HomeMy WebLinkAboutTT 28818 PP CUP 98-5 MARRIOTT TIMESHARE 1998 k
AGENDA ITEM NO. IV-13-1
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1998
ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
CASE NO: PP 98-5 and TT 28818
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., 6649 Westwood
Boulevard, Suite 500, Orlando, FL 32809-6090
rt
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised architectural plans for an
18-hole golf course and 966-unit timeshare resort
LOCATION: East side of Monterey between Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford
ZONE: PR-5
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to City Council direction, the applicant has revised building architecture for the
three story units. The Council direction was to attempt to lower the appearance of the units
(see attached City Council minutes).
RECOMMENDATION:
As of the writing of this report staff had not had an opportunity to review the plans. ARC
should review the plans and determine acceptability.
STEVE ITH
Am
I
ai " ARY MINUTES 3 `i T��, A: :?�s T�zfa. =: _
UL AIt PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 101 1998.
DJE- It's not perfect. - . ....
(Laughter by.Council & Audience)
RE Yeah: It's very tough, though;.sir:
JMB Councilman Crites.
BAC First; I'd certainly .um. I think. Join all of my colleagues as well as you;Mr. Eastman, in .
congratulating you on a "better developmen .". Um...Marriott certainly, as well as our staff,
deserves plaudits-fortakinT-ideas to hearand-coming back with a project that I think is
markedly a superior project for you, certainly as well as for the existing citizen's, and so on in
Palm Desert Um...second...secondly I agree.:.um...with the comments made by the Chamber
of_. Commerce and others in_ having •:._.done a +little snooping around
myself...ah :-timeshar-. .vacation ownership resort residents are exactly the hinds of people
whoa are c likely to be healthy...ah...participants in our local economy. . And I
; think :um:r.um.-.- hat's- entirely.:.ah..-.to-:the_.,good:-of.:.for_Tour; .not ,Just. for.: Palm
Deserta.ah.:.butr our;,Valley.`:, Um...and: L.imagine: everyone:.who's. seated up: here
^° has::.um:..sympathy with you in terms of your discussions...ah...with the Palm Springs School
District. Um...we have not walked away from some discussions with that agency ourselves
very...very happy, and I suspect you probably won't...you may produce children on site, but
you won't generate students on site. -
(Laughter by Council & Audience)
BAC Um...so a.couple of just minor odds and ends.:: Ah...in. looking at the issue that...that
Councilman Spiegel, Mayor Pro-Tem Spiegel mentioned about the three-story, 36 height, there
are a number of things you might wish to consider along with whether it is two-story.
Ah...we've had at times, as an example, hotels proposed in Palm Desert...ah...one of them on
El Paseo at one time that was going to be a three-story, 30-foot hotel...ah...so we've had things
that have been three stories in less than 36 feet. Ah...we also have the issue about where the
height of something as it appears,from the grade level as you drive by, and if something is up
on a mound, 20 feet may look enormous if something is not depressed in an economic sense,
but in a physical sense— 36 feet may begin to look significantly less imposing, and so on, so
I think there are issues both height within three stories, two, three stories, ways of working with
the topography of the land that I think would be worth exploring. Um...I was happy to
see...ah...the comments from your...ah...landscape architect firm about...um...not just
integration of themed landscaping onto the golf course, but to bring that...ah...throughout the
project, and at least, as one member, I'd like to just see if I could a couple of sort of samples
of what you might be doing exterior, blend into the golf course and around a set of the units or
so to just sort of get an idea of what...what you mean...ah...by some of the kinds of things
that...that you're talking about. I think that would be certainly valuable, at least to me to just
sort.of get a look at: :Um...I think staff was going to look at the issue.:.ah...now there are
41
City of Palm Desert
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 a FAX(760)341-7098 a http://www.paim-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: August 19, 1998
Marriott Ownership Resort, Inc. ASL Consulting Engineers
6649 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 500 Attn: Mr. Rich Clark
Orlando, Florida 32809-6090 3001 E. Tahquitz Canyon, Suite 200
Palm Springs, California 92262
Re: PP/CUP 98-5 (Revised), TT 28818 (Revised) and DA 98-1
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its meeting of August 18, 1998:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
PP/CUP 98-5 (REVISED), TT 28818 (REVISED) AND DA 98-1 BY ADOPTION
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS AS AMENDED. CARRIED 2-1-1 (COMMISSIONER JONATHAN
VOTED NO, COMMISSIONER BEATY ABSTAINED, COMMISSIONER
FERNANDEZ WAS ABSENT).
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community
Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
PH IL
P DRELL, ARY
PALM DESERT LANNING COMMISSION
PD/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District Fire Marshal
Public Works Department Deborah Cesario
Building & Safety Department William Schmidt
PerycbO
Paper
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A REVISED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A 999 UNIT TIMESHARE RESORT AND AN
EXCEPTION TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE PR (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE TO BE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
MONTEREY AVENUE BETWEEN FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND GERALD
FORD DRIVE.
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 98-5 (REVISED) AND TT 28818 (REVISED)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 18th day of August, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
by MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORT, INC., for the above mentioned project; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 97-18, Director of Community Development has determined that the project as
mitigated will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration
has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of said
revised precise plan, conditional use permit, and tentative tract map:
PRECISE PLAN
1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values
nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements 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.
CONDITIONAL USE
1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district
in which the site is located.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, except for approved
variances, adjustments and exceptions.
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the city's general plan.
5. The proposed timeshare resort will operate "in conjunction with" the Desert
Springs Marriott Resort, a hotel operating in the City of Palm Desert having
more than 500 rooms.
6. The proposed timeshare resort will be located within an eighteen hole golf
course of not less than six thousand four hundred (6,400) yards.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
1 . That the proposed tentative map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision.
8. The design will allow unrestricted solar access to all lots.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning commission has
considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for
purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the
City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That Revised Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 98-5 is hereby recommended
for approval to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions, Exhibit A.
3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the above
described Revised Tentative Map No. 28818 on file in the Department of
Community Development, subject to the attached conditions.
4. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the
maximum height of the three story buildings shall be 36 feet, subject to the
conditions relating to setbacks.
5. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit B attached, is
recommended for certification.
6. That the recommendation of approval granted pursuant to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1860 is hereby rescinded.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 18th day of August, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: FINERTY, CAMPBELL
NOES: JONATHAN
ABSENT: FERNANDEZ
ABSTAIN: BEATY f
�SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 98-5 REVISED AND TT 28818 REVISED
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with revised exhibits on
file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. That the final map or portion thereof shall be recorded within two years from the date
of approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall
become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the
ordinance.
6. Marketing practices shall not include.street solicitation.
7. Advertising shall strictly adhere to Palm Desert's Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.68
pertaining to signage.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
8. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development.
9. Should the applicant/owner choose to create an illuminated parking lot(s) or illuminate
the building exteriors, a detailed parking lot and/or building lighting plan shall be
submitted for staff approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plans to be
prepared by a qualified lighting engineer.
10. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works
prior to Architectural Review Commission review of final landscape plan.
11 . Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4.10.
12. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan.
13. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape
plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying, among other matter,
appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for
the specific materials to be planted, .as well as periodic replacement of materials. All
to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and
the approved landscape plan.
14. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees
and low income housing mitigation fee.
15. That the site grading plan be designed to lower the site at least two (2) feet in the
area west and northwest of the homes on Drexell Drive. Said two (2) foot lowering
of the site shall be relative to the existing grade in the area where the buildings are
to be located or relative to the existing grade in the rear yards of the homes on the
west side of Drexell Drive, whichever provides the greater protection to the views
from the homes on the west side of Drexell Drive.
16. That all mitigation measures contained in the traffic study dated May 14, 1998,
prepared by Nickerson, Diercks and Associates shall be conditions of this approval.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
17. That the design of the east end of the buildings nearest the homes on Drexell Drive
shall not include windows or balconies facing east.
18. That the golf course, clubhouse, and sales center be constructed as part of phase 1 .
19. That the three story buildings shall not exceed 36 feet in height and shall be setback
a minimum of 340 feet from the residential property lines adjacent,to the K & B
development.
20. That the perimeter fence design include wrought iron openings to create view
corridors into the golf course.
21 . That the parking for the timeshare units shall be at a ratio of 1 .5 spaces per unit with
r
at least one space per unit covered.
22. That the design of the maintenance building include sufficient parking on site for all
employees of that facility.
23. That any conversion of the project or any unit within the project to other than
timeshare or transient tourist use must first obtain approval by the City in
consultation with the Palm Springs Unified School District or such school district
which is serving the property at that time.
DeD artment of Public Works:
1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and
Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
2. Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon
a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall
be designed to retain stormwaters associated with the increase in developed vs.
undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm.
3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. The
costs associated with the installation of new traffic signal and modification of
existing signal systems for this project may be used as a credit against the subject
signalization fees. Such a credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert
City Council.
4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of grading/building permit issuance.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
5. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
6. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
7. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be
approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the
installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
8. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading
permits.
9. In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan,
installation of landscaped median island in Monterey Avenue from Gerald Ford Drive
south to a point southerly of the mid-section line of Section 32 shall be provided. In
addition, applicant shall provide for the installation of landscape improvements within
the existing median islands in Frank Sinatra-Drive and Gerald Ford Drive. Landscape
shall be drought tolerant in nature.
10. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be drought tolerant in nature
and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner. Landscaping maintenance
for the proposed median island improvements shall be provided through a landscape
and lighting maintenance district. Applicant shall be responsible for the formation of
said district.
11 . Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards. In addition to the above noted items, those traffic impact mitigation
measures identified in the project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Nickerson,
Diercks & Associates/Valley Research and Planing Associates shall be provided. The
subject report and proposed mitigation measures shall be approved by the Public
Works Department. Residential street sections shall be as shown on the tentative
tract map with a minimum width of thirty-two feet. Rights-of-way as may be
necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided on
the Tract Map.
P
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
12. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control.
13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
14. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits.
15. Traffic safety striping on Monterey Avenue, Gerald Ford Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive
and the proposed residential streets shall be provided to the specifications of the
Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved
by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
16. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
17. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all
existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility
district recommendation.
18. Waiver of access rights to Monterey Avenue, Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford
Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the Tract Map.
19. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the
Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water
discharges associated with construction.
20. All project access points shall provide for acceleration and deceleration lanes.
Existing medians on Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive shall be modified to
provide for full project ingress/egress.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
Riverside County Fire Department:
1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA standards, CFC, CBC,
and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 .
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure
must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential 2500
for multifamily and 3000 for commercial structure. The actual fire flow available
from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for two
hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x4"x2'%" x 2%"),
located not less than 25' or more than 165 feet from multifamily and 150 feet
commercial from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. Hydrants installed below 3000 feet elevation shall be of the "wet barrel"
type.
5. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review.
No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by
the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will
be sent to the responsible inspecting authority.
6. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1 ,
1990, for all occupancies.
7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 R. The post indicator valve and
fire department connection shall be located to the front, not less than 25' from the
building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. This applies to all buildings with
3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint,
including overhangs which are sprinklered per NFPA 13. The building area of
additional floors is added in for a cumulative total. Exempted are one and two family
dwellings.
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
OTHER:
NFPA 1313 plus special provisions of fire sprinklers in attics and protect exit ways on
second floor.
8. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code 3803 for
sprinkler system. Install tamper alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler
systems.
9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be
clearly marked by painting and/or signs approved by the Fire Marshal.
10. Install a fire alarm as required by the Uniform Building Code and/or Uniform Fire Code.
Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler system per NFPA
71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems,
systems where any interior devices are required or used. (U.F.C. 14-103(a))
11 . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC
in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75' walking distance. In addition to
the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens.
12. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains
or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5'
radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive.
13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers,
guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by
emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled
access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system
capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key locate din emergency
vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the
even of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall
also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with
a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
14. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access,
sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no
circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
15. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development.
16. Contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
17. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses
meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer
permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert.
18. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
19. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should
contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements.
11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1889
EXHIBIT B
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: PP/CUP 98-5 Revised and TT 28818 Revised
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Marriott Ownership Resort, Inc.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: An 18-hole golf course, 999 unit timeshare resort and
amenities on 306± acres on the east side of Monterey Avenue between Frank Sinatra Drive
and Gerald Ford Drive.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
u u 1998
PHILIP DRELq DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/tm
i
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST18, 1998
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1888, recommending to City
Council approval of GPA 98-5 and C/Z 98-6. Motion carried 4-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty,
to, by minute motion, forward Case No. DA 98-2 to City Council without
comment because the development agreement was not complete and involved
provisions concerning the annexation which are the sole purview of the City
Council. Motion carried 4-0.
A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:52 P.M. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL
RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:57 P.M.
E. Case No. PP/CUP 98-5 (Revised), TT 28818 (Revised) and DA 98-1 -
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORT, INC., Applicant
Request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council approval of a Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit,
Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement and Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 18-hole golf course,
966 unit timeshare resort and supporting amenities on 306±
acres on the east side of Monterey Avenue between Frank
Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive.
Mr. Drell stated that he wanted to start off with a correction. There was a
revision in the unit count as reflected in the staff report and there were now
999 units. He noted that this matter was before Commission on May 5 and
19, 1998, at which time the Commission recommended approval of the
project to the city council. After a hearing was held on July 9 before council,
there was a great deal of input given to the applicant by the council as to
design problems and certain suggestions they had for the project. As a result
significant redesign has occurred to the extent that the project was sufficiently
different to warrant a re-review by the Planning Commission. Those changes
included a 15-acre commercial site at the corner of Frank Sinatra and Monterey
was which was not included and the council inquired as to how the ultimate
development of that site would relate to the project and that problem had gone
away. It was purchased by Marriott and was included within the design of the
resort. There would not be any commercial use at the southeast corner of
Monterey and Gerald Ford. Unit count as a result of the redesign decreased
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1998
from 1200 units to 999 units. Previously there was a combination of 2, 3 and
4 stories. The reason there were two stories was because there were a
number of units that were directly adjacent to either a street or an internal
property line. Because of the need for the two stories, that generated at that
time a need for four stories to reach their unit count goal. The project had
now been redesigned with golf course fairways adjacent to all the streets or
interior property lines with the exception of property to the west in Rancho
Mirage, which is a commercially zoned property. Since the setbacks for the
units had increased substantially from approximately 150 feet to about 340
feet, the line of sight analysis showed that the two story units were no longer
necessary to preserve views and therefore eliminated the need for four story
units. Also, the reduction in unit count from 1200 to 999 eliminated the need
for four story units. All units would be three stories. There was a question
at council relative to the alignment of the access to Frank Sinatra as it related
to the access to Palm Desert Greens. The project was redesigned so those
driveway streets coincide and align with each other. As occurred before
Planning Commission in the original discussion with the design and location of
the units relative to the homes on Drexell in the Kaufman and Broad project
with the elimination of all the units adjacent to them and substitution of the
golf fairway and the orientation of the three story units such that there would
be no units in the vicinity that actually front toward Drexell they were only
looking at end units without balconies so in addition to the substantial increase
in setbacks the design of the units addressed those residents' concerns.
Another comment had to do with the landscape concept of the project. A
councilman was concerned with the dominant tropical nature of the proposal
and felt there should be some sensitivity to the fact that this project is in the
desert and the exhibits/renderings showed that the perimeter would now
highlight desert planting as both the entrance statement and desert waste
bunker area similar, although not as extensive, as we have included in the
design of the golf course. So there would be some understanding on the part
of residents and golfers that this project is in the desert. There had been an
inclusion of a walking/jogging path that would allow the area to
circumnavigate the entire project and the perimeter wall would be designed
similar to what is seen at Desert Springs with the view corridors which allow
the general public to see into the project and get a flavor of the quality and
amenities. Staff recommended approval of the original plan and in terms of
design the plan has been changed substantially from what they originally saw.
The impact on the K & B project was substantially less and most people
perceive that having their homes on a championship golf course fairway was
typically an enhancement to property value. That has been designed so that
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1998
all the hazards are on the east side to encourage golfers to avoid hitting their
balls toward the residences. The council had other comments regarding
revenue impacts of timeshare projects and he believed the Commission
received copies of an analysis done by Marriott. Staff was also reviewing this
and would be preparing an independent analysis to the council. Basically when
they first adopted the timeshare ordinance there was some uncertainty and
concern about the impact that timeshare would have on other revenues in the
city and based on staff's experience there were many significant sources of
revenue that make them comparable overall in terms of fiscal impact compared
to a hotel development and more importantly they provide the local economy
with a weekly infusion of very affluent customers for Palm Desert's
commercial economy. He said the previous traffic study was based on 1200
units in that all the mitigation measures recommended by that study are still
conditioned on the project and now that the unit count has been reduced by
200 units those impacts would be less, but they were assuming the same
mitigation measures. More specific questions about the project he would
direct to the developer. Staff recommended approval to city council in the
revised form. Mr. Drell stated that there was an issue raised by the Palm
Springs Unified School District voicing their concern that this project might
generate impacts on the Palm Springs Unified School District and would
somehow generate students to that district and they have requested that
certain restrictions be placed on permanent occupancy. He said there was
continuing negotiations between the District and Marriott as to the exact
language. Staff included a condition. Based on recent discussions he also had
some amended language for the development agreement and the conditions
of approval. Basically the school district wanted some sort of recorded
document limiting or preventing the permitting of permanent occupancy in the
units. Notwithstanding the fact that based on our experience there has never
been a student generated from the existing project, in deference to the
concerns of the District, staff included a Section 28 on School Mitigations.
Based on what he understood to be discussions between Marriott and the
District's attorney the proposed amendment would read, "The developer will
prohibit residential permanent occupancy on the site except in conformance
with the procedures of this section 28. Permanent occupancy will be defined
as residency greater than 60 consecutive days. Any conversion of the project
or any unit within the project to other than timeshare or transient tourist use
must first obtain approval by the City in consultation with the Palm Springs
Unified School District or such school district which is serving the property at
that time through an amendment to this agreement and the Precise
Plan/Conditional Use Permit." In essence, they agreed to this 60-day
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1998
restriction and if there were any changes in the project it would have to come
back to the Planning Commission to amend this agreement and conditional use
permit since agreements are recorded documents and in essence accomplish
the goals of the District. He also recommended that Condition Number 23,
which in essence restates that, be deleted and replaced with what is now 24
which says that the project has to be timeshare or transient tourist use and if
it changed it had to get approval from the City. With those amendments staff
recommended approval.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the boundaries of the Palm Springs Unified
School District actually reached this particular area. Mr. Drell said yes,
everything north of Frank Sinatra is in the Palm Springs Unified School District.
Commissioner Jonathan understood that discussions and actual negotiations
at one point were taking place with Palm Springs Unified with regards to that
area as well as some of the other areas within the city of Palm Desert
including even Cahuilla Hills and some other regions to transfer those regions
into the Desert Sands Unified School District. He asked what the status was
of those negotiations. Mr. Drell said there was a pending application from the
K & B project residents. Basically it is the property owners and residents that
have the ability to petition changes in school districts. The City, other than as
a mediator in terms of getting the districts together, and in that capacity we
were discussing the issue with the District. That is being processed and was
rather a cumbersome, lengthy process that has to go through the local County
Superintendent of Schools and then conceivably up to the state. It was not
like a municipal annexation where ultimately the residents have the final say
in voting. In this case the State Superintendent of Schools has the final say
if there is a finding of financial impact, and there was a whole list of things
that could be used as justification for denying annexation/transfer. It was in
the process and staff made the suggestion that if in fact they felt this property
would unduly impact them they would be glad to de-annex them to Desert
Sands. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff knew if the procedure staff just
described was the same for the formation of a new district. Mr. Drell said yes.
Basically if it was a financial issue, if the projected revenues from a certain
area were deemed to be necessary for the financial well being of the district
it was being de-annexed from, then that was an issue. The other issue was
the terms in which some other school district would accept the area. Neither
of those discussions had gotten very far.
Commissioner Beaty stated that he would be abstaining from the Marriott
discussion, but he served as the Chairman of the County Committee for nine
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1998
years and it was a very complex process. Under some circumstances it could
be approved right here but it would never happen with this one. It was a
financial issue and if Desert Sands or the City wanted to give Palm Springs
$10 million or $20 million Palm Springs would love to give it away, but that
wasn't going to happen.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. RONALD E. EASTMAN, 935 Farmhaven Drive in Rockville Maryland
20852, stated that he was a Vice Present of the applicant. He thanked
the Commission for reviewing their project for the second time. Since
they previously presented Desert Springs Villas North to them, they
have worked very closely with Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith to incorporate
changes to their plan that were suggested by their neighbors and
members of the City Council. On August 3 they presented their revised
plan to their neighbors and on August 26 they would be erecting poles
to demonstrate the visibility of the top of the buildings from their
neighbor's homes. As of today they have not finalized their school
facilities funding and mitigation agreement with the Palm Springs
Unified School District. Hopefully they would have that done prior to
the council meeting on September 10, but this has been a difficult
negotiation and he didn't know where they would end up. He stated
that he received a copy of the letter that was given to the Planning
Commission after closing of business today where the school district's
attorney says that she is not challenging their coming to Planning
Commission tonight, but she wanted to make sure that the council
didn't go ahead until they are satisfied with the agreement. He would
continue to work on this and it is quite difficult, but hopefully they
would be able to work it out. At this time he introduced their Vice
Present of Design, Stephen Withers, to explain the exact changes they
made to the plans since the Commission saw it last time.
MR. STEPHEN WITHERS, Vice President of Architecture and Design for
Marriott Ownership Resorts, stated that they have presented this
project before and the changes were as Mr. Drell outlined very clearly.
He said he has three pages of notes and Mr. Drell hit every one of their
points tonight so he would make his comments short. The only other
point the council asked them to consider was the operations building
and they asked that the area be bermed and they did that. They pulled
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1998
the employee parking back so that could be well bermed and heavily
greened up. The question the council asked them was about the
landscaping around the perimeter and how the wall design would.be and
he showed the Commission the new drawings. He said they were
trying to make the wall very minimal and terminating in landscaping and
rock features so that it would become part of the desert landscaping.
The intense part of it would be recessed behind the wall to give them
more depth and give them more chance to undulate the grades and
sidewalks. Also those areas would be open so the vistas would pass
into the golf area and community. They also asked them to make the
landscaping and desertscaping move into the site instead of just being
along the perimeter wall. They did that in many locations so that people
going down Monterey or Frank Sinatra would have a chance to look into
the site and view the golf community beyond. They also brought an
illustration of how the desert theme could be brought to the outside
along with how the potential of the corner of Gerald Ford and Monterey
might have a desert theme in the sizing of palms and the rock and
desert landscape. He said he brought the boards they had before
showing the buildings. The only difference from before was the last
time they brought Commission a four-story building and they eliminated
all of those and only had the three story buildings. As pointed out by
Mr. Drell the drive along the top of the property was relocated so that
it aligns with the traffic flow and keeps it off of the neighbors to the
north, which was a concern of theirs. The entry was in the exact
location and they readjusted the golf and planning to bring it more
internally oriented with the buildings and brought the golf around the
perimeter all the way along Frank Sinatra and the 14th fairway was
against their neighbors. He asked for any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if there would be a lights at Frank Sinatra and
Palm Desert Greens.
Mr. Withers said they would both have one.
Mr. Drell asked Mr. Greenwood if there was a light at Frank Sinatra. Mr.
Greenwood said there never had been one proposed in the past. Monterey
yes, Frank Sinatra no. Chairperson Campbell asked if one was necessary in
that location. Mr. Greenwood said the traffic study hadn't been revised with
the new layout so it hadn't been evaluated.
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1998
Mr. Withers said they planned to have it gated at night and didn't
anticipate a light being needed there. When they lined them up, he
thought there was a light, but agreed there wasn't.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the
proposal.
MS. DENISE WELCH, 37-575 Drexell in Palm Desert, stated that she
was appearing in front of the Planning Commission to hopefully bring
closure to an otherwise lengthy process. Last Tuesday owners on
Drexell Drive met with Mr. Eastman and Marriott representatives once
again to debut yet another plan that is taking place directly behind her
property. She was pleased to say that she thought they finally got it
right. However, she was dismayed at the number of attempts it took
them. She told Mr. Eastman at the last meeting that she didn't
understand why a company engaged in the business of making people
happy would propose such horrendous plans and make so few residents
who reside on Drexel[ Drive so unhappy. She is a business owner in
Palm Desert who delivers quality computer training service to her clients
every day. If they don't get it right the first time, they certainly do the
second. If they don't get it right at all, then they don't do business
with their clients. In conclusion she stated that the plan proposed
before Commission tonight where a five par golf course would reside on
the backside of her property instead of an access road is acceptable to
her and she believed to the residents on Drexell Drive. They looked
forward to this development.
MR. TERRY LUDWICK, 37-547 Drexel] Drive, stated that Marriott has
called them on the phone, they wrote them letters and also came out
to their property and showed them the revised plans. They asked for
their opinions and concerns. He wanted it known that they have proven
to be good neighbors and he was really happy with the revised plan and
recommended it for approval.
Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Eastman wished to address the
commission.
Mr. Eastman thanked the neighbors and the council for helping them
make this a better plan. He really believed it is a better plan and was
thankful for the input.
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1998
Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
Commissioner Finerty said she would move for approval of the project.
Chairperson Campbell stated that she would second that motion.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was going to oppose the project and
wanted to explain why. He thought it would be wonderful for the city for all
the right reasons but he has been a resident in the city for 20 years and the
two story limitation was there for a reason and to go beyond two stories he
thought would gradually have a very real negative impact on our community.
He was not saying that we would turn into Los Angeles overnight, but it
begins somewhere and he felt when we cross that line that is where it begins
and that line is when they make exceptions to the two story limitation. He
said that knowing that this project would still probably come out okay and
would be a good addition to our city; he just hoped it didn't begin that
precedent and that road down that L.A. path. He said it was really only for
that reason that he objected to the project. Everything else that was positive
about the proposal he was in full agreement with and he could see why
anyone would vote for it.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 2-1-1
(Commissioner Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Beaty abstained).
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1889, recommending to City
Council approval of PP/CUP 98-5 (Revised), TT 28818 (Revised), and DA 98-
1 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 2-1-1 (Commissioner
Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Beaty abstained).
F. Continued Case No. DP 12-79 Amendment - HAHN/PALM DESERT,
INC., Applicant (Continued from August 4, July 7 and June 2, 1998)
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
and amendment to a Development Plan for a 183,094 square foot
expansion to the Palm Desert Town Center and 956 space single level
parking deck. Project involves additional retail space, 2,200 seat
theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility.
40
Y City of Palm Desert
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 •FAX(760)341-7098•http://www.paim-desert.org
June 30, 1998
William Schmidt, Director
Facilities Planning and Development
333 S. Farrell Drive
Palm Springs, California 92262
Re: PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 and DA 98-1
Marriott Ownership Resort, Inc.
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
Pursuant to the request by your attorneys dated June 1 1 , 1998, please find enclosed draft
environmental documents and the most recent staff report (July 9, 1998) for the above
noted cases.
Yours truly,
STEPHEN R. SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
Am
Enclosures
cc: Alexander Bowie
Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone
Paper
/ CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of a approval of a Precise Plan/Conditional Use
Permit . Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement and
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 18-hole golf
course, 1200 unit timeshare resort and supporting amenities on
300± acres on the east side of Monterey Avenue between Frank
Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive.
III. APPLICANT: Marriott Ownership Resort, Inc.
6649 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 500
Orlando, FL 32809-6090
ASL Consulting Engineers
Attn: Mr. Rich Clark
3001 E. Tahquitz Canyon, Suite 200
Palm Springs, CA 92262
IV. CASE NOS: PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 and DA 98-1
V. DATE: July 9, 1998 continued from June 11 , 1998
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That this case be referred back to Planning Commission for consideration of revisions
to the plan and be continued to the city council meeting of August 27, 1998.
B. DISCUSSION:
The property owner, Basic Capital Management, refused to extend the option on the
property beyond its June deadline.
Marriott has concentrated its efforts into determining whether or not to purchase the
property without entitlements in hand. As of the writing of this report, Marriott was
expected to acquire the property. If this transaction is completed, it will include the
15 acres on the corner which will be incorporated into the project. The applicant also
intends to make other significant changes to the plan such as adding more desert
theme to the golf course, alter building heights and golf course layout.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1
JULY 9, 1998'
Therefore, staff recommends that the plan revisions be referred back to the Planning
Commission for consideration when they are available (possibly the Planning
Commission meeting of August 4, 1998) and that this City Council hearing be kept
open and continued to the meeting of August 27, 1998.
Prepared by:
Steve Smith
Reviewed and Approved by:.�,2LZI
Philip Drel
Am
2
ENEMONMENTAT,CHECKTIST FORM
1. Project Title: Marriott's Desert Springs i4orth Villas
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palm Desert
Steve Smith
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Steve Smith
4. Project Location: Part of west half of Section 32, T4S HE on east side of Monterey
between Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Marriott Ownershio Resort, Inc.
6649 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 500
Orlando, FL 32809-6090
6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning:
Low Density Residential PR-5 (planned residential 5 units per acre)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and
any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
Approvals necessary to construct an 18-hole golf course, 1200 unit timeshare resort,
restaurant, clubhouse, pro shop, golf school, sales center and maintenance facility on
300 acres on the east side of Monterey Avenue between Frank Sinatra Drive and
Gerald Ford Drive.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
The subject property is gently rolling vacant desert. To the north and west is vacant!
land. To the east is vacant land except at the southeast where site adjoins single
family dwellings. To the south is Palm Desert Greens which is a mobile home
community on a golf course.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agrccment):
illA
l
CrY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "7"
Page 1 of 12
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that
is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services
❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems
❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics
❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,but at least one effect
1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required,but it trust analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation treasures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑
�/ O.C.CC 0/ -
Signarre Date
Printed Name For
CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "J"
Page 2 of 12
LEGEND OF SOURCES
1 . City of Palm Desert General Plan
2. City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance
3. City of Palm Desert Director of Community Development
4. Visual inspection by City of Palm Desert Community Development staff
5. Cultural Resource Identification and Recommendations for the North Sphere
Specific Plan for the City of Palm Desert
6. Palm Desert Northern Sphere Area Specific Plan Circulation Report
7. Northern Sphere Specific Area Plan Technical Studies
8. Marriott's Desert Springs Villas Traffic Impact Analysis
9. City of Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage
10. City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance
11 . Coachella Valley Water District
12. Sunline Transit
13. North Sphere Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report
14. Riverside County Fire Department
15. Sheriff's Department/Palm Desert Branch
16. Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed lizard Conservation Plan
17. Palm Springs Unified School District
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.
the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
t
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed
in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be
attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): 1,2, 3
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): 3
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): I�
CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM ".I"
Page 3 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Sign lieant
potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
d)' Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or minority
community)? SOURCE(S): y ❑ ❑ ❑
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? SOURCE(s): _I 3 ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
` extension of major infrastructure)? SOURCE(s): .I +3 ❑ ❑ h,{ ❑
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? El Elw❑� bZ(
SOURCE(S): 1 , 2 , Y /K
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? SOURCE(s): 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ Jg
b) Seismic ground shaking? SOURCE(S): 2 ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? SOURCE(S): 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? SOURCE(S): 1. - ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Landslides or mudflows? SOURCE(S): q ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading, or fill? t p ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S):
CrrY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "J"
Page 4 of 12
Potentially
ficant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Sign less
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
g) Subsidence of the land? SOURCE(S): 7 ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Expansive soils? SOURCE(S): 7 ❑ ❑ ❑
i) Unique geologic or physical features? SOURCE(S):#,r( ❑ ❑ ❑
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff? SOURCE(S): ` ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? SOURCE(s): 9 ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? SOURCE(S): 1 , �/ ❑ ❑ ❑
i
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? sOURCE(s): 1 ,,/j 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ a�
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water J�
movements? soURCE(s): 4 ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Change in the g=i7444WO of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? SOURCE(S): /0. ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): /0
CITY/RVPUB/1998132095 FORM "1"
Page 5 of 12
_ Potentially
Stgnificant
Unless
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Potentially Unless Less 3'han
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? SOURCE(S): /D
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? SOURCE(s): /p ❑ ❑ ❑
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation?SOURCE(s): ,2.,s ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? SOURCEM: 1/ ❑ 0 J9 ❑
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? SOURCE(S): , 2/5 ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Create objectionable odors? sOURCE(s): ? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? SOURCE(S): 8 ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)? SOURCE(s): '.. ❑ ❑ � ❑
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ � ❑
SOURCE(S): .y
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): 2
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): / 8
CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "J"
Page 6 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incotpotated Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
SOURCE(S): iet ❑ ❑ �' ❑
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? souRCE(s): 2 ❑ ❑ ❑
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals,
and birds)? SOURCE(s): ((o ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Locally designated species(e.g. heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑ (
SOURCE(S): 1
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? SOURCE(S): a ❑ ❑ ❑
i
d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S):
e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? SOURCE(S): 7, ❑ ❑: ® ❑
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): 1
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? SOURCE(S): d- ❑ ❑ ya ❑
CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "J"
Page 7 of 12
_ Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? SOURCE(S): 1 ,.0, ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? SOURCE(S): -,I-,of ❑ ❑ ❑
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? SOURCE(S): 1,� ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards? sOURCE(s): 1 r l3 ❑ ❑ ® ❑
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? SOURCE(S): 3� ❑ ❑ ❑
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? SOURCE(S): 1i;ko 7 ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? SOURCE(S): 1,2,`] ❑ ❑ ❑
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? SOURCE(S): ��j!/ p ❑ ❑
CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "J"
Page 8 of 12
Potentially Ills
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Sign leaant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Police protection? SOURCE(S): 15
c) Schools? SOURCE(s): 17 ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S):
e) Other governmental services? SOURCE(s): 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? SOURCE(S): 13, ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Communications systems? SOURCE(S): 1 ❑ ❑ �g( ❑ ICI
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? souRcE(s): 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Sewer or septic tanks? SOURCE(s): A' ❑ ❑ _ ❑ �(
e) Storm water drainage? SOURCE(s): 61 ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Solid waste disposal? SOURCE(s): 1 ❑ ❑ ( ❑
g) Local or regional water supplies? SOURCE(S): 1 ❑ ❑ ❑
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? SOURCE(S): 1,2j9 ❑ ❑ ❑
CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "J"
Page 9 of 12
Potentially
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
SOURCE(S): lr/ °� l—i- ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Create light or glare? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? SOURCE(s): h/ 5 ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Disturb archaeological resources? SOURCE(S): s ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Affect historical resources.) SOURCE(S): 5 ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ❑ ❑
` SOURCE(S): 5
i
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? SOURCE(S): 5 ❑ ❑ ❑
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ 19 ❑
SOURCE(S): 1
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? El ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): 1
CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "7"
Page 10 of 12
XVI. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. (Section
15063(c)(3)(D).) In this case a discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The North Sphere Specific Plan and EIR was prepared for the City and adopted/
certified by the City Council. The plan included this property. The North Sphere
Specific Plan and its appendices are available for review between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. at the Community Development Department at City Hall at 73-510 Fred Waring
Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260..
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
All impacts were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the North Sphere
Specific Plan and EIR except for traffic impacts for which a new traffic analysis has
been prepared. Identified effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe,
on attached sheets, the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
The property is in the fee area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. Pursuant
to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation plan the developer has
been conditioned to pay a mitigation fee of $600 per acre. This mitigation is specific
to this project.
CrrY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "J"
Page 11 of 12
Potentially
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Potentially Unless less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
proceeds of California history or prehistory?
❑ �( ❑ ❑
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
❑ ❑ ❑
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑
Responses:
a) As discussed under Biological Resources the project will eliminate habitat
for the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. Payment of the prescribed
fee will be a condition on the project approval.
b, c, d) Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the
project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment.
CrrY/RVPUB/1998/32095 FORM "J"
Page 12 of 12
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION
MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project will not alter the present developed and proposed land use in the area.
The planned land use for the area is identified as residential timeshare; the project
would develop land uses permitted in the residential land use designation.
ll. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project is a residential timeshare project on vacant land and will not result
in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's
population. Persons purchasing an interest in this project will typically visit for
one or two weeks each year. As such these persons would not be included
in city population.
b. The project is located on vacant land immediately north of Palm Desert Greens
development and as such represents a logical extension of the city. Any
growth induced by this project will be consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Palm Desert or if west of Monterey of the City
of Rancho Mirage.
C. Site is vacant - site is not designated for affordable housing.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
ti
a. Project is not in a fault rupture zone.
b. The project will result in grading. Such grading will not result in any
alterations to geologic substructures. The site is relatively flat so that grading
will not create unstable earth conditions.
As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-
covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved
grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural
developments which will take place on the site.
The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be
required to assure proper drainage to accommodate golf course design and
INITIAL STUDY
PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818, DA 98-1
avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the
property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining
properties and better direction.
The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features.
The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to
the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff
from the site.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required
detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the
settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must
be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed
within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and
occupancies being developed.
IV. WATER
a. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however, the
landscaped areas and golf course will absorb more water because of the plant
material. The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to
adjoining property as it is directed in a controlled manner.
b. See b. In addition, the Palm Valley Channel was constructed to protect the
area in general and site in particular from flood waters coming from the areas
that devastated Palm Desert in 1976 and 1979.
C. There is no surface water on the site.
d. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to
accept the water from the site.
e. There is no ground water present on the site.
f. The golf course and units will use substantial water. The Coachella Valley
Water District has indicated sufficient water is available to serve the project.
This project will not impact on groundwater recharge capability.
2
E
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1
g. See e.
h. See f.
I. While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the
amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley
Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate
this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct
additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and
future development.
V. AIR QUALITY
a & b.
During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short
term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which
grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm
Desert Grading Ordinance.
Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result
in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported
by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a draft environmental
impact report prepared for the North Sphere Specific Plan. Completed
development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently
occurs with the site's vacant condition.
C. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due
to its size and identified uses.
d. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. The project will generate additional vehicular movements. A traffic study has
been prepared which identifies mitigation measures which are necessary to
reduce this project's impacts to a level of insignificance. These mitigation
measures will be imposed as conditions on the development.
b. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and
the project will not include incompatible uses.
3
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1
C. The project will take access from three separate arterial streets. Emergency
access and access to nearby uses will be adequate.
d. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied
by the project on site in compliance with city code.
e. Off street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists. Street
improvements will eliminate traffic hazards to motor vehicles.
f. Project will be conditioned to make land available for future bus turnouts and
will provide onsite bicycle racks.
g. Project will not impact rail, waterborne or air traffic.
NOTE:
The traffic study identifies the impacts on existing transportation systems and
recommends appropriate mitigation. These mitigation measures will be
imposed as conditions of approval.
The project takes access from Monterey Avenue, Gerald Ford Drive and Frank
Sinatra Drive. The traffic study requires certain street widening and
intersection improvements which will mitigate impacts on the pattern of
circulation in the area.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The property is in the designated area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed
Lizard. This project will eliminate all fringe-toed lizards within the project
boundaries. Pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan the loss of lizards and habitat can be mitigated by payment
of a $600 per acre fee for each acre developed. Project will be conditioned to
pay said fee. Mitigation fee will be used by Nature Conservancy to purchase
land in special preserves. The Coachella Valley Preserves which will create
suitable habitat for lizards as well as other species.
The site may contain other dune species which are of statewide concern (i.e.,
Coachella Valley Milk Vetch). A multi species habitat conservation plan is
being prepared by CVAG which will establish preserves and conservation
practices to insure the future survival of these dune species.
4
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1
To assist in this process, the project shall contribute $20,000 to CVAG to be
directed to MSHCP funding.
b. No locally designated species.
C. No locally designated species.
d. No wetland habitat.
e. See a above. The dune species of concern are not migratory in nature. The
site has been designated for development with mitigation fees within the
Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
Vill. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a. The project will comply with adopted energy conservation plans.
b. Project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes
energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature.
C. Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of this state.
IX. HAZARDS
a. The project does not include any substances that could result in explosion or
escape of hazardous materials.
b. Project will not interfere with city's emergency response or evacuation plan.
C. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards.
d. Project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards.
e. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or
trees.
X. NOISE
a & b.
5
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1
Construction and subsequent operation of residential/timeshare use will
increase ambient noise level. The increase is not expected to create an
annoyance to adjacent residential properties. All uses on the site will be
required to comply with the city noise ordinance.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional
measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise to be
mitigated so that noise levels set in the General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded.
XI PUBLIC SERVICES
a, b, d, e.
The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment
to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been
developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated for residential
development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., storm channel, streets,
utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development.
The proposed land use would increase the economic productivity of the land
in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these
uses, versus the current state of the land.
The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the Palm Desert
Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert. All property tax
generated on the site after 1979 including those generated by the
improvement of this project will go to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency.
The city will receive 1 % of the 6% state sales tax collected from the sales on
the property.
C. SCHOOLS
The property is located within the service area of the Palm Springs Unified
School District. The "district" advises that without proper mitigation the
impact on schools would be potentially significant.
The project is a residential timeshare which will be geared to transient
occupants typically staying seven days. As such the project is not expected
to generate students for the P.S.U.S.D. There is an extremely remote
possibility that a family with children could buy up a series of back to back
6
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1
timeshare weeks from September through June and wish to register their.
children for school. We say this is extremely remote because the cost would
be extremely prohibitive (i.e., $18,000/week x 40 weeks = $720,000 for a
1250 square foot unit plus $400/week maintenance fee x 40 weeks =
$16,000 per year).
The "district" is also concerned that the project may in the future convert to
a residential country club.
The project is within Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Project Area No. 2
from which Palm Springs Unified School District will receive tax increment
pursuant to a pass-through agreement as additional mitigation. While there is
significant disagreement between School District and Redevelopment Agency
fiscal consultants, revenues to the District from the $900,000,000
incremental valuation generated by the project at build out are forecast to be
as high as $456,742 annually (source: Public Economic Inc. analysis of Pass
Through Agreement 10/25/96).
If the potential student generation creates an unmitigated financial burden on
the District, then the property owner shall agree to de-annex the property from
Palm Springs Unified School District thereby relieving it of all responsibility and
costs of providing educational services.
In order to mitigate the above concerns conditions will be imposed as follows:
1 . Development agreement will include a provision limiting consecutive
occupancy to a maximum of 60 days.
2. The Conditional Use Permit will be conditioned to require the developer
to record against the property title a deed restriction in a form
acceptable to the city which will prohibit permanent occupancy on the
site. Permanent occupancy will be defined as not greater than 60
consecutive days. Said deed restriction will also provide that in the
event by mutual consent the deed restriction is waived mitigation fees
of $3.44 per square foot shall be paid for the 1250 square foot units.
If unit size increases, then the per square foot fee would decrease
proportionally until it reaches the state mandated fee in effect at the
time.
7
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1
3. The Conditional Use Permit will be conditioned to prohibit conversion of
the project to other than residential timeshare without approval by the
City and Palm Springs Unified School District or such school district
which is serving the property at that time.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a-g. All service providers have indicated the ability to serve the site.
XIII. AESTHETICS
a & b.
The site has a scenic vista to the mountains to the west. Monterey Avenue
is not a scenic highway.
The closest inhabited residential structure will be approximately 150 feet from
the edge of the nearest structure on the site. Buildings have been oriented so
as to minimize impacts upon views.
The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive due
to blow sand problems. The proposed development must be approved by the
Palm Desert Architectural Commission.
C. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent lighting
spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan per
Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-e.
The cultural resource study performed as part of the North Sphere Specific
Plan found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical significance
on this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found
during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared.
XV. RECREATION
a & b.
The project is geared to tourists and will provide a wide range of onsite
recreational amenities. No impacts are expected on existing recreational
8
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS..PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1
facilities. The City assumed up to 1500 residential units with full time
residents on this site. Designated park sites were based on this assumption.
This project will have less impact than the assumed full time/1500 unit
project.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PP 97-10 - MONTEREY PROPERTIES, Applicant
Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for an
approved precise plan of design allowing the construction of a
7,460 square foot office building for property located at 44-267
Monterey Avenue.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty,
approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0.
Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising
only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described
herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at,
or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Continued Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1 -
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., Applicant
Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a
Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map,
Development Agreement and Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for an 18-hole golf course, 1200 unit
timeshare resort and supporting amenities on 300± acres on the
east side of Monterey Avenue between Frank Sinatra Drive and
Gerald Ford Drive.
Mr. Smith informed Commission that an amendment to pages 5 and 6 of the
draft resolution was distributed to them. He noted that the applicant provided
a colored site plan which was on display and it delineated the two story, three
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
story and four story units. A revised tentative tract map was distributed to
Commission in their packets. Mr. Smith explained that the revisions included
the entry point on Frank Sinatra being moved 300 feet further to the west.
The street consequently had been curved away from the former location just
west of the Kaufman and Broad development. Also, several of the buildings
were turned so that the narrow points of the buildings were oriented toward
the residents to the east. As well, the street had been angled to the northeast
as a result of concerns expressed at the last meeting that car lights would
shine into the rear yards of the homes on the west side of Drexell. The plan
was revised to move that street and realign it in a northeasterly direction,
rather than in an east-west direction. Mr. Smith indicated there was a site
visit conducted at the site on Thursday morning at 10:00 a.m. Chairperson
Campbell and Commissioner Finerty were in attendance. The applicant put up
a mockup of the locations and height of the proposed buildings. The mockup
was viewed from a series of the rear yards of the homes on the west side of
Drexell. He noted that they visited seven or eight backyards. As a result of
this visit, it became apparent that the height of the buildings as proposed could
impact on the views from those residential homes. Staff had originally put in
a condition, number 15, calling for the lowering of those pads by four feet
relative to the height of the residential units to the east. He said he met with
the applicants this afternoon and they were prepared to lower the buildings
from 28 feet to 26 feet and then condition 15 was amended to reflect a two
foot lowering of the pad heights on those buildings. They would still see a
relative height of 24 feet from the homes on Drexell. During the last two
weeks a traffic study was also prepared. It recommended certain mitigation
measures which the applicant concurred with. That had been imposed as
condition 16. Mr. Greenwood, as well as the traffic engineer who prepared
the document, were present to answer any questions the Commission might
have. Mr. Smith indicated staff received comments from the City Attorney on
the development agreement although the changes had not yet been made to
the document. Staff and the applicant discussed them and there were no
remaining issues with it. Staff's recommendation was that Planning
Commission recommend the development agreement to the City Council,
subject to incorporating the comments from the City Attorney. He noted that
the building heights were now called out in the revised condition number 20,
which read, "The two story buildings shall not exceed 26 feet in height and
shall be setback 167 feet from the perimeter property lines, three story
buildings shall not exceed 36 feet in height and shall be setback 350 feet from
perimeter property lines, and four story buildings shall not exceed 46 feet in
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
height and shall be setback 650 feet from the adjacent residential properties."
That, coupled with the two foot reduction required in condition number 15,
would net a height of 24 feet. Mr. Smith indicated that a new condition
number 19 was also added which required that the golf course, clubhouse and
sales center be constructed as part of phase one. Regarding condition number
17 and the orientation of what was described in an earlier set of plans as
building number 37, that building was located northwest of the northwest
corner of the residential area. As a result of deflecting the street to the
northeast it turned this building so that its longer view would be noticed from
the residential corner. Mr. Smith stated that it would be a two story building
and it would be 24 feet relative to the home at the north end of the street and
it was 250 feet or more to the nearest point. Staff had suggested in the
original report that building number 37's siting be restudied to minimize its
impact, but as a result of changing the street they created this situation. After
study, staff didn't think it was something that could necessarily be addressed,
so condition number 17 could be left in and at some point in the future, since
this would take place at phase 3, they could possibly come up with a better
solution, or condition 17 could be eliminated given the distance to the building
at 250 feet. Staff recommended that Commission delete condition number
17. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the precise plan/conditional use
permit, the tentative tract map and the development agreement as modified
by the City Attorney's conditions.
Commissioner Jonathan asked what other prominent developments came to
mind in excess of two stories and three stories other than the Desert Springs
Marriott. Mr. Smith said that was the one and the recent approval of the
Courtyard, which was three stories, came to his mind. Commissioner
Jonathan asked if this was a trend or if it was just a coincidence that the
Commission was seeing this kind of request. Mr. Drell replied that it was
probably a reflection of land cost. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they might
be looking at the beginning of a trend. Mr. Drell said probably, but recalled
that nearly all the hotels in Palm Desert were three stories, i.e., Embassy
Suites, Holiday Inn, Travelers Inn, Vacation Inn and basically all our "resort"
hotels. Mr. Drell said they were all three stories and 35 feet high.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any in excess of three stories,
other than the Desert Springs Marriott. Mr. Drell replied no. Commissioner
Jonathan noted that any precedence being set here, other than a high rise like
the Desert Springs Marriott, would be four stories. Mr. Drell concurred. He
indicated that the Desert Springs Marriott was eight stories.
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
Chairperson Campbell oogened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. RONALD E. EASTMAN, 935 Farmhaven Drive in Rockville,
Maryland, stated that he was a Group Vice President with Marriott
International, Incorporated. He felt that Mr. Smith covered all the points
he had on his list to talk about. He notlad that they did actually remove
two buildings that were facing north and south instead of east and
west, which gave them the extra space there. He thanked Mr. Smith
and Mr. Drell for their wonderful cooperation and appreciated how well
they helped a developer put together a project.
Commissioner Finerty asked how many units of timeshare they would sell in
a year with 52 weeks in a year, but allowing for refurbishment.
Mr. Eastman replied 51 .
Commissioner Finerty asked if the City Council would have the same
opportunity as the Planning Commission to go out into the backyards of those
residences and view the platforms.
Mr. Eastman said that they could arrange that and indicated that
because of lowering the building by two feet and lowering the pad by
two feet, they would be redoing the platforms in order to take pictures
for the record to show the minimal impact on the view corridors.
Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Eastman was comfortable with all of the
conditions.
Mr. Eastman felt the conditions were tough, but fair. He said that
regarding condition number 20 the setbacks were to be from residential
property lines, not from all property lines, and that was what they
agreed to. He felt it was a minor change that he was sure Mr. Smith
would make. He reiterated that all of-the property lines were to be from
residential properties.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
MR. GARY KORT, 37-799 Drexell Drive, stated that he appreciated the
Marriott cooperating with them in putting up the structures and from his
understanding they would lower the buildings two feet and lower the
ground two feet, which would be much more pleasant for their view.
At the same time this was going on, he said if it was at all possible he
would really like to see a three and four story structure put up to make
sure that at 600 feet they wouldn't be losing any view either. That was
the only thing he would be opposing. .Everything else seemed to be
fine.
Mr. Smith said that earlier today the applicant had a line-of-sight drawing and
asked if the applicant was going to rework it. He suggested that it be shown
to Mr. Kort when that was done. With the distances involved, the two story
units would block out the three and four story units.
Mr. Eastman said they had it on a board and he would be•liappy to
show it to Mr. Kort. He indicated that the three and four story buildings
were so far back that the two story buildings would block it out long
before it got there.
Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that the first timeshares units to
be built would only be two stories and in time they would build the three and
four story units.
Mr. Eastman replied not necessarily. The ones closest to the residential
area would be two story and he believed that was phase three of their
four phase development.
Mr. Drell asked if they could expand the demonstration for the three and four
story units.
Mr. Eastman said they could.
MR. JOE BATOK, 73-500 Woodward Drive, stated that his home was
at the very northwest corner of the Kaufman and Broad development.
Regarding the demonstrations, as far as he was concerned it was
virtually non-existent because in that corner, their view was directly
west. The demonstration was off to the left, meaning off to- the
southwest. According to what he had just heard, the fact that the road
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
was being changed had caused one of the buildings to be turned,
meaning that the balconies of those buildings would be overlooking the
Kaufman and Broad property. He raised the question of privacy and
whether it would be possible for people on their balconies to be able to
see down into their yards. It seemed strange to him that if they were
going to set up this demonstration, ,that they should not set up a
demonstration tower for the buildings on the far northwest corner and
the view that most of them would have of Mount San Jacinto. That,
along with privacy, were foremost in their minds.
Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation from staff that there was no
demonstration for lot 37. Mr. Smith concurred that there wasn't. He
indicated that was the last yard and when they visited that yard they looked
toward the northwest. For whatever reason, there wasn't a mockup at that
location, but they peered.over the wall to try and visualize where it would be.
He suggested that if they were going to show the three and four story
buildings that they also include lot 37.
Mr. Eastman agreed that they could show lot 37 as well. He noted that
there was a little bit of a trade off in not having the road facing the
development and having the building like it is. That was a trade off for
the residents and he was willing to do it either way. He said they
would put up the mockup for this building as well for the
demonstration.
MS. DENISE WELCH, 37-575 Drexell Drive, said that her home was
third from the end lot. She said she had a couple of concerns. She was
not sure what the degree of angle this building had been replaced at.
She said that they discussed that at their meeting in their backyards and
they were supposed to receive a copy of the new plans and didn't
believe that anyone received those. Her first concern was the degree
of angle and the second thing was that if this demonstration was going
to take place, she would like to have a demonstration of the middle of
that building where that would be positioned, at the angle. If it was
being angled out towards her property, then it came in the direct line of
her property. If it angled away from her property, then it wasn't an
issue. Until she knew the degree of angle and which way that building
was being angled, she had some concerns. She said she didn't know
if that could be addressed this evening, but she would appreciate a copy
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
of the new plan for review so that they knew what they were agreeing
on.
Mr. Eastman said he would be happy to show the residents how the
views were blocked or not blocked and the drawings that they came up
with. He wasn't certain they had seen them. He also said he wasn't
aware that they were supposed to receive a,copy of the plan until just
now. He said they had them here and he would be happy to show them
to the residents. If there was some trade off back and forth regarding
the angle, that could be done. Mr. Eastman noted that they also had. a
number of photographs that the Commission might want to review of
the wall and the plan for the property behind it. He said they. were
available.
CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL CALLED A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS. THE RECESS WAS CALLED
AT 7:32 P.M. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL RECONVENED'THE MEETING AT 7:38 P.M.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in
FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked if
Mr. Eastman for any rebuttal comments.
Mr. Eastman said he didn't have any rebuttal comments, but as far as
reviewing the height they agreed to now, they would be having another
demonstration probably the week after next. He felt they have come
a long way and thanked the Commission.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Eastman had elevations of the clubhouse,
the restaurant, and the other facilities.
Mr. Eastman replied no, they didn't have the elevations with them, but
it would not be a high building. He showed Commission a conceptual
rendering.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if renderings had been presented to the
Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Drell noted that those sorts of
drawings indicate the general character of the buildings, not precise
architectural elevations.
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
Mr. Eastman said they reviewed this with the Architectural Review
Commission before the last Planning Commission meeting as those
Planning Commissioners who were present at that meeting would
remember. He noted that Commissioner Jonathan was absent from the
last meeting.
Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't at the last meeting, but he listened to
the tape of the meeting and read the minutes. On the drawing before
commission, he asked what the drawing was of, if it was the clubhouse, the
restaurant, or a combination.
Mr. Eastman said it was the restaurant and clubhouse. There would be
a cluster of buildings and while their designer was not present tonight,
the building cluster included the restaurant, the clubhouse and the
check-in area.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was the only rendering they had to show
what it would look like.
Mr. Eastman concurred. He showed the Commission on the site plan
the locations of the clubhouse, restaurant and entry way into the
property.
Mr. Drell said that if the Commission wished, as the actual architecture was
submitted, staff could bring it back to the Commission for their review.
Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Eastman was comfortable with a
continuance of the public hearing to June 2, 1998.
Mr. Eastman said no, they would really appreciate a vote tonight, if
possible. Their purchase deadline was coming up fast and they
wouldn't be able to make it if it was postponed to June 2, because the
20th of June was his last day for contingencies and they wouldn't be
able to have a council meeting before June 25 if they were continued
to June 2.
Chairperson Campbell asked if he would be able to make all the residents
happy with the new demonstration.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
Mr. Eastman felt they would be able to make them real happy between
now and the council meeting.
Chairperson Campbell noted that they have done a lot already.
Mr. Eastman felt they had done a lot and when the residents saw the
other changes with the further setback`and the building four feet lower,
they would see more of an improvement.
Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
Commissioner Beaty noted that he would again be abstaining from the
discussion and vote.
Commissioner Jonathan said that, speaking for himself, one of the endearing
qualities of the desert to him was the fact that there were very few high rise
buildings. Two stories high he could accept since that was what the Zoning
Ordinance allowed in the PR zone. Three stories were.sometimes approved
and he was a little surprised. He thought that was done when they were
generally not much higher than two stories and looked like two-stories. To go
beyond two, much less three, was not acceptable. He thought they were
deteriorating the very essence of what has drawn most to the desert. He was.
also not comfortable with approving a project that he didn't really know what
it would look like after it was built. The rendering for the clubhouse, etc., was
not necessarily what would go up so he wasn't comfortable with that. With
regards to the development agreement, if he were voting in favor of the
project, he wouldn't address the development agreement because he didn't
feel qualified to do that so he would have passed that along to council. He
stated that he wanted to explain his reasons for opposition to the application.
Commissioner Fernandez stated that from what he has seen so far he thought
it was a great project. He felt that Marriott went out of their way for the
neighbors in that area, that they had done a great job, that it would be a great
project, and he would like to see something like this built.
Commissioner Finerty said that she has tried to look at this as an issue
between what the property is really zoned for, single family homes, versus the
proposed timeshare units. She tried to break it down into all the significant
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
issues. First was traffic. It was her understanding that timeshare guests
would make six trips per unit per day, whereas a single family home owner
would make ten trips per day. She was also appreciative that Marriott agreed
to all of the traffic study mitigation measures. Financially, the City would
receive 9% TOT if the owner of the units sublet or if Marriott used any
unoccupied weeks. They were told that 30% of these weeks would fall into
the TOT category. According to the Finance Department, whether it was
timeshare or single family homes, the City would receive the same percentage
of assessed value on the units based on the appraised value at construction.
As far as number of units, there could be 1 ,110 single family homes versus
the 1 ,200 timeshare units. She said she was totally comfortable with the two
story units. The three and four story units she was a little uneasy with at the
last Planning Commission meeting, but having gone out into the backyards and
seeing this for herself, it was an issue that to her was non-existent. It became
apparent that single family homes would basically obliterate the beautiful
views that the homeowners on Drexell Drive have. Looking at the setbacks
alone, for a one story single family home it would only have to be set back 20
feet and the timeshare now was at 167 feet. By putting in the timeshare units
they would be able to preserve in almost all cases, except for lot number 18,
80%-90% of the view. Because of the golf course with the timeshare, there
would be 83% of open space; with single family homes there would be a
maximum of 40%. Commissioner Finerty also appreciated the fact that the
Marriott has worked with the homeowners in addressing all of their needs.
She felt that going on the tour was a wonderful thing to do and she
recommended that anyone in doubt of the project go look at the views from
the Kaufman and Broad homes on Drexell. She noted that while there was
sometimes a stigma just because the units were timeshare units, Marriott
timeshare was a quality project. She said personally lives in Desert Breezes
and they have 76 units of timeshare there. They peacefully coexist with the
timeshare guests and they haven't had any problems with timeshare
homeowners that they haven't encountered with their own homeowners. She
said she knew that because she has served on their board for over eight years.
She felt that in a sense, they could look at timeshare units as a financing
mechanism for a hotel. She indicated that according to the City's 2010 Plan
it was something they really worked hard at. They wanted to strengthen local
businesses' environments to enable entrepreneurs to establish or expand
activities. One of the ways they wanted to do that was to develop additional
destination resort, convention and conference facilities. That was what she
saw this development as. There was a golf course, clubhouse, restaurant, and
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
there were people staying generally for seven days. She was in favor of the
project.
Chairperson Campbell stated that she was also in favor of the project. She
thought the developer had done an excellent job in answering the
homeowners' questions. Also, she didn't have a problem with the three and
four story buildings because of the lowering of the site. With the building on
the northwest, she was sure the developer would work on that section. The
clubhouse and sales office would go through the Architectural Review
Commission and she was sure they would give the City something very
pleasing. She was in favor of the project and asked for a motion.
Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move for approval; but she would
like to see condition number 17 remain because that was in phase three,
which could be ten years from now. Chairperson Campbell also noted that it
would be 250 feet away from the wall/perimeters. Commissioner Finerty
concurred.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1-1
(Commissioner Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Beaty abstained).
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1860, recommending to City
Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-5 and TT 28818, subject to
conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted
no, Commissioner Beaty abstained).
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 , recommending to City
Council approval of Case No. DA 98-1 , subject to the development agreement
being revised pursuant to the comments of thh City Attorney dated May 13,
1998. Said revisions to be to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. Motion
carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Beaty
abstained).
12