "B" subse- quent to the expiration of Declarant ' s uni- lateral power to annex such property to the plan of this Master Declaration as described in Section 2 above. " C. The real property described in Exhibit "D-l" attached hereto ( "Annexable Property" ) constitutes a portion of property originally described in Exhibit "B" to the Declaration. Said Annexable Property was not annexed to the Association prior to the expiration of Declarant' s unilateral power to annex, and is now subject to annexation only in compliance with the requirements of Section 3 of Article XVII of the Declaration. D. Developer is the current owner of the Annexable Property and desires to annex same to the Association pursuant to said Section 3 of Article XVII of the Declaration. E. Prior to the date of this Supplemental Declaration, pursuant to a two-thirds majority vote of members of the Association other than the Declarant, the Association approved in writing annexation of the Annexable Property. follows : NOW, THEREFORE, Association and Developer declare as 1. Pursuant to the terms of Section 3 of Article XVII of the Declaration, Developer hereby annexes the Annexable Property to the Associati on and Association hereby consents and agrees to such annexation. Subsequent to recordation of this Supplemental Declaration of Annexation, the 'Annexable Property shall be held, sold, leased, transferred, occupied and conveyed subject to the terms, provisions, covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements of the Declaration, and this Supplemental Declaration of Annexation. f, 2. Regular and special assessments prbvided for in the Declaration shall not commence as to residential lots in the Annexable Property until the first day of the first month following the conveyance of the first residential lot to be conveyed in the Annexable Property by Developer, or Developer 's successor in interest, to the purchaser thereof. 3. "Effective as of the commencement of assessments as provided above, membership in the Association shall be expanded to include all of the owners of residential lots in the Annexable Property, including Developer, and each of said owners shall be entitled to each of the rights or privileges and benefits of an owner, as provided in the Declaration, and shall be obligated to comply with each of the obligations and responsibilities of an owner, as provided in the Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Association and Developer have executed this Supplemental Declaration of Annexation this ¢7t/ day of fu/vE , 1988. ASSOCIATION: MOUNT IEW FALLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Cal if r is corion, By: J v r ide t By: 12as Secretary DEVELOPER: DOUG BU LDING SYSTEMS: By: r iden By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Secretary )ss. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE /} ) On (/5` 07 �Yu.no /rj Q�' , before me, the undersigned, a Nary/Publ c i and for aid State, perso lly' appeared z�D r'l J�C kni t and hit) 'ru 77 VY_ LEVI 0 7_ , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfac- tory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instru- ment as President and Secretary, on behalf of MOUNTAIN VIEW FALLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONt, a California corporation, the corporation therein named, and "acknowledged to me that such corporation executed t rument pursuant to its by-laws or a resoluti iv�tcOi� r a Ee0 directors . • NOTARY PLI& M.CALWOM«A ES&RftW W1Vfijfl nd off cial s al. MY COMM. EXP. JOKE 24.1990 STATE OF CALIF6RNIA ) )ss. COUNT OF RIVERSIDE ) On 0 �t�n e, /�, before me, the undersigned, a N ary Pubis iTn and s for sid Stat p`rso i Y eraaz d a [4AIZ nk� �� S S personally k wn o me or proved to me on the basig of satisfac- tory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instru- ment as President and Secretary, on behalf of DOUGLASS BUILDING SYSTEMS, a California corporation, the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. UAL IT? �` d and off ial se 1. NOT Al1Y WlU RIVERSIDE COUNTY COMM. EXP. JUKE 24,1290 l r PARCEL MAP N0A � 23287 PARCEL 2 OF PARM MAP l�N1Y AOF wvE� '?A'fk CTI�'�`ON oN S 8�R E�'S!b l M ... � w.'N.....Y �w— tom• .. .n ....... Y... I . h P A R C E L I 1 ..� •w....• YY . \. `...r.. ter. 1 .. .1•�,.j i'p r.M. •o ,. I 1 SCALE 1,.100' •. nr q.r Y.Y NPNA. w I (a IZ 1� J.I.IL � .• ly -DEILIL • I . :• 1 1 f .u•.•.w r-.► .... .._.�. w.iv r.yu /_"IL `t• 1 ...• •N/•1• �•11 i �1e 1 ... I{., n _Yw. _ ___ _ _-_Nr ..w w.rwwr I ' u•v`.._-.x+.r. .NW r'S�•. 1J1..._ •'Sid s 1 ....w.W IT lag �ISY w NY4 �lY Yw � � � — • YI ' r ��1 1 � . 1 DETAIL C i • 1 In Ia.L..1.. Uf PARCEL M���� A�SPIl1 NON. N23287 'COUNTY OF RivERSIDIE tT�ff Of CA11fORNrA t .11 EA 6Cj M Rf CONDFR S CEN1YCAll AW1CN IEEE sHan r.w. F rM. 1•wr.I Y 1.CEA I IFICGIIE C k ENWNEER'S CERIIFCAIE . r W.w.r.....�r.....H ...+.......Y.a.mo...........HY........w H....�..:'� � :d ... •r...r..YMYYYrYYr..i.{.r riY.\rH.\\ \ .mow. Y.HYY.HAY W...a..rrr.YYYYO..Y.M �r..yi.Y a iyw:rs w ro .�4 Yr. fYi.~iui. •.Yw r.f M i`�•`rr wr. r'L r r.w r.r. ..r.... r ...•.r.r.a. r.....�.HOYi[.0 sr.s rir.o r..rudr - sr. o. r -- - --- CITY ENUwEER'SCERIIFICATE ( -• , ••••• .Y ri..r Y.Y.Y.Y+.�Y.Y...F H.�.aY..Y ' Y.d..Y/..YM M.i11N11.1Yr..1\YNYsfi[I Y[•I u.1 w(w W)Y/LE IMlW NI Yx.. .. •_ � r .... .rNl Y u..ra•orr CITE � k • ,oY.F. —+ rr .1+•w�.a s.rlrler+eow:H CITY CLEW(CERTIFICATE Y ' MW OEEEIIT ' Or WW .wY1"IY.q W fA"'I"I".J.w • YMOI W.Ip YI�IRITV MAP IMUiIIE r_r. . ..�. .��..�Y. IAII COLLECTOR CERIIFCAIE S1GIUIURE OMISSIONS .+V,....'y.r.+ VY ux ......•' ua. .�-+..4Y.. ...H\Y.wr..r.IHNnJa.Y H.....W.r.Y►Y ..IP+I..'\x.1 • Y.M1.... I.. �...I... ..Y.Y..a d.Y.�W..r.M iMY.W..4�r.....N.,.u.YYI....Y V.Y.....Y.IY.W...Y w I.UTAIn At ANOWLEOGMENI .. ••••.• SOPS REPORT •r.�a.�'� ww......Mr YI.Y r..O V.Yr.�.r .H..y Y..Y ..YN . .. . . •'+:iurs arYa sY•"..wr•.t.rc.a w�':.�yy 1NI iOMD LFRIIFCAIE .'.w r=r.q v�.�.'.....r. i .w ui.o..o .. ..r. .. wYr..... ..�...... -•. •. .. � w YOMa V.r �F V1.rr�.�..�(Y. IW.YM.I..L yp•ry.�..� u�u .der... {a • t.I.V...a...Y H.... H id.x.y...aft.....�..1 WeIV.Y.YI rY V I I...i.r.W Iv.:w riw•Y..w...W.sdY r..ws .. ywurrAudamcrY w - r.rd.wi.ii A G R E E M. E N T THIS AGREEMENT is made this Z3rzi day of April, 1988, by and between Mountain View Falls Homeowners Association, a California non-profit - mutual benefit corporation ( "Association" ) and Douglass Building Systems, a California corporation ( "Developer" ) , with reference to the following: A. Developer has acquired or is in the process of acquiring an option ( "Option" ) to purchase 6. 58 acres of real property depicted as Tract 19847-6 on Exhibit "A" attached hereto . and identified as "Remainder" on Exhibit "B" attached hereto ( "Annexable Property" ) . The Annexable Property is currently unimproved but Developer intends to construct 44 residential units and related common area improvements thereon. B. The -Annexable Property is. located adjacent to the real property depicted as Tract 19847-1 on Exhibit "A" attached and legally described on Exhibit "C" attached ( "Phase I Property" ) . The Phase I Property is currently improved with 100 existing residential units and related common area improvements. The Phase I Property is under the jurisdiction of Association pursuant to a Declaration of Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions for Mountain View Falls Homeowners Association recorded on June 19 , 1984 as Instrument No. 130398, Records of Riverside County, California ( "Declaration" ) . The Annexable Property constitutes a portion of the property originally contemplated for annexation to the jurisdiction of the Association, pursuant to the Declaration. C. Developer now desires to acquire the Annexable Property, to construct 44 homes and related common ' area improvements thereon, and to annex same to the jurisdiction of the Association, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows : 1. Approval by Members. As expeditiously as possible subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, Association shall attempt to obtain. approval in writing of at least two-thirds ( 2/3 ) of its members to annex the Annexable Property, in the manner described in Article XVII, Section 3 of the Declaration. 2. Approval by City. As expeditiously as possible subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, Developer shall attempt to obtain approval by the City of Palm Desert ( "City" ) to record a final subdivision map on the Annexable Property, legally dividing it into 44 residential lots and one or more common area lots . 3 . Recordation of Declaration of Annexation. If the approvals described in Sections 1 and 2 above have been obtained within 90 days after the date of this Agreement, Developer shall exercise the Option and purchase the Annexable Property; as soon as reasonably practical thereafter, Developer and Association shall execute, acknowledge and record a Supplemental Declaration of Annexation in the form of Exhibit "D" attached. If either of the approvals described in Sections 1 and 2 above has not been obtained within said 90 day period, this Agreement and the rights of , the parties hereunder shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing, terminate in the manner described in Section 7 below. 4• -2- 4. Development of Annexable Property. Subsequent to the recordation of such Supplemental Declaration of Annexation, Developer shall develop the Annexable Property,, in accordance with the following: A. Developer shall construct 44 residential lots with residential units thereon. The exterior architectural style and appearance of the residential units will be similar to that of the existing residential units on the Phase I Property. There will be eleven ( 11) two (2 ) story buildings, each housing four ( 4 ) residential units, two of which will be two (2 ) bedroom 991 square foot units, and two of which will be three ( 3) bedroom 1288 square foot units. Association acknowledges having previously received and approved plans and specifications for said residential units and agrees that no further review of same shall be required by Association or the Architectural k'view Committee of Association. B. Developer shall also construct the following common area improvements: One (1) swimming pool and one (1) spa, each at least of the same dimensions as the swimming pool and spa currently existing on the Phase I Property, and, if allowed by the City, one ( 1) tennis court. The swimming pool, spa and tennis court shall be located in the general area indicated on Exhibit "A" attached. Association acknowledges having previously received and approved plans and specifications for all common area improvements and agrees that no further review of same shall be required by Association or the Architectural Review Committee of Association. -3- 5 . Proposed Wall. Association represents that it currently holds contractual rights from The Lakes Country Club ( "Lakes" ) , pursuant to which the Lakes has agreed to construct a block wall where indicated on Exhibit "A" attached (Proposed Wall" ) or, in lieu thereof, to pay Association a sum of money equal to the cost of constructing the Proposed Wall. As a fair exchange for Developer agreeing to construct the swimming pool, spa and, if allowed by the City, the tennis court in the manner described in Section 4 .B. above, Association agrees to and shall, effective upon recordation of the Supplemental Declaration of Annexation described above, waive any and all contractual rights to have the Proposed Wall constructed, or to receive any payment in lieu thereof. 6. Limit on Developer' s Obligations. Association acknowledges and agrees that Developer shall have no obligation whatsoever with respect to any improvements previously constructed on Phase I; Developer 's only obligation shall be to construct improvements on the Annexable Property in the manner described above. 7. Budget Approval. Association acknowledges that as part of the development of the Annexable Property, Developer will be obligated to submit a budget ( "Consolidated Budget" ) to the Department of Real Estate ( "DRE" ) which consolidates the existing budget for the Phase I Property with the proposed budget for the Annexable Property. Association agrees to work and cooperate with Developer in connection with creating and obtaining DRE approval of same. Association specifically agrees that any Consolidated . -4- Budget which shows a monthly per lot assessment equal to or less than the existing monthly per lot assessment for the Phase I Property shall be deemed acceptable and approved. B. Termination. This hgreement shall be terminated and become null and void upon the occurrence of any of the following: T'A. ''` Failure to obtain either of the (approvals described in Sections 1 and 2 above within 90 days after the date of this Agreement. 'B. Failure of DeveloperJto, obtain the Option within 90 }days after the date of this 'Agreement. 9 . Other Documents. Each party agrees to do and per- form any and all acts and to execute, acknowledge and record any and all documents reasonably necessary or expedient to effectuate the intents and ' purposes of this Agreement. Association specifically agrees to supply and/or execute any documents reasonably required by the DRE in connection with Developer's application to the DRE for a Final Subdivision Report covering the Annexable Property. Each party further agrees to act in good faith and to exert best efforts in connection with performing and/or effectuating its duties and obligations as specified herein. 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters contained herein. Each of the parties agrees that there are no other representations or agreements, oral or written, other than -5- as set forth herein and that this Agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing, duly executed by both of the parties. 11. Time of Essence. Time is specifically declared to be of the essence of this Agreement and each and every provision hereof. 12. Captions. The captions, titles and/or headings used herein are for convenience only and shall not be used to modify the content of language contained thereunder. 13. Attorneys ' Fees. In the event of any litigation arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief the court may award, to reasonable attorneys ' fees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement and made it effective as of the day and year set forth above. ASSO TION: By: S President � J By: ! Y• Secretary DEVELOPER:--, If t;.: �, By: President By: Secretary -6- �d�.T� 'Xu 18/ T wh.,� \ �M%STAFI 3Oq 310 311 1woulvalm V/SW L L5 316 �J17 918 320 � 321 w • 322 323 324 1� I.� r. b wnulhny Enymeen I """i"� •" m..0 I V C SHLL IS IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT - PARCEL MAP 5NO. 23287 ►�ELr� 195 .PIIIOA/7L 2 OF PARCEL MAP CT�07.38 N6 Sees tY RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE M/ERSIDE.87 iE � ylpy O PYp EE/�IECH I/89 `I{Y..O _ C4YW., b Y 4n.,t• .vml R 5 CERTFICATE CF&ENGINEER'S CERTFICATE � rrrPw.r�w�\PNIYfIwY u4.4,POYMY .UYI..w..Y.YGNaVCY..V...OYfu..b....V.r.T.V..w YYn.w.u. - M _ _ •R>.Ywey wqy tVY.w.r4fYwq W..G.O M.NfO..[ .Y.\YY\.W.wP..P.w 4✓\YV.Ii w u..t YOu 1Y0.,Y•r a.b.wN V M YP..a,V V YPw ~.O Y NIPYwV V YY V,..\,.Y.Y✓ln..r��r V.4V qIY\I M W qY •\r'Yb,YMP/YIwP 11111 LDIw. rY�w'I.Y..bMYr.AYaYwTI K...y.bypN t �W1 YYY.rM.N W..a..r01\INY.P.YrYi .-YfI4wY mYr.ur..wN.�r�Y.Vrw..•M...bV,.P.w.V - r 11111OY PWP N wu •Nq\PO.Y.LN...fI.YaO r.YO.IYCO PVY iaY/...0 IFJ."�IOr1RP.Y" . - - -- — CITY ENONEER'S CERTWICATE Y / • IY.wb.�V Isri./.YO.Y.YY�+q.b M'...IwY(Y.YWY.P.YYP Yrw,V OM Y.i ON.\fIwI1YN.rwa P.YIY.Vp. ra W.O.YrI.YnYPlIYY1MYl.NPY.TIY.N[f NOfARf ACxNOWLEDOAIEM eowm «Y9 NPe SITE E - +.rlrrr Nr�..F1gw/0__.rYNrr� --___— _ •aa.wrcw —��_ � wM1!!Y �r wo..r Y.aNO r`.P�rmOr AV NM YIRY YOdM MY�i� i •N•M .Mf mwlw Y.a Y.O 1 V! . + �.V��Vemgpt♦Nw.IYCDIPMYI.YY4..r.iiwlO tq tYwOY.O. a0 , P o.o..�,Ir.rrm.ws�..YY rr CRY CLERK CERTIFICATE Y wrwwrwY.Ya .rw.P•oY.PrP.b.wrvrw orrw W./.N.\frrr.urNYw. MW 0[tGT • Y f� wN .YY,A�YrMON m.f i Y w OP.Mr.rM M.ML MtKT 11PY OY..rL1PI.ev� Ywr_r.v ,W Y(IYPAt —'— wm►�envwPKr- '-' YfINITY MAP IRUSIEE .If ..�,..r..N.......�� We Y w.•rmP.Yr r.. .w r TAX COLLECTORS CERTIFICATE SIGNATURE OMISSIONS +Y.•byr�`o:u.rr.,uY <.w..b,rbrirb W. YNwo��..\..ie, w wYnb.r.o Yf...w.PWY, YYrwVIfP Ywur Y+ro - -.-. .w NrYfwY....MaY.M44,.N I..ra.a.YU.]w.P.0.. VY. V.Nfr fwY.POY.YNYfNYN YYYNI ' .4rwr\I.IYwn..N.YI,R,YY.V.W YY/PYrro.Y.r.rIM.YN.�., Yq. .M .. .0 YNYNYI.w.taMVP..nYY tWY. .Y..�NNr. IY .O tYNYw.P P4.IrfS.WY..Mi P.\OYYI '.UTAHY A(XNOWLEDDEIENT ter:umYtNw SOILS REPORT r Wowr .Yf Ygw ras .FYP6YncrG,.i....'i TAX BOND CERTFICATE wwwe..__ ___r.sYwYlr..sw.wwPwel.srNNiw MiJnO'R�, V. oKlOb.q. nM�.aaw,N rY1 rf Y\..YW..rN\uM.i�Yw4V -• . �.-�. .:OwY,OYOM.Y.w1 .�.wrb (y,�0 r.Y 41b.Y 0V,VYe.IV.Y,Yw,o �...MY�.w..�V LPwN YfYY....u.YYi,.Y/a.Y.M.O Y.M.w.K•YY IPY.ryLfNYGI.nI •• .. M.TGFYY40.I�P0 Y _ ___ Y gOMYO W.I • e I1rOQ EAQIRNI{ IN IIIL NII VI ..,uo Y�uu.. "�-•+ , PARCEL MAP N0. 23287 i PAi10El ]OF PARCEL A4P I PM W.66-66 AND PANCLL / OF PARCEL MAP li95l PM Ipp1 C1gN IO i 5S.R6k SBb AN .t. COUNTY OF RWEASIDE.SiA4 IFORNM 1 Ul 1•Il • 1 I ) H) P A R C E L 1 ; .. ;r J• _ , '. SCALE 1*-IW* IF a_IAa a 1` @TALL A �r I DETAIL _ __ _ - _ —fin w.f r./-ww - . .•J'•u.f�f�it__ . _ _ LANE _ NN_ M �♦ 1 ....• _ ,�Il ./01.1...... 1 I M.4L.41ww.lYMwYYLY Y rY 1 .• I'y w/.. • �. .i\ ' I f� D u',.rL,Yr..I w...W.oO_. ' ) IY ^ , •. wY1Ya MMY._O Y.W44..•MYr: S « n, 1 J 1 1 :.. Iw..n1..Y 1 i BBSIBIT •C• LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PHASE I PROPERTY All lots (residential lots and common area lots) in Tract 19847-1, as shown by map recorded on June 1, 1984, in Book 140, of Maps, pages 94 through 99 , inclusive, Records of Riverside County, California. :vF -r• a sT AME11 RECEIVED JAN 2 9 1992 COxMUkIN Of PAII sEfti lxem First American Title Insurance Company 3625 FOURTEENTH STREET, (P.O. BOX 986) RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502-0986 • (714) 684-1600 January 28, 1992 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Attn: Planning Dept. RE: Tract 19847-3 Gentlemen, This letter is to request a copy of the Negative Declaration on the above mentioned Tract for the benefit of the Department of Real Estate. I have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for your reply. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Si�ely, Evelyn Sawicki, Subdivision Consultant RESALE LIMITATIONS CONTINUED MARCH 13, 19d4 Under these provisions the city staff will have to review each resale for up to five years. Another modification to the agreement would extend the moderate income target: group marketing priority program from 90 to 120 days for each phase. The price and resale limitations will continue to apply after the marketing program expires. II. RECOMMENDATION_: The proposed agreement reasonably protects the city's interest in the preservaton of moderate income housing while allowing home buyers to enjoy the benefits of ownership. Staff recommends the council waive further reading and pass to second reading. III. ATTACHMENTS: IV 1. Ordinance 2. Agreement Prepared by:--1-�- Reviewed by: Am -2- w CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" TAVAGLIONE/PALM DESERT MODERATE INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This agreement is made and entered into this day of 1984, by and between the City of Palm Desert, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" and Nick Tavaglione Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as the "DEVELOPER" provides: 1. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm Desert, California, which property is described in "Exhibit A1l attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter "PROPERTY"). 2. Pursuant: to the goals and objectives of the Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element and provisions of California State Government Code Section 65915 designed to facilitate the construction of housing affordable to moderate income households, DEVELOPER has applied and been granted conditional approval of Tentative Map 19847 and Prcti:ise Plan of Design 27-83 (hereinafter "PROJECT") to construct 352 residential condominium units on the PROPERTY. These approvals included a 25% density bonus increasing the density from 5 du/ac to 6.25 du/ac. 3. As used herein, "moderate income households" shall refer to families or individuals whose gross income does not exceed 120% of the Riverside County median income based upon financial and demographic information received from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or its successor agency. This information is contained in 'Exhibit B" and shall be updated automatically as data. is _1_ CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. d. Enforcement: 1. Prior to the entering into escrow, the seller shall submit a maximum price proposal to the city for review and approval. The city's report will become part of the escrow documents. The city shall receive all escrow documents prior to closing to certify compliance with this agreement. 6. The marketing program for the PROJECT shall give priority to moderate " .4. .income households and shall include the following features: a. 30 days prior to the opening of each phase, the DEVELOPER shall advertise and receive applications from eligible moderate income home buyers. The minimum qualifications shall be: I. Minimum 2 person household. 2. Maximum income for the following household sizes: 4 persons or less - $30,150 (two bedroom unit) 5-6 persons - $33,900 (three bedroom unit) 3. The unit must be the purchaser's sole permanent residence. b. if the number of applicants meeting minimum qualifications exceeds the number of units offered, then the following priorities shall apply: 1.. First time home buyers: Households which have not owned a home within the last 5 years. 2. Single parent: households. -4- CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. C. If 25% of the units within each phase are not sold to the target group during the pre-opening application period, sufficient units shall be reserved during the next 90 days to insure that the 25% moderate income target can be achieved. Units remaining after this 90-day period may be marketed without restriction other than price provisions of section 4 and 5 of this agreement. d. At least 120 days prior to the opening of each subsequent phase, the DEVELOPER shall submit a price schedule to the CITY consistent with the requirements of this AGREEMENT. A minimum of 25% of the units in each phase must conform to HUD moderate income guidelines. e. The DEVELOPER agrees to allow the city to audit DEVELOPER'S records to determine that terms of this AGREEMENT are being complied with. 7. The DEVELOPER shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, sec, national origin or age. r 8. The terms of this AGREEMENT shall run until all units of the PROJECT are sold. 9. The provisions of this AGREEMENT shall run with, burden and bind the DEVELOPER and his successors. The provisions hereof shall be enforceable by appropriate legal action brought by the CITY. In the event legal action is brought to enforce any provision hereof, %he prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees together with other legally allowable costs. -5- CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. If for any reason there is any change in the method of calculation of the C.P.I., or that price index is no longer published, then another index generally recognized as authoritative shall be instituted. Price increases shall not exceed ten percent (10%) per anum or the annual increase in the C.P.I., whichever is smaller. b. Capital Improvement Price Increase Limitations: A price increase shall be allowed for any capital improvements installed pursuant to a building permit issued by the City of Palm Desert, or such capital improvement as distinguished frorn maintenance which qualify under the Internal Revenue Code Section 263. C. Term of Resale Restriction: 1. When all units in a particular phase are priced within the affordable limitations set forth in section 4 of this agreement, resale controls shall apply for a period of two years. 2. If within a particular phase there exists a price differential of $.5,000 or more between the lower priced 25% AFFORDABLE UNITS and the 75% remaining units, then the AFFORDABLE UNITS shall be subject to resale limitation for 5 years. The units priced $5,000 over the affordable level shall be exempt from resale limitations. When the price differential is less than $5,000, section 5, c, 1 shall apply. -3- L CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. obtained from HUD. If in the future more current data is made available by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics or other officially recognized agencies, the applicant may request amendment to this AGREEMENT to include this data. 4. State Government Code Section 65915 requires that at least 2.5% of the units (hereinafter referred to as "AFFORDABLE UNITS") within the PROJECT be affordable by moderate income households. Pursuant and in addition to this requirement, the DEVELOPER hereby agrees to price 100% of the units within Phase I of the PROJECT consistent with the income limits of moderate income households. This maximurn selling price shall be based upon a monthly payment (mortgage, taxes and insurances) approximately equivalent to 30% of the maximum gross monthly income of a moderate income household. This figure shall be adjusted according to size and type of unit. The `.Following :felling maximum prices shall apply to Phase I of the PROJECT. 42 two bedroom two story 991 sq. ft. $68,000 16 two bedroom one story 961 sq. ft. $70,000 142 three bedroom two story 1288 sq. ft. $78,000 5. Resale Controls: In an effort to discourage speculation and preserve the affordable nature of this project, the following resale controls shall be made a part of the covenant conditions, and restriction of the PROJECT.. 4 a. Resale Price Increase Limitations: The price increase allowable upon resale of the units subject to this agreement shall be based upon the increase in the C.P.L. from the date of the close of escrow of the original sale to the escrow opening of the resale. _2_ J 1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 10. This AGREEMENT shall be reviewed by the CITY planning commission every 6 months, at which time the applicant or his successor shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the AGREEMENT. if as a result of this review the commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that the .applicant has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of the AGREEMENT, it shall recommend to the city council that the AGREEMENT be modified or terminated. If the city council concurs with the planning commission recommendation, the AGREEMENT shall be modified or terminated. Proceedings before the city council shall be a noticed public hearing. If at the time of the hearings substantial improvements have not yet occurred on the site, termination of the AGREEMENT will also involve revocation of all previous approvals and permits associated herewith. If substantial improvements are already in place and modifications acceptable to the CITY cannot be negotiated, then enforcement of provisions of this AGREEMENT shall be pursued through legal action per No. 8 of this AGREEMENT. it. The AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. If any portion of the AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. 12. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal capacity to make the AGREEMENTS herein contained„ that each such AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the year and date first above written. THE CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: TAVAGLIONE AGREEMENT RESALE DATE: MARCH 13, 19:R4 LIMITATIONS I. DISCUSSION• At the city council's March 8 hearing, staff was directed to develop a system for controlling resale of the moderate priced units. The proposed limitations are teased upon the following philosophy. The degree of city intervention into resale transactions should be related to the amount of the density bonus or other assistance received. Units within projects which receive large density bonuses enjoy substantial cost reductions and therefore need strong long-term controls to maint,afn these cost savings. Units within projects which receive smaller bonuses receive lesser benefits and therefore should be subject to less controls. Real estate investments involve a certain amount of risk. While many homeowners made substantial profits during the 1975-1980 period, many (including this staff member) would have suffered losses if they had to sell their home during the last: 4 years. Since resale controls do not protect the owner from the risk of loss, they should not prohibit reasonable gains. If the controls eliminate the major benefits of home ownership, then the entire program will be self-defeating. The Tavaglione project is receiving a small density increase from 5 dwelling units per acre to 6.25 units per acre. While this bonus contributes to the projects affordability, the primary cost savings involve efficiencies of design and construction. The proposed controls will limit resale price increases to increases in the ; ons�mer Price Index to a maximum of 10% per year. Additional price increases will be allowed for capital improvements. The term of the controls will be related to how the developer spreads the cost savings achieved by the density bonus. If he spreads these savings equally to each unit in a particular phase, then controls shall be in effect for 2 years. If these savings are concentrated in the required 25% affordable units, reducing their price at least $5,000 below the price of the remaining units, then they will be suhject to controls for 5 years. Since the buyers of the higher priced units would not re+::eive benefit from the density, they will be exempt from controls. -1- 1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. By By w ,z° NICK TAVAGLIONE CONSTRUCTION (Notarized) By � ATTEST: -7- c,I✓(,I-^TTO V w RL'JISIO�l i ury <wn I <il 'i Y F I$ t ,- ;a s I >n�m _. r ....art y �E'L' f.t' ..__• •� -RANK SINATRA OR. .-....... �� ",_ ._"____—__. i l / 7;1 ' l CIvO 1 uj I �• DEL SLfGRI P41.1' DcgcR. ^PEENS .... ay RY CLLIR DRIVE y` 1 - I� I� I T ° ­42�d AVENUE, 'C l II �l L1 •;Cyrr.. . IIIE07IDE � e - �{ .. . i I I u _i C�� J I' •II F�i51 1 .,Y 1';qJ�'I''si Ii� i I ' r III teener dd � GI� a 4 - Colla(le 1 I Ir 1119 �..;:, ppp mllh,m•rrn' ' 10i..,. --1 7II• II ---- `I Irf'frrt+ i � )) I II ii II ��% e ( IF+ � I F �Ip��yd• r. fL-, 'l +. FI - - s J,' II I r�T it SJ _"L1 Tj { t i _ { 71T 3 �•+� t9E71 rrT r �H 113; I. 4l 'I/�i7t� 11+�+YYff7m�n� 11 � i j X,l �. '1 'f 4;'