Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-15 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR MEETING OF THE a PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2017 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, Commissioners will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda, including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in the Office of the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, telephone (760) 346-0611, Extension 484. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER OF THE AGENDA. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 1, 2017. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application to adjust a common lot line at 868 Andreas Canyon Drive (APN 652-160-052). Case No. PMW 17-135 (Jody Jones Development, La Quinta, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 17-135. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER Vill. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 18, 2017. (Continued from the meeting of August 1, 2017). Rec: Approve as presented. Action: X. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a resolution recommending approval to the City Council of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56 Signs and modify Section 25.99.020 Land Use Definitions to allow for freeway-oriented monument signs on commercially zoned developments abutting Interstate 10; and adopt a Notice of Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. ZOA 17-070 (Fountainhead Development, Newport Beach, California, Applicant). 2 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Agenda\8-15-17 agn.dou AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2705, recommending to the City Council to approve Case No. ZOA 17-070. Action: B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a new 2,498-square-foot addition to the existing buildings at Crystal Palm Courtyard to be used as a private members only social business club, inclusive of exterior fagade remodel to the existing buildings located at 73-338 Highway 111; and approval of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. CUP 16-217 (Desert Social Club, LLC, Coachella California Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2707, approving Case No. CUP 16-217. Action: C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 412-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for an undeveloped 18- acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East, east of Portola Avenue. Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 (New Cities Investment Partners, LLC Walnut Creek, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2699, recommending to the City Council to approve Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394. Action: XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XIII. COMMENTS 3 G'\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Agenda\8-15-17 agn.docx AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 XIV. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 11th day of August 2017. Monica O'Reilly, Recording SeQgtary Please contact the Planning Department, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (760) 346-0611, for assistance with access to any of the agenda, materials, or participation at the meeting. 4 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017WgendaW-15-17 agn.docx I CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES • TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2017 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM,DIESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER . Chair Nancy DeLuna called the meeting to br at 6:05 p Olt IF II. ROLL CALL Present: ent . Commissioner Ron Grego 4 Comrtioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner John Green "�k"4x5 Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto Chair Nancy DeLuna ad Staff Present:RAN 0 . y Jill Tremblayity Attorn Eric Ceja, Pnr Chri tiq Cana ant istrative Secrry III. LEDGE OF GIA K G�dglmissioner Jo greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMM � OF C NCIL ACTION None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of July 18, 2017. Rec: Continue to the next regular scheduled meeting. Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner Gregory, and a 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was continued to the next regular scheduled meeting (AYES: DeLuna, Gre�nwood, Gregory, and dPradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). �� r VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER ry None Ad al Vlll. NEW BUSINESSoi I kt None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGSw A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDATI appro recise Plan to construct a new 6,840-square-foot aufftobile end ice building for CarMax located at 73- .11 .'nah Sh D a�t�:' � , t a Notice of Exemption in accordanceth lifornia I' nmenta ' °'uality Act. Case No. PP/CUP 17-059 �� ax Au '� uperst s California, LLC, Lakewood, Colorado, Applica"t, Mr. Eric Ceja,%-:" n nted the staff report (staff report is availbl w. palmdesert and offered to answer any questions. *.. Chat blic hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSII � this r� er. 1 MR REG SAIA �Centerpoint Integrated Solutions, Lakewood, Colorado, thankeP , e Pla , rg Commission for their time and consideration of the proposed arMe provided the Commission with a PowerPoint presentation relating to f1s ory of CarMax and renderings of the building and layout. He noted that they must close at 9:00 p.m. per the Conditions of Approval, and requested to have the hours of operation extended to 10:00 p.m. He said 9:00 p.m. are the typical hours for CarMax. However, customers are still on the lot after 9:00 p.m. and there are employees that need to get to their cars. In addition, there are occasions when car carriers arrive around the hours of 8:30 or 8:45 p.m. and cars need to be unloaded. Mr. Saia stated that they would start dimming lights between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. For the reasons stated above, he 2 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 hoped that the Commission would consider extending the hours of operations to 10:00 P.M. Commissioner Ron Gregory asked what the City's perspective on changing the shrubs from Lantana to Yellow Bells is. Is it because the guardrails are unattractive? Mr. Ceja responded that the guardrails are similar to highway guardrails. The guardrails are used by CarMax for security reasons, a he City prefers to see the guardrails screened with landscape. Commissioner Gregory said he's curious from t N ant's perspective, if the use of larger shrubs would screen the cars. MR. SAIA answered that they understan ity's perspecfln screening the guardrails. He said they are fine with reening the guardrails long as the shrubs do not grow above the rails. w, Commissioner Gregory pointed out that t �:n pe specifications are great for the state of Colorado, but ngt1.,the desert. sked the applicant to check with their landscape architect to te the spgations are appropriate for the desert. 0 � r Chair DeLuna c ed thattpIa , questing to have the hours extended to 1 Q iF,iW d the I )�ttlwvould b �`immed between the hours of 9:00 and 10.01 AY m. She eked the �Z licant to explain how the lighting would be dimmed, y ' would th `Lg fighting b intrusive to nearby residents or other businesses * 0G"F , M spon', at they are posing light-emitting diode (LED) lighting. U1ih` LED` Meting, e is the opportunity to adjust the lighting discreetly. arMax is roe p p�l g to down the lighting incrementally, starting at 9:00 p.m. -operating °� r Teat 10:00 p.m. for safety and security purposes. He s fto that there a o resi ential homes near the proposed site location. Chair �,qna asf the lighting is directed down. N � MR. SAIA rp4 a yes. Vice Chair Joesph Pradetto asked City staff what their stance on the hours of operation request is, and are there any other facilities that have lighting permissions to go beyond 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ceja responded that there are businesses that operate past 10:00 p.m. He said the operations plan that staff reviewed indicated CarMax would close at 9:00 p.m. Therefore, staff wrote the condition to be in line with the closing time. He 3 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 noted that most parking lot and sports field lighting could stay on until 10:00 p.m. Mr. Ceja stated that staff is open to amend the condition to extend the hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. with dimming to start at 9:00 p.m. Vice Chair Pradetto inquired if other shading elements were considered or discussed since it gets hot in the desert. Mr. Ceja replied no. MR. SAIA interjected that shading elements are a v' trity issue for CarMax. If the cars were covered with shaded structures, it is a er for people to see the vehicles. They also did not want to use trees they litter and cause maintenance issues. # MR. TOM NOBLE, Palm Desert, Calif ri stated he is 5t { president of the property owners' association of the in � park, and is in favo► - the proposed project. He said CarMax would bring lot of sy r ies to the dQpment. He y has been working with CarMax and th ve f �rest to work with, which is he does not have a problem unusual for companies of their size. Hed with the lighting transition, is opinion,'', T ded structures do not work in automobile sale lots. ', �, R � With no further testimony offered, Cha' w eLuna� '��a ed� ublic hearing closed. Commissioners iced th � andscaparea covered is 29 percent of the total lot f and thee' fount r fired is 20 percent. He noted that CarMax is giving some hang, whic� fight h make up for the lack of trees. It is understand af by th rr nt wish + ave the trees adjacent to the cars. Cq� i11iR11l0 r Grp ` � ood said it is� �reat use for the area, and he is excited to e a CarMa�giin Pa esert. He appreciated the work that staff has done, as swell as the app)Int w f with the City. k Vi'4 Chair Prad4ft t moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commissic Resolution 2703 to approve Case No. PP/CUP 17-059, subject to conditions, ai �,mendin ondition of Approval No. 8 to allow outdoor lighting until 10:00 p.m wi h m {"of lights to begin at 9:00 p.m. Motion was seconded by Commissioner G od and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Prade�o; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). Chair DeLuna thanked the applicant for coming to Palm Desert to do business. 4 G\PlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Precise Plan to construct a new 23,385-square-foot laboratory and office building for the Coachella Valley Water District located at 75-519 Hovley Lane East; and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. PP 17-093 (Coachella Valley Water District, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja outlined the salient points of the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org) and offered to answer any estions. He noted that the applicant is also available to answer questions. Vice Chair Pradetto commented that the Coach I -y Water District (CVWD) is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ. ead cy. Theoretically, the .' CVWD could move forward on the propose ject witho� City's approval. Mr. Ceja responded that all of the D buildings have ct�fn before the Planning Commission so staff is follo"144i the norm rocess. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing nd invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this m J �a MR. DAN RUIZ, CVWD, Pal e5r � liforni , icated that any project not directly related to the productr "of w C . has to obtain the City's permission for a n,, aiding. H id{ rig would allow the CVWD to consolidate and eir ser hi, ele believ�dthe new building is designed to complem 'tithe othtwo bu# tngs that they have on their campus to minimize a�€ pacts. r 'e are 256 parking stalls but only 94 Commissioner", � '.� � � p g y parkjJ, ark ,,w fired. He as the applicant if they plan to have large r i, rxtpetrngs oe ts. Z. RUIZ replie t the not modifying any of the parking stalls, which was p*Nigusly built a ver p rked at the time. However, there are times parking get ll when they a their board meetings. With no further ered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissione regory commented that the project was very well presented and well thought out. The new building will be a nice asset to the community. Vice Chair Pradetto agreed with Commissioner Gregory's comments. 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2704 to approve Case No. PP 17-093, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Pradetto and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the City Council to adopt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise Palm Desert Municipal Code 25.56 Signs and modify Section 25.99.020 Land Use Definitions to allow for freeway J nted monument signs on commercially zoned developments abutting w f ate 10; and adopt a Notice of Exemption under the California Enviro z f In al Quality Act. Case No. ZOA 17-070 (Fountainhead Developmen "A , ort Beach, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja reviewed the staff reps {(staff report available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He recom " ded the following dards to be applied to freeway-oriented sign'11 ) requir � the Archite 11 Review Commission (ARC) review and approv parts e sign program; 2) limit the maximum height to 40 feet; 3) limit maze n area to 400 square feet; 4) limit to only one (1) sign p, oject; and it to Planned Commercial (PC) development of at least 10 A ;, ize. He c ded his report and mentioned that the applicant has a presetdo Com ion to view. Chair DeLuna rP11�o a ren�? ng, i #, ifthe sign would be a bright orange. , i- Mr. Ceja 4 i6ved that = sign w N- be beige. There is a perforated metal element, wh"i y gi t an e glow. h y `S C �[ � , a c d that sta � s recommending one sign per project. erefore, the rey Avenue interchange there would possibly be two vy �gns. ��q *., Ceja remarke t the would possibly be three signs. vm Comrrr�� ner Gr voiced his concern with the menu aspect of the sign. He said whe6`54-f sig arts to get a lot of business names; it becomes more difficult to read. Mr. Ceja stated that in the current ordinance, there is no limit. When a sign is reviewed by the ARC, they look at the overall monument design and how many menu signs fit within the monument sign. In the past, Commissioner Gregory said there was a philosophy that signage was helpful for the smaller stores that were not easily seen from certain locations. If there is a large box store with its name hugely printed on the side, would it be 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 superfluous having that stores name on the monument sign, or is it an opportunity for a smaller store to show that they are located there too. Mr. Ceja answered that the applicant can address Commissioner Gregory's questions. He mentioned two things staff has learned through the process: 1) because of the speeds people are traveling on the freeway and the distance from the freeway, the sign letters have to be a specific height to be visible and readable; and 2) major tenants on a menu sign is what draws people into a center. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that the inten gt, 'e application before the Planning Commission is to modify the Zoni , ..r , �; nce. He asked if the Commission is also approving the sign design. Mr. Ceja replied that the Commission is pproving the d t n The rendering that the Commission viewed is a poten r, ign, if the ordinance 2 mended. Commissioner Greenwood reaffirmed ft n if th hing Ordinance ,� mendment (ZOA) is approved, a freeway-oriented sign would go to the ARC for review and approval based e standards mmended by staff. Mr. Ceja replied yes. 011 KI aii, Commissioner G od ingi d h t if large monument freeway- oriented signs F� +t e the A as well a ­ e Planning Commission for review and � val Mr. Ceja resOlo,,,ed th t f s langu a incorporated for a sign program to be reviewed by the t �f+ t dance. If the Planning Commission would I t o> ally�f w freeway-on�ted signs, staff could change the language td°`modify roces Char Luna declare' the , ��Jic hearing open and invited public testimony FAVOR 4-or OPPOSI ;his matter. MR SCHN R, Newport Beach, California, thanked the Commission for the f t the freeway monument signs for Monterey Crossing were aesthetical ;� ,' �� e but first in class. Commissioner Gregory brought up two important poi t' for the reasons for having two signs and not one. He stated that as proposed, two signs would allocate positions for approximately half of the anticipated tenants. If it is limited to one sign, it would only allow for a quarter of the tenants. Addressing Commissioner Gregory's comment regarding an anchoring tenant, there is no anchor tenant for the Monterey Crossing. The development is unique, exciting, and a gateway that would provide an assortment of food users and services that cannot be identified with a Walmart, Lowe's, or a Home Depot. Mr. Schneider stated that they listened to the ARC, 7 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\5-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 and they were mindful of the number of tenants on a high sign. Following the guidelines and suggestions by the ARC, they chose to stay within the building limit lines to keep the sign small and subtle but elegant. In conclusion, he expressed that the Monterey Crossing is a unique project and felt it is worthy of two signs. MS. VASANTHI OKUMA, Fountainhead Development, Newport Beach, California, stated that it was not too long ago that she was in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council describing their prod proposal, which was extremely well received in terms of the design. For R, a of center they have proposed, they have a need for signage. She expla#1 that they understood the City's concerns, and they designed a sign that.�� � c and in scale with the buildings. She also explained that the backdro f ie � n is a rust color, with metal and steel materials that would blend,i i h the arc cture of the center. ,," To com p signage are their si na a to others pro ro fed a PowerPoint r presentation displaying pictures of vart�s freeway signs in othIN cities. Lastly, she hoped that the Planning Comm on would, nsider their $tgn proposal, which would make the Monterey Crossit'�syery !Essful. AW Commissioner Greenwood a kEd if the tenan name would be identical on both sides of the sign., MS. OKUMA replied that the to nt's n a iR , iuId� entical on both sides. She noted that there Qt be end hs tenant in the center. A„ Y MR. ROBI -`' L AD" ;Sin ners & Fabricators, Corona, California, . �� g . stated than firm has it most o e pylon signs in southern California. In regard to th n me ;'` ntion" hey originally requested a 450-square- ' x u foot sin The is paced, the more difficult it is to read. He cq # rt d th proposed sr for Monterey Crossing is the most elegant lhas see e out their factory in about 10 years. Of mmissionerwti�ry r ked that it is a nice looking sign. MR EOM SWIEQ- Fountainhead Development, Newport Beach, California, �:r stated"A" t for th.�"Pst two years they worked with City staff and have truly enjoyed th rel� rtship. They have created something that is elegant, they are thrilled withtrtchitecture, and the location of the project; the gateway to the City of Palm Desert. The main purpose for a freeway sign is to allow their tenants the ability to have exposure to the market place. Consequently, the number of panels requested is important because they have more than five tenants in the center. Mr. Swieca conveyed that they are very sincere in bringing a product the City of Palm Desert would be proud of; however, the most important reason for the freeway signage is to give their tenants the ability to succeed. 8 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning CommissionQO17\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Chair DeLuna asked Mr. Swieca if they have signed any leases with tenants indicating signage rights. MR.SWIECA responded that their leases are contingent upon getting freeway signage. The signage is very important as far as their tenants are concerned. MR. TOM NOBLE, Palm Desert, California, noted that the proposal reads commercially zoned properties. He said most of the property along Dinah Shore Drive and the freeway is service industrial properties. H; asked if the proposal includes service industrial properties. �. Mr. Ceja responded that the proposed ZOA do o' ly to service industrial properties; only planned commercial centers. MR. NOBLE stated that a lot of the use �e Service In X al (SI) zone are commercial in nature. Therefore, he sted that the prop be revised to � include Planned Commercial (PC) o ones. Se P dly, he also uested that signs be located on a parcel where t � n do, t interfere wit signage exposure of adjoining properties. To be clear, Chair DeLuna c Noble if ,I requ , esting the ability to have Wl other properties in the SI zon anc 016 the Z o as an effect there would be more signs along the freeww MR. NOBLE ret � e pomp®t �i�'that twocf the three locations Mr. Ceja referred to Broil a SI zone With no further testa ,+ y offe a it DeLddeclared the public hearing closed. Co ► I ter Gr `;y� ood undersf�dl the need for signage and the need for ,,, d,nts gel � sur felt that Palm Desert has done an exceptional job with �e attention t� has given to monument signs within the City. He said �Mo,nterey Cros s � �,is fir Ipss and it is exciting to see the project come into 014 rtafttz�n. He also u rstood°that the Planning Commission is not approving the sigriign, but th ign would go before the ARC. In terms of the quantity of signag b agre ' -vith staff and is comfortable with one monument sign. However,4`,e is ,"rested in having a request for a second monument sign go through th� ditional Use Permit process for the Planning Commission's consideration`` Vice Chair Pradetto mentioned a cap-and-trade sign program. He explained that if they cap the number of signs, each development can have a right to a sign. However, if they wanted to sell their sign rights to the developer for a second sign, it would limit the number of signs. 9 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Commissioner Greenwood said if the City only allows for one sign with a limited height, there is a functional need to display as many tenants as possible. However, it hampers the ability of any good sign designer to clearly articulate a sign. He would be more in favor if there were four signs with a single tenant and the design stood out as something consistent with the aesthetic of the overall development and a great design piece. Commissioner Gregory stated that it is difficult to set a policy where one size fits all. He believed that the Planning Commission could tree that the Monterey Crossing has a fine sign design. He is concerned someone in the future would come up with a sign that is not quite as god " a is also concerned with proportion. He said a monument sign that is 400 9k from the roadway and only 40 feet tall would be difficult to read H �y �nde ;i, the signs would be more effective if they were a little larger. Hqj, g oc cerned V,all the variables. If Commissioner Gregory is considers placing signs closer,iothe freeway, Chair DeLuna stated that there are riad tracks t contend witM,the location for the Monterey Crossing center. Commissioner Gregory rem::11d that he not want signs closer to the freeway. He explained that . are so r ,� ck for the Monterey Crossing project that he could see th " n� �. large i .: wever, if another project is 200 feet back, then he would . eel co le ,the size. It is a matter of proportion. gm . $} ZW Chair DeLu 0mmente� °z hat if t are two signs on the Monterey Crossing project, the��could poss ,° six signsatthe Monterey Avenue interchange. She asked if that is correct ' s M> C f a, replied t�i-4�i correct. 1, y _: N �e 0hair DeLuna, ' l wi possibility of six signs, it will become a cluster of sns. It will bez ight d maybe not the safest way to demonstrate the S-k p?ing opportu S. She`felt staff has done a careful job and a lot of research. Shy 4 that the . ns for Monterey Crossing was very well done and in extrer> ' good to She suggested they follow staff's recommendation, subject to the cot �J commission e Gregory commented that he would be more okay with having one sign as suggested by staff. However, he felt the sign should be a little larger otherwise it would look like clutter. In other areas, it would be different because of the setback. Chair DeLuna asked Commissioner Gregory why he felt it would look like clutter. 10 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Commissioner Gregory replied that signs for Monterey Crossing would not be accomplishing its goal of attracting attention and inducing people to shop. Mr. Ceja handed the Planning Commission a picture of a sign at 65 feet in height that was prepared by the applicant. Chair DeLuna inquired if the applicant would want one sign at 65 feet, and then there would be the possibility of having four signs at 65 feet at the Monterey Avenue interchange. - Mr. Ceja believed that the 65-foot sign would only k T, ' single sign for Monterey Crossing. As a result, it would increase the sig X1 . 65 feet, but only have one sign per center so there would be thre1. ns t e Monterey Avenue interchange instead of six. Vice Chair Pradetto said one option i ,j ead of limiting to on tgn, they could k f say a certain number of square fo of sign �p ce that coulclow for 12 monument signs. He said it would le eno ` '�esign guidelines where an applicant can go to ARC with some and potentially the Planning Commission for review. y $ Mr. Ceja offered a compromise o h' gingle iment sign reviewed by the ARC. There could be excep s to xa '. ,Qr �igns or a taller sign, if approved by the I .. Comri�ior�, ff would need help to identify the exceptionsk �r� 10 ` Chair DeLur ' responder ,iat she �Id need to see the site with a 65-foot sign. She commu� ed tho , t of P Desert has a certain character, style, and standards Z% e ��► the sign design for Monterey Crossing has ux e� ll of th�t. : pectations. does not want to see a lot of signs or see I tall 9 gat t onterey Avenue interchange. The signs are distracting end it is not w alms "pert is about. o =ti C mmissioner G = nwoo' understood Chair DeLuna's sentiments. He corn ted that th ��'RC does not take signage lightly. He said if there is a base ordinalb,that all p"r for the monument signs with a base limit and the design is as suchtrutrant an approval from ARC and the Planning Commission. Commissioner'° regory asked if story poles could be considered to demonstrate the height of a sign. Mr. Ceja replied that staff would prefer not see story poles. They are thin poles and you cannot get a sense of the scale of what the height of a sign could be. With computer imaging today, staff prefers to use renderings. 11 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Commissioner Gregory commented that he is in the industry. He knows that they could make perspectives look really good or really bad. He felt it was incumbent of the Planning Commission to not preclude good design, especially if the proportion is right. Chair DeLuna asked if the request for two signs would have to be 1,500 feet apart. If the Planning Commission is looking at two signs, Mr;Ceja suggested using existing language in the current code for freesta monument signs at commercial centers. A second monument sign is °fitted at 1 ,600 lineal feet and separated by a minimum distance of 400 Ii 11 N O, Chair DeLuna asked if the Commission ha, ahoice betty two signs that are 40 feet in height, one sign that is 65 fee �` ieight, or staff's r -ommendation of one sign at 40 feet. URP Mr. Ceja made clear that Fountainhea Nil evelo, nt is not reque ing a taller sign; the applicant is requesting m He noted that the Planning Commission could consider g the signage. tonal heth > Commissioner Gregory asked fat f� dal line stage of the centers abutting b Monterey Avenue is on both si ` w Mr. Ceja replie tely 5,0 0 �. Chair DeLtjk inquired if° �e Plannir �`J�tommission felt that they need to further study freewa ented �t sign k C C �is �r G" ood aske t e ARC has reviewed the sign design for `h erey��� s ng. r Ceja r12, eplied The C reviewed the sign, but they could not approve the s1 because the T 0rent code does not allow for freeway-oriented monument Signs, 5 For clarifip ipn Pyi'poses, if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ZOA tot City Council and the Council approves the amendment, the Monterey Crossing sign design will formally be reviewed by the ARC. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Vice Chair Pradetto asked how much time staff would need if he moved to continue this item. 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Mr. Ceja responded two weeks, which would be the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August 15. Commissioner Greenwood interjected that he would be interested to have formal comments and review by the ARC in regard to the Monterey Crossing sign design prior to the Planning Commission meeting on August 15. Mr. Ceja replied that the ARC will meet on August 8, and he would add the Monterey Crossing sign design to their agenda. Vice Chair Pradetto moved to, By Minute Motion, c, f`ue Case No. ZOA 17-070 to August 15 so City staff could further study the ZOA eceive formal comments and review by the ARC regarding the design for Mor�t,�, Crossing freeway- oriented monument sign. Motion was seconde y Commisd Greenwood and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Gre ood, Gregory, anc1k Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). h M D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATI� ° ad resolution remmending approval to the City Council to adop, a t ng Ordinance Amendment to amend and retitle Palm Tio -pert Municip4 ode Section 25.34.120 Medical Cannabis Use to Can is e and lations and Sections 25.16 Commercial and lndustn � h nd One Eleven Development Code to allow for canna x bus witrP the City, subject to a Conditional U �' 4p, t; and Jopt tir icy xemption under the California Environmental Act. ZOA'z � -027 (City of Palm Desert, California, applicant The Planning Commis t? rovid �twith a PowerPoint presentation and an oral interpret t� f e° taf Aip b" Mr. Ceja (staff report is available at w_A it`�' ..f � Imde ' nor ). He nothat it has taken City staff over a year to dfthe d �bis t ance due to the constant changes at the State level. r consequently; Co ssion may see the cannabis ordinance again in a ',�p l,�atively short ti Sta , mmended approval to the City Council of the ZOA o -Oult-use of c abis and commercial cannabis operations. He offered to ansW�r�,pny question,. w �� ,X Commisftl pr r�enwood asked if the definition of commercial also pertains to 11Zretail. 5 Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if there is a map of the Downtown District Overlay that has been omitted from retail opportunities. He asked where the retail opportunities exist within the City of Palm Desert. 13 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Mr. Ceja replied that he does not have a map of the Downtown District Overlay. He referred to a map displayed on the screen and pointed to commercial centers in the City that could accommodate a cannabis business. He noted that a cannabis business is not allowed where there is red hatching indicated on the map. Commissioner Gregory asked staff to explain the difference between the orange hatching and the red areas without hatching indicated on the map. Mr. Ceja explained that there a various degrees of VI§Lopment intensity. The orange areas are allowed for mixed-use up to.441t.' stories with a mix of commercial, primarily on the ground floor. The , reas with the hatching are in an edge overlay, which is the transitiort', , m ixed-use and multi- story down to two stories and primarily resi': ial uses. laid the red areas would allow for three-story mixed-use, pre`- nantly for co mr 4e ial uses. Chair DeLuna pointed to the plain redd t as along El Paseo; d asked if the areas could be retail outlets for canna, t , Mr. Ceja replied yes. x` r F } Chair DeLuna stated that thaa � ome locates where the City is entertaining mixed-use developments, su` as Jding W etail on the first floor and residential above. She asked ifi build ould a matically be exempt from allowing a canna usiness s�}ce r i ' i nits would be attached to the building. r T '` x Mr. Ceja onded the the ordt nce was written to exempt mixed-use development ��the C( not ship gown everything on Highway 111 or EI Paseo to canna 'fl� � �e se development. However, you can still , . h�u� rabistless on the grond floor. Chair DeLuna firmed�t st,there could be cannabis stores along El Paseo. M .' Ceja responde hat staff has seen very high-end cannabis retail operations that ,,§Mld potential e a good fit for El Paseo. According State atute, Chair DeLuna asked staff to define a school. In relation to cannabis, Mr. Ceja believed that the State defines a school as K to 12 facilities. Chair DeLuna noted that there are five post-secondary schools in Palm Desert. She asked staff to show her where cannabis retail businesses could possibly be permitted that is within a 600-foot radius of the post-secondary schools. 14 G.\PlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Mr. Ceja referred to the map to show the locations of the post-secondary schools and the potential locations of a cannabis business. Vice Chair Pradetto asked Chair DeLuna if they should intensify the allowable number cannabis dispensaries near the college campuses. Chair DeLuna remarked no. She stated that post-secondary schools have under aged students. However, she would address that issue when they get to the Commissioner's comments. In regard to the people tha ' ant to grow marijuana in their backyard, she inquired if the City's Code Enf, r7ent Division would be the enforcing agency. Mr. Ceja replied yes. n Chair DeLuna asked if it would require ` Mplaint from a nei or or interested � party for Code Enforcement to check a,,,,., for marijuana plan�,� Mr. Ceja responded that it is not th� X aractice of, � de Complia , officers to enter backyards. There would have to�' y � a co pent for Code C mpliance to respond. _ ��� Chair DeLuna commented t rare and centers are loosely defined. She asked staff how many d � c "NA youth aers are located within 600 feet of a cannabis retail business } , ,11 011 011 011 011 011 011 011 011 011 U � 1. Mr. Ceja replied ' toes no that would baj EVE' a numbe 'of day care or youth centers �ated wit 600 fedf a cannabis business. He reiterated that a cannabis bSess would t be allow to be within 600 feet of the centers. Chair DeLuna i f � ��� �t` ��� include pre-schools. gF, i re ceja replT"6d that r orrect. �� 1,000-square-foot Commissionerenwoc ; said the map indicates a commercial buffer.F asked what the difference is between 1,000 square feet anc "'I; ,00 square f from adjacent dispensaries. 40 Mr. 1�-that the red circles on the map indicate 1,000 square feet, W. and the bld' s indicate 1,500 square feet. Therefore, essentially all the red circles would be enlarged to match the blue circles to further limit commercial cannabis. Chair DeLuna inquired if there were any reasons or thoughts given for allowing retail sales of cannabis along El Paseo. Mr. Ceja replied yes. He explained that there are some smoke shops on El Paseo that seem to fit in perfectly well with El Paseo. Staff also saw other 15 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 cannabis retail operations that could be high-end and specialized and fit in well with El Paseo. The Conditional Use Permit process will ensure that a cannabis retail operation would be an appropriate use on El Paseo. Commissioner Greenwood asked if staff has completed an analysis in regard to looking at the restrictions as it applies to schools, day cares, etc. as well as the 1,500-square-foot radius. He also asked how many dispensaries would be allowed within the 111 Corridor. Mr. Ceja responded that he does not have a numberA ispensaries that would be allowed within the 111 Corridor. Due to the d ,fkif "fin of a youth center and how broad that is, it has been difficult to identjcation for a dispensary within the 111 Corridor. He noted that the m `with red circles gave the Cannabis Committee an idea of approxim w man f pensaries could be permitted. X� ��h Commissioner Gregory voiced that thgcannabis onance is a IiMdocument, and he would not be surprised if there j� n a d�ment. The Cityhas to start somewhere and see what happens. Commissioner Greenwood he spe� lot of time working on the General Plan Update proce H � Io sago the Cannabis Committee. Cannabis is new for a lot of p�e and�t6j' .tends be a little bit of a stigma. He felt that time ki Show caP� bi � lishments are businesses like any other bus�n� �� "£ will g he way . To say that the cannabis , .� ordinance is ',ring dock ent, th '0 anning Commission may see some of the restrictions come lessen the ar along the 111 Corridor. He questioned why they ar%@1 ope111 Cjdor since there is a 1,500-square-foot re uirement, th $ m ., �. c ie other areas. , s Chair,,,,,, -una fie� red P public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPP� : G th :` titter. Nil �CHRISTOPH' CRA FILL, Palm Desert, California, stated he is in favor of the annabis ord `nce. However, he is against some of the proposed restnctia He restricting anchoring locations is going to create a hole where tf a'40ty 'wind up with cannabis zones. The cannabis zones would create overO properties, which will mean more buildings that sit empty for a longer period' if time. He expressed that synergy is huge. Palm Desert has a huge population, it is the center of the Coachella Valley, and it is the retail center of the Coachella Valley. Palm Desert also created a very good environment and it has very high standards. For those reasons, the cannabis industry would like to see their business in Palm Desert. He stated that cannabis was voted in by the people in California, therefore, it is something that the people want. If the City is concerned with the visibility of cannabis retail businesses, the City should focus on restrictions on what retail locations could look like and enforce how they 16 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 advertise and present themselves beyond the State regulations. By restricting dispensaries from areas with retail traffic, other local businesses could possibly benefit from the people who would be frequenting dispensaries. He voiced his concern with proposed buffer and the need to have exposure in the marketplace. MR. TOM NOBLE, Palm Desert, California, stated that he has nothing against the cannabis industry. He noted that he provided the Planning Commission with a correspondence prior to the meeting. He voiced his concern with Section F of the proposed ordinance, which states "Commercial Byiknesses are prohibited from operating on properties that abut public par rngle-family residential properties " He stated that abutting means shar a property line. He does not think the City would want a commercial canrt �f . 'ness sharing a property line with a single-family residential communit park. He noted that most of the ordinances he has seen a 250-sq a -foot requirement distance from residential properties. H ANA ,d that the or. nce is far from being voted on and should not be acte� n at this time. AM , With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLurr clad `e public hearing,closed. Commissioner Gregory wad :Pfused with oble's remarks in regard to the abutting of facilities to punbbb �` s He as the the suggested amendments L precluded facilities abutting putc k�� " Im Mr. Ceja respon t canna b,bu prohibited on properties that abut a public r` ,' ',-for singl' resi tial properties. He explained 4 that it does reate ` meric ance requirement. He said that there are �neighborho in very clag proxi i ; o Highway 111 and El Paseo; therefore, staff has limf parcek # abut aerty line of a single-family residential property. xr Elie" Chailadettc� mmented that he does not know enough about the industry to m96 ,an i�i dent decision on whether the cannabis ordinance is oad compared I yerythl i else that is out there. Secondly, the nature of how ( things are ch ing, adds another complication. He stated the ordinance coot great, or its uld have a gaping hole that the City will not find out until it ,,A. � is put'it action said he would like to hear from Commissioner Greenwood since h o . . v Cannabis Committee. He would like to know some of the thoughts th to the draft cannabis ordinance. Commissioner Greenwood commended staff because it has not been an easy process. He said the Cannabis Committee looked where retail and cultivation establishments would be located, and spent a lot of time discussing residential use. He agreed with Commissioner Gregory, the ordinance is a living document and there will be changes made to the ordinance. 17 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17 docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Chair DeLuna shared that the City is breaking new and controversial ground. She believed, out of an abundance of caution and before moving forward to the City Council, the issue of cannabis businesses being in close proximity to the post- secondary education corridor merits further discussion. She stated that the post- secondary schools include kids under the age of 21, and she would like to see the same 600-square-foot exemption included for post-secondary schools. She said the City is trying to enhance the education corridor, attract students, and keep students. Therefore, the City has to guard that area as something unique and different. She voiced that she is also concerned wife ommercial zones and youth centers, and referred to The First Tee and T1111, itting Zone. The two facilities would be less than 1,500 square feet o n annabis business. Chair DeLuna noted that the use of marijuana is still "fit the federal level. She believed it was prudent to proceed conservatir'in a ance with new State laws. There are no current limits set for mana cons on and no testing methods to determine the amount of co ption. Therefor ponsibility rests with the City's ordinance. She stated the City could revise; finances and relax them, but it is difficult once an bbi Jance is inx1pce to constrrd71, Vice Chair Pradetto disagreed with Cha11 He stated that bars are not banned near colleges because there are st under 21. Chair DeLuna interjected thate a ° of alcb n a person s system could .. be tested. Vice Chair PrIwed tha `'State is orking on finding a way to determine 461 uch c flt abis is t a person's system. He imagined that a cannabis b} hess oper is salivart at the opportunity to be located near a college, ans sur plent f students that would appreciate having a cannabis bust�� r. sll `" miss� ree d remarked that the cannabis dispensaries would be a �idensed facilit ich d have accountability. x G � �DeLuna asawhy t e ordinance should exclude post-secondary schools from ]b considIII_ as part of the definition of a school. t Commis t i r #"nwood commented that staff spent a lot of time looking at case studie �inquired if staff found any research related to Chair DeLuna s concern with ''PM -secondary schools. Mr. Ceja responded that they did not find any research pertaining to cannabis businesses in close proximity to post-secondary schools. Commissioner Greenwood mentioned that he recently visited the state of Colorado. He stated that he did not see any separation from post-secondary schools. 18 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Commissioner Gregory commented that an effort has been made to distribute possible locations for cannabis dispensaries quite well, with a very conservative approach. As far as post-secondary education, he felt that the concern with younger children is that they might be influenced in a way before they have enough mental capacity to make a wise decision. He stated that a cannabis dispensary would have too much to lose in selling to someone that is underage. Commissioner Greenwood referred to the permit issuance process. He clarified that a cannabis facility could obtain a building permit,= ut not a Certificate of Occupancy until the license from the State has bed f sued to the business operator. 7 Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. �y s 5,8 Following brief discussion pertaining too)"' fining permits ` post-secondary schools, the Planning Commission re � to the map display�i"r -n the screen. q�nw Mr. Ceja pointed to areas where �,� �I tnabis retail ~businesses Vv� ld not be permitted. � The Commission question Vitae wording le-family residential properties" under Section F, No. 2. z1 N Mr. Ceja proposed that the wor "tag be to ` date residential properties" which is a broader han "si� -fay°= I properties.,, Comm issioqf reenwoeferre sthe area near Sage Lane. He mentioned that the CF ked at o rtunities t hange that area to mixed-use. If it were to happen, ct .� the ar tely b� �e available for cannabis retail use? Mr ';} I �ed r�� � ause the arstill has a zoning designation of Downtown to Over he relay prohibits cannabis retail use. air DeLuna a§4 if th �ption must include the amendment to Section F, No. fi the ordinancet�� , City Aft` %,ey Jill T blay replied yes. b Commission eenwood asked what the process is if the ordinance moves forward to the ity Council. Mr. Ceja responded if the Planning Commission approves a recommendation to the City Council, the ordinance would go to a City Council public hearing. It would require two hearings, and then the ordinance goes into effect 30 days after the date of the second hearing. Theoretically, the City could accept Conditional Use Permit applications once the ordinance has gone into effect. Any amendment to the ordinance would have to go back to the Planning Commission. 19 G\Planning\Monica ORedly\Planning CommissionQ017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2706, recommending to the City Council to approve Case No. ZOA 17-027, with an amendment to Section F, No. 2 second paragraph; changing "single-family residential properties" to "private residential properties." Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Pradetto and carried by a 3-1-1 vote (AYES: Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: DeLuna; ABSENT: Holt). X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES l�VF # None 4� " B. PARKS & RECREATIONS AM None � �.; t XI1. COMMENTS ffi. .r XIII. ADJOURNMENT ' MOW S ... x, With the PJ brig Coii:ission c currence, Chair DeLuna adjourned the : ,J meeting atA4 p.m. 114 Lo, w . g­ NANCY DE LUNA, CHAIR k ATTEST x' r RYAN STENDELEI '' ETARY PALM DESERT F NING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 20 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-1-17.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: RYAN STENDELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: RON MORENO, CITY SURVEYOR Date: August 9, 2017 Subject: PARCEL MAP WAIVER NO. 17-135 The above-referenced parcel map waiver has been reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department and found to be technically correct. Please schedule for Planning Commission action as soon as possible. PMW 17-063: Applicant: Jody Jones Development 78-060 Calle Estado 49 La Quinta CA 92263 Property Owner: No Fault LLC Milo Pinkerton, Managing Member 7201 Walker Street, Suite 20 St Louis Park, Minnesota 55426 Representative: Brad McGee 45-100 Golf Center Parkway, Suite G Indio, CA 92201 ------ - ---- - ------ -- - ------ - RON ORENO, ., P.L.S CITY SURVEYOR/SR ENGINEER EXHIBIT"A" P.M.W. 17-135 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL"A"(ADJUSTED LOT 6,TRACT NO.25296) PORTIONS OF LOT 5 AND LOT 6 OF TRACT NO.25296,IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 378, PAGES 81 THROUGH 90,INCLUSIVE,OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6,N 20°09'32"W,A DISTANCE OF 196.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY,S 85°30'03"E,A DISTANCE OF 6.27 FEET THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6,N 73050'25"E,A DISTANCE OF 98.34 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6,S 25014'39"E,A DISTANCE OF 24.75 FEET; THENCE N 64045'21"E,A DISTANCE OF 2.74 FEET; THENCE S 19001'25"E,A DISTANCE OF 30.35 FEET; THENCE N 72°37'57"E,A DISTANCE OF 4.71 FEET; 00 410— y THENCE S 18021'35"E,A DISTANCE OF 34.07 FEET; �•► EA M� a� �N G^ 1 THENCE N 73048'48"E,A DISTANCE OF 2.16 FEET; Ls�! 5479 i THENCE S 17016'16"E,A DISTANCE OF 25.76 FEET; of/8 1 THENCE N 71°50'31"E,A DISTANCE OF 8.15 FEET; Oe THENCE S 180 14'30"E,A DISTANCE OF 37.25 FEET; THENCE N 71°18'07"E,A DISTANCE OF 6.94 FEET; f"' 7/27/j 7 THENCE S 190 10'30"E,A DISTANCE OF 27.63 FEET; THENCE S 45006'l6"E,A DISTANCE OF 36.92 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6,SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PARCEL"B" (PRIVATE STREET)OF SAID TRACT NO.25296 AND ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 145.00',A RADIAL BEARING TO SAID POINT BEARS S 35°03'25"E; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 95.61 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37046'43"; THENCE N 87016'41"W,A DISTANCE OF 51.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL"A"CONTAINS 24,893.75 S.F.(0.572 AC.)MORE OR LESS FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES SEE EXHIBIT"B"ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS,CONDITIONS,RESERVATIONS,RESTRICTIONS,RIGHTS OF WAY,EASEMENTS,OR EXCEPTIONS OF RECORD,IF ANY. PAGE 1 OF 3 PAGES EXHIBIT "A" P.M.W. 17-135 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL"B"(ADJUSTED LOT 5,TRACT NO.25296) PORTIONS OF LOT 5 AND LOT 6 OF TRACT NO.25296,IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 378, PAGES 81 THROUGH 90,INCLUSIVE,OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5,S 25°14'39"E,A DISTANCE OF 24.75 FEET; THENCE N 64045'21"E,A DISTANCE OF 2.74 FEET; THENCE S 19001'25"E,A DISTANCE OF 30.35 FEET; THENCE N 72037'57"E,A DISTANCE OF 4.71 FEET; 0V► 0 's eyE• E°y THENCE S 18021'35"E,A DISTANCE OF 34.07 FEET; w�� �N�a THENCE N 73048'48"E,A DISTANCE OF 2.16 FEET; }� 1 S 5479 '' X�1�flES: THENCE S 170 16'16"E,A DISTANCE OF 25.76 FEET; THENCE N 71°50'31"E,A DISTANCE OF 8.15 FEET; OF f THENCE S 18014'30"E,A DISTANCE OF 37.25 FEET; THENCE N 71°18'07"E,A DISTANCE OF 6.94 FEET; 7/Z7��7 THENCE S 19010'30"E,A DISTANCE OF 27.63 FEET; THENCE S 45006'16"E,A DISTANCE OF 36.92 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5,SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PARCEL`B" (PRIVATE STREET)OF SAID TRACT NO.25296 AND ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 145.00',A RADIAL BEARING TO SAID POINT BEARS S 35°03'25"E; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5,AN ARC DISTANCE OF 75.05 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29039'02'; THENCE N 25017'22"E,A DISTANCE OF 61.41 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 132.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND ARC DISTANCE OF 39.57 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17010'35",A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS N 47°32'03"W; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5, N 55052'14"W,A DISTANCE OF 49.57 FEET; PAGE 2 OF 3 PAGES THENCE N 53°41'30"W,A DISTANCE OF 111.98 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE S 55°05'35"W,A DISTANCE OF 90.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL"B"CONTAINS 25,522.94 S.F.(0.586 AC.)MORE OR LESS FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES SEE EXHIBIT"B"ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS,CONDITIONS,RESERVATIONS,RESTRICTIONS,RIGHTS OF WAY,EASEMENTS,OR EXCEPTIONS OF RECORD,IF ANY. ., � Es Sam , *� PAGE 3 OF 3 PAGES NOTE THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM RECORD DATA AND EXH/B/T B 50 0 25 50 n DOES NOT REPRESENT A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY n SHOWN HEREON. THIS MAP HAS BEEN APPROVED P.M.W. 17-135 UPON THE EXPRESSED CONDITION THAT BUILDING PERMITS SHALL NOT BE ISSUED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS ( IN FEET ) W77HIN THIS ADJUSTMENT PLAT UNTIL NECESSARY DEDICA710NS, IF ANY, HAVE OCCURRED. 1 inch = 50 f t. NOTE- THERE MA Y BE EASEMENTS OF RECORD DELINEATED AND REFERENCED ON THE UNOERL PING MAP, OR THERE MAY BE EASEMENTS WITHIN THE AREA LOT F" BEING ADJUSTED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN M.B. 378/81-90 ON THIS DOCUMENT THAT COULD p0� ENCUMBER SAID PARCEL HEREIN. s P.O.B. yp5 51�39 W �� LOT F" 55,3�p3" W PCL "A"\ 5 24.35 45, 21"� '>>9� M.B. 378/81-90 6 27 64. gg.34 2'4 25W 50 19. 01 N 73 SEE DETAIL "A' / 30.35 57 2 SHEET 2 OF 2 — 57 i° 37 PARCEL "B" M M _ 4.1 .W 25,522.94 S.F. Aj 5®r �9 R',y CEL N18p721' 35 0.59 AC. ?AR G S.F 1 34- .48'48' �J 15 i 2�5;3AC �— 2.16 1b,,r1 L o T s 0.57 • SEE DETAIL e' i 25 j6 6 M.B. 378/81-90 p%11 z SHEET 2 OF 2 N O (` O SEE DETAIL C' LOT LINE TO BE SHEET 2 OF 2 / b L 0 T 7 SEE DETAIL o_ ��s ELIMINA TED M.B. 378/81-90 SHEET 2 of 2 Al 50, 31W S11. 8.15 �j Q N18' 14 39.25 �'�1b �� A\ E w N7 1$ 6�94, W £ N o Q L 0 T 6 ssoa Q M.B. 378/81-90 g5 61' 9� P.O.B. L'145.00 „ PCL A"\ DR37.4643 06yp d 51.99' N8776'41"W D 61q5 WIre 0 IRE �1 N 350 € LEGEND: oa EX. LOT LINE TO REMAIN F_ ELIMINATED LOT LINE ..., NEW LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT - CITY OF PALM DESERT PREPARED BY APPLICANT- APPROVED BY JODY JONES DEVELOPMENT R. MORENO CIO McGEE SURVEYING, INC. 2 7 45-100 GOLF CENTER PKWY, STE. G 1 WA YNE A. McGEE DA TE lNDIO, CA 92201 CITY SURVEYOR L.S. 7933 EXP. 121J Ill 7 n NO TE: THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM RECORD DATA AND DOESDOES NOT REPRESENT A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT nB SHOWN HEREON. THIS MAP HAS BEEN APPROVED P.M.W. 17-135 UPON THE EXPRESSED CONDITION THAT BUILDING PERMITS SHALL NOT BE ISSUED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS NO Is WITHIN THIS ADJUSTMENT PLAT UNTIL NECESSARY try DEDICATIONS, IF ANY i�- , HAVE OCCURRED. 4�'� NOTE.- (HERE MA Y BE EASEMENTS OF Ls sm RECORD DELINEATED AND REFERENCED ON THE UNDERL PING MAP, OR THERE MAY BE EASEMENTS WITHIN THE AREA �! BEING ADJUSTED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN @�{� ON THIS DOCUMENT THAT COULD F c1`k ENCUMBER SAID PARCEL HEREIN. 3 ' z LOT 6 LOT 5 w `0, r_ 4 z LOT s N 644521 LOT 5 0 1 N � w 4.71 5 72-3 57 W 0 0 0 O N N.T S N.T S. DETAIL 'A" DETAIL 'B" z z N v Z `T= LOT 5 a ti LOT 5 _ LOT 6 3r�- LOT s o 2.16' N 73.48-48" 8.15 N.T.S. N.T.S DETAIL "C" DETAIL 'D" INDICA 7ED TRANSFER FROM LOT 5 rO LOT 6 LEGEND: EX. LOT LINE TO REMAIN INDICATED TRANSFER FROM ELIMINATED LOT LINE LOT 6 r0 LOT 5 NEW LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT - CITY OF PALM DESERT PREPARED BY- APPLICANT.- APPROVED SK JODY JONES DEVELOPMENT R. MORENO CIO McGEE SURVEYING, INC. 7 27 45-100 GOLF CENTER PKWY, STE. G INDIO, CA 92201 WA YNE A. McGEE DATE CITY SURVEYOR L.S. 79JJ EXP. 12IJ1/17 -lao 09ZZ6 VJ'11US34 WIVd a aouanaisaoa LWA 31VO �3 _ H0181V 5NOANVD33HIS101 � M Tin, -1 51D�11 H��b � � 3nlia NOWVD SV3taNV OL8 NbO VH)l d �e rd D \ -N / yb�ym uy I Q40 _ dy,M Y�urnx 1 er4i'. seas.. �s.ns do 1 71 �, ryry 4 I 1 I 1 I 1 � f %/ yew✓ �A� � . �^� •..i. ° e g I .e4��„ ; pto_'" / i + \.\ .�r �a �• OJ��� .�.� � � III I --'1\ I +4� ���llA� r �'U I � ✓QI +C — Is. ` ��— _- a�l by sbaz• \, I / )5 I I I cez I I + I aJpc �, 1 r �f�I .•. - I 1 I I \ 1 I ifry \ CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES • TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2017 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER — 5:00 P.M. E, Chair Nancy DeLuna convened the meeting at 5:05 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Lindsay Holt arrived at 5:25 Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto arrived at 6:O6,' Chair Nancy DeLuna Staff Present: Jill Tremblay,"City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Comrnurtity Development Eric Ceja, prirrcipai,�?lanner Kevin Swartz, AssociO Planner Ron Moreno, Senior Engineer/City Surveyor Mtanica O'Reilly, �tministrative Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — A !;;11 None I IV. ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION Request for Closed Session: A. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding Threat to Public Services or Facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(a): PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 Consultation with Lt. Coby Webb, Assistant Chief of Police, Palm Desert Police Department/Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting to Closed Session of the Planning Commission at 5:09 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 6:01 p.m. V. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING —6:00 P.M. A. REPORT on action from Closed Session. Ms. Jill Tremblay, City Attorney, stated that no reportable actions were taken. VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ron Gregory led the Pledge of Allegiance. VII. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development, summarized pertinent June 22, 2017 and July 13, 2017, City Council actions. Mr. Eric Ceja mentioned that on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, the City hosted an open house to present plans for the San Pablo Project. i Vill. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — B None IX. CONSENT CALENDAR A' of the Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 2017. Rec: Approve as presented. Commissioner Gregory stated he would be abstaining from Item A since he was not present for the Planning Commission meeting on June 20. Approved. 4-0-1 (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSTAINED: Gregory). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application to adjust a shared lot line at Cahuilla Falls and Andreas Canyon Drive (APNs 652-130-044 and 652-300-021). Case No. PMW 17-104 (Steve Bruggeman, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 17-104. 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a one-year time extension for Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 06-03 and Tentative Tract Map 34437 to subdivide a 6.1-acre site into 13 parcels at 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive. Case Nos. PP/CUP 06-03 and TT 34437 until August 24, 2018 (Gerald Ford Business Park, LLC, Palm Desert, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year extension for Case Nos. PP/CUP 06-03 and TT 34437 until August 24, 2018. Upon a motion by Vice Chair Pradetto, second by Corr�rpissioner Holt, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, H6It and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XI. NEW BUSINESS None P XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve' a Conditional Use Permit to operate a k 11 ehnekfree doggy daycare/overnight boarding and grooming facility within ,an existing 2 -square-foot office building located at 74-330 AIessandro 'Drive. Case No. CUP 17�089 (The Village Pup, LLC, La Quinta, California, Applicant). I11 ,"''Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (staff report is available at wwwicitmp lmdesert.orq). He noted that a public hearing notice was sent out to prpperty owners within 300 feet and advertised in The Desert Sun!. ,City staff received a letter in opposition and letters in favor of the proposed profeotn Staff recommended approval and offered to answer any questions. Vice Char"Jose h,Pradetto referred to the block wall, and asked why staff would like to seeWt6�'6�'ht iron as part of the seven-foot wall. Mr. Swartz responded that there is a Condition of Approval that the design of the wall has to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC considered the wall at their last meeting, and they were uncomfortable with the height of the wall. The ARC recommended a different material to break up the block wall, as a result, the applicant proposed wrought iron. 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 Chair DeLuna asked staff if they are convinced that one parking space for the public is enough for the proposed project. Mr. Swartz replied that he is not convinced. He believed with the type of business that would be conducted, the drop off and pick up of dogs, it should not create a parking problem. Commissioner Lindsay Holt asked staff to summarize the findings of the Noise Impact Analysis. Mr. Swartz said he received the analysis five minutes prior to the meeting. He deferred the question to the applicant. He noted th t if noise becomes disturbing, excessive, or offensive to the residents in the area end reported by eight unrelated persons of normal sensitivity within a year, staff will reconsider the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with a new public hearing to the Planning Commission to modify or revoke the use. Chair DeLuna stated that dogs bark. She inquired if the hours of operation at 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. were considered instead 'f 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Swartz replied that the hours of operation were not discussed. He said the applicant could address the hours. Commissioner John Greenwood mentioned that on the east elevation of the site plan there is a keynote indicating an area reserved for a future sign. He asked if the applicant Would be able to rent space in the building. Mr. Swartz responded that there would riot be a future tenant. The building would only be occupied by the applicant. Chair !DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR, KHALED HABASH, La Quinta, California, noted that an approved sound engineer by Riverside County is also present to answer any questions regarding the Noise Impact Analysis. He communicated that their hours of operation at the La Quint e facility have been 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and never had a parking issue. He Mated'`that excessive barking is not allowed and they run a very controlled yard. They do not accept dogs that bark excessively, they provide 24 hours of supervision by a human, and the facility is kept at a low-energy level. He added that they provide a cage-free facility so dogs do not experience anxiety, stress, or free play that is out of control. Mr. Habash mentioned that they have not had any issues at the facility in La Quinta, which is next to other businesses and residential areas. Chair DeLuna asked if dogs play inside the facility. 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 MR. HABASH explained that when dogs go inside at 6:00 p.m., they go into a boarding room that is cage-free and supervised by a human. Chair DeLuna clarified that when she mentioned the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. instead of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. she was not referring to the hours of operation, but the hours when the dogs would be outside. MR. HABASH replied that they would consider changing the hours, if it is a requirement of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Holt inquired if the proposed facilityn Palm Desert would be similar in type to the La Quinta facility which includes fans, misters, and covered areas. MR. HABASH replied yes. He said they want their facilities to.be uniform and have consistency. Chair DeLuna asked if the dogs are outside during the day in the summer. MR. HABASH replied yes He ,indicated that they have a safe climate controlled outdoor yard. They have ground fans, misters, swamp coolers, and 98 percent of the yard is covered with shade at the La Quintal location. In addition, the turf is elevated off the ground to help keep it cool. Commissioner Greenwood asked" sked haw shade would be provided for the facility proposed in P"gym Desert MR. HABASHi;desponded that they use sail shades. They do not use permanent shades or structures. I G�ilr DeLi�nA Asked if the sail shades would be the same height as the wall or extend higher than the wall. ,i MR, ,HABASH replied that the current sail shades at the La Quinta facility are appra*imately 10 feet, MS. ROMP STR l MBERG, Temecula, California, stated that she is on the Riverside Ca; Ity list of acoustic consultants, and has completed many noise studies for do' "`kennels and doggy daycares. She provided an oral interpretation of the Noise Impact Analysis that was prepared for the proposed facility in Palm Desert. At the end of her report, she offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair Pradetto asked if noise travels differently when the weather is colder. MS. STROMBERG replied yes. She said that humidity and the change in temperature do affect noise. However, it would not be significant in this case. 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 Vice Chair Pradetto inquired what the decibel difference would be during the winter temperatures. MS. STROMBERG answered that there might be a one or two decibel difference. Commissioner Gregory asked how sound is measured. Is it measured as a continuum or measured when a dog barks? MS. STROMBERG explained that she uses a Type 1 sound level meter instrument that provides an average noise level over the period she measured, a maximum noise level, and other measurements. Commissioner Gregory commented that a big dog and a small dog have different barks, which some small dogs could have,,a' ,shrieking bark. He wondered if a shrieking bark would not measure high on the decibel level. MS. STROMBERG said that it could possibly not measure high on the decibel level. She communicated that she was at the La Qunta facility several times in one week and there was no barking to measure. She said the applicant has created an environment where the dogs feel comfortable and feel like they are in a second home so she did not observe the dogs barking. Commissioner Greenwood asked how many dogs were present when the measurements were done. MS. STROMBERG replied that there were approximately 20 dogs. Chair DeLuna asked if she did she not find the dogs interacting with each other and barking in the yard while playing, MS. STROMBERG answered that there was not a lot of running. The dogs were Wandering around,, nudging each other, or playing with toys. Vibe Chair Pradetto stated that a CUP goes with the land. He asked if it is correct where the applicant sells the business to another operator, the new business operator would have the entitlement to operate the business. He said there is no guarantee that The "Village Pup business operator would keep the business in perpetuity, and there could be a new busin ss operator. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. The new business operator would have to operate the business in accordance with the CUP and conditions. Vice Chair Pradetto pointed out that there is no guarantee a new business operator will have the same business model as The Village Pup. He noted that the new business operator may not provide 24-hour human supervision. 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 Mr. Stendell noted that a CUP is active for one year. If The Village Pup left at the end of one year, the CUP stays with the land for one year plus one day; at that point the CUP expires. Secondly, based on Vice Chair Pradetto's scenario, the City would need to rely on Condition No. 7. If the Planning Commission would like to change the number of complaints under Condition No. 7, the Commission could make a recommendation. Commissioner Gregory inquired what constitutes a complaint and how is the complaint process effective. Mr. Stendell explained the decision to have eight unrelated persons report complaints within a year. It is a mechanism to a list with valid complaints being reported. �`' Commissioner Holt mentioned she drove by the proposed location and noticed that an adjacent home is for sale. She asked if there is a provision to let the potential home buyer know of the proposed use, ifhe project is approved. If the project is approved, Mr. Swartz said that's::t a�,f could contact the real estate agent so they could inform the potential buyer. He noted that a home buyer needs to do their due diligence prior to buying a home. The following individuals spoke in FAVOR of the proposed doggy daycare: MS. SALLY VIDYNE, La Quinta, California, stated that she lives five minutes from The Village IPup, which is well run and spotless. She walks several times a day near the facility and she does not hear sounds. She is proud of Mr. Habash for the business he has developed. When spe picks up her dog from the daycare, it is extremely happy, quiet, calr'n, and relaxed. She noted that a lot of people have to bo at Work at 7:04 a:m. or 7:30 a.m. so it helps to drop off their dog earlier than latet:. MS. DINA DUNOA;N, Part :..Desert, California, mentioned she once owned a doggy daycare in 'Terrance; California. However, they sold their business and mooted to the Coachella Valley. They visited every doggy daycare in the Valley yy and fist I,y found PJO Village Pup. She first noticed that there was no barking in the facility} then waa told a happy dog doesn't bark. However, she said a happy dog also b k What she learned is that once you teach the pack of dogs the rules, all the other dogs follow. The facility is a happy place, someone is always supervising the dogs, and it is very immaculate. MS. DONNA LOWELL, La Quinta, California, shared that three years ago she took her high-energy dog to The Village Pup. She first noticed the facility was very clean and you could not hear dogs barking. She said that the applicant has a great organization and business model. She suggested the Planning Commission visit the facility in La Quinta so they can see for themselves how 7 GAPlanning\Monica OReillfflanning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 controlled the facility is and how well they take care of the dogs. She would be pleased if they open a facility in Palm Desert. MS. JUDY RHODES, Palm Desert, California, stated that she has a three-year old Australian Labradoodle and at nine months old it was a wild dog. She took her dog to The Village Pup at nine months and her dog is still fun, loving, and playful but very well managed. They treat the dogs as if they were their own. She loves the cleanliness, the friendliness, and the philosophy of The Village Pup. She hoped that the Planning Commission would allow them to have a business in Palm Desert. MS. NIDAA SANCHEZ, La Quinta, California, commented that she is a manager at a business across from The Village Pup. She stated that they have never had a problem with the facility and they do not hear barking. The facility is esthetically pleasing, clean, and their staff is pleasant and helpful. She also stated that parking is limited and they share street parking; it has never been an issue. Ms. Sanchez expressed that she would support The Village Pup in Palm Desert. MS. SUSAN GRIMES, La Quinta, California, communicated that she has been a Coachella Valley resident since 1981. She has been taking her dog to The Village Pup for 18 months. She said that the attendant in the yard is always training the dogs. When her dog comes home, he does not stink and is happy. She commented that everything being's"ai is true.true. She is excited to hear of the possibility of another facility in Palm Desert. Last; she mentioned that Mr. Habash is a wonderful business owner and hoped that the Commission approves the project. MS. LETTY COLE, Palm Desert, California, said she has a high-energy dog that she has been taking to The V"rllage �?up 'since he was four months old. She stated th1.at a facility in Palm Desert is highly needed. She visited other doggy daycares and kennels lrt the Coachella Valley and they do not compare to The Village Pup. Mr. Habash's facility in La' Quinta is very clean, they train the dogs, and the staff is great. She hbpod they say yes to a The Village Pup in Palm Desert. She guaranteed that thber6 would be no noise. The following individuals spoke in OPPOSITION of the proposed doggy daycare: MR. ANTHOINY PAGN�NI, Redondo Beach, California, voiced that he is srongly opposed to the propos d doggy daycare. He stated that he is the ownerof the adjacent four units. He noted that he loves dogs and used to own a pet store and a pet grooming salon, which he no longer owns. He now has a business located across (100+ yards) from Animal Samaritans where they hear dogs barking all day long. He stated that the proposed facility will have a negative impact. There would be the smell of dog poop and urine, noise, parking issues, and his property value will go down. He also felt that there could be an issue with a seven-foot wall on the corner. He would like to know if the facility in La Quinta is strictly in a 8 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 commercial zone. Mr. Pagnini guaranteed that there would complaints from his tenants. MS. ABBE FLEMMING, Palm Desert, California, stated that she lives at the property across from the proposed facility and agreed with Mr. Pagnini's comments. She voiced that she is going to look at a seven-foot high wall from the front of her home. Her other concerns are noise, a decrease in her property value, and parking. She noted that they already have issues with The Hood and Dr. Shah's tenants. Ms. Flemming said the doggy daycare,should be located in a business park and not in a residential area. She begged the Commission consider the residents in the area. Chair DeLuna clarified that there is no parking allowed on Santa Ynez Avenue. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. He added that it is a Condition of Approval. Commissioner Holt inquired how no parking on Santa Ynez Avenue would be indicated. Mr. Swartz replied that currently there is not an indication of "no parking" on Santa Ynez Avenue. The business owner will have to let his clients know that there is no parking allowed on Santa Ynez.. Commissioner Holt asked if signage would be posted or would the curb get painted red. Mr. Stendell replied that sidnage could be posted. Commissioner Holt nglred what is directly across from the proposed project. Mrs Swartz responded that there are two office buildings. Commissioner Holt asked what was in the proposed project building. Mr Swartz said it was an air conditioning and heating business. Commissioner Holt' asked if the subject property would remain a commercial building. Mr. Swartz replied that the zoning is Downtown Edge so a developer could convert the property to residential use. Chair DeLuna inquired if a seven-foot wall is permitted on the subject property. Mr. Swartz stated that technically no. He explained that originally the applicant had requested an eight-foot high wall. Staff let the applicant know that in a 9 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 residential neighborhood, the maximum height for a wall is six feet. However, the applicant was concerned with dogs jumping over the fence if it were six feet tall. He noted that if the Planning Commission felt the seven-foot wall was a concern, staff could ask the applicant if they are willing to build a six-foot wall and grow a hedge. Chair DeLuna asked if a hedge would be a sound buffer. Mr. Swartz responded that he did not know. Commissioner Gregory asked if the wall would wrap the corner. Mr. Swartz pointed to the site plan and explained that the wall is not located within the right-of-way. He noted that a wall at a corner cannot be more than 11 three feet in height so it does not compromise the line of sight from Alessandro Drive and Santa Ynez Avenue. Commissioner Gregory clarified that the line of,sight requirement is irrespective of the wall height. If a wall was six feet or seven feet, it does not matter with respect to following the line of sight requirement. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. MR. GARY HARKING, Palm Desert, California, stated that his bedroom will be next to the proposed doggy daycare. He commented that he already has problems with dog owners in the area. People walk their dogs and leave their dog's poop in'his yard. He is concerned with the doggy daycare only having one parking space. He noted that ,.Barkingham Palace is in a commercial zone and not in a residential_area." In eddition, Highway 111 is nearby and you can hear sirens from emergency vehicles when they go by. He asked how the sirens or people walking by the facility would affect the dogs at the daycare. He voiced noise would be.a concern. Chair DeLuna inquired if there is any sound mitigation from inside the building, specifically along the wall adjacent to the apartment building. Mr. Swart replied not to his knowledge. MR. BRANDON BEDWELL, Palm Desert, California, stated that his property is west of the proposed project. He said as much as he loves the business proposal, he felt that the proposed location is not great for the use. Therefore, he strongly opposed the doggy daycare. MR. ADRIAN GONZALEZ, Palm Desert, California, stated that he lives near the proposed project. He said dogs pee and poop, which is going to attract flies and bugs. He is concerned with the business only having one parking space. He said 10 GAPlanning\Monica ORetlly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 he has lived in the area for approximately 21 years and cars speed on Alessandro Drive. If people park on Alessandro Drive to drop off their dog, they would have to be careful that they do not get hit by a car. He also said that when The Hood has a big event, everyone parks on Alessandro Drive. He loves the proposed business and he knows they do well in La Quinta; however, he felt the proposed location is not a place for a doggy daycare. Chair DeLuna asked if the dogs could only be dropped off between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. No dogs are dropped off after 6:00 p.m. He said that the applicant can answer that question. MR. HABASH reaffirmed that the dogs are dropped off or picked up before 6:00 p.m. He noted that it takes a customer three to four minutes to drop off or pick up their dog, their drop off and pick up system is very streamlined, and they are a members' only facility. He addressed the odor issue and said that they,bag, clean and thoroughly sanitize on the spot. In addition, the'yard is thoroughly cleaned every evening. Vice Chair Pradetto asked the applicant to explain the raised turf for the yard. MR. HABASH explained that their,yard is made of concrete, slopes into dry wells, and it is engineered to drain. The turf has what looks like soccer cleats flipped upside down, which elevates the turf and allows It to drain. Therefore, no smell lingers on top or under the turf. Vice Chair Pradetto asked if it is artificial turf. yI , MR: replied eyes. O'hair DeLun ' 6`uired if Pere is any concern with the turf getting too hot during the summer month . MR HABASH replied:no. He stated that 98 percent of their yard is shaded. They also have misters slid fans that keep the yard cool and safe. The facility in La Quinta has been :pen for four and a half years without an incident due to the heat. Chair DeLuna commented that many residents are concerned with noise. She asked the applicant how he felt about letting the dogs out into the yard at 8:00 a.m. instead of 7:00 a.m. MR HABASH responded that they would have to do some research. He mentioned that there are some customers that drop off their dogs before they go 11 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 to work. He explained that they keep the dogs in a room adjacent to the yard, which is the opposite side of the adjacent homes. Chair DeLuna clarified that she was not suggesting changing the time of when people can drop off their dogs. She suggested keeping the dogs inside until 8:00 a.m. MR. HABASH replied that they can make the time change work. Commissioner Greenwood mentioned that trash is indicated on the west property line, which is between the facility and adjacent residential complex. He asked if that is where the dog waste would be stored. MR. HABASH replied yes. Commissioner Greenwood asked how dog waste is currently handled at the La Quinta facility. MR. HABASH responded that dog waste is put into an individual bag, then into a larger bag. He said the dog waste has never been an issue at the La Quinta facility. Commissioner Greenwood pointed to an aerial photo of the site, and asked if there is an existing hammerhead parking lot design by the main entrance. Mr. Swartz replied yes. Commissioned Greenwood referred to the site plan and asked if the hammerhead design is eliminated, would there be an issue with cars having to back onto Alessandro Drive. Mr. Swartz responded that the Traffic Engineer reviewed the parking lot plan and approved the plan. Cornrnissioner Greenwood asked if the existing four parking spaces are being reconfigured or do the spaces already exist. Mr. Swartz replied that the parking $paces already exist. Chair DeLuna inquired if a person parked in the one space for drop off and pick up will they be able to back straight out or would they need to back out onto Alessandro Drive. Mr. Swartz stated that they do not want anyone backing out onto Alessandro Drive. A person should be able to back out without backing out onto the street. 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 Chair DeLuna asked the applicant if there is any sound mitigation inside the building. MR. HABASH referred to the site plan and pointed to the dog boarding room, which is located next to the yard and away from the adjacent apartments. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Holt commented that she was first opposed to the proposed doggy daycare. However, she visited the facility in La Qunta for approximately 20 minutes and she did not hear a single dog bark the entire time that she was there. She mentioned that the facility was very dean and she was very impressed by the staff's professionalism. She noted that she has more problems with her neighbor not picking up their dog's poop, and would rather live next to this facility. She mentioned that her only ,issue would be with parking and the height of the wall. Vice Chair Pradetto stated that Palm Desert has. a vision of becoming a more walkable City; a vision he firmly believes in. To get there it requires a little change on how they conduct business. They cannot be a City that simultaneously over parks and incentivizes walking. He, stated that he is okay with the parking restriction and trusting that the business operator understands what the parking requirements are. Also setting the pace f©r changing the way they think about parking so they can,ige to a world where they are ,less dependent on a car. He is not saying that.everyone; s going to walk their do'"to the proposed facility, but it is a step to rethink how they do business. Secondly, he does not think it is smart to continue 49 push perceived undesirable uses to Gerald Ford Drive and incentivizing people to drive there, which is completely opposite of the City's vision to be a less Icar 'dependent city. He stated he is leaning in favor and looking forward to further discussion. commissioner Gregory oornmented that most people who would use the facility Would drop off ther,dog then drive to work. It is idealistic in the long run to think of not using cars to;,,,,rive across town. However, people would be using their cars to de O off their doCo'. He also commented he does not know how well you can control bens coming from Highway 111, which can cause a dog to bark or whine. Fay the iae+ 'ple that live or own property in the area, he noted that it is a transitional d as an they are vulner ble; it is incumbent on the City to consider that fact. If the Planning Commission is going to consider an area, it should be something compatible with the residential use. He is concerned with the loss of property value. He felt that the Mr. Habash runs a very good business and the people that spoke in favor are very enthusiastic. He voiced his concern with the tall wall close to the street and the parking situation is not ideal. Commissioner Greenwood echoed Commissioner Gregory's statements. He stated that he is concerned with the configuration of the parking lot and the 13 GAPlanning\Monica OReill Planning Comm ission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 seven-foot high wall. He would love to see this type of business in Palm Desert; however, he is not convinced that the proposed property location is appropriate for the area and is sensitive to the neighbors. Chair DeLuna said she is also concerned with parking. She wondered if the applicant would consider reducing the length of the yard so there could be additional parking, which would eliminate the concern with the corner and parking. She commented that she is not sure it is the right place to have a seven- foot wall and is also concerned with noise. However, th applicant is willing to change the time when dogs go out into the yard in the mctirning. She appreciated the applicant's caliber and the quality of business that he operates. She noticed that most of the people that talked in favor live outside of the area, which they address the quality of the business but they cannot speak on the impact it would have on the neighborhood. Chair DeLuna noted that she is sensitive of Vice Chair Pradetto's comments regarding the General Plan update to encourage the less use of automobiles, which increases pollution and traffic. She asked if the Commission's concerns could be addressed. After much discussion and review, Commissioner Gregory suggested a continuance so that the Planning Commission has an opportunity to visit the existing site in La Quinta to become educated on how the business operates. Commissioner Gregory moved'tb,,By Minute Motion, continue Case No. CUP 17- 089 to August 1 so that the Planning Commission could visit The Village Pup in La Quinta. In addition, the Commission &600dl staff to Kook into the parking lot and the height of the wall to.f ind out if there is a coo'' romise that could be reached. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Pradetto and ''carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). The Commission thanked the applicant and the people for attending the meeting. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Conditional Use Permit to ,,,,operate a car dealership and allow Palm Desert Auto Sales to display automobiles outdoors within a shared parking lot located at 41-700 Corporate �%- Suite A. Case No. CUP 17-022 (Palm Desert Auto Sales, Palm Desert, ornia, Applicant). Mr. Swartz i' oo�mmended that the Planning Commission continuethis item to a date uncertain. He explained that staff sent out a notice for the public hearing. Concurrently, the applicant did not agree with staff's recommendation and the applicant requested more time to talk to adjacent tenants and the property management company. Chair DeLuna clarified that this item is different from Item C on the agenda. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. 14 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 Commissioner Greenwood moved to, By Minute Motion, continue Case No. CUP 17-022 to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Pradetto and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Conditional Use Permit to operate a car dealership and allow Palm Desert Auto Sales to display seven (7) automobiles outdoors within its parking lot for sale purposes located at 74- 725 Joni Drive. Case No. CUP 17-042 (Palm Desert Auto Sales, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Swartz outlined the salient points in the staff rdl' rt (staff report is available at www.cityof pal mdesert.org). Staff recommended' epproval and the applicant is present to answer any questions. He asked if there are any questions of staff. Chair DeLuna clarified that the applicant will not be servicing any cars and only selling cars. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt had a question not pertinent to this item. She asked if staff could place non-controversial agenda items first on the agenda so the applicant does not have to wait through along publln hearing. Mr. Swartz replied yes. He did not anticipate matey people coming to the hearing for the doggy item since staff did not receive letters from the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Gregory inquired if v.utdoar automobile sales became a problem in January DI, 2016 when the code changed. lWlr. Swartz responded thot it has been a problem for approximately 10 years. He eaid a Conditional,Use hermit (CUP) will help Code Enforcement to regulate cond�itions, if needed. Chair E► Luna pomt'ed to a picture that shows cars under tarps. She asked if they l ,. are connected tQ'thit business. Mr. Swartz replied no. It is a separate business across the street. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. ROY PEREZ, Palm Desert, California, thanked the Commission for their time. He noted that the Google Earth picture displayed was taken approximately two years ago. They have since changed their business motto and now only sell 15 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 classic cars. He indicated that they rent three hangars across the street to store their cars. The cars are old, unique, and valuable so they prefer not to keep them on the street. He mentioned that they attract customers from all around the world and out of the state, by appointment only. They do not use flags, balloons, or any advertisement. He noted that they have not had any issues with adjacent neighbors. Mr. Perez mentioned that other businesses have been misusing the parking spaces. He suggested banning overnight parking from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Chair DeLuna clarified that their cars are stored in a building across the street. MR. PEREZ responded that they rent three warehouses across the street to store the cars. Chair DeLuna asked if all the cars are in the building; no cars are on the street. MR. PEREZ replied that is correct. On another subject, Commissioner Gregory commented that the City makes an effort to ensure landscape in industrial areas look nice. However, in many places the landscape is allowed to go feral. Mr. Stendell responded that Code Compliance has cited a couple of properties on the eastern side of Cook Street for 'landscape maintenance issues. He said there are some old areas that were developed before the City incorporated and do not have landscape plans. Commissioner Gregory 'menti'oned that in the future, if the City has some leverage, it could be an opportunity to get cooperation from people that otherwise W,6uld not be inclined to address landscape issues. With no further testimony Offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission FWolution No. 2702, approving Case No. CUP 17-042. Motion was seconded by Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Gr4enwood, Gregory','Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: Non ; ABSENT: None). The Planning Commission thanked the applicant for doing business in Palm Desert. XIII. MISCELLANEOUS None 16 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\7-18-17.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2017 XIV. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Holt reported that the Art in Public Places Commission (AIPP) discussed the following: a Notice for Bids for the painting of traffic signal boxes, various award winning art projects, locations and submittals for the 2019 Desert X, and the art for the San Pablo Corridor. She expressed that she enjoys attending the AIPP meetings. B. PARKS & RECREATION None XV. COMMENTS Mr. Stendell introduced Mr. Ron Moreno, the new Senior Engineer/City Surveyor in the Department of Public Works. . I XVI. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m. NANCY DE LUNA, CHAIR ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DE RT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'RE LLY, CORDING SECRETARY 17 GAPlanning\Monica OFeilly\Planning Comm ission\201 7\Minutes\7-18-17.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REVISE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.56 SIGNS AND MODIFY SECTION 25.99.020 LAND USE DEFINITIONS TO ALLOW FOR FREEWAY-ORIENTED MONUMENT SIGNS ON COMMERCIALLY ZONED DEVELOPMENTS ABUTTING INTERSTATE 10; AND ADOPT A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT SUBMITTED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner APPLICANT: Fountainhead Development c/o: Ms. Vasanthi Okuma 1401 Quail Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92603 CASE NO: ZOA 17-070 DATE: August 15, 2017 CONTENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2705 2. Exhibit A— Section 25.56 Signs (Redlines) 3. Exhibit B — Section 25.56 Signs (Clean Version) 4. Exhibit C — Section 25.99.020 Land Use Definitions 5. Applicable Commercial Properties Exhibit 6. Applicant's Request Letter 7. The Desert Sun Legal Notice 8. Notice of Exemption 9. Letter from Noble & Company dated August 8, 2017 10. Proposed Freeway Sign Exhibits Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2705, recommending to the City Council to adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment 17-070 amending Section 25.56 Signs to allow for freeway- oriented monument signs for planned commercial developments greater Staff Report ZOA 17-070 Sign Ordinance Page 2 of 5 August 15, 2017 than 10 acres in size and abutting Interstate 10 (Interstate) and add definitions to Section 25.99.020 Land Use Definitions related to monument signs. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 2017 The Planning Commission considered the request for changes to the City's zoning ordinance at their meeting of August 1, 2017. The Commission discussed various aspects of the proposal, including the allowance of additional monument sign height and one (1) additional monument sign for larger commercial centers. The Commission continued the request to their meeting of August 15, 2017, and asked staff to research their discussed items and present the proposed monument sign design to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and allow them to weigh in on possible taller signs. Architectural Review Commission Meeting August 8, 2017 The ARC reviewed the proposed monument sign design for the Monterey Crossing center and discussed the proposal for additional monument signs and monument sign height. The Commission was very supportive of the proposed sign design at 40 feet in height. They discussed the allowance for taller signs, up to 65 feet in height, and recommended against heights greater than 40 feet. Part of that discussion focused on the ability for taller monument signs to have more tenant signs on them, thereby detracting from the aesthetic quality of the monument sign, and keeping monument sign at heights that are in scale with the building heights within the center. The Commission also discussed the allowance for one (1) additional monument sign and supported the request for larger commercial centers. Background In May 2017, the City Council approved the Monterey Crossing Specific Plan for an 18- acre commercial development bounded by Monterey Avenue to the west, Dinah Shore Drive to the south, and Pacific Railroad to the north. As part of this development, the applicant submitted a Sign Program for review by the ARC. The Sign Program included design criteria for building-mounted signs, monument signs along Dinah Shore Drive, and taller freeway-oriented monument signs shown at a height of 40 feet. The Sign Ordinance does not permit these types of larger freeway monument signs, as a result, the ARC did not approve the use of the signs. However, the ARC did provide general comments on the sign design and provided feedback for specific design criteria and studies that they'd like to see as part of a review for such a monument sign. The ARC was generally receptive to the proposed design. Staff Report ZOA 17-070 Sign Ordinance Page 3 of 5 August 15, 2017 Prior to City Council approval of the project the applicant for Monterey Crossing submitted a Zoning Ordinance Amendment requesting that the Sign Ordinance (P.D.M.0 Section 25.56) be amended to allow for freeway-oriented monument signs. The proposed amendment was not considered by City Council when it reviewed the overall project in order to allow staff to study the matter further. Project Description Fountainhead Development requests a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow up to two (2) "high quality" freeway-oriented monument signs for Planned Commercial (PC) centers greater than 10 acres in size and located along the Interstate. As requested, freeway-oriented signs would have a maximum height of 40 feet and a maximum sign area of 450 square feet. PC centers would be allowed one (1) monument sign for every 500 feet of freeway frontage, with a maximum of two (2) monument signs per center. These monument signs would allow PC centers, established through the City's planning application process and abutting the Interstate, to erect taller freeway signs along the Interstate; subject to the following standards: • Maximum height of 40 feet. • Sign setback of 10 feet from property line, setback not to exceed 50 feet from property line. • One sign per 500 feet of Interstate frontage, up to a maximum of two (2) signs. • Requires enhanced design. • Design review and approval from the Architectural Review Commission. Analysis Staff has reviewed the applicant's request, and has studied ordinances from other jurisdictions that allow for these types of freeway monument signs. Many cities in Southern California with freeway frontage allow for these types of signs, subject to specific criteria for design, maximum height, sign area, and content. In the Coachella Valley four (4) cities permit freeway-oriented signs: Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Indio, and Coachella. Of the cities researched staff has identified the following: Palm Desert Freeway Monument/Pylon Signs Riverside Moreno Valley Murrietta Indio Cathedral City Coachella Palm Springs (proposed) Commercial Commercial Shopping Commercial Commercial Commercial Highway Planned Complexes and Centers Centers Complexes and Industrial and Industrial Commercial Commercial Commercial projects(PCC properties complexes Applicability Mixed Use and 1-1 zones) N 110 sq.ft.-500 400 sq.ft. 400 sq.ft. 150 sq.ft./ 175 sq.ft. 150 sq.ft./ 450 sq.ft. Sign Area sq.ft. advertiser business sign Sign Height 25'-60' 45' 45' 25-100' 50' 25-55' 25'-75' 40' No.of Signs 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 or 2 Incorporate Approval by Approval as Approved by Approved by PC Approval by river rock and City Council part of a Sign ARC and PC ARC as part of a Additional Criteria City logo Program Sign Program Staff Report ZOA 17-070 Sign Ordinance Page 4 of 5 August 15, 2017 Staff also researched comments made by the Planning Commission for an additional monument sign for larger commercial centers and additional monument sign height. Because of comments made by the ARC staff does not recommend additional sign height above 40 feet. The 40-foot height limit allows sufficient monument sign height for visibility along the Interstate and allows sufficient space for tenant signs. In addition, the 40-foot limit ensures monument sign heights are compatible with maximum building heights of commercial centers, which is generally 35 feet. The request for an additional monument sign for larger commercial centers was also supported by the ARC. Staff recommends that monument signs for commercial centers meeting the criteria of the ordinance be capped at one (1). However, staff recommends that for commercial centers with freeway frontage equal to, or greater than, 1 ,600 lineal feet that one (1) additional monument sign be allowed. The 1 ,600 lineal feet of frontage is the same standard applied to monument signs for commercial centers throughout the City. Therefore, the 1 ,600 lineal feet criteria is consistent with the existing sign ordinance and affords commercial centers with freeway frontage the same monument sign opportunities allowed in other commercial centers. The allowance of a second monument sign, only under specific circumstances, satisfies the concern for over populating the Interstate frontage with excessive monument signs. Based on the discussion items above, staff has reviewed existing and future PC developments along the Interstate and identified only five (5) properties that meet the criteria proposed in the ordinance amendment. Existing and future commercial development such as Monterey Shores (Costco), Desert Country Plaza (Eos), and Key Largo (west of Costco), qualify for one (1) freeway-oriented monument signs. Future commercial development, including Monterey Crossings (applicant), and the Millennium would also be eligible for two (2) freeway-oriented monument signs. The criterion proposed is intended to balance the needs of freeway adjacent businesses with the City's desire to not over-populate areas with excessive signage. Based on this review, staff is recommending the following standards be applied to freeway-oriented signs: • Require ARC review and approval as part of a Sign Program. • Lir it maximum height to 40 feet. • Limit maximum sign area to 400 square feet. • Limit to only one (1) sign per project. i • Allow a second sign for centers with 1,600 feet of lineal frontage. • Limit signs to PC development of at least 10 acres in size. Staff believes that one sign for PC centers is reasonable and that allowance of a second sign for centers with more frontage is acceptable. In addition, that the standards Staff Report ZOA 17-070 Sign Ordinance Page 5of5 August 15, 2017 proposed for "enhanced architectural quality" and the requirement that signs are approved by the ARC will ensure superior freeway-oriented monument sign design. Environmental Review The Director of Community Development has determined that the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for freeway-oriented monument signs qualifies for an exemption under Class 11 — Section 15311 "Accessory Structures" and that the action to amend the Sign Ordinance to allow for on premise signs will not have a negative impact on the environment. Findings of Approval Findings can be made in support of the project, and in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution attached to this staff report. Submitted By: Eric Ceja, Pin ipal Planner Department Head: �q �-O IZ Ryan Sten 1 , Director of Community Development PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2705 A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO REVISE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.56 SIGNS AND MODIFY SECTION 25.99.020 LAND USE DEFINITIONS TO ALLOW FOR FREEWAY-ORIENTED MONUMENT SIGNS ON PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ABUTTING INTERSTATE 10 AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CASE NO: ZOA 17-070 WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of December, 2016, review a proposed design for a freeway- oriented monument sign and provided comments related to specific design criteria and review requirements for freeway-oriented monument signs; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of August 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the Fountainhead Development for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission continued the request to their meeting on August 15, 2017, to allow additional sign design review by the City's Architectural Review Commission and for staff to research allowances for additional monument sign standards for height and quantity; and WHEREAS, the use of freeway-oriented monument signs support planned commercial centers by providing additional visibility to travels along Interstate 10 and capitalizes on the visual benefits of freeway frontage; and WHEREAS, design criteria established in this ordinance will ensure that freeway- oriented monument signs will require enhanced architectural embellishments to enhance the I visual appearance of planned commercial centers; and WHEREAS, the placement, maximum sign height, and sign limitations ensure that freeway-oriented monument signs are used sparingly and will minimize visual impacts to surrounding vistas, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, in reviewing all the I facts and any testimony given adopts the following as its Findings in recommended approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Council: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert hereby finds that: A. The City of Palm Desert (the "City"), California, is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2705 B. The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes cities to establish by ordinance the regulations and design criteria related to sign size, placement, and aesthetics. SECTION 2. Amendment. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert recommends that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, approve and adopt the Municipal Code amendment to Section 25.56 Signs and 25.99.020 Land Use Definition as shown in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" which is attached hereto and incorporated herewith. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase in this ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The Planning Commission hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one (1) or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, or invalid, or ineffective. SECTION 4. California Environmental Quality Act Finding. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert finds the adoption of this ordinance to be categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311 — Class 11 in that CEQA exempts on-premise signs from environmental review. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 151h day of August 2017 by the W following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NANCY DELUNA, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I 2 Exhibit A— Sign Ordinance Redlines Chapter 25.56 — Signs Sections in this Chapter 25.56.010 Purpose and Intent................................................................................56-1 25.56.020 Applicability...........................................................................................56-1 25.56.030 Sign Permit and Design Review Requirements.....................................56-3 25.56.040 Exempt signs.........................................................................................56-4 25.56.050 Prohibited Signs....................................................................................56-5 25.56.060 General Provisions for All Signs............................................................56-5 25.56.070 Permanent Signs.................................................................................56-10 25.56.080 Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs..............................56-18 25.56.090 Temporary Signs.................................................................................56-29 25.56.100 Comprehensive Sign Program ............................................................56-33 25.56.110 Nonconforming Signs..........................................................................56-35 25.56.120 Abandoned Signs................................................................................56-36 25.56.130 Abatement of Illegal Signs...................................................................56-36 25.56.140 Penalties .............................................................................................56-37 25.56.010 Purpose and Intent The intent of this chapter is to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly with regard to developing a City that is visually attractive and preserving and enhancing the visual aspects of the City's streets, highways, vistas and view sheds. The purpose of these regulations is to: A. Provide each sign user an opportunity for adequate identification while guarding against excessive advertising and the confusing proliferation of signs by regulating the time, place, manner, and design quality under which signs may be displayed. B. Ensure signs are in harmony with the building, the neighborhood (both existing commercial and residential or existing or proposed residential communities), and other signs in the area by eliminating sign clutter and promoting compatibility, proportion, simplicity, design quality, and sign effectiveness. C. Protect the safety of motorists and pedestrians by minimizing the distraction of excessive and intrusive signs as well as to protect the life, health, property, and general welfare of residents and visitors. 25.56.020 Applicability A. Signs allowed. The sign standards provided in this chapter are intended to apply to all types of signs in all zoning districts in the City. Only signs authorized by this chapter shall be allowed. Signs erected illegally shall be abated in compliance with Section 25.56.130 (Abatement of Illegal Signs). 56-1/Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs B. New zoning district. If a new zoning district is created after the enactment of this chapter, no signs shall be allowed until this chapter is amended to govern the new zoning district. C. Sign review criteria. The sign review criteria specified in this section shall be used by the applicable review authority during the design review process to ensure that signs are well designed, compatible with their surroundings, and do not detract from the overall visual quality of the City. D. Nonconforming signs. An existing legally permitted sign that does not conform to the requirements of this chapter shall be deemed a lawful nonconforming sign and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 25.56.110 (Nonconforming Signs). E. Official signs. Nothing contained in this chapter shall prevent the installation, construction, or maintenance of official traffic, fire, or police signs, temporary traffic- control signs used during construction and maintenance of utility facilities, and substructure location and identification signs required to protect these facilities, devices, and markings of the state Department of Transportation, Director, Council, or of other competent public authorities, or the posting of the notices required by law. 25.56.030 Sign Permit and Design Review Requirements A. Purpose and applicability. This section provides a review procedure prior to the installation of signs, to ensure that the design implements the objectives of the General Plan and is consistent with the building site design and building architecture. B. Sign permit application. It is unlawful for any person to place, alter, or to permit the placement or alteration of a sign, including painted signs, upon any property without first obtaining an approved sign permit application from the Department. Signs that are exempt from this requirement are listed in Section 25.56.040 (Exempt Signs). C. Application contents. Applications for sign permits shall be made on a form provided by the Department and shall be accompanied by a fee as established by Council resolution. The application shall provide the information and material specified in the department's handout for a sign permit application. The applicant shall also provide a signed statement from the property owner or authorized representative that the owner or representative has reviewed the proposed sign(s) and approves of the proposed sign(s) and their location prior to submittal of the sign permit application to the City. i D. Design review required. The following sign types and sign programs shall be submitted to the ARC for approval prior to approval of a sign permit application: 1. Freestanding signs ((freeway-oriented monument signs and monument signs) require a sign design review as required by Section 25.68.050 (Sign Design Review). 2. All new awnings, including color change to existing awnings, shall require design review required by Section 25.68.050 (Sign Design Review). 3. Comprehensive sign programs shall be reviewed for compliance with Section 25.68.060 (Comprehensive Sign Programs). Chapter 25 . 56 Signs 56-21 4. Individual signs for any building with more than 100 lineal feet of building frontage facing a public or private right-of-way shall be reviewed according to Section 25.68.050 (Sign Design Review). 5. Any sign that the Director determines should be reviewed by the ARC due to the unique design, context, color, size, shape, location, or circumstance of the sign are subject to the requirements of Section 25.68.050 (Sign Design Review). E. Sign Review Criteria. In approving or rejecting a sign permit application, the reviewing authority shall consider the design review criteria provided herein. The design criteria shall not be construed or applied in a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. The reviewing authority shall find: 1. That the sign is necessary for the applicant's enjoyment of substantial trade and property rights; 2. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and title; 3. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health, safety and welfare; 4. That the size, shape, color, height, and placement of the sign is compatible with and will have a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies, the surrounding neighborhoods, and other signs in the area; 5. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its visual elements (lettering, words, figures, colors, decorative motifs, spacing, and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing where the sign is to be I located; 6. That the location, height, and design of the proposed sign does not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs; R 7. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape, illumination, and color are compatible with the visual characteristics of the surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause depreciation of the value of adjacent developed properties; 8. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity to a residential district does not adversely affect the value or character of the adjacent residential uses; 9. That any neon tubing used in conjunction with any sign is incorporated as an integral part of the sign design with careful attention to color, intensity of light, and the use of colors that are not overly bright; and 10. That the quantity of information displayed in the sign does not cause visual clutter. I 56-3/Wage Chapter 25. 56 Signs 25.56.040 Exempt signs The following signs, if not illuminated, shall be allowed in residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts without a sign permit application subject to any specific limitations provided below: A. Nonresidential only; one identification sign not exceeding 1 square foot in area displaying only the name and address of the owner or occupant and/or hours of business operation. B. Temporary signs in compliance with Section 25.56.090 (Temporary Signs). A temporary sign permit may be required in some instances. C. Signs inside a building set back 5 feet or more from a window and not readily visible from public right-of-way. D. Directional or safety signs provided that signs do not exceed 3 square feet per face. E. Official emblems or flags of nonprofit organizations. F. Religious, charitable, educational, or cultural posters not exceeding 16 square feet in area and not displayed for a period greater than 30 days. G. A "no trespassing" or "no dumping" sign not exceeding 3 square feet shall be permitted for each property in addition to other authorized signs. H. Governmental or other legally required posters, notices, or signs. I. Political signs in compliance with the provisions of Section 25.56.090.C. J. Directional and public convenience signs for public and quasi-public uses. The total number of signs allowed shall be based on the minimum number necessary for adequate public identification as determined by the Director. K. Utility or telephone pay station signs. L. Bingo signs provided that said signs shall not exceed a maximum of 3 square feet in area; are not installed more than 48 hours before the event; and are removed immediately following the event. M. Lottery signs for a business licensed to sell California State Lottery tickets shall be entitled to one window- or door-mounted lottery decal 5.5 inches by 5.5 inches and no more than one specific identification poster not to exceed 7 square feet. N. "Open" signs, either mounted on the inside of a window or on a pedestal near the main entrance if a window sign is not used. Maximum sign area shall be 3 square feet. Signs may be double-sided. Pedestal signs shall be located on private property and shall not interfere with pedestrian movement. Signs shall not flash, move, blink, rotate, or appear to do any of the foregoing. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-4/ 25.56.050 Prohibited Signs The following signs, displays, and devices, as defined in Chapter 25.99 are prohibited in the City: A. Advertising devices. B. Awnings that are back-lit (internally illuminated) so that the awning radiates light. C. Business and identification signs that mention more than two goods or services sold or available on the premises. D. Cabinet or can signs that are internally illuminated with translucent panels that allow the entire sign background to be illuminated. Signs with internal illumination are permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the only portion of the sign that appears illuminated is the lettering and/or a registered trademark or logo. E. Electronic changeable copy signs. F. Commercial mascots. G. Neon signs, except those placed in windows. H. Off-site outdoor advertising signs (billboards). I. Pole signs. J. Roof signs. K. Signs that rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing with the exception of approved time and temperature displays. L. Signs on public property, in the public right-of-way, or on public utility poles unless otherwise authorized by this chapter. Signs shall include, but not be limited to, Realtor, open house, and garage sale signs. This prohibition shall include all portable signs including those placed on vehicles with the exception of vehicle identification signs, and permitted signs on taxicabs. I M. Temporary or portable freestanding signs, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. N. Vehicle signs. 25.56.060 General Provisions for All Signs A. Compliance required. No person shall erect, re-erect, construct, enlarge, alter, change copy, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or equip any sign or sign structure in the City, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. 56-5/Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs B. Uncertainty of chapter provisions. The ARC shall have the authority to interpret the provisions of this chapter at the request of the Director, or when an appeal of a decision of the Director is filed with the ARC. C. Sign integration requirement. All signs shall be designed as an integral part of the overall building design and shall be located in a manner consistent with the building's design. D. Sign construction. Signs that are not temporary signs shall be constructed of permanent materials, including but not limited to metal, wood, acrylic, or other comparable durable weatherproof materials. E. Sign area computation. The area of signs shall be calculated according to Figure 25.56-1 (Sign Area Calculations). Figure 25.56-1: Sign Area Calculations LETTERING WITH NO SIGN BOARD L SIGN S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -A k- LD I I G FOR TENANT, Sign Width LETTERING WITH SIGN BOARD I VHAED,,, SIGN Sign Width Chapter 25, 56 Signs 56-61 ' 1. The area of a sign shall be measured within a single continuous perimeter of not more than eight straight lines enclosing the extreme limits of writing, representation, emblem, or any figure of similar character, together with any material or color forming an integral part of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the background against which it is placed. 2. In the case of a sign designed with more than one exterior surface (e.g., two sides), the area shall be computed as including only the maximum single display surface that is visible from any ground position at one time. 3. The supports, uprights, or structure on which any sign is supported shall not be included in determining the sign area unless the supports, uprights, or structures are designed in a manner as to form an integral background of the display. F. Sign height measurement — freeway-oriented monument siigns anti monument signs. The height of a monument sign shall be measured from the highest part of the text area of the sign to the grade of the adjacent street or the surface grade beneath the sign, whichever the Director determines is appropriate given the physical characteristics of the site. Decorative features of the sign approved by the ARC may be excluded from i the measurement of sign height. Figure 25.56-2: Sign Height Measurement—Monument Signs ,p Sign Height G. Sign height—wall signs. The uppermost part of a wall-mounted sign shall not be higher than the eave line of the building on which it is located as measured from the underside of the eave and in no event higher than 20 feet. 56-71Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs Figure 25.56-3: Sign Height Measurement—Wall Signs The upper most part of a wall-mounted sign shall not be higher than the eave line of the building on which it is located 20 r _ Tall Max __J I H. Electrical raceways and conduits. Electrical raceways and conduits shall be placed so that they are not within public view. Where this is physically impractical, or doing so would damage significant architectural features or materials, the ARC may grant a I waiver of this requirement provided all raceways, conduits, and similar devices are designed in a way that they appear to be part of the overall sign or building design. I. Frontage on two or more streets. A business on a lot that has frontage on more than one street shall be allowed the authorized sign area on each street; provided, that the permitted sign areas may not be accumulated on one street and shall not exceed the allowed sign area of any one street. J. Sign removal or replacement. When a sign is removed all brackets, poles, and other structural elements that supported the sign shall also be completely removed. All holes and affected building surfaces shall be restored to match the adjacent portion of the building. K. Sign colors. The standards for signs in this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of limited colors per sign so as to minimize excessive contrast and thereby establish more readable, less confusing signs. Signs for commercial complexes, shopping centers, other commercial and industrial development, including individual businesses, shall be limited by the following: 1. Signs shall be limited to a maximum of three colors per sign. If a federally regulated trademark sign has more than three, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20 percent for each additional color. 2. For purposes of calculating reductions in size where more than three colors are involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20 percent reduction shall form the basis for the second 20 percent reduction, and so on for each subsequent 20 percent reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-8/ page a given three-color sign is 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6.4 square feet: 80% x (10 x 80%). 3. The ARC may waive the above-noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design, or other features determined by the ARC. L. Illuminated signs and lights. The following standards shall apply to all illuminated signs: 1. All illuminated signs shall be designed with a dimmer system to avoid undue glare or reflection of light on private property in the surrounding area. 2. External light sources shall be shielded from view and directed to illuminate only the sign face (see Figure 25.56-4 below). Figure 25.56-4 Sign Illumination N N Do This Don't Do This 3. Internal illumination is permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the only portion of the sign that appears as illuminated is the actual lettering and/or a registered trademark or logo. 4. Reflective-type bulbs and incandescent lamps shall not be used on the exterior surface of signs so that the bulb or lamp is exposed to view from any direction. 5. Each new illuminated sign shall be subject to a 30-day review period during which time the Director may determine that a reduction in illumination is necessary due to negative impacts on surrounding property or the community in general. In addition, and at any time, the Director may order the dimming of any illumination found to be excessively bright. M. Signs to face public or private right-of-way. All signs permitted under this chapter shall be placed on the side of property facing a public or private right-of-way. N. Maintenance of signs. 56-91Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs 1. For the public health, safety, and welfare all signs shall be maintained in a safe, presentable, and good structural condition at all times, including the replacement of defective parts, wiring, ballast, painting, repainting, cleaning, and other acts required for the maintenance of the sign. If the sign is not made to comply with safety standards, the Director shall require its immediate repair or removal in compliance with this chapter. 2. Signs illuminated either internally or externally shall be capable of being fully illuminated and legible with the face(s) intact (without holes or other exterior damage). Any illuminated sign not in compliance with these and other maintenance standards in this section shall be cited by the Director and shall be brought into compliance with applicable standards or proof of a contract for repair and maintenance shall be approved within 30 days or shall be subject to abatement as a public nuisance. Illuminated signs that, because of expired or damaged lighting elements, become non-legible shall be ordered to remain unlighted until repaired. 3. When a sign is removed or replaced, all brackets, poles, and other structural elements that supported the sign shall also be removed. Affected building surfaces shall be restored to match the adjacent portion of the structure. 4. In the case of abandoned signs, the identification, name, and copy pertaining to the abandoned business shall be removed and replaced with a blank panel or white space within 30 days of vacating the business. 5. When it is determined by the City that a sign may cause imminent danger to the public safety and contact cannot be made with a sign owner or building owner, no written notice shall be required. In this situation, the City may correct the danger. The City shall Cause to have removed any sign that endangers the public safety, including abandoned, materially dangerous, electrically, or structurally defective signs. 6. Notices of violation shall be sent by the Director by certified mail. Time periods provided in this section shall be deemed to commence on the date of the mailing. Any person having an interest in the sign or the property may appeal the citation ordering the removal of compliance by filing a written notice of appeal with the Director within 30 days after the date of mailing the notice, or 30 days after receipt if the notice was not mailed. 7. Signs removed by the City shall become the property of the City and may be disposed of in any matter deemed appropriate b the City. The cost of the removal of any sign by the City shall be considered a debt owed to the City by the owner of the sign and the owner of the property and may be recovered in an appropriate court action by the City or by assessment against the property. The cost of removal shall include any incidental expenses incurred by the City in connection with the sign's removal. 25.56.070 Permanent Signs A. Purpose. The number and area of signs as provided in this chapter are intended to be maximum standards. However, the standards do not necessarily ensure architectural Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-101 Page compatibility. Therefore, in addition to the enumerated standards, the approving authority shall also give consideration to a sign's relationship to the overall appearance of the subject property, as well as the surrounding community with the goal being to minimize visual pollution, excessive illumination, and excessive contrasting colors. Compatible design, simplicity, and sign effectiveness are to be used in establishing guidelines for sign approval. B. Relationship to other provisions. The tables contained within this section provide regulations for permanent signs in residential and nonresidential zoning districts. References in the last column provide additional regulations for specific sign types located elsewhere in this chapter. In the case of an inconsistency between regulations provided in the tables and regulations provided for specific sign types, the regulations for specific sign types shall take precedence. C. Signs allowed in residential zoning district. Table 25.56-1 (Signs Allowed in Residential Zoning Districts) provides dimension and other development standards. b i I 56-11/Pa9e Chapter 25. 56 Signs Table 25.56-1: Signs Allowed in Residential Zoning Districts Allowed Max. Max.Sign Max.Sign Lighting Sign Class Sign Location Additional Types Number Area Height Allowed 1.Name plate per Below eave Name Sin One of Single-family Y of roof or Near main Internal uses wall single-family 2 sq.ft. parapet or 4 entrance only occupancy and use address only ft. if on pole 2.Identification One sign per 10 sq.ft.plus sign complex one Multifamily or Alternative:2 Below eave Wall or additional sq. At or near condominium signs per of roof or Name of monument ft.for each 10 main External complex sign main units. parapet for entrance complex only entrance wall sign with max. 15 Max.50 sq. sq.ft. each ft.total 3. Identification At primary Wall or Two signs p er sign monument primary 40 sq.ft.total 6 ft. entrances to External Name of Residential sign entrance residential only complex only community community One sq.ft.of sign area for 4. Identification each 10 At primary Wall or One sign gn per lineal ft.of entrances to External Name of monument street 6 ft. Mobile home sin frontage street mobile home only complex only park gfrontage. park Max.40 sq. ft.total Below eave 5. Identification of roof or Allowed for sign Wall or parapet for At primary External churches,day monument One sign 20 sq.ft. wall sign. care centers, Nonresidential entrance only uses sign 6 ft.for private clubs, monument and similar uses sign Below eave Only for 6.Identification of roof or commercial Wall or parapet for uses allowed Commercial entrance only sign monument One sign 20 sq.ft. wall sign. At primary External with a uses(offices) sign 6 ft.for conditional use monument permit(offices) sign in the R-3 zone 7.Identification Only for hotels Standards shall be the same as for uses in commercial and industrial zones.However,the and motels sign number of signs,sign area,height,and illumination may be reduced if the use is located in allowed with a Hotels and conditional use or adjacent to a residential zone motels permit in the R-3 zone 8.Temporary See Section 25.56.090(Temporary Signs), signs D. Signs allowed in commercial and industrial zoning district. Table 25.56-2 (Signs Allowed in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts) provides dimension and other development standards. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-12/ P a a e Table 25.56-2: Signs Allowed in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts Allowed Max. Max. Sign Max. Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Sign Types Number of Area Height Location Allowed Requirements Signs Building-Mounted Signage Sign shall la.Business Flush- be located identification mounted or Below eave adjacent to One per line of sign projecting building building and Building- the right-of Y Section Yes Up to 50 ft.of g- frontage not higher way from 25.56.080.A building mounted wall which its frontage sign than 20 ft. area is determined 1 sq.ft.of sign area per lineal foot of Within 100 ft. building ROW public frontage R Max.sign area 50 sq. ft. 1.5 sq.ft.of sign area per More than lineal foot of 100 ft.from building public ROW frontage Max.sign area 75 sq. ft. 50 sq.ft.of sign area for Sign shall 1 b.Business Flush- first 50 ft.of Below eave be located identification mounted or frontage;and adjacent to sign projecting One per 0.5 sq.ft.of line of the right-of- Section 50-100 ft.of building- building sign area for building and way from Yes 25.56.080.A building mounted wall frontage each lineal ft. not higher which its frontage sign of building than 20 ft. area is frontage up determined to 100 ft. Within 100 ft. Max sign of public area 75 sq. ROW ft. 75 sq.ft.of sign area for first 50 ft.of frontage;and 0.5 sq.ft.of More than sign area for 100 ft.from each lineal ft. public ROW of building frontage up to 100 ft. Max.sign area 100 sq.ft. I 56-131Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs Allowed Max. Max. Sign Max. Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Sign Types Number of Area Height Location Allowed Requirements Signs 75 sq.ft.of sign area for Sign shall 1 c.Business Flush- first 100 ft.of be located identification mounted or frontage;and Below eave adjacent to signOne per 0.25 sq.ft.of line of projecting building sign area for building and the right-of Yes Section More than building higher way from 25.56.080.A frontage each lineal ft. not hi 100 ft.of mounted wall which its frontage sign of building than 20 ft. g gn frontage in area is excess of determined 100 ft. 100 sq.ft.of sign area for first 100 ft.of frontage;and Within 100 ft. 0.25 sq.ft.of ARC of public sign area for approval ROW each lineal ft. required of building frontage in excess of 100 ft. More than Max sign ARC 100 ft.from area as approval public ROW ARC approved by required The total aggregate sign area of the secondary Building sign(s) Sign design shall 2. Business Two per together with be consistent with mounted wall business the primaryBelow eave prima business identification sign primary sign subject to the sign shall not line of sign and shall be maximum sign exceed the building and Yes ancillary to the Secondary Flush- area allowed maximum not higher main business business mounted or for the sign area than 20 ft. sign signs business allowed for projecting Section the business 25.56.080.0 as determined by items 1 a, 1 b,and 1 c above Single tenant building;one- Signs shall be half the sign reverse"halo"lit area allowed 3.Business for the front Below eave in non-illuminated identification Building- One sign line of On the individual letters sign of the freeway side 9 mounted wall facing the building building and of the Yes Illuminated signs Freeway- sign freeway not higher turned off at oriented signs Multitenant than 20 ft. building 11:00 P.M. building: 16- inch high Section letters 25.56.080.H maximum Chapter 25, 56 Signs 56-14/ Page Allowed Max. Max.Sign Max. Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Sign Types Number of Area Height Location Allowed Requirements Signs Shall be 4. Business 50%of sign located on identification Building the side of area allowed Below eave n si mounted, One sign per the building g for business line of Yes Second story flush business in majority of single where the mounted only building business sign story building the business is located Freestanding freeway-oriented monument signs and monument signs y Maximum of one-half the total sign area allowed To identify a for the front 6 ft. unless building, of the topographic commercial or 5a.Business building.The or other industrial identification sign area of features complex,or sign Freestanding the necessitate shoppingcenter Multitenant street frontage g with g monument One sign per monument a higher Yes frontage on a sign sign shall be sign. In no public or private sites less than in addition to event shall street 5 acres the allowed total sign sign area for height the building exceed 10 ft. Section or business. 25.56.080.B Maximum sign area 50 sq.ft. 10 sq.ft.per acre of 6 ft.unless subject site. topographic 5b.Business The sign or other identification area of the features sign Freestanding monument necessitate Multitenant monument One sign per sign shall be in addition to a higher Yes Section sites with sign street frontage sign. 25.56.080.13 the allowed more than 5 sign area for In no event acres the building shall total Maximum sign height sign area 100 exceed 10 ft. sq.ft. 56-15/Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs Allowed Max. Max.Sign Max. Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Sign Types Number of Area Height Location Allowed Requirements Signs One per 1,000 lineal feet of freeway Located frontage along Section freeway 25.56.080B1 5c.Freeway- Freestanding frontage Two for with a oriented Freeway planned 450 sq.ft. 40 ft. minimum Yes. Planned monument monument commercial Signs sign setback of Commercial4 centers in 10 ft.and a development excess of maximum abutting Interstate 1,600 lineal setback of 110 feet of 50 ft. freeway frontage Miscellaneous signs One sign per Letter height Placed on 6. Business awningshall not identification Permanent exceed one- the awning Section sign awning sign Allowed in third of the or awning No 25.56.080.E Awning sign addition to awning valance,but other signs height not on both 25%of total One sign per window area 7. Business individual facing a Not allowed identification Permanent window public street above On inside of Section sign window sin or public window Yes 9 Allowed in parking area ground floor surface 25.56.080.D Window sign addition to including windows other signs temporary window signs Near main 8.Business A-frame, One per entrance on identification pedestal,or establishment 3 sq.ft. private Section sign another well Allowed in May be two- 54 inches property, No Pedestrian- designed addition to sided and oriented 25.56.080.G oriented sign sign stand other signs to pedestrians Building- One 25 sq.ft.for per Below eave 9.Attractionflush mounted establishment line of Flush Allowed in building and Yes boards mou ted Section ` Theaters and 15 s .ft.per 25.56.080.J I nightclubs mounted or addition to side for not higher projecting other signs projecting than 20 ft. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-16/ Page Allowed Max. Max. Sign Max. Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Sign Types Number of Signs Area Height Location Allowed Requirements Building- mounted or Shall not window encroach 10.Menu Within into the board May be on One per window area public right Section Restaurant pedestal if establishment 3 sq.ft. or 6 ft.if on of-way or Yes 25.56.080.K menu board restaurant is pedestal obstruct set back more than 5 pedestrian ft.from ROW movement 1.5 sq.ft.of 11. One per sign area per Near main Multitenant courtyard or tenant,plus Y entrance to courtyard or Wall or plaza an additional courtyard or Section plaza 2 sq.ft.to 7 ft. No P ground sign Allowed in provide plaza and 25.56.080.1 Business addition to directions to oriented to directory sign other signs the courtyard pedestrians or plaza 12.Gasoline service stations.See Section 25.56.080(L)(Gasoline Service Stations) + 13.Temporary signs.See Section 25.56.090(Temporary Signs) 9 I 56-171Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs 25.56.080 Standards fo rSpec me Types of Permanent Signs A. Building-mounted wallsigns. Figure 25 56 5 Wall Sign Examples :\ . . : . • .�<» , t Signs shall belocated only on a building frontage and shall not extend above an eaeor parapet, or above or below a fascia on &hchtheyare located. Chapter 25. 56 signs 548/ 2age Figure 25.56-6: Appropriate Wall Sign Location i I I i ! '- Do This Don't Do This 2. Electrical raceways for signs shall be designed as an integral part of the sign or building design and shall not be visible. Figure 25.56-7: Electrical Raceways i ,r �P 56-19/P Chapter 25. 56 Suns 3. Signs shall be placed flat against the wall and shall not project from the wall more than required for normal construction purposes and in no case more than 12 inches. 4. Signs shall be located within the middle 50 percent of the building or occupancy's frontage (e.g., in-line tenant) measured from lease line to lease line. Figure 25.56-8: Appropriate Wall Sign Location (In-line Tenant) Middle 504.E of Building Middle 50%of Building or Occupany Frontage or Occupany Frontage PW_ r." 7 Building or Occupany Frontage � Building or Occupany Frontage 5. Signs located on adjacent walls on the same building shall be separated at the corners of the building with adequate spacing. Figure 25.56-9: Required Separation for Wall Signs Adequate Spacing I `J Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-20 Page B. Freestanding monument signs. Figure 25.56-10: Freestanding Sign Examples s F fresh V Oasy p � ' . , s , 1. Freeway-Oriented Monument Signs 56-21/Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs i. All freeway-oriented monument signs shall be identified as part of a Sign Program for a commercially developed center and are subject to the review requirements established in Section 25.56.100 and the requirements below. 1. Sign Programs shall include: a. Line of sight studies. b. Photo simulations and sign renderings for both night/day. ii. One freeway-oriented monument sign is permitted for planned commercial properties within the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone, greater than 10 acres in size and with at least 1,000 feet of lineal frontage abutting Interstate 10. iii. When a planned commercial center has freeway frontage in excess of 1,600 lineal feet, one additional freeway monument sign shall be permitted. Multiple freeway-oriented monument signs for the same planned commercial center shall be separated by a minimum distance of 400 lineal feet. iv. Signs shall not exceed a maximum hieght of forty (40) feet. V. All signs shall be of an artist and enhanced design that is architecturally compatible with the architecture of the commercial center. vi. When approving any freeway sign the ARC shall affirmatively make the finding that the approval shall visually enhance the aesthetic quality of the property on which the sign is to be located. 2. Monument Signs 1--Q. i. A single-tenant building, multitenant building with unshared access, commercial or industrial complex, or shopping center shall be entitled to one freestanding monument sign per frontage on a public or private street. 2 4, ii. When a shopping center or industrial park has street frontage on any one street in excess of 1,600 lineal feet, one additional sign shall be permitted. Freestanding signs on the same street shall be separated by a minimum distance of 400 lineal feet. 3- . iii.All freestanding monument signs shall be placed within a permanently landscaped area not less than 24 square feet, be architecturally compatible with the building or complex, and not encroach in the public right-of-way. 46. iv. When approving any freestanding sign the ARC shall affirmatively make the finding that the approval shall visually enhance the aesthetic quality of the property on which the sign is to be located. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-22/ Page v. Freestanding monument signs shall not contain phone numbers. C. Secondary business signs. Figure 25.56-11: Secondary Business Signs AK Main Building Sign Secondary r. Secondary Signage Signage - j Brinol GfE ' } 1. Secondary business signs shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under this chapter. 2. The design of secondary business signs shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign. 3. The total aggregate sign area of the primary sign together with the secondary sign shall not exceed the maximum sign area allowed for the business. 4. Where a proposed secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, the size of the trademark sign may be subject to size reduction requirements in compliance with Section 25.56.060 (General Provisions for All Signs). 5. No more than two secondary signs allowed except as otherwise provided in this chapter. 6. Secondary signs shall not contain phone numbers. 7. Slogans, mottos, or sayings may be used instead of secondary business signage. D. Window signs—permanent. 56-23/Pa _ge Chapter 25. 56 Signs Figure 25.56-12: Window Signs (Permanent) FINE SHOF1111-1. FINE MENSWEAR SINCE 1923 I 1 . The aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed 25 percent of the total window area of a storefront. 2. Signs shall be permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside of windows. 3. Illuminated (LED, neon, etc.) window signs shall be allowed as permanent window signs, and shall not exceed 15 square feet in size. The area covered by the illuminated sign(s) shall count towards the maximum 25 percent window coverage limitation as described above. These signs shall Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-241 not be allowed in windows fronting on El Paseo and shall not rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing. 4. Window signs shall be allowed in addition to the aggregate sign area allowed for wall and projecting signs. 5. Signs within 5 feet of a storefront window shall be counted as window signs. E. Signs on awnings, marquees, canopies, arcades, or similar structures. Figure 25.56-13: Awning Signs M, 4 i f 1. All awnings shall be reviewed and approved by the ARC. The awning shall be architecturally compatible with the building and as a result an awning may not be appropriate for every building. 56-25/Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs 2. Signs on awnings shall be kept in good repair, clean, and not faded. 3. Signs on awnings (lettering and numbers), including lettering style and colors shall blend aesthetically with the awning and building to which it is attached. 4. When required by the building official, street address numbers shall comply with the requirements of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 15.15.010 and Table 15.15.020(A). 5. Awnings shall not contain phone numbers. F. Projecting signs. Projecting signs shall not extend below 8 feet from the sidewalk or the right-of-way. Figure 25.56-14: Projecting (Blade) Signs < a,. AI \\ •i G. Pedestrian-oriented signs. Chapter 2 . 56 Signs 56-26 Page 1 . Businesses in the commercial and industrial districts may place a pedestrian oriented A-frame or pedestal mounted "open" sign in front of a business, subject to the following standards: a. Maximum sign area shall be 3 square feet for pedestal signs on each side, and 5 feet for A-frame signs on each side; b. Maximum sign height shall be 54 inches; c. Signs shall be placed on private property in a location that does not impede pedestrian traffic flow; d. Signs shall be designed and located so as to not distract from the appearance of the building or violate the intent of this chapter; e. Signs shall not include extraneous verbiage advertising the business, specials, or sales events; and f. Signs shall be removed when the business is not open for business. 2. For businesses on El Paseo, the above standards apply with the following additional standards: a. Signs shall be placed on private property in a location that does not impede pedestrian traffic flow; b. Allowed only during the summer months between June 1 and October 1, or before 10 a.m. when a business is actually open at that time, during construction of a storefront, and/or any time a business is the sole tenant of an otherwise-vacant multi-tenant building; c. Signs permitted under this Subsection shall be limited to the word "open," the business name and logo, and hours of operation only; d. City approval of the sign is required. A City approval identity sticker will be issued and must be placed on the sign; and e. Signs shall be professionally designed and fabricated, and well- maintained at all times. H. Building-mounted sSigns facing the freeway. Businesses located in buildings with one side facing the freeway shall be entitled to one sign on the freeway side of the building in addition to other allowed signs for the front of the building, provided the freeway facing sign complies with the following requirements: 1. Signs for single-tenant buildings shall be limited to 50 percent of the total sign area allowed on the front of the building. 56-271 Chapter 25. 56 Signs 2. Signs for multitenant buildings and individual business signs shall be limited to a maximum of 16-inch high letters. 3. All signs facing the freeway shall use black font type Bernard Gothic T Medium, except for federal trademark signs. 4. All signs facing the freeway shall be either reverse "halo" lit or non-illuminated individual letters. 5. Illuminated signs shall be turned off and non-illuminated after 11 p.m. 6. No logos, slogans, or phone numbers as part of the signage allowed. I. Directional signs for courtyard or plaza businesses. Where commercial buildings or complexes are designed to contain tenant spaces oriented to an interior courtyard or plaza and where the principal business identification sign is located on that courtyard or plaza frontage, the commercial building or complex shall be permitted a pedestrian directional sign(s). The directional sign shall group the names of businesses and/or principal services to be found in the courtyard or plaza subject to the following standards: 1. Signs shall be located at major pedestrian entrances to the plaza or courtyard. 2. Signs shall not encroach into the public right-of-way. 3. Signs shall be properly integrated into the architectural and landscape design of the building. 4. Signs including supports shall have a maximum width of 4 feet, whether wall- mounted or freestanding. J. Attraction boards for theaters and nightclubs. In addition to the principal sign area, one attraction board to advertise nightclub or theater entertainment shall be allowed. The information on the attraction board shall be limited to coming and current entertainment only. Attraction boards shall not be used to advertise rates or prices of attractions. K. Restaurant menu boards. In addition to the principal sign area, a restaurant may have one sign on a wall or window displaying the menu and/or daily specials. When a restaurant is set back more than 5 feet from the public right-of-way or pedestrian walkway, a freestanding easel may be set up within the setback to display the menu board during hours when meals are being served. The sign shall not encroach into the public right-of-way or obstruct pedestrian movement. L. Gasoline service stations. Gasoline service stations shall be limited to those signs approved by the ARC as a part of their action on a conditional use permit and/or amendment thereto. Service station signs shall not exceed the following limitations: 1. One double-faced freestanding monument sign not to exceed 24 square feet in area or not to exceed 8 feet in height, and advertising only the name of the company. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-28/ Wage 2. One 10-square-foot maximum wall sign advertising the company name and/or operator. 3. One wall or ground sign, not exceeding 8 square feet in area and 8 feet in height for a ground sign, advertising the actual lowest price per gallon including all taxes at which gasoline are currently being offered. Any special conditions required for sale at the lowest price shall also be indicated. 25.56.090 Temporary Signs A. Applicability. The temporary signs listed below in Table 25.56-3 (Temporary Sign Standards) shall be allowed subject to the requirements of this section. Temporary signs in violation of this section shall be treated as illegal signs and shall be subject to abatement under the requirements of Section 25.56.130 (Abatement of Illegal Signs). B. Civic events. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the Council from granting a special permit application or otherwise permitting signs, displays, or advertising pertaining to a civic, patriotic, or special event of general public interest taking place within the City when it can be found that the signs, displays, or advertising will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, interest, or safety, nor injurious to adjacent property or improvements. C. Number, size, height, and duration. Table 25.56-3 (Temporary Sign Standards) provides standards for temporary signs. Temporary signs are allowed in addition to the number of permanent signs allowed for the property. I 56-291 Chapter 25. 56 Signs Table 25.56-3: Temporary Sign Standards Maximum Maximum Additional Sign Type Number Maximum Area Height Duration Standards Temporary window signs' 2 Commercial and industrial zones Allowed for sales only and promotions Lineal feet of window area 50 feet or less One sign 10%of total N/A 30 days Placed on inside window area of window 51-100 feet One sign 15%of total window area More than 100 One sign 25%of total feet window area Special signs Special event One sign building- Below eave line of banner mounted or 30 sq.ft. building 30 days per year Section 25.56.090.D freestanding New business See Section Allowed only while 25.56.070 Table Below eave line of establishment One sign 25.56-2 1a, 1b or building 60 days permanent signs are identification 1c being obtained One sign per During active On property where Trade and street frontage 16 sq.ft.per building permit construction is 20,000 sq.ft.of taking place construction Shall not obstruct 8 ft. Removed before site area Shall list onlyfirms project signs visibility at notice of intersections Max.32 sq.ft. completion connected with the development project New Residential Development New subdivision One double-face 48 sq.ft.per sign 8 ft. Until all units in the identification sign sign,or two single- face project are sold face signs per street frontage New subdivision Two signs per 15 sq.ft.each 8 ft. Until all units in the Sign placement to directional signs street frontage project are sold direct persons to the subdivision entrance A Realty and lease signs Realty sign One sign per 3 sq.ft.,plus one 4 ft. During time when Section 25.56.090 Single-family street frontage rider sign;5 in.x realty is offered for residential 16 in. sale or rent Realty sign One on-site,three 3 sq.ft. 4 ft.on-site While a Section 25.56.090.G Open house signs off-site 3 ft.off-site salesperson is physically present on the premises Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-30/ Page Sign Type Maximum Maximum Area Maximum Duration Additional Number Height Standards Realty sign One sign per 12 sq.ft. 4 ft. During time when Section 25.56.090 Other than single street frontage realty is offered for family in residential sale or rent zone Lease potential One two-sided 32 sq.ft. 6 ft. Displayed after May advertise lease sign sign per street ARC project potential for future Future frontage approval development prior to development Removed before and during notice of construction completion No riders outside of the 32 sq.ft.area Realty sign One two-sided 16 sq.ft. 6 ft. During time when No riders outside of sign per street realty is offered for the 16 sq.ft.area frontage sale or rent Personal property Three signs 3 sq.ft. 4 ft. Two days within a One on the property sale,block party, 30-day period where the event is or similar event being held,and two off-site on private property. Political signs See Section 25.56.090.E (Political Sign Regulations) Notes: 1. Businesses that are set back more than 250 feet from a public right-of-way(street)may double the temporary window sign area. Businesses that are set back more than 600 feet from a public right-of-way (street) may triple their otherwise entitled temporary window signage. 2.Does not include signs and decorations painted on or applied to windows pertaining to holidays and seasonal events when the signs contain no reference to the goods or services sold or provided by the establishment. All signs and decorations shall be removed within 10 days following the applicable holiday. D. Standards for temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be subject to the following standards and any additional standards for specific types of temporary signs: 1. Signs are allowed on private property only and shall not be placed in public rights-of-way or at off site locations. 2. Signs shall not be attached to roofs, temporary structures, trees, utility poles, light standards, and similar items in the public right-of-way. 3. Signs shall not be illuminated 4. Signs shall not move in any manner. 5. Signs shall be; constructed of durable material suitable to their location and purpose. 6. Signs and their components shall be promptly removed at the time of expiration. 7. Window signs with non-commercial content or messages shall comply with all regulations of temporary signs related to number, area, size and height. E. Political sign regulations. Political signs shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Political signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way. 56-31/page Chapter 25. 56 Signs 2. No fee or permits shall be required for the right to erect political signs. 3. Where the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant shall secure the permission of the property owner. 4. Signs shall not be placed in any manner to create a hazard to public health or safety. 5. Signs shall be removed within 30 days following the election. F. Special event signs. 1. With the approval of the Director, a business may erect one temporary sign, freestanding or mounted on a wall fascia, advertising special events, promotions, or sales. Approval of a sign permit application may allow up to 30 square feet of sign area depending upon the type of event, building design, and right-of-way frontage for a period not to exceed 30 days per year. 2. Signs approved under this section shall be compatible and harmonious with the color of the building and adjacent buildings. When improperly used, special event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated. Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be permitted in compliance with a resolution of the Council, which shall specify the period during which the banner may be displayed. G. Open house signs. Open house signs shall be permitted for an open house, subject to the following provisions: 1. On-site Signs: i. No flags or banners shall be used. ii. Individual logos and colors are allowed for on-site open house signs. iii. Signs shall be located on private property only, unless prior written approval for unique circumstances is obtained from the Director. 2. Off-site Direction Signs: i. Sign lettering must be brown on a beige background, but may include Realtor name and phone number in 2-inch high maximum, plain font. No logos or branding are permitted on off-site directional signs. ii. One off-site directional sign per intersection. One sign permitted on each corner of an intersection, such that no more than three off-site directional signs are allowed in addition to one on-site open house sign for a total of four open house signs. iii. Signs shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from curb with property owner permission for sign location. iv. Sign placement in any City median is prohibited. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-32/ V. Additional lighting, flags, balloons, or any other advertising device as defined in this chapter shall be prohibited. Figure 25.56-15: Open House Off-site Direction Signs OPEN 18" HOUSE 24 Figure 25.56-16: Prohibited Locations - Open House Off-site Direction Signs ,t PROHloffED EXAMPLES 25.56.100 Comprehensive Sign Program A. Purpose. The purpose of a comprehensive sign program is to integrate all of a nonresidential project's signs with the overall site design and the structures' design into a unified architectural statement. A comprehensive sign program provides a means for the flexible application of sign regulations in order to provide incentive and latitude in the design and display of multiple signs and to achieve, not circumvent, the purpose of this chapter. Approval of a comprehensive sign program may modify the standards provided in this chapter as to sign number, size, height, illumination, location, orientation, or other aspects of signs within the limits of this section. B. Applicability. The approval of a comprehensive sign program by the ARC shall be required whenever any of the following circumstances exist: 1. Whenever three or more separate tenant spaces are present on the same site. 2. Whenever three or more nonexempt signs are proposed for a single tenant. 56-331 Chapter 25. 56 Signs 3. Whenever signs are proposed to be located on the second story on a multistory building. 4. Whenever an existing multitenant development of three or more tenants is being remodeled or rehabilitated to the extent that it requires review and approval by the ARC. 5. Whenever the Director determines that a comprehensive sign program is needed because of special project characteristics (e.g., the size of proposed signs, limited site visibility, the location of the site relative to other lots, buildings, or streets, etc.). C. Application requirements. A sign permit application for a comprehensive sign program shall include all information and materials required by the Director. D. Standards. A comprehensive sign program shall comply with the following standards: 1. The proposed sign program shall comply with the purpose and intent of this chapter. 2. The proposed signs shall enhance the overall development, be in harmony with, and relate visually to other signs included in the comprehensive sign program, to the structures and/or developments they identify, and to surrounding development when applicable. 3. The sign program shall address all signs, including permanent, temporary, and exempt signs. 4. The sign program shall accommodate future revisions that may be required because of changes in use or tenants. 5. The sign program shall comply with the standards of this chapter, except that deviations are allowed with regard to sign area, total number, location, and/or height of signs to the extent that the comprehensive sign program will enhance the overall development and will more fully accomplish the purposes and intent of this chapter. 6. Approval of a comprehensive sign program shall not authorize the use of signs prohibited by this chapter. 7. Review and approval of a comprehensive sign program shall not consider the i signs' proposed message content. E. Findings. In order to approve a comprehensive sign program the following findings shall be made: 1. The comprehensive sign program complies with the purpose of this chapter, including the design criteria. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-34/ 2. Proposed signs enhance the overall development and are in harmony with other signs included in the plan with the structures they identify and with surrounding development. 3. The comprehensive sign program contains provisions to accommodate future revisions that may be required because of changes in use or tenants. 4. The comprehensive sign program complies with the standards of this chapter, except that flexibility is allowed with regard to sign area, number, location, and/or height to the extent that the signs proposed under the comprehensive sign program will enhance the overall development, achieve superior quality design, and will more fully accomplish the purposes of this chapter. F. Revisions to comprehensive sign programs. The Director may approve revisions to a comprehensive sign program if the intent of the original approval is not affected. Revisions that would substantially deviate from the original approval shall require the approval of a new/revised comprehensive sign program by the ARC. 25.56.110 Nonconforming Signs A. Lawfully permitted nonconforming signs. 1. Lawfully permitted on-premises signs existing at the time of the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter on September 10, 2009, that do not comply with the requirements of this chapter shall be deemed lawful nonconforming signs. 2. Nonconforming signs shall not be expanded, extended, rebuilt, altered, or reconstructed in any way, except for normal maintenance or to protect public safety. 3. It shall be the express responsibility of the seller of property or a business to advise the buyer of the provisions of this section relating to the removal of nonconforming signs upon the transfer of ownership of a business. B. Lawful nonconforming signs to be removed. It shall be the responsibility of the business owner, sign owner, or property owner to ensure compliance with this section. Nonconforming signs shall be removed or made to comply with the requirements of this i chapter as follows: 1. Within 30 days of the issuance of a sign permit application for a sign on a property on which a nonconforming sign(s) exists. Prior to thel issuance for a property on which a nonconforming sign(s) exists, the applicant or owner shall file with the City an irrevocable bond in the amount of $10,000 to guarantee the nonconforming sign(s) shall removed or made to conform with the requirements of this chapter within a specified time. 2. Upon the transfer of ownership of the business. 3. Upon the altering of the nonconforming sign or sign structure in any way or the addition of new sign(s) or a new sign structure. 56-35/Page Chapter 25 , 56 Signs 4. After 90 days of the discontinuance of a business or before a new business occupies the building, whichever comes first. C. Nonconforming signs maintenance. Except for normal repair or maintenance not exceeding 50 percent of the value of the sign, nonconforming signs shall not be modified, altered, moved, or replaced except in compliance with the requirements of this chapter. D. Lawful nonconforming off-site signs (i.e., billboards). Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to limit the ability of an owner of a lawful nonconforming off- site sign (i.e., billboard) to periodically change advertising copy. 25.56.120 Abandoned Signs A. Removal of abandoned signs. 1. An abandoned sign or an abandoned nonconforming sign shall be removed within 30 days by the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign is located or by a person, organization, or other entity that directly or indirectly receives a benefit from the information contained on the sign. All wording advertising or relating to the discontinued business shall be removed from all nonconforming signs. 2. A sign frame or structure that has been abandoned shall be removed within 30 days by the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign frame or structure is located. B. Presumption that a sign is abandoned. A sign that identifies or advertises a business that has ceased; is located upon a structure that has been abandoned by its owner; has not identified a bona fide business, lessor, service, owner, product, or activity available upon the site, for more than 90 days shall be presumed abandoned. C. Notice that a sign is presumed abandoned. The Director shall send the person responsible for a sign presumed to be abandoned an abandoned sign notification. Failure of the person to respond within 30 days to the abandoned sign notification shall serve as prima facie evidence of intentional permanent abandonment of the sign. 25.56.130 Abatement of Illegal Signs A. Enforcement authority. The Director shall be the enforcement authority for this chapter. B. Abatement of illegal signs. The Director shall not permit, and shall abate, any sign within the City that fails to meet the requirements of this chapter or other applicable law, including temporary signs. Any illegal permanent signs shall be abated by the City. C. Notification and appeal. The Director shall notify the owner or user of a permanent sign that has been installed without a sign permit that the illegal sign shall be removed within 10 days. Upon receipt of this notice, the owner or user of a permanent sign that is determined to be illegal does have the right to file an appeal regarding the decision or notice within 10 days thereafter to the Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 8.20 of this title. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-361 25.56.140 Penalties A. Violations of any of the provisions of this chapter are infractions and/or misdemeanors punishable as provided for in Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 8.20.020(L). B. If the installation of a sign is commenced prior to obtaining an approved sign permit application, the applicable fee for a sign permit application shall be doubled. i 56-37/Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs Exhibit B — Sign Ordinance (Clean) Chapter 25.56 — Signs Sections in this Chapter 25.56.010 Purpose and Intent................................................................................56-1 25.56.020 Applicability...........................................................................................56-1 25.56.030 Sign Permit and Design Review Requirements.....................................56-3 25.56.040 Exempt signs.........................................................................................56-4 25.56.050 Prohibited Signs....................................................................................56-5 25.56.060 General Provisions for All Signs............................................................56-5 25.56.070 Permanent Signs.................................................................................56-10 25.56.080 Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs..............................56-18 25.56.090 Temporary Signs.................................................................................56-29 25.56.100 Comprehensive Sign Program ............................................................56-33 25.56.110 Nonconforming Signs..........................................................................56-35 25.56.120 Abandoned Signs................................................................................56-36 25.56.130 Abatement of Illegal Signs...................................................................56-36 25.56.140 Penalties .............................................................................................56-37 25.56.010 Purpose and Intent The intent of this chapter is to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly with regard to developing a City that is visually attractive and preserving and enhancing the visual aspects of the City's streets, highways, vistas and view sheds. The purpose of these regulations is to: A. Provide each sign user an opportunity for adequate identification while guarding against excessive advertising and the confusing proliferation of signs by regulating the time, place, manner, and design quality under which signs may be displayed. B. Ensure signs are in harmony with the building, the neighborhood (both existing commercial and residential or existing or proposed residential communities), and other signs in the area by eliminating sign clutter and promoting compatibility, proportion, simplicity, design quality, and sign effectiveness. C. Protect the safety of motorists and pedestrians by minimizing the distraction of excessive and intrusive signs as well as to protect the life, health, property, and general welfare of residents and visitors. 25.56.020 Applicability A. Signs allowed. The sign standards provided in this chapter are intended to apply to all types of signs in all zoning districts in the City. Only signs authorized by this chapter shall be allowed. Signs erected illegally shall be abated in compliance with Section 25.56.130 (Abatement of Illegal Signs). 56-11Page Chapter 25 , 56 Signs B. New zoning district. If a new zoning district is created after the enactment of this chapter, no signs shall be allowed until this chapter is amended to govern the new zoning district. C. Sign review criteria. The sign review criteria specified in this section shall be used by the applicable review authority during the design review process to ensure that signs are well designed, compatible with their surroundings, and do not detract from the overall visual quality of the City. D. Nonconforming signs. An existing legally permitted sign that does not conform to the requirements of this chapter shall be deemed a lawful nonconforming sign and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 25.56.110 (Nonconforming Signs). E. Official signs. Nothing contained in this chapter shall prevent the installation, construction, or maintenance of official traffic, fire, or police signs, temporary traffic- control signs used during construction and maintenance of utility facilities, and substructure location and identification signs required to protect these facilities, devices, and markings of the state Department of Transportation, Director, Council, or of other competent public authorities, or the posting of the notices required by law. 25.56.030 Sign Permit and Design Review Requirements A. Purpose and applicability. This section provides a review procedure prior to the installation of signs, to ensure that the design implements the objectives of the General Plan and is consistent with the building site design and building architecture. B. Sign permit application. It is unlawful for any person to place, alter, or to permit the placement or alteration of a sign, including painted signs, upon any property without first obtaining an approved sign permit application from the Department. Signs that are exempt from this requirement are listed in Section 25.56.040 (Exempt Signs). C. Application contents. Applications for sign permits shall be made on a form provided by the Department and shall be accompanied by a fee as established by Council resolution. The application shall provide the information and material specified in the department's handout for a sign permit application. The applicant shall also provide a signed statement from the property owner or authorized representative that the owner or representative has reviewed the proposed sign(s) and approves of the proposed sign(s) and their location prior to submittal of the sign permit application to the City. D. Design review required. The following sign types and sign programs shall be submitted to the ARC for approval prior to approval of a sign permit application: 1. Freestanding signs (freeway-oriented monument signs and monument signs) require a sign design review as required by Section 25.68.050 (Sign Design Review). 2. All new awnings, including color change to existing awnings, shall require design review required by Section 25.68.050 (Sign Design Review). 3. Comprehensive sign programs shall be reviewed for compliance with Section 25.68.060 (Comprehensive Sign Programs). Chapter 25. 56 Suns 56-21 paae 4. Individual signs for any building with more than 100 lineal feet of building frontage facing a public or private right-of-way shall be reviewed according to Section 25.68.050 (Sign Design Review). 5. Any sign that the Director determines should be reviewed by the ARC due to the unique design, context, color, size, shape, location, or circumstance of the sign are subject to the requirements of Section 25.68.050 (Sign Design Review). E. Sign Review Criteria. In approving or rejecting a sign permit application, the reviewing authority shall consider the design review criteria provided herein. The design criteria shall not be construed or applied in a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. The reviewing authority shall find: 1. That the sign is necessary for the applicant's enjoyment of substantial trade and property rights; 2. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and title; 3. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health, safety and welfare; 4. That the size, shape, color, height, and placement of the sign is compatible with and will have a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies, the surrounding neighborhoods, and other signs in the area; 5. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its visual elements (lettering, words, figures, colors, decorative motifs, spacing, and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing where the sign is to be located; 6. That the location, height, and design of the proposed sign does not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs; 7. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape, illumination, and color are compatible with the visual characteristics of the surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause depreciation of the value of adjacent developed properties; 8. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity to a residential district does not adversely affect the value or character of the adjacent residential uses; 9. That any neon tubing used in conjunction with any sign is incorporated as an integral part of the sign design with careful attention to color, intensity of light, and the use of colors that are not overly bright; and 10. That the quantity of information displayed in the sign does not cause visual clutter. 56-3/Pape Chapter 25. 56 Signs 25.56.040 Exempt signs The following signs, if not illuminated, shall be allowed in residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts without a sign permit application subject to any specific limitations provided below: A. Nonresidential only; one identification sign not exceeding 1 square foot in area displaying only the name and address of the owner or occupant and/or hours of business operation. B. Temporary signs in compliance with Section 25.56.090 (Temporary Signs). A temporary sign permit may be required in some instances. C. Signs inside a building set back 5 feet or more from a window and not readily visible from public right-of-way. D. Directional or safety signs provided that signs do not exceed 3 square feet per face. E. Official emblems or flags of nonprofit organizations. F. Religious, charitable, educational, or cultural posters not exceeding 16 square feet in area and not displayed for a period greater than 30 days. G. A "no trespassing" or "no dumping" sign not exceeding 3 square feet shall be permitted for each property in addition to other authorized signs. H. Governmental or other legally required posters, notices, or signs. I. Political signs in compliance with the provisions of Section 25.56.090.C. J. Directional and public convenience signs for public and quasi-public uses. The total number of signs allowed shall be based on the minimum number necessary for adequate public identification as determined by the Director. K. Utility or telephone pay station signs. L. Bingo signs provided that said signs shall not exceed a maximum of 3 square feet in area; are not installed more than 48 hours before the event; and are removed immediately following the event. M. Lottery signs for a business licensed to sell California State Lottery tickets shall be entitled to one window- or door-mounted lottery decal 5.5 inches by 5.5 inches and no more than one specific identification poster not to exceed 7 square feet. N. "Open" signs, either mounted on the inside of a window or on a pedestal near the main entrance if a window sign is not used. Maximum sign area shall be 3 square feet. Signs may be double-sided. Pedestal signs shall be located on private property and shall not interfere with pedestrian movement. Signs shall not flash, move, blink, rotate, or appear to do any of the foregoing. Chapter 25 . 56 Signs 56-41 Page 25.56.050 Prohibited Signs The following signs, displays, and devices, as defined in Chapter 25.99 are prohibited in the City: A. Advertising devices. B. Awnings that are back-lit (internally illuminated) so that the awning radiates light. C. Business and identification signs that mention more than two goods or services sold or available on the premises. D. Cabinet or can signs that are internally illuminated with translucent panels that allow the entire sign background to be illuminated. Signs with internal illumination are permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the only portion of the sign that appears illuminated is the lettering and/or a registered trademark or logo. E. Electronic changeable copy signs. F. Commercial mascots. G. Neon signs, except those placed in windows. H. Off-site outdoor advertising signs (billboards). I. Pole signs. J. Roof signs. K. Signs that rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing with the exception of approved time and temperature displays. L. Signs on public property, in the public right-of-way, or on public utility poles unless otherwise authorized by this chapter. Signs shall include, but not be limited to, Realtor, open house, and garage sale signs. This prohibition shall include all portable signs including those placed on vehicles with the exception of vehicle identification signs, and permitted signs on taxicabs. M. Temporary or portable freestanding signs, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. N. Vehicle signs. 25.56.060 General Provisions for All Signs A. Compliance required. No person shall erect, re-erect, construct, enlarge, alter, change copy, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or equip any sign or sign structure in the City, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. 56-5/Page Chapter 25 . 56 Signs B. Uncertainty of chapter provisions. The ARC shall have the authority to interpret the provisions of this chapter at the request of the Director, or when an appeal of a decision of the Director is filed with the ARC. C. Sign integration requirement. All signs shall be designed as an integral part of the overall building design and shall be located in a manner consistent with the building's design. D. Sign construction. Signs that are not temporary signs shall be constructed of permanent materials, including but not limited to metal, wood, acrylic, or other comparable durable weatherproof materials. E. Sign area computation. The area of signs shall be calculated according to Figure 25.56-1 (Sign Area Calculations). Figure 25.56-1: Sign Area Calculations LETTERING WITH NO SIGN BOARD id SIGNI � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _" N IG IFOR TENAN T - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - ! — 1 Sign Width LETTERING WITH SIGN BOARD I. _I iVHAED, i SIGN iJ Sign Width Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-61 Page 1. The area of a sign shall be measured within a single continuous perimeter of not more than eight straight lines enclosing the extreme limits of writing, representation, emblem, or any figure of similar character, together with any material or color forming an integral part of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the background against which it is placed. 2. In the case of a sign designed with more than one exterior surface (e.g., two sides), the area shall be computed as including only the maximum single display surface that is visible from any ground position at one time. 3. The supports, uprights, or structure on which any sign is supported shall not be included in determining the sign area unless the supports, uprights, or structures are designed in a manner as to form an integral background of the display. F. Sign height measurement — freeway-oriented monument signs and monument signs. The height of a monument sign shall be measured from the highest part of the text area of the sign to the grade of the adjacent street or the surface grade beneath the sign, whichever the Director determines is appropriate given the physical characteristics of the site. Decorative features of the sign approved by the ARC may be excluded from the measurement of sign height. Figure 25.56-2: Sign Height Measurement—Monument Signs _T Sign Height 13,il! �EI ylir` � lyi G. Sign height—wall signs. The uppermost part of a wall-mounted sign shall not be higher than the eave line of the building on which it is located as measured from the underside of the eave and in no event higher than 20 feet. 56-7/Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs Figure 25'56-3: Sign Height Measurement—Wall Signs The upper most part of a wall-mounted sign shall not be higher than the eave line of the building on which it is located Tall Max H. Electrical raceways and conduits. Electrical raceways and conduits shall be placed om that they are not within public view. Where this is physically impractical, or doing so would damage significant architectural features Or materials, the ARC may grant a waiver of this requirement provided all nacevv@yo' conduits, and similar devices are designed in a way that they appear to be part of the overall sign or building design. |. Frontage on two or more streets. A business on 2 lot that has frontage on more than one street shall be allowed the authorized sign area on each street; provided, that the permitted sign areas may not beaccumulated On one street and shall not exceed the allowed sign area Of any one street. J. Sign removal or replacement. When aeign is removed all brackets, po|me. and other structural elements that supported the sign shall also be completely removed. All h0|8G and affected building surfaces shall be restored to match the adjacent portion of the building. K. Sign colors. The standards for signs in this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of limited colors per sign so as to minimize excessive contrast and thereby establish more readable, |000 confusing signs. Signs for connnnaroia| complexes, shopping centgro, other commercial anq industrial development, including individual business e, shall be limited by the following: � 1. Signs shall be limited to a maximum of three co|OnG per sign. If a federally nagu|@1gd trademark sign has more than thnee, then the rnaxinnurn size allowed for that sign shall bg reduced by2O percent for each additional color. 2. For purposes Ofcalculating reductions in size where more than three colors are involved, the OOaxirnunn sign size resulting from the first 20 percent reduction shall form the basis for the second 20 percent reduction, and so on for each eubsgqu8nt2O percent reduction. For example, if the mn8xinluOl size allowed for Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-8/ P a ge a given three-color sign is 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6.4 square feet: 80% x (10 x 80%). 3. The ARC may waive the above-noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design, or other features determined by the ARC. L. Illuminated signs and lights. The following standards shall apply to all illuminated signs: 1. All illuminated signs shall be designed with a dimmer system to avoid undue glare or reflection of light on private property in the surrounding area. 2. External light sources shall be shielded from view and directed to illuminate only the sign face (see Figure 25.56-4 below). Figure 25.56-4 Sign Illumination III Do This Don't Do This 3. Internal illumination is permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the only portion of the sign that appears as illuminated is the actual lettering and/or a registered trademark or logo. 4. Reflective-type bulbs and incandescent lamps shall not be used on the exterior surface of signs so that the bulb or lamp is exposed to view from any direction. 5. Each new illuminated sign shall be subject to a 30-day review period during which time the Director may determine that a reduction in illumination is necessary due to negative impacts on surrounding property or the community in general. In addition, and at any time, the Director may order the dimming of any illumination found to be excessively bright. M. Signs to face public or private right-of-way. All signs permitted under this chapter shall be placed on the side of property facing a public or private right-of-way. N. Maintenance of signs. 56-9/Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs 1. For the public health, safety, and welfare all signs shall be maintained in a safe, presentable, and good structural condition at all times, including the replacement of defective parts, wiring, ballast, painting, repainting, cleaning, and other acts required for the maintenance of the sign. If the sign is not made to comply with safety standards, the Director shall require its immediate repair or removal in compliance with this chapter. 2. Signs illuminated either internally or externally shall be capable of being fully illuminated and legible with the face(s) intact (without holes or other exterior damage). Any illuminated sign not in compliance with these and other maintenance standards in this section shall be cited by the Director and shall be brought into compliance with applicable standards or proof of a contract for repair and maintenance shall be approved within 30 days or shall be subject to abatement as a public nuisance. Illuminated signs that, because of expired or damaged lighting elements, become non-legible shall be ordered to remain unlighted until repaired. 3. When a sign is removed or replaced, all brackets, poles, and other structural elements that supported the sign shall also be removed. Affected building surfaces shall be restored to match the adjacent portion of the structure. 4. In the case of abandoned signs, the identification, name, and copy pertaining to the abandoned business shall be removed and replaced with a blank panel or white space within 30 days of vacating the business. 5. When it is determined by the City that a sign may cause imminent danger to the public safety and contact cannot be made with a sign owner or building owner, no written notice shall be required. In this situation, the City may correct the danger. The City shall Cause to have removed any sign that endangers the public safety, including abandoned, materially dangerous, electrically, or structurally defective signs. 6. Notices of violation shall be sent by the Director by certified mail. Time periods provided in this section shall be deemed to commence on the date of the mailing. Any person having an interest in the sign or the property may appeal the citation ordering the removal of compliance by filing a written notice of appeal with the Director within 30 days after the date of mailing the notice, or 30 days after receipt if the notice was not mailed. 7. Signs removed by the City shall become the property of the City and may be di posed of in any matter deemed appropriate by th City. The cost of the removal of any sign by the City shall be considered a dbt owed to the City by the owner of the sign and the owner of the property and may be recovered in an appropriate court action by the City or by assessment against the property. The cost of removal shall include any incidental expenses incurred by the City in connection with the sign's removal. 25.56.070 Permanent Signs A. Purpose. The number and area of signs as provided in this chapter are intended to be maximum standards. However, the standards do not necessarily ensure architectural Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-10/ Page compatibility. Therefore, in addition to the enumerated standards, the approving authority shall also give consideration to a sign's relationship to the overall appearance of the subject property, as well as the surrounding community with the goal being to minimize visual pollution, excessive illumination, and excessive contrasting colors. Compatible design, simplicity, and sign effectiveness are to be used in establishing guidelines for sign approval. B. Relationship to other provisions. The tables contained within this section provide regulations for permanent signs in residential and nonresidential zoning districts. References in the last column provide additional regulations for specific sign types located elsewhere in this chapter. In the case of an inconsistency between regulations provided in the tables and regulations provided for specific sign types, the regulations for specific sign types shall take precedence. C. Signs allowed in residential zoning district. Table 25.56-1 (Signs Allowed in Residential Zoning Districts) provides dimension and other development standards. 56-11/Pape Chapter 25, 56 Signs Table 25.56-1: Signs Allowed in Residential Zoning Districts Allowed Max. Max.Sign Max.Sign Lighting Sign Class Sign Location Additional Types Number Area Height Allowed 1.Name plate Below eave One per Name of Single-family Wall of roof or Near main Internal uses single-family 2 sq.ft. parapet or 4 entrance only occupancy and use address only ft. if on pole 2.Identification One sign per 10 sq.ft.plus sign complex one Multifamily or Alternative:2 Below eave Wall or additional sq. At or near condominium signs per of roof or Name of complex monument main ft.for each 10 p arap et for main External complex only sign entrance units. wall sign entrance p y with max. 15 Max.50 sq. sq.ft. each ft.total 3. Identification At primary sign Wall or Two signs per g monument primary 40 sq.ft.total 6 ft. entrances to External Name of residential only complex only Residential sign entrance community community One sq.ft.of sign area for 4. Identification each 10 At primary n si Wall or One sign per 9 lineal ft.of entrances to External Name of monument street 6 ft. Mobile home sig n fronta a street mobile home only complex only park g frontage. park Max.40 sq. ft.total Below eave of roof or Allowed for s. Identification Wall or parap et for sign At primary External churches,day monument One sign 20 sq.ft. wall sign. care centers, Nonresidential sign 6 ft.for entrance only private clubs, uses monument and similar uses sign Below eave Only for 6.Identification of roof or commercial Wall or parapet for entrance only uses allowed sign At primary External monument One sign 20 sq.ft. wall sign. with a uses(offices) Commercial sign 6 ft.for y conditional use monument permit(offices) sign in the R-3 zone Only for hotels 7.Identification and motels sign Standards shall be the same as for uses in commercial and industrial zones.However,the allowed with a number of signs,sign area,height,and illumination may be reduced if the use is located in Hotels and or adjacent to a residential zone conditional use motels permit in the R-3 zone 8.Temporary See Section 25.56.090(Temporary Signs) signs D. Signs allowed in commercial and industrial zoning district. Table 25.56-2 (Signs Allowed in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts) provides dimension and other development standards. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-12/ P{sae Table 25.56-2: Signs Allowed in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts Allowed Max. Max.Sign Max.Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Number of Sign Types Signs Area Height Location Allowed Requirements Building-Mounted Signage Sign shall 1a.Business Flush be located identification mounted or Below eave adjacent to per line of sign projecting One p the right-of- Section building building and Yes Up to 50 ft.of Building- frontage not higher way from 25.56.080.A building mounted wall which its frontage sign than 20 ft. area is determined 1 sq.ft.of sign area per lineal foot of Within 100 ft. building of public frontage ROW Max.sign area 50 sq. ft. 1.5 sq.ft.of sign area per More than lineal foot of building 100 ft.from frontage public ROW Max.sign area 75 sq. ft. 50 sq.ft.of sign area for Sign shall 1b.Business Flush- first 50 ft.of be located identification Below eave mounted or frontage;and adjacent to sin One per line of 9 projecting 0.5 sq.ft.of the right-of- Section 50-100 ft.of building- building sign area for building and way from Yes 25.56.080.A building mounted wall frontage each lineal ft not higher which its frontage sign of building than 20 ft. area is frontage up determined to 100 ft. Within 100 ft. Max sign of public area 75 sq. ROW ft. 75 sq.ft.of sign area for first 50 ft.of frontage;and 0.5 sq.ft.of More than Sig�area for 100 ft.from ea h lineal ft. public ROW of building frontage up to 100 ft. Max.sign area 100 sq.ft. 56-13/Page Chapter 25, 55 Signs Allowed Max. Max.Sign Max.Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Number of - Sign Types Signs Area Height Location Allowed Requirements 75 sq.ft.of sign area for Sign shall 1 c.Business Flush- first 100 ft. of be located identification mounted or frontage;and Below eave adjacent to sin One per 0.25 sq.ft.of line of 9 projecting the right-of- Section building sign area for building and Yes More than building frontage each lineal ft. not higher way from 25.56.080.A 100 ft.of mounted wall of building than 20 ft. which its frontage sign frontage in area is excess of determined 100 ft. 100 sq.ft.of sign area for first 100 ft. of frontage;and Within 100 ft. 0.25 sq.ft.of ARC of public sign area for approval ROW each lineal ft. required of building frontage in excess of 100 ft. More than Max sign ARC 100 ft.from area as approval public ROW ARC approved by required The total aggregate sign area of the secondary sign(s) Sign design shall Building 2. Business mounted wall Two per together with be consistent with identification sin business the primary Below eave primary business sign g subject to the sign shall not line of sign and shall be Secondary maximum sign exceed the building and Yes ancillary to the Flush- area allowed maximum not higher main business business mounted or for the sign area than 20 ft. sign signs business allowed for projecting Section the business 25.56.080.0 as determined by items 1 a, 1 b,and 1 c above Single tenant building;one- Signs shall be half the sign reverse"halo"lit area allowed 3. Business Below eave or non-illuminated for the front On the identification Building- One sign line of individual letters sin of the freeway side 9 mounted wall facing the building building and of the Yes Illuminated signs Freeway- sign freeway not higher turned off at oriented signs Multitenant than 20 ft. building 11:00 P.M. building: 16- inch high Section letters 25.56.080.1-1 maximum Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-14/ Page Allowed Max. Max.Sign Max.Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Sign Types Number of Area Height Location Allowed Requirements Signs Shall be 4. Business 50%of sign located on identification Building the side of sign mounted, One sign per area allowed Below eave the building g for business line of Yes Second story mounted only flush business in single- building where the majority of business sign story building the business is located Freestanding freeway-oriented monument signs and monument signs Maximum of one-half the total sign area allowed To identify a for the front 6 ft.unless building, of the topographic commercial or 5a.Business building.The or other industrial identification sign area of features complex,or sign Freestanding the necessitate shopping center Multitenant street frontage g with g monument One sign per monument a higher Yes frontage on a g sign sign shall be sign. In no public or private sites less than in addition to event shall street 5 acres the allowed total sign sign area for height the building exceed 10 ft. Section or business. 25.56.080.E Maximum sign area 50 sq.ft. 10 sq.ft.per acre of 6 ft. unless subject site. topographic 5b.Business The sign or other identification area of the features sign Freestanding monument necessitate One sign per sign shall be Section Multitenant monument street frontage in addition to a higher Yes sites with sign the allowed sign' 25.56.080.8 more than 5 sign area for In no event acres the building shall total Maximum sign height sign area 100 exceed 10 ft. sq.ft. 56-15/Page Chapter 25 . 56 Signs Allowed Max. Max.Sign Max.Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Number of Sign Types Signs Area Height Location Allowed Requirements One per 1,000 lineal feet of freeway Located frontage along Section freeway 25.56.080131 5c.Freeway- Freestanding frontage Two for with a oriented Freeway planned 450 sq.ft. 40 ft. minimum Yes. Planned monument monument commercial Signs sign setback of Commercial centers in 10 ft.and a development excess of maximum abutting Interstate 1,600 lineal setback of 10 feet of 50 ft. freeway frontage Miscellaneous signs 8. Business One sign per Letter height Placed on identification Permanent shall not awning exceed one Section the awning sign awning sign Allowed in third of the or awning No 25.56.080.E Awning sign addition to awning valance, but other signs height not on both 25%of total One sign per window area 7. Business individual facing a Not allowed identification Permanent window public street On inside of above Section n si or public window Yes 9 window sign Allowed in parking area ground floor surface 25.56.080.D Window sign addition to including windows other signs temporary window signs Near main 8. Business A-frame, One per entrance on identification pedestal,or establishment 3 sq.ft. private sign another well- Allowed in May be two- 54 inches property, No Section 25.56.080.G Pedestrian- designed addition to sided and oriented oriented sign sign stand other signs to pedestrians Building- One 25 sq.ft.for Per Below eave 9.Attractionflush mounted establishment line of boards mounted Section Theaters and Flush Allowed in 15 s ft.per building and Yes 25.56.080.J nightclubs mounted or addition to side for not higher projecting other signs than 20 ft. projecting Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-16/ Page Allowed Max. Max.Sign Max.Sign Sign Lighting Additional Sign Class Number of Sign Types Signs Area Height Location Allowed Requirements Building- mounted or Shall not window encroach 10.Menu Within into the board May be on One per window area public right Section Restaurant pedestal if establishment 3 sq.ft. or 6 ft.if on of-way or Yes 25.56.080.K menu board restaurant is pedestal obstruct set back more than 5 pedestrian ft.from ROW movement 1.5 sq.ft.of 11. One per sign area per Near main plus Multitenant courtyard or tenant p entrance to courtyard or plaza an additional y Wall or p courtyard or Section plaza 2 sq.ft.to 7 ft. No p ground sign Allowed in provide plaza and 25.56.080.1 Business addition to directions to oriented to directory sign other signs the courtyard pedestrians or plaza 12.Gasoline service stations.See Section 25.56.080(L)(Gasoline Service Stations) 13.Temporary signs.See Section 25.56.090(Temporary Signs) 56-17/Page Chapter 2;, 56 Signs 25.56.080 Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs A. Building-mounted wall signs. Figure 25.56-5: Wall Sign Examples IRIE r r 7s It� 1. Signs shall be located only on a building frontage and shall not extend above an eave or parapet, or above or below a fascia on which they are located. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-18/ Page Figure 25.56-6: Appropriate Wall Sign Location _ _ __ ------------- ...........:-11-1-11-1--k- IF Do This Don't Do This 2. Electrical raceways for signs shall be designed as an integral part of the sign or building design and shall not be visible. N Figure 25.56-7: Electrical Raceways ms, u w 56-19 Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs 3. Signs shall be placed flat against the wall and shall not project from the wall more than required for normal construction purposes and in no case more than 12 inches. 4. Signs shall be located within the middle 50 percent of the building or occupancy's frontage (e.g., in-line tenant) measured from lease line to lease line. Figure 25.56-8: Appropriate Wall Sign Location (In-line Tenant) Middle 50%of Building Middle 50%of Building or Occupany Frontage or Occupany Frontage � I'ICI i ( Building or Occupany Frontage Building or Occupany Frontage 5. Signs located on adjacent walls on the same building shall be separated at the corners of the building with adequate spacing. Figure 25.56-9: Required Separation for Wall Signs Adequate Spacing - i Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-201 B. Freestanding monument signs. Figure 25.56-10: Freestanding Sign Examples y � r "N d rf° dP `�wl SS av fresh 16 ,^eat ii 1 " 1^ �y A [ • c . ram' 1. Freeway-Oriented Monument Signs i. All freeway-oriented monument signs shall be identified as part of a Sign Program for a commercially developed center and are subject 56-211 Chapter 25 . 56 Signs to the review requirements established in Section 25.56.100 and the requirements below. 1. Sign Programs shall include: a. Line of sight studies. b. Photo simulations and sign renderings for both night/day. ii. One freeway-oriented monument sign is permitted for planned commercial properties within the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone, greater than 10 acres in size and with at least 1,000 feet of lineal frontage abutting Interstate 10. iii. When a planned commercial center has freeway frontage in excess of 1,600 lineal feet, one additional freeway monument sign shall be permitted. Multiple freeway-oriented monument signs for the same planned commercial center shall be separated by a minimum distance of 400 lineal feet. iv. Signs shall not exceed a maximum hieght of forty (40) feet. V. All signs shall be of an artist and enhanced design that is architecturally compatible with the architecture of the commercial center. vi. When approving any freeway sign the ARC shall affirmatively make the finding that the approval shall visually enhance the aesthetic quality of the property on which the sign is to be located. 2. Monument Signs i. A single-tenant building, multitenant building with unshared access, commercial or industrial complex, or shopping center shall be entitled to one freestanding monument sign per frontage on a public or private street. ii. When a shopping center or industrial park has street frontage on any one street in excess of 1,600 lineal feet, one additional sign shall be permitted. Freestanding signs on the same street shall be separated by a minimum distance of 400 lineal feet. iii. All freestanding monument signs shall be placed within a permanently landscaped area not less than 24 square feet, be architecturally compatible with the building or complex, and not encroach in the public right-of-way. iv. When approving any freestanding sign the ARC shall affirmatively make the finding that the approval shall visually enhance the aesthetic quality of the property on which the sign is to be located. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-221 v. Freestanding monument signs shall not contain phone numbers. C. Secondary business signs. Figure 25.56-11: Secondary Business Signs a Main Building Sign Secondary Secondary Signage t1SA1 t�dT'IS1S Signage , _ Bristol Usti ., 4 ` 1. Secondary business signs shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under this chapter. 2. The design of secondary business signs shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign. 3. The total aggregate sign area of the primary sign together with the secondary sign shall not exceed the maximum sign area allowed for the business. 4. Where a proposed secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, the size of the trademark sign may be subject to size reduction requirements in compliance with Section 25.56.060 (General Provisions for All Signs). 5. No more than two secondary signs allowed except as otherwise provided in this chapter. i 6. Secondary signs shall not contain phone numbers. 7. Slogans, mottos, or sayings may be used instead of secondary business signage. i D. Window signs—permanent. 56-231 Chapter 25 . 56 Signs Figure 25.56-12: Window Signs (Permanent) FINE MENSWEAR SINCE 1923 d 1. The aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed 25 percent of the total window area of a storefront. 2. Signs shall be permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside of windows. 3. Illuminated (LED, neon, etc.) window signs shall be allowed as permanent window signs, and shall not exceed 15 square feet in size. The area covered by the illuminated sign(s) shall count towards the maximum 25 percent window coverage limitation as described above. These signs shall Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-241 not be allowed in windows fronting on El Paseo and shall not rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing. 4. Window signs shall be allowed in addition to the aggregate sign area allowed for wall and projecting signs. 5. Signs within 5 feet of a storefront window shall be counted as window signs. E. Signs on awnings, marquees, canopies, arcades, or similar structures. Figure 25.56-13: Awning Signs µ 9 E 1. All awnings shall be reviewed and approved by the ARC. The awning shall be architecturally compatible with the building and as a result an awning may not be appropriate for every building. 56-251 Chapter 25 . 56 Signs 2. Signs on awnings shall be kept in good repair, clean, and not faded. 3. Signs on awnings (lettering and numbers), including lettering style and colors shall blend aesthetically with the awning and building to which it is attached. 4. When required by the building official, street address numbers shall comply with the requirements of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 15.15.010 and Table 15.15.020(A). 5. Awnings shall not contain phone numbers. F. Projecting signs. Projecting signs shall not extend below 8 feet from the sidewalk or the right-of-way. Figure 25.56-14: Projecting (Blade) Signs t f�1 A 4 I t R 19,41 b tgA 9f G. Pedestrian-oriented signs. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-261 1 . Businesses in the commercial and industrial districts may place a pedestrian oriented A-frame or pedestal mounted "open" sign in front of a business, subject to the following standards: a. Maximum sign area shall be 3 square feet for pedestal signs on each side, and 5 feet for A-frame signs on each side; b. Maximum sign height shall be 54 inches; c. Signs shall be placed on private property in a location that does not impede pedestrian traffic flow; d. Signs shall be designed and located so as to not distract from the appearance of the building or violate the intent of this chapter; e. Signs shall not include extraneous verbiage advertising the business, specials, or sales events; and I f. Signs shall be removed when the business is not open for business. 2. For businesses on El Paseo, the above standards apply with the following additional standards: a. Signs shall be placed on private property in a location that does not impede pedestrian traffic flow; b. Allowed only during the summer months between June 1 and October 1, or before 10 a.m. when a business is actually open at that time, during construction of a storefront, and/or any time a business is the sole tenant of an otherwise-vacant multi-tenant building; c. Signs permitted under this Subsection shall be limited to the word "open," the business name and logo, and hours of operation only; d. City approval of the sign is required. A City approval identity sticker will be issued and must be placed on the sign; and e. Signs shall be professionally designed and fabricated, and well- maintained at all times. H. Building-mounted signs facing the freeway. Businesses located in buildings with one side facing the freeway shall be entitled to one sign on the freeway side of the building in addition to other allowed signs for the front of the building, provided the freeway facing sign complies with the following requirements: 1. Signs for single-tenant buildings shall be limited to 50 percent of the total sign area allowed on the front of the building. 56-271 Chapter 25. 56 Signs 2. Signs for multitenant buildings and individual business signs shall be limited to a maximum of 16-inch high letters. 3. All signs facing the freeway shall use black font type Bernard Gothic T Medium, except for federal trademark signs. 4. All signs facing the freeway shall be either reverse "halo" lit or non-illuminated individual letters. 5. Illuminated signs shall be turned off and non-illuminated after 11 p.m. 6. No logos, slogans, or phone numbers as part of the signage allowed. I. Directional signs for courtyard or plaza businesses. Where commercial buildings or complexes are designed to contain tenant spaces oriented to an interior courtyard or plaza and where the principal business identification sign is located on that courtyard or plaza frontage, the commercial building or complex shall be permitted a pedestrian directional sign(s). The directional sign shall group the names of businesses and/or principal services to be found in the courtyard or plaza subject to the following standards: 1. Signs shall be located at major pedestrian entrances to the plaza or courtyard. 2. Signs shall not encroach into the public right-of-way. 3. Signs shall be properly integrated into the architectural and landscape design of the building. 4. Signs including supports shall have a maximum width of 4 feet, whether wall- mounted or freestanding. J. Attraction boards for theaters and nightclubs. In addition to the principal sign area, one attraction board to advertise nightclub or theater entertainment shall be allowed. The information on the attraction board shall be limited to coming and current entertainment only. Attraction boards shall not be used to advertise rates or prices of attractions. K. Restaurant menu boards. In addition to the principal sign area, a restaurant may have one sign on a wall or window displaying the menu and/or daily specials. When a restaurant is set back more than 5 feet from the public right-of-way or pedestrian walkway, a freestanding easel may be set up within the setback to display the menu board during hours when meals are being served. The sign shall not encroach into the public right-of-way or obstruct pedestrian movement. L. Gasoline service stations. Gasoline service stations shall be limited to those signs approved by the ARC as a part of their action on a conditional use permit and/or amendment thereto. Service station signs shall not exceed the following limitations: 1. One double-faced freestanding monument sign not to exceed 24 square feet in area or not to exceed 8 feet in height, and advertising only the name of the company. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-281 2. One 10-square-foot maximum wall sign advertising the company name and/or operator. 3. One wall or ground sign, not exceeding 8 square feet in area and 8 feet in height for a ground sign, advertising the actual lowest price per gallon including all taxes at which gasoline are currently being offered. Any special conditions required for sale at the lowest price shall also be indicated. 25.56.090 Temporary Signs A. Applicability. The temporary signs listed below in Table 25.56-3 (Temporary Sign Standards) shall be allowed subject to the requirements of this section. Temporary signs in violation of this section shall be treated as illegal signs and shall be subject to abatement under the requirements of Section 25.56.130 (Abatement of Illegal Signs). B. Civic events. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the Council from granting a special permit application or otherwise permitting signs, displays, or advertising pertaining to a civic, patriotic, or special event of general public interest taking place within the City when it can be found that the signs, displays, or advertising will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, interest, or safety, nor injurious to adjacent property or improvements. C. Number, size, height, and duration. Table 25.56-3 (Temporary Sign Standards) provides standards for temporary signs. Temporary signs are allowed in addition to the number of permanent signs allowed for the property. 56-291 Chapter 25. 56 Signs Table 25.56-3: Temporary Sign Standards Maximum Maximum Additional Sign Type Maximum Area Duration .Number Height., Standards Temporary window signs' 2 Commercial and industrial zones Allowed for sales only and promotions Lineal feet of window area 50 feet or less One sign 10%of total N/A 30 days Placed on inside window area of window 51-100 feet One sign 15%of total window area More than 100 One sign 25%of total feet window area Special signs Special event One sign building- Below eave line of banner mounted or 30 sq.ft. building 30 days per year Section 25.56.090.D freestanding New business See Section Allowed only while establishment One sign 25.56.070 Table Below eave line of 60 days permanent signs are identification 25.56-21a, 1bor building 1c being obtained One sign per During active On property where 16 sq.ft.per construction is Trade and street frontage building permit construction 20,000 sq.ft.of taking place site area Shall not obstruct 8 ft. Removed before project signs visibility at notice of Shall list only firms intersections Max.32 sq.ft. completion connected with the development project New Residential Development New subdivision One double-face 48 sq.ft.per sign 8 ft. Until all units in the identification sign sign,or two single- face project are sold face signs per street frontage New subdivision Two signs per 15 sq.ft.each 8 ft. Until all units in the Sign placement to directional signs street frontage project are sold direct persons to the subdivision entrance Realty and lease signs Realty sign One sign per 3 sq.ft.,plus one 4 ft. During time when Section 25.56.090 Single-family street frontage rider sign;5 in.x realty is offered for residential 16 in. sale or rent Realty sign One on-site,three 3 sq.ft. 4 ft.on-site While a Section 25.56.090.G Open house signs off-site 3 ft.off-site salesperson is physically present on the premises Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-30/ Page Sign Type Maximum Maximum Area Maximum Duration Additional Number Height Standards Realty sign One sign per 12 sq.ft. 4 ft. During time when Section 25.56.090 Other than single street frontage realty is offered for family in residential sale or rent zone Lease potential One two-sided 32 sq.ft. 6 ft. Displayed after May advertise lease sign sign per street ARC project potential for future Future frontage approval development prior to development Removed before and during notice of construction completion No riders outside of the 32 sq.ft.area Realty sign One two-sided 16 sq.ft. 6 ft. During time when No riders outside of sign per street realty is offered for the 16 sq.ft.area frontage sale or rent Personal property Three signs 3 sq.ft. 4 ft. Two days within a One on the property sale,block party, 30-day period where the event is or similar event being held,and two off-site on private property. Political signs See Section 25.56.090.E(Political Sign Regulations) Notes: 1. Businesses that are set back more than 250 feet from a public right-of-way(street)may double the temporary window sign area. Businesses that are set back more than 600 feet from a public right-of-way (street) may triple their otherwise entitled temporary window signage. 2.Does not include signs and decorations painted on or applied to windows pertaining to holidays and seasonal events when the signs contain no reference to the goods or services sold or provided by the establishment. All signs and decorations shall be removed within 10 days following the applicable holiday. D. Standards for temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be subject to the following standards and any additional standards for specific types of temporary signs: 1. Signs are allowed on private property only and shall not be placed in public rights-of-way or at off site locations. 2. Signs shall not be attached to roofs, temporary structures, trees, utility poles, light standards, and similar items in the public right-of-way. 3. Signs shall not be illuminated 4. Signs shall not move in any manner. 5. Signs shall I be constructed of durable material suitable to their) location and purpose. 6. Signs and their components shall be promptly removed at the time of expiration. 7. Window signs with non-commercial content or messages shall comply with all regulations of temporary signs related to number, area, size and height. E. Political sign regulations. Political signs shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Political signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way. 56-31/Page Chapter 25. 56 Signs 2. No fee or permits shall be required for the right to erect political signs. 3. Where the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant shall secure the permission of the property owner. 4. Signs shall not be placed in any manner to create a hazard to public health or safety. 5. Signs shall be removed within 30 days following the election. F. Special event signs. 1. With the approval of the Director, a business may erect one temporary sign, freestanding or mounted on a wall fascia, advertising special events, promotions, or sales. Approval of a sign permit application may allow up to 30 square feet of sign area depending upon the type of event, building design, and right-of-way frontage for a period not to exceed 30 days per year. 2. Signs approved under this section shall be compatible and harmonious with the color of the building and adjacent buildings. When improperly used, special event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated. Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be permitted in compliance with a resolution of the Council, which shall specify the period during which the banner may be displayed. G. Open house signs. Open house signs shall be permitted for an open house, subject to the following provisions: 1. On-site Signs: i. No flags or banners shall be used. ii. Individual logos and colors are allowed for on-site open house signs. iii. Signs shall be located on private property only, unless prior written approval for unique circumstances is obtained from the Director. i 2. Off-site Direction Signs: i. Sign lettering must be brown on a beige background, but may include Realtor name and phone number in 2-inch high maximum, plain font. No logos or branding are permitted on off-site directional signs. ii. One off-site directional sign per intersection. One sign permitted on each corner of an intersection, such that no more than three off-site directional signs are allowed in addition to one on-site open house sign for a total of four open house signs. iii. Signs shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from curb with property owner permission for sign location. iv. Sign placement in any City median is prohibited. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-32/ Page V. Additional lighting, flags, balloons, or any other advertising device as defined in this chapter shall be prohibited. Figure 25.56-15: Open House Off-site Direction Signs E 18" HOUSE 2411 Figure 25.56-16: Prohibited Locations - Open House Off-site Direction Signs t PROHM10 EUMPLES v ' 25.56.100 Comprehensive Sign Program A. Purpose. The purpose of a comprehensive sign program is to integrate all of a nonresidential project's signs with the overall site design and the structures' design into a unified architectural statement. A comprehensive sign program provides a means for the flexible application of sign regulations in order to provide incentive and latitude in the design and display of multiple signs and to achieve, not circumvent, the purpose of this chapter. Approval of a comprehensive sign program may modify the standards provided in this chapter as to sign number, size, height, illumination, location, orientation, or other aspects of signs within the limits of this section. B. Applicability. The approval of a comprehensive sign program by the ARC shall be required whenever any of the following circumstances exist: 1. Whenever three or more separate tenant spaces are present on the same site. 2. Whenever three or more nonexempt signs are proposed for a single tenant. 56-331 Chapter 25. 56 Signs 3. Whenever signs are proposed to be located on the second story on a multistory building. 4. Whenever an existing multitenant development of three or more tenants is being remodeled or rehabilitated to the extent that it requires review and approval by the ARC. 5. Whenever the Director determines that a comprehensive sign program is needed because of special project characteristics (e.g., the size of proposed signs, limited site visibility, the location of the site relative to other lots, buildings, or streets, etc.). C. Application requirements. A sign permit application for a comprehensive sign program shall include all information and materials required by the Director. D. Standards. A comprehensive sign program shall comply with the following standards: 1. The proposed sign program shall comply with the purpose and intent of this chapter. 2. The proposed signs shall enhance the overall development, be in harmony with, and relate visually to other signs included in the comprehensive sign program, to the structures and/or developments they identify, and to surrounding development when applicable. 3. The sign program shall address all signs, including permanent, temporary, and exempt signs. 4. The sign program shall accommodate future revisions that may be required because of changes in use or tenants. 5. The sign program shall comply with the standards of this chapter, except that deviations are allowed with regard to sign area, total number, location, and/or height of signs to the extent that the comprehensive sign program will enhance the overall development and will more fully accomplish the purposes and intent of this chapter. 6. Approval of a comprehensive sign program shall not authorize the use of signs prohibited by this chapter. 7. Review and approval of a comprehensive sign program shall not consider the signs' proposed message content. E. Findings. In order to approve a comprehensive sign program the following findings shall be made: 1. The comprehensive sign program complies with the purpose of this chapter, including the design criteria. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-341 2. Proposed signs enhance the overall development and are in harmony with other signs included in the plan with the structures they identify and with surrounding development. 3. The comprehensive sign program contains provisions to accommodate future revisions that may be required because of changes in use or tenants. 4. The comprehensive sign program complies with the standards of this chapter, except that flexibility is allowed with regard to sign area, number, location, and/or height to the extent that the signs proposed under the comprehensive sign program will enhance the overall development, achieve superior quality design, and will more fully accomplish the purposes of this chapter. F. Revisions to comprehensive sign programs. The Director may approve revisions to a comprehensive sign program if the intent of the original approval is not affected. Revisions that would substantially deviate from the original approval shall require the approval of a new/revised comprehensive sign program by the ARC. 25.56.110 Nonconforming Signs A. Lawfully permitted nonconforming signs. I 1. Lawfully permitted on-premises signs existing at the time of the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter on September 10, 2009, that do not comply with the requirements of this chapter shall be deemed lawful nonconforming signs. 2. Nonconforming signs shall not be expanded, extended, rebuilt, altered, or reconstructed in any way, except for normal maintenance or to protect public safety. 3. It shall be the express responsibility of the seller of property or a business to advise the buyer of the provisions of this section relating to the removal of nonconforming signs upon the transfer of ownership of a business. B. Lawful nonconforming signs to be removed. It shall be the responsibility of the business owner, sign owner, or property owner to ensure compliance with this section. Nonconforming signs shall be removed or made to comply with the requirements of this chapter as follows: 1. Within 30 days of the issuance of a sign permit application for a sign on a property on which a nonconforming sign(s) exists. Prior to the issuance for a property on which a nonconforming sign(s) exists, the applicant or owner shall file with the City an irrevocable bond in the amount of $10,000 to guarantee the nonconforming sign(s) shall removed or made to conform with the requirements of this chapter within a specified time. 2. Upon the transfer of ownership of the business. 3. Upon the altering of the nonconforming sign or sign structure in any way or the addition of new sign(s) or a new sign structure. 56-35 P ge Chapter 25. 56 Signs 4. After 90 days of the discontinuance of a business or before a new business occupies the building, whichever comes first. C. Nonconforming signs maintenance. Except for normal repair or maintenance not exceeding 50 percent of the value of the sign, nonconforming signs shall not be modified, altered, moved, or replaced except in compliance with the requirements of this chapter. D. Lawful nonconforming off-site signs (i.e., billboards). Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to limit the ability of an owner of a lawful nonconforming off- site sign (i.e., billboard) to periodically change advertising copy. 25.56.120 Abandoned Signs A. Removal of abandoned signs. 1. An abandoned sign or an abandoned nonconforming sign shall be removed within 30 days by the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign is located or by a person, organization, or other entity that directly or indirectly receives a benefit from the information contained on the sign. All wording advertising or relating to the discontinued business shall be removed from all nonconforming signs. 2. A sign frame or structure that has been abandoned shall be removed within 30 days by the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign frame or structure is located. B. Presumption that a sign is abandoned. A sign that identifies or advertises a business that has ceased; is located upon a structure that has been abandoned by its owner; has not identified a bona fide business, lessor, service, owner, product, or activity available upon the site, for more than 90 days shall be presumed abandoned. C. Notice that a sign is presumed abandoned. The Director shall send the person responsible for a sign presumed to be abandoned an abandoned sign notification. Failure of the person to respond within 30 days to the abandoned sign notification shall serve as prima facie evidence of intentional permanent abandonment of the sign. 25.56.130 Abatement of Illegal Signs A. Enforcement authority. The Director shall be the enforcement authority for this chapter. B. Abatement of illegal signs. The Director shall not permit, and shall abate, any sign within the City that fails to meet the requirements of this chapter or other applicable law, including temporary signs. Any illegal permanent signs shall be abated by the City. C. Notification and appeal. The Director shall notify the owner or user of a permanent sign that has been installed without a sign permit that the illegal sign shall be removed within 10 days. Upon receipt of this notice, the owner or user of a permanent sign that is determined to be illegal does have the right to file an appeal regarding the decision or notice within 10 days thereafter to the Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 8.20 of this title. Chapter 25. 56 Signs 56-36/ 25.56.140 Penalties A. Violations of any of the provisions of this chapter are infractions and/or misdemeanors punishable as provided for in Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 8.20.020(L). B. If the installation of a sign is commenced prior to obtaining an approved sign permit application, the applicable fee for a sign permit application shall be doubled. 56-371 Chapter 25. 56 Signs Exhibit C - 25.99.020 Land Use Definitions. Monument sign. A freestanding sign that is detached from a building and having a support structure that is a solid-appearing base constructed of a permanent material, such as concrete block or brick. All other freestanding sign types not meeting the definition of a monument sign shall be either a pole sign or a pylon sign. Monument sign, freeway-oriented. A freestanding sign that is detached from a building and having a support structure that is a solid-appearing base constructed of a permanent material, such as concrete block or brick on commercially zoned properties within the Freeway Commercial Overlay zone and greater than 10 acres in size and abutting Interstate 10. �Y � 9ry J / • • • 1 ' 1 d._ 1 • 1 9 P y R e `*a` E,. k� �,.iM•<� IJ,I. ;'.iv a e `. �.��i fi,�i '�"w, "sue v.! e r Y< qa Ira4 an r @V C 4 Fountainhead Development April 4, 2017 Eric Ceja Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Street Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Ceja, Fountainhead Development is currently proposing a retail center in Palm Desert at the North- East corner of Monterey. The project is located on the northeast corner of Monterey Road and Dinah Shore Drive. The property backs to Railroad right of way and directly to the north of the railroad is US Interstate 10. Existing big box retail centers are located on the southeast, south west and north west corners of the intersection. The Monterey Crossing Project will consist of retail, restaurant, shop and hotel uses on approximately 18 acres. A Specific Plan has been prepared to regulate development on the site. APPROVAL REQUESTED Fountainhead Development is requesting a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow freeway oriented monument Signs along the northern edge of the proposed development, which are oriented towards Interstate 10. Although the request is currently related to the Monterey Crossing project, a Zoning Code Amendment is an appropriate approval mechanism to allow consideration of special circumstances that may also apply to other projects with similar features in the general area. We are proposing a zone change to allow freeway oriented monument signs along the entire Regional Retail Area as defined in the general plan PROJECT SETTING The City of Palm Desert is centrally located in the heart of the Coachella Valley in southeastern Riverside County. State Highway 111 and U.S. Interstate-10 are the two primary regional routes connecting the City to the rest of the Coachella Valley. Interstate 10, also known as Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway, is one of three coast-to-coast Interstates. In Palm Desert, Interstate 10 connects to State Highway 111, which in turn extends southeast to Brawley in the Imperial Valley. Interstate-10 also connects the Los Angeles region with'Arizona and other cities and states to the east and the Southeastern United States. As such Interstate 10 is a critical roadway providing inter-regional access and is also a critical part of the local road network moving people and goods into and out of the Valley. (See Vicinity Map and Aerial) 1401 Quail Street, Suite 100 9 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ZONING As noted previously, the proposed development has a Regional Commercial General Plan designation and is zoned Planned Commercial with a Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone. The purpose of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ) district is to provide optional standards and incentives for the development of specific types of commercial uses on commercially zoned properties with freeway frontage, and/or properties within one signalized intersection of an interchange and intersecting cross street. In conformance with the FCOZ requirements, a Specific Plan has been submitted for the project under a separate application. Under this Overlay, Development standards are intended to be flexible, while ensuring and maintaining efficient site planning and attractive developments. The intent of the FCOZ is to allow the proper planning and ultimate development of retail centers serving both local and regional needs. (See General Plan and Zoning Map) JUSTIFICATION Developments such as those envisioned by the above Zoning Standards, have proven to promote success of retailers, provide economic benefit to Cities and serve prospective customers, both local and otherwise. Proximity and visibility to the freeway are big factors in how customers find goods and services in areas that they may not be otherwise familiar with. Commercial uses, (especially high quality retail, national tenants and hospitality uses) rely on exposure to the freeway to attract customers. Since these are regional oriented retail uses, its essential that these projects draw people for a larger market area than just the City of Palm Desert Palm Desert has significant commercial properties south of Interstate 10, that are separated from the Interstate 10 by railroad tracks, in some instances over 350 feet as in the case of the subject site. Since many of the proposed businesses at Monterey Crossing are located well over 500— 1000' from the freeway right of way due to the railroad right of way, most of the building signage would not be visible from the freeway. Freeway monument signs oriented towards Interstate 10 provide opportunities for businesses to be identified. The signage allows for visibility from the freeway when the building may be obscured or too far away for their signs to be visible. Palm Desert has a few undeveloped sites along the south side of Interstate 10 that could similarly benefit from visibility and create additional commercial opportunities for the City. Absent such visibility, businesses may find an alternate location more attractive, which may not necessarily be conducive to development in the City of Palm Desert. It is not uncommon to see high quality commercial developments along Freeways that incorporate attractive signage reflective of the site and building design. In the right setting, such signs if properly designed, could serve to add interest and excitement and create a sense of place for the surrounding community. Figure 1.3 of the General plan identifies this area as "Regional Retail Area". Regional Retail District is defined in Chapter 3 "To provide large format retail development along with associated restaurant and commercial service activity. This district is located near freeway connections and around major intersections" The provision of freeway signage will assist in achieving this goal of encouraging large format retail uses. The general plan contains several goals applicable to the Regional Retail Areas including: Goal 4— Districts. A series of unique, destination-oriented districts that provide space for large format retail, industrial and resort uses in order to increase access to jobs, provide amenities for residents, and enhance the fiscal stability of the City: Goal 4.3 - Facilitate major retail service commercial centers. Allow a wide variety of uses to locate in Regional Retail Districts including destination retail centers, mixed use town centers and hotels among other uses. Providing freeway oriented signage is essential for the development of regional uses since the signage along the freeway assists in attracting residents of surrounding communities as well as visitors and travelers to facilitate Goal 4.3. Goal 8- Economic Development. A diverse, growing and resilient local economy Goal 8.1— Long-term economic development—Support the development and implementation of long term economic development strategies that seek to establish and keep new businesses. Establishing a comprehensive sign plan that allows for freeway oriented signs will support goal 8.1 by encouraging new businesses to locate in the Regional Retail Area. Bringing new regionally drawing businesses to the City of Palm Desert will increase the sale tax revenues to the City of Palm Desert. These regional businesses will bring customers from outside of the City and thus increase the potential retail sales base for the City and thus increase the potential tax revenues. At Monterey Crossing, we are proposing two (2) 10-foot tall, high quality, artistic freeway monument signs that incorporate individually illuminated channel letters, perforated metal panels, stone, architectural concrete and plaster. The signs are reflective of the desert architecture theme. At night, the perforated metal panels will be backlit to provide visual excitement through utilizing light and shadow. We are proposing the following revision to the Sign Ordinance to allow the freeway oriented signs. These revisions will allow larger planned projects in the Regional Retail areas to have freeway oriented signs. l r C PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TEXT—SECTION 5C OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE Sign Class- Business Identification Sign —For large freeway oriented commercial projects within the FCOZ Overlay Zone adjacent to the Interstate 10 freeway right of way (and/or separated from the freeway by railroad right of way) Allowed Sign Types- Freeway Oriented Monument Sign Maximum Number of signs: Minimum size of 10 acres for the project (May include multiple parcels if part of a Planned Community or Specific Plan). 1 sign for each 500 feet of frontage along the parcel line adjacent to the freeway(and railroad if it's between the freeway and the project) with a maximum of 2 signs per project Maximum sign Area: 450 SF of signage on each side Maximum Sign height: 40' tall Sign Location:Within 50' of Freeway frontage or within 50' of railroad frontage if railroad is between freeway and commercial project Lighting Allowed: Internally illuminated or channel letters. Up lighting htingpermitted if part of architectural design Additional Requirements: Design shall be attractive and architecturally compatible with building design and signage design. We feel that changing the zoning requirements to allow freeway oriented signage will increase the economic vitality of the City of Palm Desert, increase sales tax revenues and encourage a variety of new regionally oriented businesses to locate on undeveloped sections of the Interstate 10 through the City of Palm Desert. Attachments: [Freeway Sign Exhibits] i Sincerely, Cra' Smith Fountainhead development cc: John Loper/Palmtree Communities Vasanthi Okuma/Fountainhead Development Milton Solomon/ADS Robin Bell/ADS CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 17-070 NOTICE OF INTENT OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REVISE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.56 "SIGNS" AND MODIFY SECTION 25.99.020 "LAND USE DEFINITIONS" TO ALLOW FOR FREEWAY-ORIENTED MONUMENT SIGNS ON COMMERCIALLY ZONED DEVELOPMENTS ABUTTING INTERSTATE 10 The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that this project is exempt under Class 11 — Section 15311 "Accessory Structures" and that the action to amend the existing ordinance to allow for on premise signs will not have a negative impact on the environment. Project Location: Commercially developed properties abutting Interstate 10 and greater than 10 acres in size. Code Amendment Description: Section 25.56 "Signs" will be amended to allow for freestanding freeway-oriented monument signs on commercially zoned properties abutting the freeway and at least 10 acres in size. All freestanding freeway-oriented monument signs will be subject to design and development standards, and will be subject to review and approval from the City's Architectural Review Commission. Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.99.020 "Land Use Definitions" will be amended to define "Monument signs -freeway-oriented." Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution supporting the changes to the Zoning Ordinance, and allow the item to move forward to a public hearing with the City Council. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on August 1, 2017, at 6:00 pm. Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date. The public comment period for this project is from July 20, 2017 to August 1, 2017. Public Review: The Zoning Ordinance Amendment is available for public review daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, the issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, Secretary JULY 20, 2017 Palm Desert Planning Commission NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: FROM: City of Palm Desert ❑ Office of Planning and Research 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm P. O.Box 3044,Room 113 Desert,CA 92260 Sacramento,CA 95812-3044 ® Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 2724 Gateway Dr, Riverside, or CA 92507 County Clerk County of: Riverside 1. Project Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment 17-070—Amendment to the City's Sign Ordinance 2. Project Applicant: Vasanthi Okuma—Fountainhead Development 3. Project Location—Identify street address and City-wide cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 4. (a)Project Location—City:Palm Desert (b) Project Location—County:Riverside 5. Description of nature,purpose,and beneficiaries The applicant requests approval of a sign ordinance of Project: amendment to allow for freeway-oriented monument signs for planned commercial developments abutting Interstate 10 and greater than 10 acres in size. 6. Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Palm Desert 7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking the Eric Ceja,Principal Planner—City of Palm Desert project,including any person undertaking an activity that receives financial assistance from the Public Agency as part of the activity or the person receiving a lease,permit,license,certificate,or other entitlement of use from the Public Agency as part of the activity: 8. Exempt status: (check one) (a) ❑ Ministerial project. (Pub.Res.Code§ 21080(b)(1); State CEQA Guidelines§ 15268) (b) ❑ Not a project. (c) ❑ Emergency Project. (Pub.Res.Code§ 21080(b)(4);State CEQA Guidelines§ 15269(b),(c)) (d) ® Categorical Exemption. I Class 11 "Acc ssory Structures" (a)On-premise signs State type and section number: , 15311 (e) Declared Emergency. (Pub.Res.Code§ 21080(b)(3);State CEQA Guidelines § N 15269(a)) (f) ❑ Statutory Exemption. State Code section number: (g) ❑ Other. Explanation: 9. Reason why project was exempt: Project is consistent with the City's general plan.The placement of on premise signs is exempt from CEQA review and the amendment to the City's zoning ordinance Notice of Exemption FORM "B" to allow them is not itself a project. 10. Lead Agency Contact Person: Eric Ceja,Principal Planner Telephone: (760)346-0611 II. If filed by applicant:Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment(Form"A")before filing. 12. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes ❑ No ❑ 13. Was a public hearing held by the lead agency to consider the exemption? Yes® No❑ If yes,the date of the public hearing was:August 24, 2017 Signature: Date: Title: ®Signed by Lead Agency ❑ Signed by Applicant Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21100,Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21108,21152, and 21152.1,Public Resources Code. Notice of Exemption FORM `B" NOBLE & COMPANY, LLC August 8,2017 Mr. Eric Cej a Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 By e-mail: eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org Re: Item 9.C., Planning Commission Agenda for August 1,2017 Meeting Dear Eric: At the August 1, 2017 Planning Commission meeting,during the public hearing for the referenced matter,I asked if the term "commercially zoned developments"included freeway oriented SI (service industrial)properties for the purpose of allowing freeway oriented monument signs. I was very surprised by your reply that such properties are not included. This was especially the case since two of the properties shown on your presentation to the commission as possible locations for"freeway oriented monument signs"are zoned SI. Since some businesses in the SI zone deal with retail customers, it seems that they should be included in consideration for freeway oriented monument signs to the same extent as are"commercially zoned developments". This consideration is especially appropriate for the two areas to the east of the proposed Monterey Crossing development, both zoned SI, which your presentation indicated are,in fact, possible locations for such signs. It is my understanding that the public hearing for this matter was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2017 at 6 p.m. Please advise me if this is correct. Also, please distribute a copy of this letter,together with a copy of your exhibit showing potentially appropriate sites for such signs, to each planning commissioner as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please feel free to contact me should you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Thomas S. Noble Cc: Lauri Aylaian (laylaian cr cityofpalmdesert.ora) Ryan Stendell (rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org) 34360 Gateway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 Tel. (760) 770-3100 • Fax (760) 770-3199 • noblecompanyllc@aol.com www.noblecompanylic.com � . 41, w W w ° ® . � . z Z W . . � ^ Z M Q y LU w llism \ pin �\j1 ® w» »y � > \ . - y. £ ■� » :., . . �2 �[ / If e a , iy x� * 3 e 5 e v ZN Q KIM z � 3 N . w - o LL LU LL ZC G a 3 LU Ix LL 0 CL LU N � M C Z .. J G C O E p_ p_ 0 o p `o E d 0 0�' E .tM- p- os � O LU w 0 S LL IN W- 1 (29 0 N z N o �c 'moo E 119 to 9 ,ei 5: )- M A-ISE � N W G)L-O L ds"O LLI E m E O o� Eo . °' � � z Q a r CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE ANEW 2,498-SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AT CRYSTAL PALM COURTYARD TO BE USED AS A PRIVATE MEMBERS ONLY SOCIAL BUSINESS CLUB, INCLUSIVE OF EXTERIOR FACADE REMODEL TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 73-338 HIGHWAY 111, AND APPROVAL OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Desert Social Business Club, LLC Attn: Patty Nugent 45920 Meritage Lane Coachella, CA 92236 CASE NO: CUP 16-217 DATE: August 15, 2017 CONTENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2707 2. Legal Notice 3. Architectural Review Commission Minutes dated November 8, 2016, January 10, February 28, and March 28, 2017 4. Notice of Exemption 5. Exhibits Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2707, approving the applicant's request to construct a new 2,498-square-foot addition to be used for a private members only social business club, and an exterior fagade remodel to buildings located at 73-338 Highway 111, and approval of a Notice of Exemption. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation will allow the applicant to construct a new 2,498-square-foot addition in the rear of the property and an exterior fagade remodel to the existing buildings,which was approved by the Architectural Review Commission(ARC).The applicant is proposing to use the addition for a private members only social business club for individuals who exceed a six(6) Staff Report CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club Page 2 of 6 August 15, 2017 figure yearly income. The new addition will eliminate the four(4) existing parking spaces, but the applicant will be conditioned to pay a parking in-lieu fee to utilize the future public parking along Alessandro Drive. Architectural Review Commission The proposed building addition and exterior fagade remodel was presented to the ARC at four separate meetings (November 8, 2016, January 10, February 28, and March 28, 2017). At the March 28, 2017, ARC meeting, the Commission approved the addition and exterior remodel with conditions that the final construction drawings must be approved by them. The ARC process took several meetings, because there were many inconsistencies throughout the plans in regards to the renderings, site plan, floor plan, and roof plan not aligning. The applicant's design representatives also had a hard time with fine-tuning the plans and the exterior details. Ultimately, the Commission approved the project/design stating that the improvements were a significant improvement to the existing building and that the massing was in the right locations. The ARC approved the project with a 5-0-2 vote, with Commissioners Lambell and McIntosh absent. Background A. Property Description: The project site is located on the north side of Highway 111, east of San Marcos Avenue,and west of San Pablo Avenue. The existing parcel is 8,120 square feet and has two existing buildings known as the Crystal Palm Courtyard Buildings. The two buildings total approximately 3,084 square feet. The existing parcel has four(4) parking spaces that will be removed to accompany the new 2,498-square-foot addition. Parking for the existing businesses and new business will continue to occur along the frontage road and within the future parking spaces along Alessandro Drive. The existing 3,084-square-foot building is divided into ten(10)suites. The tenant breakdown is as follows: Suite 1 and 2— Kathleen Collins Nail Garden Suite 3 —Vacant Suite 4— Facials by Cheryl Herseley Suite 5 and 6— Bliss Hair Salon Suite 7— Hair by Jenny Suite 8—Vacant Suite 9 and 10 — Ego Salon Suites 9 and 10 will be removed as part of the proposed addition. The tenant will be relocating to either Suites 3 or 8. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUFs\CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club\PC Staff Report.doc Staff Report CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club Page 3 of 6 August 15, 2017 The properties in the surrounding area consist of retail uses, office uses, the Red Barn, and the former McGowan's Irish Inn restaurant. OW B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: D — Downtown District, and the Scenic Preservation Overlay District General Plan: Downtown C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: R-2 — Residential /Single-family homes South: D-Downtown District, Scenic Preservation Overlay District/Commercial Uses East: D-Downtown District, Scenic Preservation Overlay District / Commercial Uses/Former McGowan's Restaurant West: D-Downtown District, Scenic Preservation Overlay District / Commercial/Office Uses Project Description The proposed "Desert Social Business Club"will be a members only club for men that will occupy the space within the proposed 2,498-square-foot building addition. The applicant states this will not be a nightclub or strip club. The business is intended to function as an office away from home with resources to maintain normal business activity.The private business club idea will serve as a destination for those looking to escape the strain of modern life and relax in an inviting and friendly atmosphere to manage their businesses and network with like-minded people. GAPlanningWemn Swartz\Word\CUFs\CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club\PC Staff Report.doc Staff Report CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club Page 4 of 6 August 15, 2017 The private business club will include a full service bar to be used by the members and business associates during private meetings, a conference room for general meetings and an area to socialize in, TVs, card tables, and recliner chairs. There will be a concierge staff to coordinate business services as needed by the members. The private business club will have free WiFi and technology stations for each member to conduct ongoing business. The private business club will have a music system with easy listening music. The members will have the option to use the existing services on the property such as the hair salons, nail salon, and facial salon. The private business club will operate seven(7)days a week between 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. There will be six (6) to seven (7) employees working at one-time consisting of a General Manager, Assistant Manager, Bar Manager, Concierge, and service staff. The entrance for the members will be provided along Highway 111 through the courtyard. There will not be a door or windows facing Alessandro Drive due to the proximity of the residential homes to the north. In order to accommodate the new addition for the private business club, the applicant is proposing to remove the four (4) existing parking spaces adjacent to Alessandro Drive. All parking will occur within the public frontage road and within the future parking improvements along Alessandro Drive. A. Architecture: The property consists of two existing single-story buildings with a courtyard in between them. The 1,1 64-square-foot building on the west end of the property will remain. A portion of the 1,920-square-foot building on the east end will be demoed in order to accommodate the new 2,498-square-foot addition. Along with the addition, the applicant will update the exterior fagades so the property is one cohesive design. The project architecture maintains a contemporary theme with flat roof lines,architectural pop- outs, and thick architectural elements. The proposed buildings will be single-story in height with roof lines between 11 and 15 feet, with an overall height of 17'6". The City will be investing financially into improvements such as widening Alessandro Drive, new landscaping, new parking spaces, and street paving.The improvements are scheduled to occur in 2018. The City is encouraging new developments to enhance the rear elevations. The proposed building focuses on the rear elevation by creating architectural spaces with recessed areas. The City is encouraging property owners to upgrade the overall architecture of the older buildings. The overall building design includes desert colors that are of smooth plaster finishes, perforated metal, stone veneer, metal eyebrows, dual pane windows, and aluminum frame windows and doors. All rooftop equipment will be screened by a decorative metal screen wall from all public views. GAPlanningWem Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club\PC Staff Report.doc Staff Report CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club Page 5 of 6 August 15, 2017 Analysis The Downtown zone introduces buildings at a zero lot line and encourages buildings located at or near the sidewalk. The proposed addition and exterior fagade remodel provides for a more articulated retail building. The proposed project requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Planning Commission since the proposed addition will be used for a private members only business social club. Approval of the CUP is to ensure there is adequate parking and land use compatibility with surrounding properties. The surrounding properties consist of a variety of commercial uses from restaurants, bars, retail uses, and office uses. Furthermore, the project complies with all development standards including setbacks, building height, parking as conditioned, lot coverage, and land use compatibility. A. Land Use Compatibility: The land use designation is Downtown within the General Plan and zoned Downtown. CUPs are discretionary and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the site is surrounded by existing retail commercial uses, offices, restaurants, and a bar. Surrounding businesses close their doors between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. with the Red Barn closing at 2:00 a.m. The business operation of seven(7)days a week between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. should be compatible and not create negative impact to the adjacent businesses and residents to the north. The proposed addition will not have an entrance off of Alessandro Drive, so club members will mostly park along the frontage road. The proposed use is in keeping with uses promoted by the Downtown zone, and meets the City's Strategic Plan by providing an upscale intimate sense of place for the high-end business professional. The success of Highway 111 as a pedestrian commercial district is dependent upon the creation of land uses and creative and imaginative building designs to attract and sustain pedestrian interest. Staff believes that the proposed project establishes a land use that provides a more articulated building design that will attract new professional business individuals to the area. Additionally, the City's Commercial Core Area Specific Plan is to "maximize project area's potential for high quality economic development compatible with Palm Desert's overall community goals and self-image."The proposed use and building site improvements comply with the Commercial Core Specific Plan as they make a substantial investment into the building along Highway 111. The existing retail businesses will continue to operate in the same manner and the new private business club will provide a new use along the street. The private business club will also not interfere with parking as determined by staff and the proposed use would complement the adjacent retail business uses and the other restaurants in the vicinity by providing more foot traffic. Furthermore, the project does not physically divide an existing community, and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club\PC Staff Report.doc Staff Report CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club Page 6 of 6 August 15, 2017 B. Parking: The One Eleven Development Code Section 25.18.050 Parking Requirements states retail type uses requires three (3) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Currently, the existing retail uses utilize the existing four(4)on-site parking spaces and the public parking within the frontage road. Staff is unaware of any ongoing parking issues within the area. The proposed addition will eliminate the existing four(4)parking spaces;therefore, the property will have no on-site parking. The City Council has approved a project remodel for Alessandro Drive that will include 138 parking spaces. The future parking spaces will be available for the businesses located along the north side of Highway 111. The City's current policy is to charge a parking in-lieu fee for any new uses that generate a parking demand. The parking in-lieu fee is based on construction costs for the Alessandro Drive improvements and staff has determined that the parking in-lieu fee per space will be $8,389.00. The proposed 2,498-square-foot addition will require eight (8) parking spaces. Since the applicant is removing the four(4) existing parking spaces they will be responsible to pay the parking in-lieu fee for those as well. The applicant will be conditioned to pay a parking in-lieu fee in the amount of$100,668.00 for the twelve parking spaces. The City's General Plan focuses on revitalizing the Highway 111 corridor through building designs and architecture. The General Plan offers economic development tools such as expanding buildings into existing parking areas in order to get more floor area. This will reduce the overall parking demand, but encourages owners to invest into the property. The long-term goal is to collect a parking in-lieu fee to invest into future parking structures and shared parking lots, which will ultimately create a true City Center. Based on the adjacent businesses hours of operation and the amount of parking along the frontage road and with the future Alessandro Drive parking, staff believes that there is adequate parking available and the use will not create a public nuisance in regards to parking. C. Findings of Approval: Findings can be made in support and are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution attached to this staff report. Environmental Review Staff has found this project to be categorically exempt, under Class 32: In-fill Development Projects, of the CEQA. Because of the categorical exemption, no further environmental review is necessary. S bm ittet d By: Departm t Head; Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, D' a prof Community Development GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUVs\CUP 16-217 Desert Social Business Club\PC Staff Report.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2707 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW 2,498-SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AT CRYSTAL PALM COURTYARD TO BE USED AS A PRIVATE MEMBERS ONLY SOCIAL BUSINESS CLUB, INCLUSIVE OF EXTERIOR FACADE REMODEL TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 73-338 HIGHWAY 111 CASE NO: CUP 16-217 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City Of Palm ert, California, did on the 15th day of August 2017, hold a duly noticed pudgy hearing to wider the request by the Desert Social Business Club, LLC, for approval -the above noted;and_ WHEREAS, according to the Californianvironmental_Quality Act (C ), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is #Vrpject, eject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a prelim inary_ se0rtient of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA revie&Ml# =a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. U pl_ication hasi.. mplied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure Act impt citation the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75 jn thd uttptor of Community Development has determined that the proposed, roject is an Article 9 Qlass 32F'In-fill Development Projects Categorical Exemption foes of CEQAano furtherreview is necessary; an d n d WHEREAS. proposecrRroject co forms to the Downtown (D) zone since the project provides a more articulated building design that will attract new professional business individuals to the area; WHJERE , the proceed project is compatible with the uses along Highway 111 since- ncept is 0Ted 04M, s attracting a high-end business customer; and EREAS, the CWs General Plan focuses on revitalizing the Highway 111 corridor through 'bOldiing designs abd architecture. The General Plan offers economic development tools such apanding bungs into existing parking areas in order to get more floor area. The long-term I is to act a parking in-lieu fee to invest into future parking structures and shared parkif h will ultimately create a true City Center. WHEREAS, the proposed project conforms to the "City Center/Downtown" designation within the General Plan; 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, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to approve the said request: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2707 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The site is located within the Downtown (D) zone. The Downtown zone introduces buildings that are located at or near the sidewalk. The zoning district is also designed as a pedestrian specialty retail/personal services that attracts and sustains pedestrian interest. The proposed project establishes a land use that provides an upscale building design and a new use that will attract professional business individuals. _ The proposal for a private members only buress ciu requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to ensure land use comp ibility and p�lg demands. CUPs are discretionary and viewed on a base-by-case basiazethe surrounding properties consist of a variety of cor r�rcial uses from restauh§� offices, and retail uses. The use of a private bu0b_ss club will be consistent w ►e land use pattern for this area. The proposed is in-A ping with the zoning district, adjacent uses, and meets the City's StratJc by adding a use that will bring high-end customers to the l"Qty center." 11Wtontinuing success of Highway 111 will largely depend on cfbb' r c a more rn00 v and vibrant streetscape. The private business club can €3erafe Ja-a respe �manner consistent with the vision and conditions have been placed the pr ,to ensure that the city has al n ample tools to address any ptial n�tsanMlssu es. Furthermore, the project does not phydde an exstir crsrnmunW It can be defermined tilt:the approval of this CUP is consistent with the existing uses of t site, is corr�rstent with the permitted and conditionally permitted uses listed for zor2gr ft � and; conforms to all development standards contained in � trfg ordinance: 'That the semo d tion of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be op"ted maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfaor be materially in to properties or improvements in the cinity. The-2- osect ►ditional use is adjacent to properties with similar zoning desig' &0 commercial uses. The surrounding area, which was improved with exi ildings and parking lots, has been operating for years with various commercial retail uses. The proposed private business club is a consistent use. There are no other private business clubs in the immediate vicinity, but all other surrounding businesses primarily close their doors between 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. with a couple of bars staying open until 2:00 a.m. The business operation of seven (7) days a week between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. should be compatible and not create a negative impact such as noise to the adjacent businesses and residents. Additionally, based on the amount of parking and the adjacent businesses' hours of operation, staff believes that there is adequate 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2707 parking available, and the use will not create a public nuisance in regards to parking. Building improvements and site operations will comply with all building, life safety and environmental standards during construction and continued operations, including: dust mitigation, storm water discharge, health licensing, and fire prevention strategies. All building and site improvements, including enlargements to restroom facilities, will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, the conditional use, building and site improvements will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, and riii enhance surrounding properties rather than detract from them. 3. That the proposed conditional use will come each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances ona stments. The proposed CUP and building i ApMA ements comply with all applicable development standards for building=;backs and height re�ictions, parking requirements, and operational sta cards contained in the zoh =code. The proposed use does not require approves f any v&races or adjustm-nt. 4. That the proposed conditional use comt `'with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's gene'ralpan. The City's General Plan des nates thiq-pr rty4"owntown," which allows a variety of civic, cultural, entert hment ' to restaurants, and other commercial services orgaredg walkabte_s0etscap&staff believes that the business model for the=prwate ;business �fb fits this vision since it is geared towards attracting high-end dystomer. The City's`Gera/ , on re talizing the Highway 111 corridor through bit tg deskns end ar -e. The General Plan offers economic develop tent toc � uch as expanding buildings into existing parking areas in or to g� orer area. This will reduce the overall parking demand, but encouragesers forest into the property. The long-term goal is to collect a marking in-Neu to invsf into future parking structures and shared parking lots, rich will ultimdW create a true City Center. Also Genera Plan includes a Commercial Core Area Specific Plan that include�ocrt" cial properties along Highway 111 and other parts within the City. Thewarching goal of the Specific Plan is to "maximize project area's potential ffhigh quality economic development compatible with Palm Desert's overall community goals and self image." The proposed use and building site improvements comply with the Commercial Core Specific Plan as they make a substantial investment into the building along Highway 111. The proposed use is in keeping with the General Plan and the vision within the General Plan, and meets the City's Strategic Plan. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2707 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 for approval of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve CUP 16-217, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Plan ning,Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 15th-may of August 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: tWCY DELUTA, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: RYAN SI1=LL ECREMIARY PALM ESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2707 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: CUP 16-217 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The development of the property described herein shall be ject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to nicipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter be in force. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for constructi f any contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permid/or clear a rom the following agencies: Building & Safety Department ;F City Fire Marshal Public Works Department , Coachella Valley Water Distri Evidence of said permit or clearanfr� � above ies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at time ance building permit for the use contemplated herewith,. � 4. Applicant shall de , ; inde and hcxl °armless the city against any third party legal challenge to th�`�, pprovals, couns � osen by the City at applicant's expense. 5. Applicant shall c all ; inc T Ong street, sidewalks, landscape areas, p arkin 100 he bus ;�ances, and the future Alessandro Drive incl �� 'mite a trash, broken bottles, and other debris within 30 minutes of zl th °use of bust 6. Th sines shall rve anal by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC -serve alcohol �. 7. If noise b a, es dis g, excessive or offensive to the residents in the area and is reported by i unrelated persons of normal sensitivity within a year, staff will look at modifyin° a conditions. 8. The applicant shall pay a parking in-lieu fee in the amount of $100,668.00 for twelve (12) parking spaces for the future use of Alessandro Drive. The fee shall be collected upon the issuance of a building permit for the 2,498-square-foot addition. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2707 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY: 9. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2016 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2016 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2016 California Electrical Code. E. 2016 California Energy Code. F. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. G. Title 24, California Code of Regulations. H. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and sta6urds. 10.All exits must provide an accessible path of travels the pu way. (CBC 1027.5 & 11 B-206). 11.An approved automatic fire sprinkler system 10--afl be installed as requitred,per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1265 12.A disabled access overlay of the precise grading playrequired to be submitted to the Department of Building & Safety,for_plan review of ; site accessibility requirements as per 2013 BCB Chapters 11 A & B pplicable) and Czb- apter 10. 13.Detectable warnings shall be provided where-IN d per MC 11 B-705.1.2.5 and 11 B- 705.1.2.2. The designeds also required to nit a11ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restr� .than th&Stete'of Califs a, the ADA requirement shall supersede the staff requirenTent. 14. Provide an acdftsible path-, travel to the! trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accam 11pase _a derail from the Department of Building and Safety 15.A11 t itractors ai I ifthac t o r s shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business L erase prior to perm sums er Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 16.All c� ctors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers' C0mpen tion Insurance-,-., coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California ter Codesction 3700. 17.Address nume ll comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1265 (Palm Desert Municipal Code ' 5.28. Compliance with Ordinance 1265 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1265 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2707 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: 18.The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Any changes to the approved civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 19.The grading plan shall identify all proposed and existing utilities. 20.The applicant shall submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24 12egarding Fugitive Dust Control. 21.The applicant shall abide by all provisions of City- P ;Desert Ordinance 843, Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharg �Ordinan _ 22.The applicant shall pay the appropriate signaln fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and=drainage fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Rallm Desert Ordinance Numbet653. DEPARTMENT OF FIRE: 23. Fire Department Plan Review. Ftf fire and life conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed r,tK Hi Prevenflio bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Cailforniating Code CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codgs which are marce ate f building plan submittal. 24. Fire Department_�mergency hicI app atus access road locations and design shall be in accordarvoo—W h the Calr0--nia Fire Cede, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside Coun_ re Depa ent Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for revWW_ancft prtQr toilding permit issuance. 25.Fire ,, water tem(s) for fire protection shall be in accordance with the Cal0i is Fire 06& CityWalm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire rtment Standaf-da Plar must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and appYel prior to buildi permit--ssuance. 7 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 16-217 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,500- SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING TO OPERATE A PRIVATE CLUB/UPSCALE LOUNGE BAR. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A FACADE ENHANCEMENT TO THE ENTIRE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 73338 HIGHWAY 111. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), completed an Initial Study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project and have determined that the proposed request will not have a negative impact on the environment. Project Location: 73338 Highway 111 Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution supporting the project request. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on August 15, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date. The public comment period on this project is from August 5 to August 15, 2017. Public Review: The project plans are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, Secretary August 5, 2017 Palm Desert Planning Commission 11 Y 1 1 MI D 73— I o FRED �JARING DRIVE "� PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6z i ■ info-cityofpatmdesert.org March 31 , 2017 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOTICE OF ACTION CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-217 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DESERT BUSINESS CLUB, 45920 Meritage Lane, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval of an addition to rear of the existing building and a renovation to the overall building. LOCATION: 73338 Highway 111 ZONE: D — Downtown District Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval subject to: 1) a different perforated metal shall be specified for the trash enclosure and reviewed and approved by staff; 2) the perforated metal shall be mocked-up in the field during construction prior to purchase and installation and reviewed by Commission; 3) a survey shall be performed to verify the location of all property lines relative to the pop-outs; and 4) the northeast corner or another viable location shall be modified to provide space for the fire detector set and meters. Date of Action: March 28, 2017 Vote: Motion carried 5-0-2 with Commissioners Lambell and McIntosh absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. ��PPIIlIEO ON RF(Y[lED PAPEP ARCHITECTURAL RI 2W COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 Commissioner Vuksic moved for pretiminary approval with conditions and seconded by Commissioner Brewer. Chair Van Vliet asked for comments. Commissioner Levin again expressed his concern regarding the maintenahce of the area east of the wall. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved for preliminary approval subject to: 1) the plaster surface under the accent band 3' off the ground shall be painted a darker color to match the accent band to establish it as a base element; 2) the walls at the.,s'ides of the garage doors shall be thickened to be greater than 12" be nd the plane of the garage door; 3) the stonework above the arches all be more structurally sound; and 4) continuation of wall along HighvGay 74 shall match the location and height of adjacent project to the south. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Brewer and carried by a 5- 0-2 with Commissioners Lambell and McIntosh absent. 3. CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-217 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DESERT BUSINESS CLUB, 45920 Meritage Lane, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval of an addition to rear of the existing building and a renovation to the overall building. LOCATION: 73338 Highway 111 ZONE: D — Downtown District Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, described the changes on this project since the last meeting and presented samples of the front door, the trim around the front windows, and the metal mesh screen wall. He stated that the applicant installed access doors for the roof mounted equipment, extended the metal mesh screen wall, and removed the A/C unit on the side of the building and placed it on the roof. He presented a color board for the Commission's review. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the property line. Commissioner Vuksic recommended that they hire a surveyor to verify the property lines prior to submitting the construction plans. He also requested that they install a field mock-up of the metal mesh screen wall for the Commission to review, while the construction plans are being reviewed. G'Planning'Janine Judy`ARC'1Minutess2017`170328mm.docx Page 8 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REW ' COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 Commissioner Levin and the applicant reviewed and discussed the location of the fire risers and suggested they check with CVWD regarding the location of the vault and the fire sprinkler detector check. The Commission recommended that the northeast corner or another viable location be modified to provide space for the fire detector check and meters. Commissioner Vuksic said for the record that this Commission has mentioned their concern regarding the locations of the exits for this building and the applicant has stated they have spoken with the Building Department (Building). He finds it hard to imagine that Building is okay with them but as long as the applicant has checked with Building he will go along with their decision. Chair Van Vliet and the applicant reviewed and discussed the roof plan and a little pop-up that goes up above the roof at 15' same as the parapet height. Commissioner Vuksic said it should be about 16'-5". Commissioner McAuliffe thanked the applicant for their thoroughness and attention to detail. This has been a process to get to this point, but at the end of the day, the project is better served. To that end, he reiterated why Commissioner Levin made the comments regarding the detector check. If those things are not dealt with at this level then farther down the road it will be very painful. He and the applicant discussed the type of metal and finish for the entry doors. Mr. Swartz stated that when the applicant submits the construction documents they will return for review. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved for preliminary approval subject to: 1) a different perforated metal shall be specified for the trash enclosure and reviewed and approved by staff; 2) the perforated metal shall be mocked- up in the field during construction prior to purchase and installation and reviewed by Commission; 3) a survey shall be performed to verify the location of all property lines relative to the pop-outs; and 4) the northeast corner or another viable location shall be modified to provide space for the fire detector check and meters. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 5-0-2 with Commissioners Lambell and McIntosh absent. G'Plnnning�JanineJudy,ARC`,1Mmutes�201T.170328mindocx Page 9 of 10 j—j I O FRED <XARItiG DRIVE � q PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 2 60-2 j 7 S .. TEL: 760 346-o6 i i info'@ circofpalmdeserr.org March 2, 2017 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOTICE OF ACTION CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-217 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DESERT BUSINESS CLUB, 45920 Meritage Lane, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving an addition to rear of the existing building, and exterior modifications to the front of the building facing Highway 111. LOCATION: 73338 Highway 111 ZONE: D — Downtown District Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case # PP/CUP 16- 217 subject to: 1) rendering needs to be fine-tuned; 2) 3D version to reflect architectural rendering; 3) revise the inconsistencies throughout the plan so the renderings match the floor plan, site plan, and roof plan; 4) lower interior metal screening to an appropriate size in height; and 5) extend the metal screen to match the renderings. Date of Action: February 28, 2017 Vote: Motion carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Levin absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. ARCHITECTURAL RE -W COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2017 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-217 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DESERT BUSINESS CLUB, 45920 Meritage Lane, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving an addition to rear of the existing building, and exterior modifications to the front of the building facing Highway 111. LOCATION: 73338 Highway 111 ZONE: D — Downtown District Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission this proposal for an addition to the rear of an existing building on Highway 111 has returned for the fourth time. He presented the original proposal and described the most recent changes since the previous meeting. At that meeting, the Commissioners recommended: 1) plans need to incorporate the entire building as one project (front, side, and rear); 2) plans need to be drawn correctly and match the 3D perspectives; 3) submit an overall roof plan of the entire building showing existing and proposed roof mounted equipment; 4) show location of fire risers, electrical room, and water meters on the floor plan and site plan; 5) show property lines for the entire site and provide all proposed depth dimensions; 6) submit a floor plan for the entire building including the existing portion of the building that will remain; 7) the eyebrow on front elevation needs to be located and look like the image in the perspectives; 8) all mechanical screening shall be screened by a 4- sided parapet; 9) staff to review and approve perforated metal around doors and types of glass; and 10) the A/C wall unit on the front elevation needs to be removed. Commissioner Vuksic said there are still inconsistencies in the drawings which is frustrating to this Commission. When drawings are inconsistent, the Commissioner's worry about what this will end up looking like. Once in the field with these inconsistencies, the contractors may not make good aesthetic decisions. Commissioner Vuksic and the applicants reviewed and discussed the roof access for both buildings and the horizontal lines on the front elevation. He liked the interior metal screening and suggested G:'Plannmg,Janine Judy'ARC`Wirutes.2C17`17G228m.in.dccx Page 14of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVi�,V COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2017 they re-study the height and possibly lowering them. He also suggested they extend the metal screen to match the roof plan. Commissioner McIntosh also feels this is headed in the right direction but pointed out the inconsistencies in the drawings and details. He also likes the screens and agrees they are shown a little too high. He stated that it is hard to approve a project that has come through this many times and still falls short of the minimum drawing and detail requirements that this Commission is used to seeing. At this point, he would have a hard time approving it. MS. PATTY NUGENT, property owner, asked if the Commission could approve it with some minor changes. Commissioner McIntosh said the problem is that this has been here four times and the Commissioners keep pointing out the same things; things that should have been picked up a while ago. MS. NUGENT asked if they liked the renderings and Commissioner McIntosh said he liked the choice of design materials with the introduction of the screens and for this old building he feels this is a great solution, but it needs to be fine-tuned. Commissioner McAuliffe feels this Commission is not comfortable at this point to approve; however, he suggested they could approve with several conditions and staff can review them. Then if the conditions aren't met, it will return to the Commission for further review. Chair Van Vliet was concerned with the inconsistencies and lack of detailing in the drawings and suggested they be approved here before it goes to working drawings. Commissioner Vuksic also stated that when they continue to see inconsistencies this many times he loses confidence. He would be uncomfortable approving this with conditions because it would be harder later to go back and look at it. MS. NUGENT said they have returned this many times not only for inconsistencies but also for the recommendations made by the Commission. Recommendations like going from a two-story to a one-story, incorporating the front of the existing building to the new building, and updating the middle. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with her comment and said this has been a complicated process. MS. NUGENT said they want to make it right for the City and have revised the things the Commission asked them to. She feels like the Commission doesn't want them to do anything to this building and wants them to walk away from the project, and they don't want to do that. Commissioner Vuksic said it probably feels like that, but that's not the case. MS. NUGENT said they are trying to beautify G.`Planning,Janine JudyARCIIMinutes 2017`,170228min docx Page 15 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RE -W COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2017 the City and get conditional approval, break ground, and move to the next stage. Commissioner Vuksic said they have a good concept and hopes they will stick with this project. He suggested in the interim, to send their revisions to staff and they can forward it to a couple of the Commissioners for review. He also suggested they have one of their staff members do a quality control check of the plans to make sure everything is consistent. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case # PP/CUP 16-217 subject to: 1) rendering needs to be fine-tuned; 2) 3D version to reflect architectural rendering; 3) revise the inconsistencies throughout the plan so the renderings match the floor plan, site plan, and roof plan; 4) lower interior metal screening to an appropriate size in height; and 5) extend the metal screen to match the renderings. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Brewer, Lambell, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Vuksic, and Van Wet voting YES and Levin absent. Commissioner Vuksic left at 3:35 p.m. 2. CASE NO: MISC 17-10 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: VLADIMIR BRIDAN, 73452 Little Bend Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a 6' high block wall 8' from curb. LOCATION: 73452 Little Bend Trail ZONE: R-1, 10,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission this request for a 6' high block wall 8' from back of curb was continued from the last meeting. There is an existing 4' high wall 8' from back of curb and the applicant is proposing a 6' high wall 8' from back of curb. At the last Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting, there was some concern with the 6' high solid wall and the Commission recommended that the applicant do some type of decorative screen wall. The applicant has submitted revised renderings for a 6' high solid block wall with pilasters and existing decorative mosaic tile. G,Planning'JarnneJudyARC Minutes 2017'170228mmdccx Page 16 of 19 73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 1 1EL: 760 346—o6ii FAX: 760 341-4564 info@palm-desert.org January 11, 2017 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOTICE OF ACTION CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-217 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DESERT BUSINESS CLUB, 45920 Meritage Lane, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving an addition to rear of the existing building, and exterior modifications to the front of the building facing Highway 111 . LOCATION: 73338 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case No. PP/CUP 16-217 subject to: 1) plans need to incorporate the entire building as one project (front, side, and rear); 2) plans need to be drawn correctly and match the 3D perspectives-, 3) submit an overall roof plan of the entire building showing existing and proposed roof mounted equipment; 4) show location of fire risers, electrical room, and water meters on the floor plan and site plan; 5) show property lines for the entire site and provide all proposed depth dimensions-, 6) submit a floor plan for the entire building including the existing portion of the building that will remain-, 7) the eyebrow on front elevation needs to be located and look like the image in the perspectives-, 8) all mechanical screening shall be screened by a 4-sided parapet-, 9) staff to review and approve perforated metal around doors and types of glass; and 10) the A/C wall unit on the front elevation needs to be removed. Date of Action'. January 10, 2017 Vote: Motion carried 8-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. RRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ARCHITECTURAL REt _W COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2017 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve subject to: 1) garage door shall be architecturally consistent with the building and the surrounding neighborhood; and 2) the windows facing the street shall be recessed to provide depth. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-217 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DESERT BUSINESS CLUB, 45920 Meritage Lane, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving an addition to rear of the existing building, and exterior modifications to the front of the building facing Highway 111. LOCATION: 73338 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission that this project has returned for the fourth time. The applicant is proposing to demo the back area of the project and incorporate a new addition. He presented a PowerPoint of the project and described the changes made since the last meeting. One of the comments made by the Commission was for this to be a more cohesive design since they are incorporating the back, side and now the front of the building. Commissioner McIntosh questioned the property line and the location of the building. He reminded the applicant that the renderings just need to be accurate and suggested they show the property lines for the entire site. Commissioner Lambell asked about the existing location of the water meter and MR. SANCHEZ said it will not be moved. Commissioner Lambell pointed out that it was not on the drawings. Commissioner Levin said if they have sprinklers you will have to have a detector check and a fire riser. MR. SANCHEZ pointed out where the fire riser and the roof access were located. G Planning Janine Judy,ARG 1 Minutes 2001 7,73110min.docx Page 6 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REV. N COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2017 Commissioner Clark referred to the protrusion on the rear of the building and suggested they resubmit an accurate drawing to show the property line. Commissioner McAuliffe pointed out where it was reflected more accurately on the roof plan. The Commission discussed the protrusion. Commissioner Colombini suggested they show the risers, sprinkler system, the water pressure coming from the meter, and the sprinkler layout. Commissioner Levin stated that the fire detector check and the shut-off valve will need to be placed away from the building for Fire Department access. The Commission suggested that the applicant show the location of fire risers, the electrical room, and water meters on the floor plan and site plan. The Commission and the applicant discussed Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project. MS. PATTY NUGENT, owner, said this will happen simultaneously. They will build the building first and then finish the front facade once the backside building is done. Mr. Swartz said as part of the conditions going to Planning Commission it will state that they have to complete the phases within a certain time. Commissioner McAuliffe said the architecture is getting better and appreciates them revisiting it. He said they will have to do another detail on some of the things discussed today and said don't let some of the comments being made govern the size and placement of your building. However, you will have to reconcile those issues pretty quickly because if it does change the form and footprint of the building then you're going to be back here again. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that they didn't submit a floor plan or a roof plan for the front half of the building as recommended at the last meeting and was trying to understand the design of the front half from the perspectives and renderings. Chair Van Wet asked if they were modifying the whole front of the building and MS. NUGENT said they were modifying just the front fagade. The Commission and the applicant discussed the front fagade changes. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned how far back the parapets were going and wanted to make sure that the proportions looked right in three dimensions not just the flat side. He suggested an accurate floor plan to have an understanding of how far things were recessed. He discussed the metal eyebrow on the front elevation and said in the perspective that eyebrow has more relief from the square masses on either side which look much better. He suggested they make it look like the perspective as opposed to the plan elevation drawing. G.Tlanning,Ja nine Judy`ARCH Min utes'3017\170110min.docx Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RED .W COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2017 Commissioner Vuksic referred to the equipment screening on the roof plan and suggested making a 4-sided enclosure to screen all roof-mounted equipment and submit an overall roof plan of the entire building showing existing and proposed roof-mounted equipment. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the front gate material and said it was important because it is a really integral part of the architecture from Highway 111. MR. SANCEZ said it was aluminum plate with perforations to bring in light. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant to submit a sample of the material to staff for their review and approval. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the two big square windows in the front and asked what type of glass it was and if it was highly reflective. MR. SANCHEZ said it would be tinted. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant to submit a sample of the glass to staff for their review and approval. Commissioner Colombini pointed out that all the fire emergency doors need to have panic hardware. He and the applicant discussed the electrical room with switch gear and meters. Commissioner McIntosh stated to the applicant that it would help the process if the Commission had more accurate drawings that coincide with each other better. He said it is frustrating to review a project over and over again because the drawings are inconsistent. He asked that they submit accurate drawings at the next meeting. Commissioner McIntosh discussed the roof sections, the mechanical units, parapets, and screening. He wanted to make sure that these things were being addressed. Commissioner Levin suggested they remove the A/C wall unit on the front elevation. Commissioner Clark said they are wise to address these issues now before it goes to the Planning Commission for the public hearing. The Commission and the applicant discussed the phasing of the project. Commissioner Lambell said this needs to come together cohesively as a unit. Chair Van Vliet suggested this be submitted as a total design for the entire project. Commissioner Clark said the back will not receive a final and occupancy until the front is finished. MS. NUGENT said that is correct and they would receive a timeline when it has to be completed. Commissioner McIntosh said the design needs to get approved now. MS. NUGENT said they have G.,P1 an niny J art ne Judy ARC.I Min utes 2017'.17011 Cmm.doCx Page 8 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REV, N COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2017 made a lot of changes based on the Commission's recommendations. Chair Van Vliet said they haven't designed the front where they can fully understand. Commissioner McIntosh said for the Commission to feel comfortable approving this they need to see the proper drawings and feels that the applicant has been given clear direction. MS. NUGENT explained that they will not be demolishing the whole building and starting from scratch. On the rear of the new building, the Commission wanted to have a cohesive front and that was what was brought to the last meeting. They will not be changing the suites inside but it will look good cosmetically and there will be a nice entry way as people come in the front. Commissioner Clark suggested continuing this so that the applicant can re-group and re-strategize. He'd recommended that the applicant meet with staff as soon as possible to define exactly what each phase will consist of and submit details showing the property lines and how they intersect with the architectural elements that are protruding from the building. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. PP/CUP 16-217 subject to: 1) plans need to incorporate the entire building as one project (front, side, and rear); 2) plans need to be drawn correctly and match the 3D perspectives; 3) submit an overall roof plan of the entire building showing existing and proposed roof mounted equipment; 4) show location of fire risers, electrical room, and water meters on the floor plan and site plan; 5) show property lines for the entire site and provide all proposed depth dimensions; 6) submit a floor plan for the entire building including the existing portion of the building that will remain; 7) the eyebrow on front elevation needs to be located and look like the image in the perspectives; 8) all mechanical screening shall be screened by a 4-sided parapet; 9) staff to review and approve perforated metal around doors and types of glass; and 10) the A/C wall unit on the front elevation needs to be removed. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. Miscellaneous Items: None GrPlanning'Janine JudylARC\l Minutes\2017170110min.docx Page 9 of 10 �J IT It s 73-5t0 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76o 346-o611 F.Ax: 760 341-4564 info@palm-deseri.org November 9, 2016 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-217 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DESERT BUSINESS CLUB, 45920 Meritage Lane, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving an addition to rear of the existing building; Desert Business Club. LOCATION: 73338 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case PP/CUP 16-217 subject to: 1) applicant showing the overall building design including the front elevation; 2) reviewing the overall architectural design and paying attention to the small details; and 3) submittal of a materials board. Date of Action: November 8, 2016 Vote: Motion carried 8-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. 4 PRINTED ON REM O PO R ARCHITECTURAL R, iEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2016 Commissioner Vuksic felt there was too much happening around the ATM machine; the guardrai wning, and the screen mounted to the front. Commissioner-"McIntosh believes the awning will provide more protectiqjithan the sunscreen. MR. MEYER said they are more than will n-to delete the sunscreen from the proposal. ACTION: Commissionef Clark moved to approve the awning without the sunscreen. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by an 8-0 )2"Vuksic ith Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet voting YES. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-217 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DESERT BUSINESS CLUB, 45920 Meritage Lane, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving an addition to rear of the existing building; Desert Business Club. LOCATION: 73338 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, stated this project came before the Commission for discussion on May 10, 2016, for a redesign of the front faqade and an addition to the rear of the existing Crystal Palm building on Highway 111. This was continued to allow the applicant to; 1) study the overall design; 2) provide architecture with more depth and detail; 3) match floor plans and roof plans with the elevations; 4) provide more detail on finishes; 5) consider re-locating the proposed private lounge to the front of the building along Highway 111; and 6) carry volume and massing around to all sides. The applicant has returned with revised plans only for the rear of the building with access to the club off Highway 111. He described the project and presented a PowerPoint of the floor plans and rear elevations. The proposed use will be a private lounge club that will require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and will move forward to the Planning Commission. He said the applicant has not yet submitted a materials board, but as this moves forward one will be submitted. The proposed height of the G Plarning`Jarine Judy,ARC"Min utes'20'6,1o1108mindccx Page 4 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIE COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2016 addition is 15' and the existing building is 12'. He presented the roof plan and grading plan for review. Chair Van Wet asked about the parking and Mr. Swartz said parking is provided on the frontage road. However, the City is preparing to redo Alessandro Alley and as part of the CUP the applicant will be conditioned to pay an In-Lieu Fee to use some of the parking within the alley. Commissioner Colombini asked where the fire exits were located. Mr. Swartz pointed out the secondary access and Commissioner Colombini said there should be another exit. Commissioner Clark asked if they consulted the Fire Department and MS. PATTY NUGENT, owner, said they submitted the plans and were waiting for comments. Chair Van Vliet felt that the addition was not architecturally compatible to the front of the building. MS. NUGENT said based on discussions with the City the first phase will be an addition in the rear and the second phase, with help from the City, will be a redesign of the front fagade. The Commission suggested they design it as one cohesive project that can be built in two phases. MS. NUGENT mentioned that there may be redevelopment money to help with the second phase. Commissioner Lambell said with that possibility it would be important that the entire project be designed now and submitted for review. Commissioner McIntosh agreed that it would be important for the Commission to see the entire design because as the back is designed it may have an impact on what is proposed on the front. Commissioner Vuksic said besides doing the addition and the front fagade, the middle area needs to link the front and back together and right now it has no relationship to the proposed architecture. He feels this current proposal is a step backwards from what was submitted before in terms of the quality of architecture. The Commission and the applicant reviewed the height of the addition, the parapet heights, and screening the roof-top equipment. Commissioner McIntosh said they need to study the massing of the architecture and how the front of the building is going to tie in. Commissioner Vuksic said the overall design needs to be looked at more carefully with paying attention to the details. G'PlanninTJanineJudy\ARC\1 Minutes 20161161108min.docx Page 5 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL R. .IEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2016 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case PP/CUP 16-217 subject to: 1) applicant to show the overall building design including the front elevation; 2) review the overall architectural design and paying attention to the small details; and 3) submittal of a materials board.. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner Vuksic — November 2, 2016 Theitle for the 2017 Art and Essay contest is When the School Bell Rings; two artists ere added to the registry; The Palm Desert Community Gallery has a new ex 'bit called Beyond the Horizon on display from November 3, 2016 to January N, 2017; docent tours have begun; Swing N' Hops will take place on Saturday, February 4, 2017 on El Paseo; Desert X, a temporary art exhibit, is scheduled for Saturday, April 8, 2017; the STREET event took place Friday, November 4 on the upper deck at Westfield Mall; the Palm Springs Art Museum in Palm Desert has a new exhibition that started November 3 called, Glass for the New Millennium. VI I. COMMENTS Discussed the General Plan update and phased projects. Vill. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Clark moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 1:57 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY JANINE JUDY RECORDING SECRETARY G.,PlannirglJanine Judy ARC''Min utes 2016 18I108mm.docx Page 6 of 6 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Palm Desert P. O. Box 3044, Room 212 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 ❑ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or ❑ County Clerk County of: L 1. Project Title: CUP 16-217 2. Project Applicant: Desert Social Business Club 3. Project Location — Identify street address The project site is located on the north side of and cross streets or attach a map Highway 111, east of San Marcos Avenue, and showing project site (preferably a USGS west of San Pablo Avenue. 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 4. (a) Project Location — City: 73-338 Highway 111 /APN: 627-092-026 (b) Project Location — County: Riverside County s. Description of nature, purpose, and Approval of a new 2,498-square-foot beneficiaries of Project: addition to the existing buildings at crystal palm courtyard to be used as a private members only social business club, inclusive of exterior facade remodel to the existing buildings. 6. Name of Public Agency approving City of Palm Desert project: j 7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking City of Palm Desert the project, including any person undertaking an activity that receives financial assistance from the Public Agency as part of the activity or the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement of use from the Public Agency as part of the activity: 8. Exempt status: (check one) (a) ❑ Ministerial project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(1); State CEQA Guidelines § 15268) (b) ❑ Not a project. (c) ❑ Emergency Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(4); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(b),(c)) Notice of Exemption FORM"B" (d) ® Categorical Exemption. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as State type and class the Lead Agency for this project under the number: CEQA, has determined that the proposed project request is categorically exempt under Class 32: In-fill Development Projects, of the CEQA. Because of the categorical exemption, no further environmental review is necessary. (e) ❑ Declared Emergency. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(3); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(a)) (f) ❑ Statutory Exemption. State Code section number: (g) ❑ Other. Explanation: 9. Reason why project was exempt: Property has two existing buildings and the small addition is in-fill developed. City staff completed the Initial Study Checklist and there were no impacts. 110. Lead Agency Contact Person: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Telephone: (760) 346-0611 11. If filed by applicant: Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A") before filing. 12. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No 13. Was a public hearing held by the lead agency to consider the exemption? Yes No If yes, the date of the public hearing was: March 12, 2015 Signature: s U Date: Title: Cfc te. n c� Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21100, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. Notice of Exemption FORM"B" N s V 0 IH3S �10 W -l`dd ` L 6 6 AVMHE) IH 8EE-EL M afl -1 � SSaNISf18 -1vrooS -LNas3Q m _ CL : ?JOA N011ICIGV ON14 -lins a -:�iSOdo2jd v 1w _ dVVV AIINIJIn ;1 .1 � f v' Z Z Lu r' o w z d F s R c aryry °Qo ry /� `) yw /y� /w� ppp p e •� VI J �0. W es / z L `: 1 W I.L w F 3 •D IV ZIP A _ ul uj O.z J X p � E m 0zuj � � .� Q Z W. 2�ix>.' ma w " "' C � �wLy N� z z ,f7---Qwo z room E� ���,,// 11- UC � y 2 Z W W oO m Z ii Qd C zz W F 9 WI 0f ®MZ n= y -Z z W mood LLJ9 0 H CYO �� LLLI W W �Q."' z W W Z m w OFisz ��� � m O W Fna< � a �uj i ,w (Lf� Q o 'J` a a � 008 zz o > rn} 0 oz UCCU ti Oo Q-d a ¢❑❑ m Z¢ I HISON J I"1 01 1< m 4 z� z Z Z w Q 1.I8'M 3NJ1 AIdHdO'dd i Z 4U cc ii N 1,r ��ro i� � � I ■ �a � � r' 1�� - cq Y „ Z I _ 1 U)z0 ON i 1 0 1 ■ z 11 _ 1 r Y. " z 1 � � 1 awl �� � 1 �w m m tO 1 m!ic 1 . Z 68'b£I HNI I A L2IfldO�Id . � z F o rc. Z n vim + oQ up' � J T ¢ Z U � Q a mQ ux V Y tD fN 6aL W z VOU z� .09 w 0.x 4 "M'O'2I W "i ' N 0 1213S30 W _l`dd ` L L L AVMH !DIH 8 £ £-£ L a Z N lz g sf17 � SS3Nisne 7vroos 12� 3S3a z F o ' ' o W = 1!30 =1 NOI .LICIOV ONIQ -lins a3SOdO �:Id v 10 a = w w _ o i r A_.GI --v- .� * Z O iIVASP A Q X �'� l�j ✓ 10� 0 t i SO .. _ H.1... ..�....1.H w....�....H.....��,.. '. ^ v°L a F a�a 4 / f0 1� I. O AY - - (� - -- ; x nA V e A n C�Z*k \ LLO ZO QJ Q �APIPn.n LLJ Atlpnu y ' yA O ll FWW O µ lL SIP" �A�0c III �, r s Q in [U) lodalr",PEX-1-1 ---------- , x v - 1 ° I n -------- A ^ � � H W---------- -- LL 1_ :b Z� m _ LU y _j 0 ;o �o 2z Q tD A-.e" FAO z Q1° - AdM 17kM opC AR n ^ uu c IL iLK g - -- - - Xr,n ul g Z � Z K Z XX - �Y9 Q W ry ry n (V fV x cw Z LRADI Wes °` a m Z -- ° Z z pd X "' -----� - -- -- -- - 300 0 I X Z U. !-- L - Q z Z! �- - - W W iD Q W » z } X = COdz W o - - �Q Q z Y W7F� » i �I W 0 �, Z LLJ C Ed LU J CG ;� N `d 0 11J31S30 N -lVd kVMHSlH 8EE -EL U) T7 o N Z i a s :5 .- _� 9 n 7 o S S 3 N I S n 9 7 v I o O S 1 N 3 S 3 a Z ° Q3Q" " a� UnUa z^ N N 3 m H c u O O Nw m0� 2 2J0A N0111OaV JN1a11 (19 03SOdOZid `d h W W a x Z O a O z w w C L)i w o C 9 J Q Q vi U uS P O N a a"' g OQ = Z J sn Z O Z O LL H LL W O Q m = O L O a' Z Z F Z cOnw w w o u~i 3 a4 _ WWU L¢ Ww g ? w ci > U w w w0 Z w f w to O w O Ci O O J LLO[� LLN F LLwO II 3 W" z Qz Gw z z z � LL _w w d c w a 0 j 7 ~ Qcn a¢q p K S wa z Q t-u W. > a N co N so LLI N a a ¢ a w C7 w 2 OH.� O� r z zoLL, rzo c� Q Q a¢ c7 N z `n 4a g o w N f m O N Z ai a z 0 0 J p 0 0 LLJ 0 F W W U F LL W U H Q W U W z N a 2 J Q Z J a Z J h O U U w m O x Uw x �- w QO QO QO J =p7d 'u5 W o mN it �Lu w ¢ L. 3 a LL ��U ��� 3�U L LJ 0 0000ao oaooa ooaaooallo 0 o a I I r � WI z LL Q O i O s s zL-j r r w N o 0 w� al Z v� O: WI WI Q a x wEl a s x W AlIll )I',,/.H oLU I 0 I i 4 i O a 6 a J 1 d W LLUJ IILLLLLLL !p I V It i�N 1pQxxF�� Hill • E7 r I 7 ❑ I i � o a a i J _ > a a LL, LL F o W w W a a� a o g o of N a a !U OL LL o l of 0 5 0 N V 0 1b3S34 h -lVd ' I AVAAHOIH 8 £ £ -£ L N qy Z N • 8 fl 7 S S 3 N I S fl 8 7 v I O S 1 21 3 S 3 a m F QLD �� � o � CD = 2A0 � N0111aa `d JN1411f19 adSOdO �Id b' y w J � � W Z � 5 vJ O O a w uj O gg w a z -j m < OY < S z Z d d' p J_ _J _J < p LL Z LL W Z O Z O Z x U a 0 � �z Q O <p = ~O - r- WO Wp X w Z_ Z_ _Z C/) f w w vl o Y 0 �? 3 3 w' vJ w ¢ a rn g U = U Q � w g O Q w p w U t i Q w m t!1 w v7 fjj w F (ij w Z �w _ 3 3 a o 3 r > U m N< =O V' a' W O 0 H N O W= U LL z W W w ip d Z W o LL: W W l.�R�N IL R'tD LL Z W W H d W ~ p w H p Z Q O W U W U W<f O U 4 U rn rn @J rr w J J w a O m U) i� U X p J U U U< S a < p F a w 4 (� > z 2 O F=-� z U H j W¢ w F a U ¢ 3 w� w g z w Z z U n z U n z U U) p U w w w OJ u rn w w O z Q a J 0O U a cn LL li [n � [�L U N Z `2 O W (~/l O Z f n 7 JD O J O J 7 O J W W U W U H U LU L J Z J J Z J J Z J W �p F O U U w U x w C7 z w <<O <<O <<O J oz X w w o w 5 o mw w o w C-) v ?izU ��U �i�U w ¢ m a rl � v in Of z a ¢ 0 000aoo ooaoo a000000 ® o 0 0 0 I I . s �r r Z w io— a. o� 0 4 QW I w CL w W Q � I Wa of o g � e ' (L O a r' Z 01 o � l _ V J H j O zW 01 < I o ° ° o f W I J [ - -- OD L W I. o � I p I•. w ° I . �� I Z J-i I IF w T l- ° ° �8 J III � fi' o. �° 3 z z o' W =� LL V/ J O 2'W Q F-W I� Ili' �. O W Z a0> It � i. z0 z g= � �o Y J ~ Z� O Z)Z W U Om �� � W •• I W O V �Y LU Z om _ weLU0 U W Z §i cn 0 V , Z LLz aI LU a . < ZO U ' < o a� w a x v LL LL LL CV U) O O O o a a a O O O o Q P Nso raS S V 0 ' 12j3S30 W - Vd A AAHJIH 8EE -EL 9f10 SS3NISl9 -1dI ::) OS 121 3S 3a m_ � o � N o d. ya = �A0 =l N011ICIGV ON 1a -iins a3SOd02jd `d w O > W W H = n Z � g � W U) J wW O W w z O Y w g o U W w O Y S 2 O LK w p G W' 0 li Z Z W Z p Z O < LL H O p w O cn W w m O Y K O z coQ �n O cow r W W W W W O W W W p Z H W H Z U v~i Q @� of pw ¢ J p w w a 2 W j U O ¢ d d d O= r w W W W w W \ nn11¢ U) � H ? z z O p w � a z O � U W S z w C� c~n ,p w o g C) w z a ? N W w J j 0 X� F O U U w X� O = U W = ~ JO p Q U w p< W w O m� d N cr v 22% w Z a Q o aoa000 000ao oa0000000 m a ma V V y 4 W Z L I,An V Mll z m C co [A l I� wi, _ -- -.0", �II -,b 0 Z' 9 Fl T v 0 ` 1213S30 N -lVd ` l 6 L JkVMHSIH 8££-£ L Lq ` Y an -lo SS9Nisne 7vioos -LNasaa g " " w = 2J0 =1 N011ICIGV ON1a -lins a3SOd02:jd `d w O a = MY HIIIO IL <� v�vv�i�vvvvy vvv�.v a IL LL uq� W N d'In Q I R • LL \ O I p �' I ,nlll a µ w O K r z yW✓I ' Y I II it I I O Ir CL w LL f I o yI IIII �` a i U o fr � n I N i _ W is EL mU) . 4 . . N 1 a kIt I- lily r' I� —� Y JJ J H 0 1 ,&`,jE" �d k9J M2 �A- N `d 0 1213S30 W -lb'd kVMHE) IH 8££-£ L � h y s an -io ss9Nisna -iv► ioos iLNasaa m LU 9 Q= �JO � NOIll4a `d JNId -11f18 a3SOd02� d t� w a = " -i W fn S a W Z Q ~ _ ~_ U) N O J O J X F- O I LL H W -- LU� 0z N � � a � ag LL I LL W w w Q0 a = z W w V Q w� Q cl EL- Out0 x a w i °�� M�CmW 0fn W W U~7 it m0yQ a0K ryNLL❑ w w w � x� N LL Q 0 F W0 w �`W 3 F-w W 0 =z J= Q w w LL wQ LL O W '� O W aW w w w m �w z H W W LL w O W a h w Q 7 LLI p W Up S OOa O oo =3 �I VW�l F 3 CJLLin p --- -- In 00 °000 0o OCa o o WXrw LLJQ C) ow_LLo� a�pwfW 2 Vl �0z w m u W w w J f 0 Z v p Ujz< m f7 � 111 f �n 3 s-,9 N a' b' I2J3S30 W 'lb�d ` 6 6 6 AVMHSIH 8 £ £-£ L ZCT cl 9f1 -10 SS3N1Sf18 7 �dIoOS 12iAS3Q w N g O W ' Q � a = aO =l N01111aaH ONIa11ne aASOdO �tId d W O O O L mm m O m m ti O O N l�l a O J mo a y m 0 0 o n 2 S 2 O •- N M d N ll I m w o m m �: a T ~ O N N N - X,� N LL T 2 Ul U CL O O O 0. S IT O N ri a a J ui ` m Q o ¢ c C L 2 m r O w mom « N � N a XmB _ o _ S S_ m O W ED w W Fes-- F am< Sa�s �g'�+3 > 4� '<' .. p � .. 8 <Q•� Eti ..`S� 2S S U • �,"o m �aRrsEg,o `� �" $' mom Z mym oSz .�700 �0000 Fbsaa � N n T�� i� os YJF�- � Z5s ��R �Q�� a`a ^58`Mg �x omk � Na LLJ • � `� N 4 8 J O -1 J 0- U _ 1 i w LU cn H 3 r 'ems i9'S£i IOI A o00 N a: m 3 I ?CD LU T- cle+- - -- - - - - - - ~ aca 0 LL Cj w to a \ \\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \\ . o:cn LU Z Z LLJ W LU Z �\ \,\ \ �` \\ \\ \ \\ G �, o LU Ji ;41 N., y5i mmn- $m -A LLJ o\r. 'I �•, " L� tr Ind aa Jay &$ s Y 169'M a ,,, Y 3,IOZ A.00 N 26 o$ LO'B a = 1 Z (D LU Q o �. a Q U) LL U o tyCD d Z W m J QCD �a o 0 J LU o pM CL u - - -- -- m wa U a CD i m • ZZ .--i K ------------ Ca U =J E V ~z w p � DO � �m� � � Q J cn R«r,ON W H V- N � F+sl A Vs CL o �s o 0 In p CM) �LL x off , 3 j Bo U d c W �� W J Z U) F 0 Cif � O C, W QO= Z I� CID O a8 0 w O Y d i 5 'z rr�� �g tc ccg R= KK�S .3d fn Y II o 3�� `� z a oMR E 41 o� 6 ttlSe LU 3 0 O_ Q ` o ao Pmv 0 €_ U chi Fit aC UOe! KU 4 Y U -ffl ❑ S aNi - -O 3F me so$ t �tm3 9, �p<mQo� 9 Pis Se+oom a� W m < 6Q "� o Ny �s o E81, HIP INg o o N m m g a .6 � r'i � _ 8 8� y- �� � � off., x a o 5 4 < ��� U L'� .� �•+ z� I� c� F GS .<.,© �2 s�< it F S�s' m o aI O O O O 'n "c d w N b' 1�:13S3a W -] tld L t � AVAAHJIH 8EE - EL LU N Z 7TI LU N • V i O h 8n7o SS3NISfl9 -1b� IoOS 12i3S3a F- � > � � oN � Q o o a ?JOB N0111aab' ON1a -line aEiSOdO �Id v W W 1 e . ,a t.Ii SL t1JliltliIIIIJI'd-all > �D t- W J W J � W � W Q W flf;�iW ;!i Z - ���;I - 5 Wo �•� W �. O ��Iti `Isle` Ji�J �, Z 1 a p � Q W W N W W � t/f (� z W l 1i1i T1 t/f p � Z L I ,� w � ' V 0 12i3S30 W -lb'd ` t, 61- AtfMHSIH 8EE - EL v o � o � g � ■ N 8 n -1 o S S 9 N i sn a - vrooS 1N a sEi a W m J W " " <°° �a =� W � oN = 2j0l NOI -LI4ab' ONIa -line a3SOd02jd d W o w = N a w W n r 1 I I� e - f_ � S E W� t� I 3 Z ° _ a W J W H to W 3 ■ fm IM 3 {_- W Z O W V J W F� � a W m� Q ` 3 `Z r: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 412-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT WITH A CLUBHOUSE, RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS; AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR AN UNDEVELOPED 18-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HOVLEY LANE EAST, EAST OF PORTOLA AVENUE SUBMITTED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner APPLICANT: Lee Newell New Cities Investment Partners, LLC 1850 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Ste. 337 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 CASE NO: DA/PP/EA 16-394 DATE: August 15, 2017 CONTENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2699 2. Public Comment Letters 3. Draft Development Agreement 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration 5. Public Hearing Notice 6. Project Exhibits Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2699 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project as presented for the construction of a 412-unit apartment development with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements at an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East, east of Portola Avenue. Architectural Review Commission The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project at their meeting on March 28, 2017 and recommended approval of the project's architecture by Staff Report DA/PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 2 of 8 August 15, 2017 a vote of 4-1-2 (Chair Van Vliet voting No, and Commissioners Lambell and McIntosh absent). Commissioner Vuksic commented on the quality of the architecture and noted that vertical movement and materials used helped to enhance the overall project. Additional conditions were recommended including that the air conditioning (AC) units and gas meters be screened, that balcony walls be thickened to 12 inches, and that the carport roofs be gabled with an approximately 9-foot plate on both sides. Planning Commission This item was previously scheduled for a public hearing with the Planning Commission on June 20, 2017. At that meeting the Planning Commission took public comment and made a motion to continue the request to a date uncertain. The item was recommended for a continuance to allow the applicant to update their CEQA document to reflect the City's recently adopted General Plan. At that meeting several members from the surrounding communities of Venezia, Portola Country Club, and Canterra Apartments spoke in opposition of the project. Background A. Property Description: The parcel is located along the south side of Hovley Lane East, west of Corporate Way and east of Portola Avenue. The parcel is approximately eighteen (18) acres in size and is undisturbed with the exception of perimeter block walls to the south, east, and west, and public roadway improvements and sidewalk at the northern property line along Hovley Lane. The parcel remains in a natural desert-like condition that includes blow sand and sand dunes, as well as some natural shrub vegetation. Sand dunes in the middle and south portions of the project site range up to a height of over fifteen (15) feet from Hovley Lane and surrounding properties. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: PR-17.5 — Planned Residential (17.5 DU/AC) General Plan: Town Center Neighborhood C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: PR-4 — Marriott Desert Springs Villas South: R-1 M — Portola Country Club East: PR-17.5 — Canterra Apartments West: OS/PR-5 — James Carter Elementary School/Venezia Single- Family Homes GAPlanning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\PC Staff Report-The Sands(8.15.17).doc Staff Report DA/PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 3 of 8 August 15, 2017 Project Description The project includes the construction of 412 apartment units, a clubhouse facility, two outdoor swimming pools, recreational and open space, covered and uncovered parking spaces, and 220 garages. Landscape is used in all non-parking and non-building portions of the site. A new project entry into the site is provided at Hovley Lane East and the existing intersection will be improved to include a new signal. To accommodate 412 apartment units, the applicant is proposing a mix of two- and three-story buildings. A one-story clubhouse building is proposed for communal space, fitness center, leasing office, and mail room. The apartment buildings are done in a contemporary southwest architectural style, while the one-story clubhouse is more of a California Mission architectural style. All buildings have exterior stucco finishes, clay tile roofs, window trim, and clay and wrought-iron details. Seven (7) two-story buildings are located along the southern and western portions of the project site. Two distinct building types are proposed for the two-story buildings. Two-story units are shown at a maximum building height of twenty-nine feet and four inches (29'4"), with tower elements reaching thirty-six feet and eight inches (36'8"). Eight (8) three-story buildings are located in the center and eastern portion of the project site. One of the eight three-story buildings is located along the northwestern portion of the site near James Carter Elementary School. Two distinct building types are provided for the three-story buildings. These buildings are shown at a maximum building height of thirty-eight feet and four inches (38'4"). Discussion A. Land Use Compatibility In 1989, the City Council approved a development agreement for the construction of 612 apartment units on 35 acres, and the dedication of a 20-acre park. Portions of the agreement have been executed, including the dedication of a 20-acre park, known as Palm Desert Hovley Soccer Park, and 306 apartment units have been built as part of the Canterra Apartments. Under the current agreement, 306 apartment units remain to be built on this 18-acre parcel that adjoins Canterra Apartments. For nearly 30 years this site has been entitled and envisioned for an apartment project, and the proposal to build this project meets the intent of the original agreement. However, the applicant proposes to construct additional apartment units at the site and as such, has applied for a density bonus and an amendment to the original development agreement. G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\PC Staff Report-The Sands(8.15.17).doc Staff Report DA/PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 4 of 8 August 15, 2017 B. Density Bonus This project includes the development of 412 apartment units; 106 apartment units above the 306 units entitled for the site. However, AB 2222, passed in 2014, requires cities to provide a "density bonus and other incentives or concessions" for the development of "lower income housing." For this particular project, the applicant will reserve 20 percent (20%) of all units at the project site for very-low income households, making the project eligible for a "density bonus" and concessions under AB 2222. Section 25.34.040 "Affordable Housing and Density Bonus Provisions"of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (P.D.M.C) provides guidance on how to apply density bonuses and eligible incentives/concessions for development. Per the City's Ordinance, developers who provide 20% of very-low income units are eligible for a density bonus of thirty-five percent (35%). Therefore, the density bonus for this project is applied as follows: DU /AC Acres Total Units Base Zone 17.5 18 315 Applied Densit Bonus 24 18 432 Per original development agreement maximum number of units is 306. 2 Base Zoning Density = 17.5 du/ac x 35% = 23.625* or 24 du/ac 'Per Section 25.34.040C1 -fractional numbers are rounded up to nearest whole number. The applicant is proposing a total of 412 apartment units. However, when the density bonus is applied, there will be 20 units less than permitted by AB 2222 and Section 25.34.040 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed number of units will comply with the City's density bonus provisions and those permitted by AB 2222. C. Concessions P.D.M.C. Section 25.34.040D.2.iii specifies that by providing twenty percent (20%) very-low income apartments, the applicant is eligible for up to three (3) concessions. Per this Ordinance, concessions can include a "reduction in the site development standards" such as "reduction in setback(s), and "other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant or the City that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions." For this project, the applicant requests reductions in the City's parking standards, a modification in the maximum permissible building height, and a regulatory incentive that includes a financial contribution by the City's Housing Authority. The maximum building height in the Planned Residential (PR) District is 24 feet and two stories. The applicant is requesting a concession to allow a maximum building height of forty (40) feet and to allow three-story buildings. Two-story units at the site are approximately thirty (30) feet in height and the three-story buildings are at a GAPlanning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\PC Staff Report-The Sands(8.15.17).doc Staff Report DA/PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 5 of 8 August 15, 2017 height of just below thirty-nine (39) feet. The Municipal Code does not provide guidance for the degree in which development standards can be modified. However, the adopted General Plan identifies this parcel as part of the "Town Center Neighborhood" land use designation and this land use designation allow for multi- family development up to three stories and at a maximum building height of forty (40) feet. Staff is currently updating the City's Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the General Plan and believes that the proposed forty (40)-foot building height and three (3) stories are consistent with General Plan standards. Staff has worked with the developer to minimize view impacts on surrounding single- family residential properties. Seven (7) of the eight (8) three-story buildings are located near the center of the site or along the eastern property line to limit visual impacts. Most of the three-story buildings are screened by two-story buildings, which further limit their visual impact on surrounding properties and line of sight studies are provided as part of your packet. The second concession requested by the developer is a reduction of the City's parking standards. This concession is discussed below and is part of the review of on-site parking at the project. The third concession requested by the developer is a request to waiver certain development impact fees associated with the development of the affordable units. The City's Housing Department has reviewed this request and has agreed to pay up to $180,000 to offset city imposed development fees on the affordable units. In exchange, the developer agrees to set aside a minimum of five (5) of the affordable units to persons who work within the City of Palm Desert. Similar requests have been applied to other affordable housing developments such as ARC Village. D. Apartment Buildings: Fifteen (15) apartment buildings ranging from two and three stories in height are provided throughout the project area. The apartment buildings provide units with one-, two, and three bedrooms options as follows: • 1 Bedroom/1 Bathroom: 183 apartment units • 2 Bedrooms/2 Bathrooms: 185 apartment units • 3 Bedrooms/2 Bathrooms: 44 apartment units This unit mix will benefit a range of residents and complies with land use policies of the General Plan that requires a variety of housing types, and housing provided at affordable levels. The architecture of the buildings is done with a quality and use of materials that matches recently approved residential projects in the City. The apartment buildings provide for horizontal and vertical movements to break long, single-building planes GAPlanning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\PC Staff Report-The Sands(8.15.17).doc Staff Report DA/PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 6 of 8 August 15, 2017 and provide additional detail and interest. The overall quality of the buildings is supported by staff and was very well received by the ARC. E. Parking: Parking standards for the site have been reduced from two (2) parking spaces per apartment unit to 1.75 per unit. The reduction in parking standards by 0.25 spaces per unit is reasonable and matches parking standards for "mixed-use" and residential parking standards in the City's Downtown (D) zoning district. Staff believes that parking for the site is sufficient. The applicant is also providing 220 private garages for the apartment units along the eastern and western property lines. The garages are built along the property line and have a zero (0) setback. The intent of the PR zone is to provide flexibility in development and, as such, the Municipal Code provides no specific setback standards for side yards. Instead the Municipal Code allows setback standards to be approved by the Planning Commission through the City's Precise Plan process. Staff was initially concerned about the conversion of these garages into storage space for apartment dwellers and their proximity to surrounding residential properties; however, the applicant believes that on-site management will be successful in limiting conversions of the garages. In addition the location of the garage units along the property line will further limit visibility of the apartments to surrounding properties and provide additional privacy to existing homes. The applicant has stated that language related to maintaining garages for parking will be part of any rental agreement, and that other apartment developers have similar offerings and conditions to ensure parking remains available. Staff believes that parking is sufficient for the site and supports the zero setback along the side property lines. F. Clubhouse: The clubhouse building is 9,100 square feet in size and will provide communal and fitness facilities for the community. For the one-story building, the building massing and architectural style are more distinguished than other buildings in the project site, in which additional details for colonnades and arches are provided. The building provides a good statement for the project entry and provides a good representation of the project along Hovley Lane East. The building is approximately twenty-five (25) feet in height with the main building massing shown at a height of twenty (20) feet. These heights are below the maximum building height of twenty-four (24) feet permitted for this zone. The variety of materials used and the horizontal and vertical movement of the building helps distinguish the clubhouse as a community focus and statement to the project entry. GAPlanning\Eric Ceja\Case Piles\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\PC Staff Report-The Sands(8.15.17).doc Staff Report DA/PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 7 of 8 August 15, 2017 G. Landscape: The landscape palette includes a mix of trees and desert plants consisting of Palo Verdes, Mulga Acacias, Olive trees, Mesquite and Oak Trees, Tipuanas, fan and date palms, bougainvillea, birds of paradise, lantanas, ocotillos, red yuccas and agave. Ground cover consists of decomposed granite (apache brown). Walking paths are shown to be concrete pavers and colored concrete. The landscape palette is compatible with recently approved landscape plans for residential projects in the City and is appropriate for this project. H. Perimeter Improvements As part of this project, the applicant is conditioned to make certain improvements to Hovley Lane East. Specifically, the applicant is required to install a signal at the intersection of Hovley Lane and Jasmine Court, and make modifications to the existing median island to accommodate the signal. The improvements to Hovley Lane East have been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer and Director of Public Works. The modifications will provide sufficient traffic control to accommodate traffic along this portion of roadway. A traffic assessment was also completed as part of the review of this project, and was accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer. It is determined that, along with the improvements to Hovley Lane, the roadway adequately accommodates additional traffic volumes generated by this project. Public Input The applicant met with the President of the Venezia homeowners' association (HOA) on May 3, 2017, to present and discuss the project. The President agreed to share the plans with the HOA at their next meeting. Since the time of mailing of the public notice, staff has received over a dozen letters from the Venezia's HOA and Portola Country Club expressing their concerns about the proposed project. Most concerns focus on the three-story aspect of the project. However, Venezia homeowners have also expressed concerned with the zero (0) lot line setback for the garage units along the property line. Copies of the letters received are provided as part of your packet. Since the item was continued the Planning Commission staff did make a presentation to the Portola Country Club community on June 28th. The presentation lasted about an hour and staff presented the project and fielded questions from the community. Approximately 60 people attended and most expressed opposition torthe project, three- story buildings, noise, traffic at the elementary school, and concerns for affordable housing at this site. Analysis Staff supports the proposed apartment project at this site. The originally approved development agreement for this property allows for two-story apartment buildings with GAPlanning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\PC Staff Report-The Sands(8.15.17).doc Staff Report DA/PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 8 of 8 August 15, 2017 portions of the units set aside for affordable housing. The developer is proposing to exceed the original agreement by providing additional apartment units, additional affordable housing units, and providing three-story apartment buildings to accommodate the additional units and allow for more open space. The intent of the original agreement is achieved and concessions related to Density Bonuses and development standards are applied in accordance with State law. In addition, land use designations identified in the General Plan allow for three-story buildings at a maximum building height of forty (40) feet and the additional height accomplishes a consistent and quality architectural design. The designs of the buildings are attractive and harmonious with the existing Canterra apartments adjacent to the site. Environmental Review For the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposal to develop this site with 412 apartment units and ancillary uses will not result in any potentially significant negative impacts to surrounding properties and the environment. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purposes of CEQA. Findings of Approval Findings can be made in support of the project and in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2699, attached to this staff report. Submitted By: Eric Ceja, Pr nci al Planner Department Head Ryan Stendel , irector of Community Development GAPlanning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16.394 Canterra II\PC\PC Staff Report-The Sands(8.15.17).doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 412- UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT WITH CLUBHOUSE, RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS; AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR AN UNDEVELOPED 18-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HOVLEY LANE EAST, EAST OF PORTOLA AVENUE CASE NO: DA/PP/EA 16-394 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of August 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Lee Newell and New Cities Investment Partners, LLC, for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said applications have complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, in that the Director of Community Development has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and has determined that the no significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed project and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Development Agreement 87-6 on July 10, 1989, identifying this site for a 306-unit apartment development and that an amendment to the Development Agreement is necessary to address density bonus provisions applied for by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to provide twenty percent (20%) of all units within the development for very low income qualified person, and as such is eligible for a density bonus provided by AB 2222 and Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.34.040; and WHEREAS, the density bonus provisions of the Palm Desert Municipal Code allows the applicant to request throe (3) concessions from the City's Zoning Ordinance and that the agreed upon concessions are specified in the Amended Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the sites' proximity to an elementary school, public park, transit lines, and employment centers is ideal for the development of an apartment project with an affordable housing component; and WHEREAS, the project complies with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan that promote affordable housing, promote a variety of neighborhoods, and promote a mix of housing choice for current and future residents; 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 the approval of said request: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 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 Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council for a 412-apartment development in accordance with the plans filed with applications DA/PP/EA 16-394, and subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 15�' day of August 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NANCY DELUNA, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. DA/PP/EA 16-394 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to the approved Development Agreement, all Palm Desert Municipal ordinances, and state and federal 'statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 3. The developer shall enter into a Housing Agreement with the City's Housing Department to finalize affordable housing requirements as part of this project. The affordable housing requirements shall conform to the specifics in the amended Development Agreement. The Housing Agreement shall be signed and completed by both the City and developer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service'' areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by the applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 7. The project is subject to the Art in Public Places program. The applicant is encouraged to utilize the'tee for installation of an on-site art piece. Please contact Ms. Deborah Schwartz-Glickman at (760) 346-0611 to discuss the Art in Public Place process. 8. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered that require a Treatment Plan, the developer or his archeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. If requested by the Tribes, the developer or archeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 9. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with P.D.M.C. Section 24.16 for any landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area. 10. All mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Environmental Assessment and Initial Study shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project. 11. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement that allows for a 412- apartment development as described in the site plan. The applicant shall record the Final Development Agreement within ten (10) days of final approval of the project by the City Council. 12. Final landscape plans shall be submitted to the City's Department of Community Development and the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval. The landscape plan shall conform to the preliminary landscape plans prepared as part of this application, and shall include dense plantings of landscape material. All plants shall be a minimum of five gallons in size, and trees shall be a minimum of 24-inch box sizes. 13. The applicant shall plant a double-row of shade trees in the landscape setback abutting the southern property line of the project. The double row of trees shall be identified on the landscape plan. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: 14. The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Any changes to the approved civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 15. The grading plan shall identify all proposed and existing utilities. 16. The applicant shall submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 15. The applicant shall abide by all provisions of City of Palm Desert Ordinance 843, Section 24.20'Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance. 16. The applicant shall subrt it a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP stall idertitiN the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Operation and Maintenance Section of the approved final WQMP shall be recorded with the County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Department of Public Works. 17. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drainage fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 18. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off-site improvements. Improvements shall include; but are not limited to: A. The installation of a deceleration lane on Hovley Lane East. B. The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Lane. This intersection shall accommodate crosswalks. The applicant shall intercept existing fiber optic cable from Portola Avenue to Corporate Way. C. Remove existing median island between The Sands entry and the existing Canterra entry, reconstruct a pavement section, and install a two-way left turn lane. D. The eastern access to The Sands should provide a stacking distance for a minimum of four exiting vehicles and still maintain adequate circulation for inbound traffic. E. Curb returns on Hovley Lane East must have a minimum radius of 25 feet. F. The width of the exit lane at the eastern access of The Sands shall be a minimum of 24 feet. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT: 19. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2016 California Residential Code its appendices and standards. C. 2016 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2016 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. E. 2016 California Electrical Code. F. 2016 California Energy Code. G. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. H. 2016 California Administrative Code. I. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 20. Provide building height and area analysis to determine compliance with CBC Section 503. Justify any area increases to height and area as permitted per CBC Sections 504 and 506 21. Submit an exit plan that labels and clearly will show compliance with all required egress features such as, but not limited to, common path of travel, required number of exits and separation, occupant load, required width, continuity, travel distance, elevators, etc. CBC 1001.1 22. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Cade Adoption Ordinance 1265. 23. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2013 CBC Chapters 11 A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 24. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1027.5 & 11 B-206). 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 25. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11 B-705.1.2.5 and 11 B-705.1.2.2. The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supersede the State requirement. 26. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Department of Building and Safety. 27. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and then submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Pools and Spas for public use are required to be accessible, 28. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City, of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 29. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 30. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1265 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.28. Compliance with Ordinance 1265 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a,copy of Ordinance 1265 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. 31. Please contact Cherie Williams, Building Permit Specialists II, at the Department of Building and Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. F FIRE DEPARTMENT: 32. Fire Department emergency vehicle apparatus access road locations and design shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuances. 33. Fire Department water system(s) for fire protection shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuances. 6 JUN-1ff2ot7 pk-ENsIF- rp,J 7 Au..ow IL ST Oii:q EA V �o �.zoLA cam- k?&stti�-C Ceja, Eric From: Rocha, Grace Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:42 PM To: Harnik, Jan Cc: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric; O'Reilly, Monica Subject: FW: Telephone Message for Jan Harnik The message below is for Jan Harnik. It relates to an item on the Planning Commission this evening. Please note, the couple wants to be on the record that they are in opposition. Grace L. Rocha Deputy City Clerk Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6487 grocha@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Avery, Ann Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:57 PM To: Rocha, Grace Subject: Telephone Message for Jan Harnik Hi Gracie, As we discussed, I received a call from a couple wanting to leave a message for the Mayor, regarding their opposition to the planned apartment complex on Hovley. This subject will be discussed in the Planning Commission meeting, scheduled tonight in the Council Chambers. The couple: Cheryl and Joe Marinko 760.469.3721 Residents who live in gated community called Venezia The couple want to be on record, stating their opposition. Ann Avery City Clerk Office Assistant Ph:760.346.0611 Direct:760.776.6300 aaverya cityof palm desert.org www.cityofpalmdesert.org i TO r t,; e_ C-\- Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert f/-��f, �,,� J� A��` � City of Palm Desert �1tlar Slm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 JUN 2 6 2017 Dear Mr. Ceja, Re: case# DA-PPEA 16-394 New City Investment Partners, LLC Community Development 1. As Palm Desert homeowners in the Venezia subdivision directly contiguous to the above-proposed development ("The Sands"J we, along with our neighbors,are both upset and disappointed regarding the uncommunicative manner in which the Palm Desert city council has handled the matter of the above-proposed development. We believe the city has an ethical responsibility to clearly notify residents and explain variances in the code that directly impact the neighbors of a major building project. In this instance,we feel that our representatives in our city government have betrayed their duty and our trust. 2. Increasing the density of the development so far beyond what was dictated by the normal code ignores the character of this area and the rights and welfare of the nearby residents. Major traffic increases on East Hovley and Portola,where we already have significant congestion,given that there is an elementary school, a soccer park and post office in the immediate vicinity,will result in further hardship to the areas residents. The school traffic during weekday mornings and afternoons already obstructs an entire lane on both East Hovley and Portola for some time. The increased pollution from the many additional cars poses a health issue, particularly for those of us with respiratory issues. 3. We feel that three story buildings in a residential area are inappropriate and unfair to adjacent homeowners. As retirees,we selected the Venezia community because of its low density,and the ambience and tranquility of ours and neighboring communities, all of which will be adversely affected by the increased density,traffic and three story buildings of the proposed development. 4. We also object to the setback and parking variances,which are not in keeping with the character of the area. Had we wished to live in a crowded area with traffic congestion and tall buildings we would have chosen to live in a city rather than the desert,where there is adequate open land for further development, and where we had trusted our representatives to protect the environment and the welfare of Palm Desert residents. Palm Desert's City Council states on its website that the mission of the Code Compliance Division: "ensures that all of the City's neighborhoods are consistent with community standards... Recognizing the importance of protecting Palm Desert's wonderful quality of life." Negating the codes with the proposed variances would defeat this important goal. In summary,we request that the City of Palm Desert return to the original conditions for approval to build at this site,i.e., 306 units with no buildings higher than two stories and with appropriate setbacks.; Respectfully, 62114W ty Richard H.Wohl, M.D. Diane H.Wohl 74175 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 CC: Palm Desert City Hall Diana Altorfer =! 7419 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 The Sands Project Proposal Background: Zoning Residential Golf Course & Resort Neighborhood Existing easements from wall for homes with exterior walls to other developments Venezia Opened in 2004 Well-constructed homes Quality Builder (GHA) High ceilings,tile floors,granite counters, fireplace, etc. all included Residents own homes; few rentals (min 30 days) Fully Landscaped yards Each home has Swimming pool Surrounded by Exterior wall 6-8 feet, depending upon location 1. Area next-door known to eventually build 2. Sand piles have increased in size over past 13 years, exceeding the height of the exterior wall, creating dust and sand issues over the years for nearby Venezia residents. Nothing done to accommodate Venezia residents on the other side. Proposal conflicts: • No easements from exterior wall. Garage building to be flush with the wall • Garage wall is over twice the height of backyard wall; "walled-in" feeling. • Huge wall contains no breaks to allow any view for residents • Changes value of the property SIGNIFICANTLY (dense housing/walled in) • Violates City codes for easement between property • Trash enclosure also adjacent to wall, high possibility of rats which can climb over wall Comments: Venezia, a development that has existed for 14 years, will be most impacted with this densely populated, high walled project! These are quality homes, in a quiet, gated community. They are well maintained. As a community, we have complied with desert landscape, in lieu of the original array of flowers in our entrance, and exchanged palm trees for low water trees. June 13,2017 � Y Diana Altorfer 7419 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 There is no impact on the opposite side of this development. It is an apartment complex, and NO living areas are up against the wall, so there is no impact (sight line or otherwise) for those residents. There's an existing easement before the long driveway along that side. There is no impact with the area in the exterior of the development, as there is a 27-foot distance between developments. N O Canlerra N Apartmer i ------- --------- --------- ---- - 3 PLANS N Families have invested a significant amount to buy into Venezia. Several homes WILL experience a decrease in property values by the unsightly appearance of a SECOND wall, 18- foot-high garages. These will lie directly behind the homeowner's wall, and will be double the height than what exists now. Walled in! NO exception to an easement should be granted. Also, why the density? Is 400+ appropriate for a "Golf Course & Resort Neighborhood"? The City of Palm Desert needs to preserve the integrity of the development and most importantly, the value of these residents' pre-existing homes! ! ffi��=Q62�IIOX'Y'[�IXta�II9� ffi �,� i fix.W LAM UBE. WLF CC URBE!MORT WMQMONUDD EX.room"P.R.-5 + ►ROP.CAR GARAGE(TYP) TU II TRASN _ EX.PROS ECT I I ' r �,W ROUkaA.YTM j 29Y I 2ilp I EzIUl NP 15 APA TM MS I �- APA! I --( 18UILDlJqG 12 APARWE14M -�{ - r F_. r ) " �- -- . TUE !i 1 June 13, 2017 Ceja, Eric From: Cathy Butero <clbutero@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:26 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Case No: DA/PP/EA 16-394 "New Cities Investment Partners, LLC" Dear Sir: I can understand the Sands developer moving forward on their proposal for 306 apartments, made so many years ago. And, I can understand the responsible community planning on the part of Palm Desert. However, to approve of the developer taking advantage of AB 2222 and adding additional LIH, thereby increasing the density of apartments to 412 in order to gain 35% tax consideration is egregious to the integrity and good faith of the surrounding neighborhoods. Why? I have been a good steward in my community of Palm Desert for eleven years. I was a hardworking, dedicated teacher at Palm Desert High School, retiring in 2010. 1 am a responsible community member and my husband and I live here full time. Who looks after our best interests as solid middle class taxpayers, in addition to the LIH? I certainly understand and support a reasonable number of LIH in the area; hopefully it is balanced with the rest of Palm Desert. But the proposed 412 apartments with 20% LIH doesn't make sense to the residential balance in our surrounding community. I believe, perhaps foolishly, that my city has a fiduciary responsibility to all residents, not just the high paying developers. As one of my neighbors said, "This feels like an avalanche and we are helpless in its path." Really? I am disheartened by this cavalier proposal to increase the apartments from 306 to 412, but I sincerely hope that you and the Planning Commission will reconsider this proposed increase, and hold the developer to 306 apartments per the original proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Cathy Butero 1 Ceja, Eric From: Karla Lewis <karlalewis1373@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:33 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 Dear Mr.Ceja, 1 am writing you in response to a letter we received from the city regarding CASE NO.DA/PP/EA 16-394,The Sands Apartments,located at 74-351 Hovley Lane East. First of all,1 understand the need for affordable housing in our city. Too many people who work here have to drive long distances because they can not find affordable housing in Palm Desert. I understand that the proposed project was approved over 20 years ago,but with a much smaller footprint as far as the number of units. The redesigned project has been increased to 412 apartments with some being three stories high. 1 oppose three story structures so close to housing developments. Currently the Canterra Apartments border our community,Portola Country Club,and at two stories they are much higher than our homes. I also oppose the planned signalized intersection at Hovley Lane East and Jasmine. An additional traffic light in such a short distance between Portola and Corporate Way would change the flow of traffic. As it is,we are never impeded by traffic at the Canterra Apartments. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider this new design and not allow three story units. Furthermore,I would hope that the project would take into consideration our community and heighten the block wall so that it is the same as what is behind Canterra to block the view and help with noise. The developer should also be required to make landscape plans three feet from the border wall and with trees and hedges tall enough to block the apartments from viewing our homes. Respectfully yours, Karla Lewis 74232 Zircon Cir.W. 1 Ceja, Eric From: Dr. Lo <dr.lo1943@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 1030 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: protesting THREE STORY APTS please STOP this three story apts variant request. Everyone knows its not right. Residents were assured that two stories is what was agreed. there will be serious repercussions to building three stories. property values will go down. SES will take a dive for palm deserts future. This is bad for palm desert. Sent to eceia@cityofpalmdesert.org From Dr. Lopez, a concerned resident Sent by Tim on his Wad mini 1 Ceja, Eric From: alanandlindac <alanandlindac@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 6:08 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Hovley Projects Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 Please accept this email and add it to the Public comments for the development noted above. As a fairly new resident to Palm Desert I want to register my opposition to the Hovey projects case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394. Having come from a town that has an abundance of apartments and low income residents I request you review this proposal very carefully. I would hate to see Palm Desert turn into a place like El Cajon. I am strongly opposed to a 3 level apartment complex. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal and listen to my comments. Alan and Linda Clendenon 74060 Mercury Cir W Palm Desert, CA. 92260 i Ceja, Eric From: Kelly Hill <km.hill@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 5:11 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Re:412 Apartment Community Development, The Sands, right next door to Carter Elementary - City Meeting June 20th at 6 pm @ City of Palm Desert CASE NO: DA/PP/EA 16-394"New Cities Investment Partners, LLC" Dear Eric, We are unable to attend the June 20th hearing at 6pm on the above referenced case#, however we would like to voice our grave concerns on this development. As residents of Venezia in Palm Desert since 2012,we have truly appreciated the ways Palm Desert city personnel have assisted us in making our property better. Until this development, city efforts to grow and develop responsibly were remarkably smart.This development however harms existing property owners and developments in a myriad of ways without equalitative benefits to the tax base versus excessive additional city costs for schools, roads or services as a result of building it. It appears to be a huge giveaway of many city standards for questionable upside, it retracts longstanding promises to existing property owners and is actively harmful to several. The proposed 412 apartment project under consideration at Hovley Lane East between "Canterra Apartments" and Carter Elementary School causes the following concerns: 1. For the last 13 years Venezia owners were told that the lot next door was zoned for the same kind of apartments that Canterra has 306 total units, two story max. We bought our homes with this knowledge.There was no notice to all the homeowners about the severity of the change except the four homeowners immediately adjacent on Via Garibaldi. Even then it wasn't detailed.Only word of a hearing.This is an enormous reversal of standards without enough public involvement. It massively increases(by 1/3) costs to nearby city residents for schools, roads &city services. This density will impact everything from water to trash to road repair to police & fire services.This would not only overwhelm existing services it could cause a massive decline at unknown cost. 2. Every nearby development will be dwarfed and uglified by 8 three story buildings,the increase in number of apartments from 306 to 412 seems like a poorly thought out giveaway without tangible benefit to existing nearby city residents. Venezia especially will be facing a hideous development with zero set back along Via Garibaldi—There is no need to throw out all city building standards like zero setbacks or 8 massive three story towers to accommodate a development here. These are things we would not expect a thoughtful City Planning Department to be giving away to a developer of low income housing in a non-urban location. Typically a new low income housing development tries to minimize harm to nearby residents not escalate the harm. 3. It is inexplicable that Palm Desert would be promoting urban level density and in this particular location versus the downtown area? High rise apartments off 10 or 111 makes sense, but next to Marriott resorts is an active harm to existing tourist business that brings in valuable tax revenue as well. 4. This project is not only architecturally unattractive compared with the surrounding developments it also devalues the surrounding developments, resulting a lower surrounding property values. Sincerely, Andrew& Colleen Hill 74137 Via Venezia 1 Ceja, Eric From: Hutcheon <bhutch4@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 2:25 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands Development We are homeowners in Venezia in Palm Desert who will be affected by The Sands development on Hovely Lane East. Our biggest concern is the inclusion of affordable housing and the problems it brings.There already is a large development of affordable housing behind the soccer park. It seems like a terrible idea to increase that and have so much of it in one area of Palm Desert.There is an elementary school right next door that would be affected by the problems that brings. Traffic is already a concern on Hovely by the school and adding so many more residents will just create more issues and safety concerns. Please take the time to consider how you would feel if you had invested your money into a beautiful home to see it devalued by adding a huge development with more low end housing right on your perimeter. Development is inevitable but current Palm Desert homeowners should take precedent over a developers desire for greater profit. Current Palm Desert homeowners should matter! Thank you. I really hope the opinions of we Venezia homeowners is considered. Bruce and Tricia Hutcheon 1 Ceja, Eric From: R.J. Duppy <wahid1937@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 12:39 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: building projest@74-351 Hovley Lane East Reiss J. DuPlessis 74218 Zircon Circle West Palm Desert, CA 92260 June 19, 2017 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, This is to express concern about the project to construct 412 apartment units, clubhouse and recreational facilities on the land located at 74-351 Hovley Lane East. The first of the many concerns is the impact this project will have on the school adjacent to the land, the safety hazards this will add for the students, who are a major concern for all of us and the additional traffic this will bring to a street that experiences major traffic issues when parents take their children to and from the school. The addition of untold cars to this situation will raise major concerns for the safety of our children,the staff and the parents who must contend with, already difficult, conditions on school days. Secondly, it will add horrific traffic conditions for residents, most of them senior citizens,who reside in the surrounding country clubs. We are acutely aware of the traffic concerns when school is in session and plan our outings accordingly to respect, protect and care for the children and parents as they go to and from school.The addition of untold numbers of cars will destroy the manner in which we are now handing this situation and will become a nightmare for local residents, children, parents and teachers responsible for their protection. Those of us in country clubs nearest the proposed project will suffer the loss of open space and views we have enjoyed for years because of the plan to construct THREE STORY buildings in the complex. Why must there be three story buildings in this area known for its respect for the views nature has provided and the open skies all residents and visitors to the area enjoy?This is part of what makes desert living what is it,why it has been inviting, beautiful and desirable. Where will this end... five, six, seven story buildings? Another concern is the impact this will have on service providers, hospitals, fire departments, police and other service agencies. We are hoping supreme care and concern for our children, parents and seniors will be taken into full consideration when you meet to discuss this project. Sincerely R.J. DuPlessis 74218 Zircon Circle West 1 Ceja, Eric From: Walter Altorfer <waltorfer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 12:17 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: CityhallMail Subject: The Sands project on Hovley Ln. Dear Mr. Ceja, It is my understanding that you have received a letter from Jacque Wright at Albert Management citing the Venezia HOA's support of the abovementioned project. I want to correct that letter. The Venezia HOA has learned much more about the project than originally noted in our meeting with the developer. As of this moment, we do not support the project in its entirety. We have long known about the potential development of the property, but understood it would be at a level of 306 units. Please do not use the letter from Albert Management as our indication of support of the project. Walter R. Altorfer President, Board of Directors Venezia HOA Ceja, Eric From: Ted Turrentine <ted_turrentine@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:40 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Opposition to 412 unite apartment Dear Mr.Ceja: We wish to express our opposition to the proposed 412 unit apartment complex to be located at 74-351 Hovley Lane E in Palm Desert. Our HOA community, Portola Country Club, which will abut the complex, already experiences regular incidents of burgurlary and theft originating from surrounding neighborhoods known by law enforcement to harbor criminal elements. Having an additional 412 rental units, which are other than the single family, owner occupied housing (whose collective value will potentially decrease as a result of the project)which is typical of this area will, we believe, only increase the likelyhood of crimes against our association members. How could it be otherwise?Additionally, our two closest eastbound access roads, Hovley Lane E, to our north, and Deep Canyon Road, to our south, are already snarled with elementary school student drop and pick-up traffic twice daily for most of the year, in addition to normal congestion, particularly on Hovley. This can only get dramatically worse when potentially the children of another 412 families join this mix. Finally, regarding the additional seats, classrooms, and facilities which will be needed to educate the children from this complex will mean overcrowding in already stressed schools and/or additional taxes to build more of them-poor options, both for the schoolchildren affected, and the citizens of Palm Desert, many with fixed incomes(as will be our families' situation when I retire)who do not need additional taxes, and who, in any case, have no direct stake in local education. Thank you for your serious consideration of our, and many other citizens' concerns about this matter. Theodore Turrentine 74096 Mercury Circle W Portola Country Club Palm Desert Ted Turrentine(a�Yahoo.com 1 Ceja, Eric From: Ardee <akgifts@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 4:50 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Development We are Homeowners in the Venezia Homeowners Association and have some concerns over the proposed Sands Development Project. The concerns we have are: the height of the two-story buildings and the three-story buildings, the Increase the traffic congestion that this will cause, over crowding at the already crowded school which means enlarged classes and the limited visual impact it will have on the existing neighborhood. Another main concern are the garages that forms a wall that extends over 5 feet above the exterior wall of Venezia HOA. THERE IS NO SETBACK from the wall; which usually is a consideration in most planning blueprints of a development. Please consider the surrounding neighborhood's when making these decisions. Plans that looked good 20 years ago don't necessarily work in the NOW. Maybe compromises could be considered. Very truly yours, Jerrold and Ardee Warshal i Ceja, Eric From: David Viduulich <dgvidulich@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 4:35 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Community Development 412 units w (8) 3 story Blds. Way too much Density for this lot size. No setback from Venezia property line. Fire Hazard/over saturation. Are will be overbuilt/overcrowded not to mention Traffic Congestion.Carter School already creates too much Density/Movement in this same area. Planners should know this through their Experience and cut this project to a reasonable size. David Vidulich Venezia Original Homeowner. 1 Ceja, Eric From: Trish Pierce <trish@papillongraphics.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 2:11 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: New proposed Apartments on Hovley Eric,thank you for taking the time to read my concerns about the proposition to build 412 units between Venezia and The Canterra apartments. As a full time resident of Venezia, I already have issues getting into my own development because of the traffic due to Carter school... parents picking up their children lined all along Hovley and Portola. Can you imagine the increase in classroom size, traffic and safety issues? Adding approximately 1,200+ people probably means there will be at least that many more cars.This area is already congested and I feel it's irresponsible for the CPD to approve such a large scale project at this location. As residents of Venezia,we'll have buildings towering over us, less privacy, more noise, security issues and decreased home values. Our development has here for 14 years and when we first bought,our developer assured us that any future building next to us would be single story housing. I understand 20% is required to be low income housing and that is needed, but you are overpopulating this area. Surely we are at 20%as there is a low income community behind the soccer field and low income within Canterra. I urge you to NOT to approve this project. Concerned resident of Venezia, Trish Pierce 74-122 via Pellestrina 760.776.874 1 Ceja, Eric From: Tim Kopf <violintimkopf@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:43 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: protesting THIRD story apartments I am protesting the THIRD story construction on the apartments on Hovley. Since leasing in PCC, I was planning to purchase a home in portola. If this third story development is approved, i will look elsewhere. keep future development two stories and i will move to Portola and invest my money in Palm Desert. from Tim Kopf, a retired Indiana school teacher Sent by Tim on his iPad mini i Ceja, Eric From: June Engblom <juneengblom@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:22 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Diane Richey;juneengblom@yahoo.com Subject: Hovley apartments I have been a desert resident for 12 years. I moved here because a vacation in the 1980's convinced me it is a very special place. I have lived in apartments in Palm Springs, my own home in Cathedral City and my own condo in Rancho Mirage. I moved to Portola CC in March 2011. My backyard backs directly up against the proposed development. When I purchased my home I knew someday something might get built there. Never in my wildest dreams did I think it would be a 3 story anything. At this point, even the original 2 story project will block my views. I am showing up to your meeting to protest the 3 story portion because I feel so strongly about protecting Coachella Valley's views. Would I rather something over than apartments be built there?Sure,who wouldn't want more lovely homes like Via Venezia. How about a library,there's nothing safer or quieter than a library, but I wouldn't want a library if it was 3 stories tall! Have you seen the multi story building in PS? It looks so out of place! I'd like to make sure that doesn't happen here. There are 3 story apartments on Gerald Ford, but they are built into the existing slope and don't appear to be three stories-then there is the two story construction next to our fire station that swallows the entire intersection and feels more like 4 stories! I've been reading the General Plan of PD which I learned existed when a neighbor forwarded your reply to his email. When I clicked on the "give us your feedback" link it said it was a closed topic.This document, which obviously took countless hours to prepare, had only 167 views and only 14 comments. Clearly out of 50,000 residents more than 167 would be interested in reading the plan for their city, especially if they knew it includes 3 to 5 story construction and multi level parking garages between el paseo and 111. The entire Cook corridor from Hovley to the high school is designated three stories!The city needs to get this message out again, open this topic for discussion and we, as citizens, need to participate. I know cities in general, like density, but in the desert where water is a precious commodity, couldn't we encourage less density, less water use? Haven't we learned our lesson from the golf industry which overbuilt here? I love living in Palm Desert.There are so many upsides.When visitors come, the thing love the most is how different it is from where they live. If we start building multi story office buildings, parking garages and apartments, it won't feel different for them at all. let's keep the feel and look that put Coachella Valley on the map in the first place.The feel and look that makes each of us proud to call Palm Desert home. Thanks for your time and all your hard work.) hope you will reconsider the construction of 3 story apartments on Hovley. Sent from my iPad i Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, Re: case# DA-PPEA 16-394 New City Investment Partners, LLC 1. As Palm Desert homeowners in the Venezia subdivision directly contiguous to the above-proposed development ("The Sands"J we,along with our neighbors,are both upset and disappointed regarding the uncommunicative manner in which the Palm Desert city council has handled the matter of the above-proposed development. We believe the city has an ethical responsibility to clearly notify residents and explain variances in the code that directly impact the neighbors of a major building project. In this instance,we feel that our representatives in our city government have betrayed their duty and our trust. 2. Increasing the density of the development so far beyond what was dictated by the normal code ignores the character of this area and the rights and welfare of the nearby residents. Major traffic increases on East Hovley and Portola,where we already have significant congestion, given that there is an elementary school, a soccer park and post office in the immediate vicinity,will result in further hardship to the areas residents. The school traffic during weekday mornings and afternoons already obstructs an entire lane on both East Hovley and Portola for some time. The increased pollution from the many additional cars poses a health issue, particularly for those of us with respiratory issues. 3. We feel that three story buildings in a residential area are inappropriate and unfair to adjacent homeowners. As retirees,we selected the Venezia community because of its low density,and the ambience and tranquility of ours and neighboring communities, all of which will be adversely affected by the increased density,traffic and three story buildings of the proposed development. 4. We also object to the setback and parking variances,which are not in keeping with the character of the area. Had we wished to live in a crowded area with traffic congestion and tall buildings we would have chosen to live in a city rather than the desert,where there is adequate open land for further development, and where we had trusted our representatives to protect the environment and the welfare of Palm Desert residents. Palm Desert's City Council states on its website that the mission of the Code Compliance Division: "ensures that all of the City's neighborhoods are consistent with community standards... Recognizing the importance of protecting Palm Desert's wonderful quality of life." Negating the codes with the proposed variances would defeat this important goal. In summary,we request that the City of Palm Desert return to the original conditions for approval to build at this site,i.e., 306 units with no buildings higher than two stories and with appropriate setbacks. Respectfully, 77 4�1�"4_54 A cZ l� GUI Richard H.Wohl, M.D. Diane H.Wohl 74175 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 CC: Palm Desert City Hall Pagel of 2 Ron St Pierre From: "Karen Woolworth"<dwoolworth@dc.rr.com> Date: Friday,June 16,2017 1:03 PM To: "St.Pierre Melinda"<mrstp(agreencafe.com> Subject: Fwd:Hovely Housing Project Case no.DA/PP/EA 16-394 see email for city of palm desert for letter regarding 3 story apartments - must be sent pronto thanks please include the project case detailed in the subject line. :) k Begin forwarded message: From: <ecej�,cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: RE: Hovely Housing Project Case no. DA/PP/EA 16-394 Date: June 15, 2017 at 1:18:32 PM PDT To: <dwoolworth(aDdc.rr.com> Hi Karen, Thank you for your letter. I will forward it to the Planning Commissioners. Yes, Planning Department staff supports this project as it provides additional apartment units,and affordable apartments units, in close proximity to an elementary school, parks, and jobs. This is an ideal site for the proposed project and in fact,apartment buildings have been planned at this site since the late 1980's. We have not considered a higher wail along Portola Country Club and the maximum wall height allowed in the City is six(6)feet. Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Kaaren Woolworth [mailto:dwoolworth@dc.rr.com) Sent: Monday,June 05, 2017 8:18 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Hovely Housing Project Case no. DA/PP/EA 16-394 QUESTIONS IN GENERAL 1. The city is actually considering an Apartment complex consisting of apprx. 400+units next to and comprising of the same acreage as Canterra Apartments on Hovely? 2. And the City is willing to accept that high a concentration and that much more traffic next to a grade school? 3. And the City is willing to allow 3 story apartments to achieve this higher concentration of people and cars? QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO PORTOLA COUNTRY CLUB As a Portola Country Club (Angel Camp Road resident): 6/17/2017 Page 2 of 2 1. Are you going to build a higher wall between the complex and our community? How high can you go for safety and privacy. 2. Are you willing, as a City, to help us stop the people and kids that jump that wall and use our community as a thoroughfare. TO AND FROM the high school etc. on the other side of the wash!! (as they do now with the existing wall-and even at the higher portion of the wall behind Canterra?) 3. Are you willing to patrol the new area with necessary frequency to alleviate: noise, mischief makers, PCC residents safety concerns,etc. that will occur when you are willing to accept that dense of a population. Thank you for your consideration in rethinking or amending this project with its current requirements. Karen and Don Woolworth. +0 /L-L 30zf:-: A-/V o n N 00h Y/Tl' 5 t 6/17/2017 June 7, 2017 City of Palm Desert JUN 2 0 2017 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner RYAN STENDELLM Secretary City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Planning Commission 73510 Fred Waring Driive and to all Community Development Palm Desert, CA 92260 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS I received your Legal Notice Case No.DA/PP/EA 16-394 on June 5,2017. Mailed by your office on May 31,2017; returned to your office for postage and re-mailed on June 2, 2017. 1 did receive a May notice of interest regarding construction of the property located on Hovely Street behind Portola Country Club residents on Angels Camp Road. As I remember NO MENTION of immediate construction for this project or three story apartments. When Ms. Harnik and Mr.Stendell attended our May Meeting, discussion was the street and the proposed wall for Portola Country Club. Never was there a mention of the approval of an apartment complex behind Angels Camp Road in Portola Country Club. Was this apartment complex deliberately not mentioned during our meeting? When my husband and I purchased our Modular Home we were informed that future buildings would be homes. Veniza Homes was a welcome addition. We did not expect the massive cracks settling in our home from the heavy equipment moving dirt from the Veniza home builders. Nor did we expect huge dirt piles taller than our home carelessly left by the builders. Complaints to builders,the comment to us,"well you knew this was being built." "There is nothing we as builders can do for you." A complaint to a former city council member,the huge pile of dirt moved towards Hovely Street. Now, developers have designed and have approval for development of eight(8)three(3) story apartment buildings and seven (7)two (2)story apartment buildings. Public comments must be received by your office prior to June 20, 2017. You have given us less than 20 days to respond to a building project that the Planning Commission and City Council have already approved! Our responses will not be considered as appropriate understanding of the project as the notice has protected the Investment people of this complex. Our residents must be 55 or older to reside in Portola Country Club and many residents leave for the summer in May, returning in October. To receive this Notice in June 2017 is unfair to Portola Country Club Residents,who will not receive this notice in time to respond. Many of the remaining residents do not approve the structure of eight(8)three (3) story apartment buildings and wonder why the city would agree to three story apartments so close to our community. What consideration have you given for the privacy of Portola Country Club Residents? Many of us use our back patios and have sliding glass doors opening to our patios. We have landscaped our beautiful back patios for our privacy and enjoyment, not for renters of apartments to peek as the Canterra Apartments have done. (Z Nd"� Oma Jean Harris Widow of Carl Donald Harris 74336 Angels Camp Road Palm Desert,CA 92260 Ceja, Eric From: Randy& Larry <Ilrcb50@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:26 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: OUR VOICE AGAINST - The Palm Desert Planning Commission Supported High Density Housing Project! > Mr. Mayor and Palm Desert Planning Commission, >With regard to the letter sent to "Some" Residents of Portola Country Club (PCC,) from the Planning Commission, City Of Palm Desert, on the topic of a Proposed High Occupancy Apartment Complex, we live in PCC, at 74193 Zircon Circle W., Palm Desert, and did not get the letter! After discussing and meeting with other PCC residents,there was apparently no rhyme or reason for who got the letter! >We believe that the timing of the letter and the scheduled June 20, 2017, meeting is an attempt to limit the voices against this project. As evidence, both the letter and meeting were sent and scheduled after peak season making it easy for the City to point to an apparent lack of interest or implied agreement with this ill conceived project. From our perspective,the timing is highly suspect behavior of the Planning Commission, City of Palm Desert,who supports the proposal. Additionally, we believe the timing is a low, back room way of pushing this project forward without facing the citizens of Palm Desert to get"real"feedback. If this is true, it would sting in a way the citizens of Palm Springs must have felt after hearing about how projects were pushed through without "proper and above-board" vetting of projects there! >We are asking our PCC Friends to make their voices heard via letters and we ask that they attend the June 20th meeting. We also asked that if they cannot be there, please email the City of Palm Desert, Mayors Office to make their voice heard! However, our grass roots, neighbor-to-neighbor voice is not adequate, appropriate, fair or businesslike litmus test that the City of Palm Desert should gauge citizen feedback for support or opposition for this project! > Regardless of Planning Commission support of this project, the construction of a three story building in Palm Desert, is in direct contradiction to the Mayor's assurance made to PCC Residents during his recent visit here. During that meeting, the Mayor told our community that there will be no new 3 story buildings in Palm Desert. What about that? >This Proposed Project now becomes a disclosure issue by anyone who plans to sell their home.This is because of our collective community knowledge and the formal informational letter sent to some PCC residents by the City of Palm Desert.The letter is packed with disclosable information about the proposed high density, low income housing project in the backyard of PCC. >As residents of Portola Country Club, who looks forward to an improved housing market and growing property values over time, we do not like nor do we appreciate the apparent"pick-and-choose" nature of the mailing of this very important informational letter by the City of Palm Desert, Planning Commission. As stated above,we believe it is an effort to prevent my Portola Residents and other Palm Desert voices from being heard! > Future impact to environmental, aesthetic, privacy and property values of PCC homes will surly follow when potential buyers arrive to personally inspect the community and are surprised to see an intrusive three story high density complex in their back yard! It will surly be a factor in making their personal assessment of the properties in PCC, the current and real property values,growth potential and long term value in their overall pros and cons list of living in Portola Country Club and in Palm Desert at all. i > In preparation for the June 20th meeting, we drove to the proposed building site on the Hovely property to do a visual comparison of the existing two story complex and how a three story building might look next to it. In our opinion, a three story, high density residential complex will have significant impact on PCC. It will intrude on the privacy of nearby PCC residents, on the feeling of open space, and overall quality of life in PCC. Along with these are the associated environmental impact to our community which are attendant with high density occupancy, are the obvious; vehicles, trash storage& collection, and service vehicles which all will significantly and directly impact Portola CC not to mention noise from families crammed into the high density project, crime and congestion at intersection of Hovely and Portola and further clogging schools in the area. >After we viewed the Proposed Project Site, we drove down Angel Camp in PCC and were surprised to view over the back fence of one Portola Resident,that more than half of a van parked in the parking lot of the two story building in the adjacent property behind Portola CC.This is in the parking lot of the existing two story building and it was as if the van was parked on top of a hill looking over into PCC. What a surprise it was to find that the existing housing is already intruding on the privacy and quality of life in PCC. >This high density,three story project is unsightly, will directly impact the quality of life in PCC, it will directly affect the real and perceived values of homes here and have a direct impact on your long term real property values and financial security of PCC Residents. >We have asked our PCC friends to please contact Palm Desert City Mayors office to encourage him to stay true to the message he shared with PCC,to reject the Planning Commissions "Pet Project," to include the voices of all of the people who are being affected by this project and mostly importantly, to protect our environment and financial future here in Portola Country Club, Palm Desert, Ca. >Sincerely concerned, > Randy Burden & Larry Barnes >74193 Zircon Circle W. > Palm Desert, Ca 95670 > (916) 565-3063 2 Palm Desert Hovley Projects Case No.,DA/PP/EA 16-394 John Evanoff, Concerned Citizen Regarding: Recommendation to delay completion of the development's construction until further studies and evaluation is completed. The proposed development consists of a total of 412 residential apartment units, 276 3-story units and 136 2-story units. Phase I of construction is planned to be completed by February 2018. Phase Il is planned to be completed by April 2019. 1 believe Nve as a community in Palm Desert should insure our future real estate values and our safekeeping by completing further studies regarding this project. Only one study has been done since this project was first planned 25 years ago. As part of a large concerned group at Portola Country Club, we insist other studies and revieNvs by Fire, Police, Sewage, Water, School, Parks and Recreation and all other departments' city and county «vide should be modernized to reflect the current infrastructure needs of the area. OtherNvise, Nve may end up paying the consequences if developers are allowed to bring forward old plans Ndthout current regulations and required assessments being brought to the table. We are already overv,-helmed in this area of the city «with traffic congestion on an already busy Hovley Lane. More traffic could put children in harm's way at the school and the nearby soccer park off of Hovley Lane. Studies should be done on crime in the area resulting in hoN,,-to best evaluate and control additional problematic crime and rental issues resulting in possible loss of property which could lower the price of all our properties in all the immediate surrounding communities. We acquired a few answers from city planning staff on 6/5/17, but all they had was a traffic study for the area completed on one day (Thursday, October 27, 2016). The traffic study should have been done over the course of 30 days on t-Nvo different months and then evaluated. One day does not give a proper summarization of total traffic evaluation. It seems like this is a fairly new issue because the developer has made a decision to ask the city for more rooms on the same piece of land they originally wanted to build-out «with just 303 rooms. Now they Nvant to go to 412 rooms xNjth a third of them going into two story buildings at 35 feet high from pavement to peak and two-thirds going into three story buildings at up to 45 feet high from pavement to roof peak. That kind of elevation v,�ill impair resident's views and allow residents of the apartment complex to look down into our neighborhoods. Also, a full 20010 of the apartments xvill be going to low income housing to comply Nvith mixed residential apartment regulations. This concerns us because if the city moves to change the zoning laws to allow apartment buildings over three 1 I , stories throughout the city, we will be faced with many more issues not unlike projects in troubled inner cities elsewhere throughout the country. I'm giving the city council the benefit of the doubt that they will of course be against any kind of move to rezone apartment buildings throughout the city to allow multiple story buildings over two stories. Concerned citizens are worried not only that it will cause an eye sore but it will stand as a precedence to allow other developers to build 3, 4, 5, or 6 story apartment buildings all over the city. We believe you may regret changing the current zoning laws to vote for a zoning change to allow apartment buildings to be built this high. We do not want what happened in Palm Springs and other municipalities to happen to us. We all suffer when that happens. But it happens. So, it's important that the City of Palm Desert takes more time to reevaluate all the studies and bring them up to date as well as drop the three story plan back down to two stories only. We hope the city council has the foresight to understand anything less than responding positively to the citizen's request to delay the project until the developer modernizes the project is ill advised. The developer should be made to modernize all studies paid for by the developer to reflect a project which enhances the area and does not end up putting more demands on our already stressed neighborhood. Any other unqualified uninformed proposal at this time would be a major mistake. I think we can agree \ve have no problem «with people needing a place to live. What concerns us is they started with a plan 25 years ago to build out 303 apartments in two story buildings in that area. Now they are going to have 276 in three story buildings and 136 in two story buildings for a total of 412. No other demands have been made by planning or the city council concerning the developers or staffs review of the project as it applies to current modern standards for Palm Desert. In fact the city planning department has not seen or done any other tests of the project since it was originally designed for 303 apartments more than 25 years ago. A lot has changed in that time. The infrastructure in that area is very frail now (consider the massive seNver break which closed Portola for a week and the many underground power lines which have broken in the area from wear and tear over the years). No tests have been put forward other than a traffic report. So, the Palm Desert planning department has asked for no new project analysis with regard to the rezoning of this apartment complex project including Community Development, a more extensive traffic impact statement, a school impact statement, an infrastructure impact statement (sewer, water,gas, electricity), the Palm Desert Police and Riverside County Sheriff statements of approval, the fire department statement of approval, the health department statement of approval, environmental impact statement, and any other impact statements for this project. 2 ( We have nearly 4,000 home owners in the nearby country clubs (Chaparral, Monterey, Silver Sands, Park Palms, Sands Racquet Club, Chatham Court, Casablanca..just to name a few along NN ith Portola Country Club) who «-ill be directly and/or indirectly impacted by the building of these apartments in an area already burdened by heavy traffic because of its proximity to the post office, a highly populated industrial complex which includes Waste Management and it's heavy garbage trucks, an elementary school, a boys and girls club, a soccer park, a huge resort and several apartment complexes. The sister property «�ith the same developer to this project, the 420 apartments at Canterra on the same street right next to the proposed project has had higher than normal crime rates and other problems in the past. My Nvife and I have only been here five years and can attest of people jumping over our back Nvall both directions and the many noisy parties they have there. Remember, apartments do come under some regulation in Palm Desert for short term rentals but in many cases, managers look the other way so they can fill vacant rooms for a month or less during festival months to make money. Have the police drive by on Angels Camp during the Coachella festival and look at the two story buildings of the sister property already there called Canterra behind some of our houses. You can add another 15 feet of elevation to that view then measure your displeasure with the people on their little apartment patios yelling and screaming at parties or the many disturbances which can be heard all the across the area. Please review the project and ask the developer to add all the more modern studies to their plan if they Nvish to go to three stories or if they «-ish to continue «�ith the original proposal of 303 apartments, have them analyzed again using the new studies to bring them up to measure against the old studies for required changes necessary to comply to the area's infrastructure and safety needs. Thank you, John and Sharon Evanoff 74420 Angels Camp Rd. Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-399-7922 evan.offj 5C?'mail.com Hovley Projects Case No.,DA/PP/EA 16-394 3 � Ceja, Eric From: Clerkin, Ruairi M - INDIAN WEL CA <ruairi_clerkin@ml.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:10 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: CityhallMail Subject: CASE NO: DA/PP/EA 16-394 "New Cities Investment Partners, LLC" Dear Eric, I am unable to attend the June 20th hearing at 6pm on the above referenced case#, however I would like to voice a few thoughts on the proposed development. As a longtime resident of Palm Desert since 2004—my family currently reside in the Venezia development— I appreciate the efforts that our city has made to grow and develop responsibly. However in the case of the proposed 412 apartment project under consideration at Hovley Lane East between "Canterra Apartments" and Carter Elementary School my concerns fall into two broad categories: 1. Increased Traffic volume 2. This project is architecturally out of character with the surrounding developments. The immediate residential buildings being located at Venezia to the west, Portola Country club to the south, and Canterra Apartments to the east (which peak at 2 story) - are all of a much lower elevation. I feel that the new development, as currently proposed which includes the following: (Eight (8) three-story buildings are located in the center and eastern portion of the project site. One of the eight three-story buildings is located along the northwestern Portion of the site near James Carter Elementary School. Two distinct building types are provided for the three-story buildings. These buildings are shown at a maximum building height of thirty-eight feet and four inches (38'4") In my opinion is not complimentary to the immediate residential communities. In reading the planning commission report it seems the developer is attempting to increase his project size using "low income housing" (LIH) as a vehicle. This proiect includes the development of 412 apartment units; 106 apartment units above the 306 units entitled for the site. However, AB 2222, passed in 2014, requires cities to provide a "density bonus and other incentives or concessions" for the development of"lower income housing."For this particular project the applicant will reserve 20 percent(20%) of all units at the project site for very-low income households, making the project eligible for a "density bonus" and concessions under AB 2222. 1 question the need for more LIH: And would like to know, in the immediate area (including the Hovley gardens neighborhood to the south of PD Soccer complex, and the neighborhoods at the junction of Portola Ave/ Magnesia Falls Drive), how many "LIH/Affordable Housing units already exist? I am concerned about a high concentration of Low Income housing in one area. Other concerns I have include: • Traffic volume at the junction of Hovley Lane E. and Portola is already very high at certain times during the day (typically school drop off and pick up) an additional 1,200 residents would add to this greatly. • As a parent of small children about to start school we plan to send our son to Carter Elementary, in talking to a number of the educators at the school they have concerns (valid in my opinion) that the increased population will negatively impact their classroom size, and ability to deliver quality education. In conclusion, I am not against responsible development in Palm Desert, on the contrary I welcome it. However in this particular case I think there is a capacity issue with the size, scope and location of the proposed project. It is being inserted into an already crowded and heavily trafficked urban area,with a number of existing LIH units already in place. I 1 see more negatives than positives with this development going forward as planned, and would like to see the planning commission work with the developer to create a more suitable alternative. Sincerely, Ruairi M. Clerkin, CRPCc) ruam c erk nCrnI.com This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at en MIdisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. z Ceja, Eric From: kilipol947@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 12:54 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Fwd: building projest@74-351 Hovley Lane East Subject: building projestC74-351 Hovley Lane East Cliff Hunt 74218 Zircon Circle West Palm Desert, CA 92260 June 19, 2017 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, This is to express concern about the project to construct 412 apartment units, clubhouse and recreational facilities on the land located at 74-351 Hovley Lane East. The first of the many concerns is the impact this project will have on the school adjacent to the land, the safety hazards this will add for the students, who are a major concern for all of us and the additional traffic this will bring to a street that experiences major traffic issues when parents take their children to and from the school. The addition of untold cars to this situation will raise major concerns for the safety of our children, the staff and the parents who must contend with, already difficult, conditions on school days. Secondly, it will add horrific traffic conditions for residents, most of them senior citizens, who reside in the surrounding country clubs. We are acutely aware of the traffic concerns when school is in session and plan our outings accordingly to respect, protect and care for the children and parents as they go to and from school. The addition of untold numbers of cars will destroy the manner in which we are now handing this situation and will become a nightmare for local residents, children, parents and teachers responsible for their protection. Those of us in country clubs nearest the proposed project will suffer the loss of open space and views we have enjoyed for years because of the plan to construct THREE STORY buildings in the complex. Why must there be three story buildings in this area known for its respect for the views nature has provided and the open skies all residents and visitors to the area enjoy? This is part of what makes desert living what is it, why it has been inviting, beautiful and desirable. Where will this end... five, six, seven story buildings? Another concern is the impact this will have on service providers, hospitals, fire departments, police and other service agencies. i We are hoping supreme care and concern for our children, parents and seniors will be taken into full consideration when you meet to discuss this project. Sincerely Cliff Hunt 74218 Zircon Circle West Patin Desert, CA 92260 2 760-565-3063 LLRCB50@yahoo.com 74193 Zircon Circle West,Palm Desert,Ca 92260 Mr. Mayor and Palm Desert Planning Commission, With regard to the letter sent to "Some" Residents of Portola Country Club (PCC,)from the Planning Commission, City Of Palm Desert, on the topic of a Proposed High Occupancy Apartment Complex, we live in PCC, at 74193 Zircon Circle W., Palm Desert, and did not get the letter! After discussing and meeting with other PCC residents,there was apparently no rhyme or reason for who got the letter! We believe that the timing of the letter and the scheduled June 20, 2017, meeting is an attempt to limit the voices against this project.As evidence, both the letter and meeting were sent and scheduled after peak season making it easy for the City to point to an apparent lack of interest or implied agreement with this ill conceived project. From our perspective,the timing is highly suspect behavior of the Planning Commission, City of Palm Desert,who supports the proposal.Additionally, we believe the timing is a low, back room way of pushing this project forward without facing the citizens of Palm Desert to get "real" feedback. If this is true, it would sting in a way the citizens of Palm Springs must have felt after hearing about how projects were pushed through without "proper and above-board" vetting of projects there! We are asking our PCC Friends to make their voices heard via letters and we ask that they attend the June 20th meeting.We also asked that if they cannot be there, please email the City of Palm Desert, Mayors Office to make their voice heard! However, our grass roots, neighbor-to-neighbor voice is not adequate, appropriate,fair or businesslike litmus test that the City of Palm Desert should gauge citizen feedback for support or opposition for this project! Regardless of Planning Commission support of this project,the construction of a three story building in Palm Desert, is in direct contradiction to the Mayor's assurance made to PCC Residents during his recent visit here. During that meeting, the Mayor told our community that there will be no new 3 story buildings in Palm Desert.What about that? This Proposed Project now becomes a disclosure issue by anyone who plans to sell their home.This is because of our collective community knowledge and the formal informational letter sent to some PCC residents by the City of Palm Desert.The letter is packed with disclosable information about the proposed high density, low income housing project in the backyard of PCC. As residents of Portola Country Club, who looks forward to an improved housing market and growing property values over time,we do not like nor do we appreciate the apparent "pick- and-choose" nature of the mailing of this very important informational letter by the City of Palm Desert, Planning Commission.As stated above, we believe it is an effort to prevent my Portola Residents and other Palm Desert voices from being heard! Future impact to environmental, aesthetic, privacy and property values of PCC homes will surly follow when potential buyers arrive to personally inspect the community and are surprised to see an intrusive three story high density complex in their back yard! It will surly be a factor in making their personal assessment of the properties in PCC, the current and real property values, growth potential and long term value in their overall pros and cons list of living in Portola Country Club and in Palm Desert at all. In preparation for the June 20th meeting,we drove to the proposed building site on the Hovely property to do a visual comparison of the existing two story complex and how a three story building might look-next to it. In our opinion, a three story, high density residential complex will have significant impact on PCC. It will intrude on the privacy of nearby PCC residents, on the feeling of open space, and overall quality of life in PCC.Along with these are the associated environmental impact to our community which are attendant with high density occupancy, are the obvious; vehicles,trash storage & collection, and service vehicles which all will significantly and directly impact Portola CC not to mention noise from families crammed into the high density project, crime and congestion at intersection of Hovely and Portola and further clogging schools in the area. After we viewed the Proposed Project Site, we drove down Angel Camp in PCC and were surprised to view over the back fence of one Portola Resident,that more than half of a van parked in the parking lot of the two story building in the adjacent property behind Portola CC.This is in the parking lot of the existing two story building and it was as if the van was parked on top of a hill looking over into PCC.What a surprise it was to find that the existing housing is already intruding on the privacy and quality of life in PCC. This high density,three story project is unsightly,will directly impact the quality of life in PCC, it will directly affect the real and perceived values of homes here and have a direct impact on your long term real property values and financial security of PCC Residents. We have asked our PCC friends to please contact Palm Desert City Mayors office to encourage him to stay true to the message he shared with PCC, to reject the Planning Commissions "Pet Project," to include the voices of all of the people who are being affected by this project and mostly importantly,to protect our environment and financial future here in Portola Country Club, Palm Desert, Ca. Sincerely concerned, Randy Burden & Larry Barnes 74193 Zircon Circle W., Palm Desert, Ca 95670 AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA And NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC, a California limited liability company Dated: 2017 4822-0001-6929.1 7 2500.00011\2961907 7.1 DRAFT 319/17 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: City Clerk Record for the Benefit of the City of Palm Desert Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 (Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder's Use Only) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Amended Agreement") is made and entered into as of this _ day of , 2017, by and between the City of Palm Desert, California, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the "City"), and New Cities Investment Partners, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864— 65869.5 of the California Government Code and the applicable provisions of the municipal code of the City of Palm Desert. The City and the Developer are hereinafter, from time to time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS A. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Amended Agreement. The Parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. B. California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, inclusive (the 'Development Agreement Legislation"), authorize the City to enter into development agreements in connection with the development of real property within its jurisdiction. On August 22, 2013, the City enacted by Ordinance No. 1259, amending Municipal Code Section 25, and including Sections 25.78.060 (the 'Development Agreement Ordinance"), which establishes procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements pursuant to the Development Agreement Legislation. C. On July 10, 1989, the City and Cook Hovley Street Associates ("Original Operator") entered into a Development Agreement ("Original Agreement") for the dedication of a twenty (20) acre park site to the City and the development of 612 apartments on 35 acres of land, generally located along the south side of Hovley Lane, east of Portola Avenue and west of Corporate Way. Since the inception of the Orginal Agreement, the 20 acre park site was deeded to City and has developed into the "Palm Desert Hovley Soccer Park", and one-half of the 612 apartments have been developed on 17 acres ("Canterra Apartments"). 4822-0001-6929.1 2 72500.0001 l\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 The Orignal Agreement stipulated that ten percent (10%) of all apartment units be available at affordable rents to lower income households for a period of fifty-five (55) years. This Amended Agreement will pertain only to the remaining undeveloped portion of the original site, as defined below. D. The dedication of the Palm Desert Hovley Soccer Park by the Original Operator constitutes full compliance with any City ordinance requiring the dedication of property or payment of park fees by the Developer. E. Developer intends to build 412 apartment units and associated amenities on the remaining 18 acres of undeveloped land located within the boundaries of the Orignal Agreement. Specifically, the Developer has purchased Assessor's Parcel No. 624-040-019, "Project Property," which parcel is generally located on the south side of Hovley Lane East, between Portola Avenue and Corporate Way. The Project Property consists of undeveloped land that is approximately 18.13 acres in size, and surrounded by existing development. The Developer intends to construct 412 apartment units to be located within fifteen (15) detached two-, and three-story apartment buildings with associated amenities and site improvements ("Project") pursuant to the Project Approvals. F. The Developer has applied for a precise plan and development agreement amendment approvals pursuant to Chapter 25.72.030 and Chapter 25.78.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, for development of real property within the City's Planned Residential Zoning District which allows for innovative and creative development for a mix of residential densities and housing types. Under the Original Agreement a maximum density for the apartment projects was set at seventeen and one-half(17.5) dwelling units per acre. G. Pursuant to Chapter 25.34.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, and consistent with California State Density Bonus Porvisions of AB 2222, the applicant is requesting application of the City's Affordable Housing and Density Bonus provisions. As part of this Project, and as a condition of approval, the Developer requests three (3) density bonus incentives be applied to the property in exchange for reserving twenty percent (20%) of the Project at Affordable Rents. The Developer intents to set aside eight-two (82) of the 412 units at an affordable rent that do not exceed 50 percent (50%) for the area median income. The density bonus incentives requested for this Project are: (i) Allowance to exceed the maximum building height limit of twenty-four (24) feet or two-story, and allow for two-story buildings at a height of thirty (30) feet and three-story buildings at a height of thirty-eight and one-half(38.5) feet. (ii) Allowance to reduce the parking ratio from two (2) parking spaces per unit to 1.76 space per unit. (iii) Elimination or reduction of certain development impact fees (DIF) imposed by the City for all, or a portion of, the Affordable Units provided within the Project Property. H. The City has determined that the development of the Project as contemplated by the Amended Agreement is consistent with and in furtherance of the development goals, 4822-0001-6929.1 3 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 policies, general land uses and development programs of the City as set forth in the City's General Plan and is consistent with the Planned Residential Zoning Districts adopted on October 22, 2015, by Ordinance No. 1279, affecting the Project Property. I. City has further determined that entry into this Amended Agreement will further the goals and objectives of the City's land use planning policies by, among other things, providing affordable housing units in proximity to an existing elementary school, City park, and employment opportunities, encouraging investment, providing precise and supplemental criteria for the land uses, design, and development of the Project Property, and allow for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types. The benefits conferred on the City by Developer herein will: (i) Insure consistent, comprehensive planning which will result in the development and expansion of both luxury and affordable rental housing options that are aesthetically pleasing and harmonious with the Planned Residential Zoning District and surrounding residential neighborhoods; (ii) Provide and expand affordable housing opportunities within the Project boundaries and in proximity to schools, parks, and employement opportunities; (iii) Further the development objectives of the City in an orderly manner, all of which will significantly promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City. In exchange for these benefits to the City, Developer desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals and at a rate of development of its choosing, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Amended Agreement. J. By adopting this Amended Agreement, the City Council has elected to exercise certain governmental powers at the present time rather than deferring such actions until an undetermined future date and has done so intending to bind the City and the City Council and intending to limit the City's future exercise of certain governmental powers, to the extent permitted by law. K. This Amended Agreement has undergone extensive review by the City's staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. On its Effective Date, the Amended Agreement will supersede and replace the portion of the Original Agreement as it pertains to the Project Property. L. To ensure that the intentions of the City and Developer with respect to the Project Approvals are carried out, the Parties desire voluntarily to enter into this Amended Agreement to facilitate development of the Project, subject to the conditions and requirements included in this Amended Agreement. 4822-0001-6929.1 4 72500.0001 1\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the Parties herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: AMENDED AGREEMENT 1. Definitions. 1.1. Defined Terms. Each reference in this Amended Agreement to any of the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below for each such term. 1.2. Affordable Rents. The term "Affordable Rents" means a monthly rent shall be chaged to the occupants of Affordable Units which shall be no greater than rents calculated in compliance with applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 50053, as amended from time to time, including a reasonable allowance for utilities. 1.3. Affordable Units. Eighty-two (82) of the 412 Units which have been set aside at an affordable rent upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the unit. 1.4. AMI. AMI shall mean the area median income for Riverside County as published by the California Department of Housng and Community Deveopment, or if such agency shall cease to public such an index, then any comparable index published by any other federal or state agency which is approved by the Agency. The AMI shall be adjusted for family size in accordance with the state regulations adoped pursuant to California Health and Safety Code 50052.5. 1.5. Amended Agreement. This Amended Development Agreement which supersedes the originally approved Development Agreement with respect to the Project Property only enacted by the Palm Desert City Council by adoption of Ordinance 552. 1.6. Building Ordinances. Those building standards, of general and uniform application throughout the City and not imposed solely with respect to the Project Property, in effect from time to time that govern building and construction standards within the City, including, without limitation, the City's building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, grading, sign, and fire codes. 1.7. City Council. The legislative body of the City of Palm Desert. 4822-0001-6929.1 5 72500.0001 1\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 1.8. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Amended Agreement shall be the date that it is recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County, California. 1.9. Enacting Ordinance. Ordinance , enacted by the City Council on 2017, approving this Amended Agreement. 1.10. Existing Land Use Ordinances. The Land Use Ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date. 1.11. Housing Agreement. Conditions, covenants, liens, servitudes, and charges in favor of the City upon and subject to which the Project shall be occupied, leased and rented. The provisions of the Housing Agreement shall run with title to the Project and shall inure to and pass with each and every portion thereof and shall apply to and bind any successor-in- interest of Owner during the term of the Housing Agreement. 1.12. Income. Income of a occupant person or household of an affordable unit shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, as such regulations may be amended from time to time. 1.13. Land Use Ordinances. The ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of the City, governing the development of the Project, including but not limited to, the permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use of land, and the timing of development, all as applicable to the development of the City Property and Project Property. Specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Land Use Ordinances shall include City's General Plan, the City's zoning ordinance and the City's subdivision code, but shall exclude the Building Ordinances. 1.14. Mortgage. A mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement in which all or a part of the Owner's Property, or an interest in it, is sold and leased back concurrently, or other transactions in which all or a part of the Owner's Property, or an interest in it, is pledged as security, contracted in good faith and for fair value. 1.15. Original Agreement. The Development Agreement dated July 10, 1989 between the City and Cook Hovley Street Associates for the development of 612 apartment units on 35 acres of land and dedication of 20 acres of land to the City for park purposes. 1.16. Occupant Person or Household of Very Low, or Very-Low Income Households, a Low Income Household or a Moderate Income Household. Means a person, family, or household meeting the income 4822-0001-6929.1 6 72500.0001 1\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 qualifications limits set forth in California Healt and Safety Code Sections 50093, 50105, 50052.5, and 50053, as the case or context may require, as such statutes and regulations may be ameded from time to time, and any successor statutes thereto. 1.17. Project. The development of 412 apartment units located on approximately 18.13 acres of undeveloped land (APN 624-040-019) with associated recreational and clubhouse amenities, site landscape, and on- site and off-site improvements, as permitted under and described in the Project Approvals to be constructed on the Project Property, as the same may hereafter be further refined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Amended Agreement. Project is further defined in Section 3.1 hereof. 1.18. Project Approvals. Developer has applied for and obtained various environmental and land use approvals and entitlements related to the development of the Project, as described below. "Project Approvals" shall mean all of the approvals, plans and agreements described in this section 1.18: 1.18.1 Amended Development Agreement DA 16-394, approved on , 2017 by Ordinance No. 1.18.2 Precise Plan PP 16-394, approved on , 2017. 1.18.3 Environmental Assessment EA 16-394 approved on 2017. 1.18.4 Subsequent Approvals. In order to develop the Project as contemplated in this Amended Agreement, the Project may require land use approvals, entitlements, development permits, and use and/or construction approvals other than those listed in Sections 1.14.1 through 1.18.3, above, which may include, without limitation: development plans, amendments to applicable redevelopment plans, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision approvals, street abandonments, design review approvals, demolition permits, improvement agreements, infrastructure agreements, grading permits, building permits, right-of-way permits, lot line adjustments, site plans, certificates of occupancy, parcel maps, lot splits, landscaping plans, master sign programs, transportation demand management programs, encroachment permits, and amendments thereto and to the Project Approvals (collectively, "Subsequent Approvals"). At such time as any Subsequent Approval applicable to the Property is approved by the City, then such Subsequent Approval shall become subject to all the terms and conditions of this Amended Agreement applicable to Project Approvals and shall be treated as a Project Approval under this Development Agreement. 4822-0001-6929.1 7 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 1.19. Project Property. The real property which is the subject of this Amended Agreement as described in Recital D and more particularly described in Exhibit A. 1.20. Stipulated Judgement. The judgement, pursuant to the stipulation filed with the Superor Court on May 15, 1994, and as subsequently ameded, by an between the City of Palm Desert and all persons interested in the matter of the Redevelopment Plan for the Palm Desert Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 et. al. 1.21. Units. The apartment units collectively. 1.22. Useful Life of the Project. Effective from the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the Project, it is the greater of fifty-five (55) years from the recording of the Housing Agreement or the period of time which the Project remains habitable, with reasonable care and maintenance, as determined by the City. 2. Term; Amendment. 2.1 Term. The term of this Amended Agreement (the "Term") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for a period of ten (10) years unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. This Agreement may be extended by mutual consnt of the Parties. 2.2 Extension of Term Date to Litigation. In the event that litigation is filed by a third party (defined to exclude City and Owner and any assignee or Traferee of Owner) which seeks to invalidate this Agreement or any of the Prjrect Approvals, the Terms shall be extended for a period equalt to the length of time from the time a summons and compliant and/or petition are served on the defendants(s)/respondent(s) until the resolution of the matter is final and not subject to appeal. 2.3 Amendment. The Parties to this Amended Agreement at their sole discretion and by their mutual written consent may from time to time amend the provisions and terms of this Amended Agreement and the Exhibits hereto. Any amendment to this Amended Agreement or the Exhibits hereto as provided herein shall be effected only upon compliance with the procedures for amendment, if any, required by the Development Agreement Legislation and the Development Agreement Ordinance. The City shall, after any such amendment takes effect, cause an appropriate notice of such amendment to be recorded in the official records of the County of Riverside. 3. General Development of the Project. 4822-0001-6929.1 8 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8117 3.1 Project. (a) The Project is defined and described in the Project Approvals, which specifies for the purpose of this Amended Agreement all of the following aspects of the Project: (i) Property maintenance of the 412 apartment units and site improvements related to landscape, and recreational facilities. (ii) Grading and drainage improvements to facilitate build-out of the project. (iii) Affordability requirements in accordance with the City's Affordable Housing and Density Bonus provisions as modified by this Amended Agreement. (iv) Development and operation of the site in accordance with this Amended Agreement, the City's Affordable Housing and Density Bonus provisions and the State of California Density Bonus provisions, Housing Agreement, and the conditions of approval placed on the precise plan application. (b) The Parties acknowledge that, as part of the Project Approvals, and as required by Chapter 25.34.040 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Developer is providing to reserve eighty-two (82) Units within the Project to be made available at Affordable Rents and in accordance with a Housing Agreement. The Affordable Units will not be restricted to the same buildings and should be interspersed throughout the Project. It is understood that occupants of the Affordable Units shall receive similiar Units with identical finishes, services, and access to site amenities as available to other residents of the Project. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Projet Property, the Developer shall enter into and record a Housing Agreement with the City to determine the mix of Units to be made available at Affordable Rents. It is understood and agreed that Developer will provide Affordable Units in proportion to the relative percentages of one, two, and three bedroom units of the project. (c) The City acknowledges that the Developer has requested to utilize the City's Affordable Housing and Density Bonus provisions as allowed under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.34.040 and State law AB 2222. In exchange for the Developer making twenty percent (20%) of all Units available at Affordable Rents, the City is providing three (3) incentives for the Project to increase maximum density: to allow for additional height on the apartment buildings, to reduce the required parking standard, and to offset certain development impact fees on the 82 Affordable Units. (d) The City requires the Developer to rent five (5) of the Eighty-two units (the "Employed Households at Businesses within the City Units") to Very Low Income Households employed at businesses within the City, if the City participates in payment of certain development impact fees in an amount not to exceed $180,000. The amount will be applied to City-imposed development impacts fees only and applied only to the eighty-two (82) affordable units, proportionate to the building permits issued for the eighty-two units. (e) Developer shall make improvement to the Project entry and Hovley Lane East including the installation of a traffic signal and median improvements, in 4822-0001-6929.1 9 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 accordance with, the City's Public Works Department's standards and policies. The Developer may apply to have their "Signalization Fee" reimbursed once full improvements are complete. 3.3 Project Timing; Construction Entitlement. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its business judgment, provided that Developer is in compliance with the Project Approvals and all conditions contained therein. City expressly agrees that Developer shall be entitled to apply for subdivision maps, building permits, occupancy certificates and phased temporary occupancy permits for the units, and other land use and development entitlements for its use at any time provided that such application is made in accordance with the Project Approvals and this Amended Agreement. 3.4 Building Permits and Other Approvals and Permits. Subject to (a) Developer's compliance with this Amended Agreement, the Project Approvals, the Existing Land Use Ordinances and the Building Ordinances, and (b) payment of the usual and customary fees and charges of general application charged for the processing of such applications, permits and certificates and for any utility connection, or similar fees and charges of general application, the City shall process and issue to Developer promptly upon application therefor all necessary use permits, building permits, occupancy certificates, and other required permits for the construction, use and occupancy of the Project, or any portion thereof, as applied for, including connection to all utility systems under the City's jurisdiction and control (to the extent that such connections are physically feasible and that such utility systems are capable of adequately servicing the Project). 3.5 Procedures and Standards. The standards for granting or withholding permits or approvals required hereunder in connection with the development of the Project shall be governed as provided herein by the standards, terms and conditions of this Amended Agreement, and to the extent not inconsistent therewith, the Existing Land Use Ordinances, but the procedures for processing applications for such permits or approvals (including the usual and customary fees of general application charged for such processing) shall be governed by such ordinances and regulations as may then be applicable and which are consistent with the Project Approvals. 3.6 Effect of Amended Agreement. This Amended Agreement shall constitute a part of the Enacting Ordinance, as if incorporated by reference therein in full. The Parties acknowledge that this Amended Agreement grants Developer the right to develop the Project pursuant to specified and known criteria and rules as set forth in the Project Approvals and the Existing Land Use Ordinances, and to grant the City and the residents of the City certain benefits which they otherwise would not receive. The Developer or its successors in interest shall reserve the Affordable Units as set 4822-0001-6929.1 10 72500.0001 1\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 forth in this Amended Agreement for the Useful Life of the Project and Developer shall not change the use of the Project without prior written consent of the City. This Amended Agreement shall be binding upon the City and Developer and their successors in accordance with and subject to its terms and conditions notwithstanding any subsequent action of the City, whether taken by ordinance or resolution of the City Council, by referenda, initiative, or otherwise. The Parties acknowledge and agree that by entering into this Amended Agreement and relying thereupon, the Developer has obtained, subject to the terms and conditions of this Amended Agreement, a vested right to proceed with its development of the Project in accordance with the proposed uses of the Project Property, the density and intensity of development of the Project Property and the requirements and guidelines for the construction or provision of on-site and off-site improvements as set forth in the Project Approvals and the Existing Land Use Ordinances, and the timing provisions of Section 3.3, and the City has entered into this in order to secure the public benefits conferred upon it hereunder which are essential to alleviate current and potential problems in the City and to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the City and its residents, and this Amended Agreement is an essential element in the achievement of those goals. Developer and City further acknowledge and agree that this Amended Agreement shall supersede and replace in its entirety the Original Agreement upon the Effective Date of the Amended Agreement. 3.7 Operating Memoranda. Developer and City acknowledge that the provisions of this Amended Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between Developer and City, and that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes or additional provisions are appropriate with respect to the details of performance of the Parties under this Amended Agreement in order to effectuate the purpose of this Amended Agreement and the intent of the Parties with respect thereto. If and when, from time to time, the Parties find that such changes or additional provisions are necessary or appropriate, and subject to the provisions of the next succeeding sentence, they shall effectuate such changes or provide for such additional provisions through operating memoranda to be approved in good faith by the Parties, which, after execution, shall guide implementation of this Amended Agreement and may be further changed or supplemented from time to time as necessary, with further good faith approval of Developer and City. Upon receipt by the City of an opinion of the City Attorney to the effect that the subject matter of such operating memoranda does not require the amendment of this Amended Agreement in the manner provided in Section 65868 of the California Government Code, then no such operating memoranda shall require prior notice or hearing, or constitute an amendment to this Amended Agreement; and in the case of the City, such operating memoranda may be approved and executed by its City Manager without further action of the City Council. Failure of the Parties to enter into any such operating memoranda shall not affect or abrogate any of the rights, duties or obligations of the Parties hereunder or the provisions of this Amended Agreement. 4. Specific Criteria Applicable to Development of the Project. 4922-0001-6929.1 1 1 72500.0001 1\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/9/17 4.1 Applicable Ordinances. Except as set forth in the Project Approvals and subject to the provisions of Section 4.3 below, the Existing Land Use Ordinances shall govern the development of the Property hereunder and the granting or withholding of all permits or approvals required to develop the Property; provided, however, that (a) Developer shall be subject to all changes in new and existing development impact fees, processing, inspection and plan-check fees and charges imposed by City in connection with the processing of applications for development and construction upon the Property so long as such fees and charges are of general application and are not imposed solely with respect to the Project Property; (b) Developer shall abide by the Building Ordinances in effect at the time of such applications; and (c) Developer pay development impact fees established at the time building permits are issued. 4.2 Density Bonus Provisions In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.34.040 and State of Califronia Density Bonus law, the City is providing three (3) incentives to the Developer to set aside twenty percent (20%) of all Units with the Project at Affordable Rents. These incentives for increasing the maximum Project density include: increasing the maximum allowable building height, reducing the total number of parking spaces required by City code, and reducing certain development impact fees imposed by the City on the Affordable Units; and as condition of these incentives, the Developer will enter into a Housing Agreement with the City to establish such conditions, covenenats and restrictions, in favor of the City upon and subject to which the Affordable Units of the Project shall be occupied, leased and rented, including any reporting requirements. 4.3 Amendment to Applicable Ordinances. Any change to the Existing Land Use Ordinances that conflicts with the Project Approvals shall nonetheless apply to the Project Property if, and only if(i) it is consented to in writing by Developer in Developer's sole and absolute discretion; (ii) it is determined by City and evidenced through findings adopted by the City Council that the change or provision is reasonably required in order to prevent a condition dangerous to the public health or safety; (iii) it is required by changes in State or Federal law; (iv) it consists of changes in, or new fees permitted by, Section 4.1;or(v) it is otherwise expressly permitted by this Amended Agreement. In the event that the City zoning ordinance is amended by the City in a manner which provides more favorable site development standards for the Project Property or any part thereof than those in effect as of the Effective Date, Developer shall have the right to notify the City in writing of its desire to be subject to all or any such new standards for the remaining term of this Amended Agreement. If City agrees, by resolution of the City Council, such new standards shall become applicable to the Project Property or portions thereof. Should City thereafter amend such new standards, upon the effective date of such amendment, the original new standards shall continue to apply to the Project Property as provided above, but Developer may notify City in writing of its desire to be subject to all or any such amended new standards 4822-0001-6929.1 12 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 and City shall agree in the manner above provided to apply such amended new standards to the Project Property. 4.4 Easements; Abandonments. City shall cooperate with Developer in connection with any arrangements for abandoning existing utility or other easements and the relocation thereof or creation of any new easements within the Project Property necessary or appropriate in connection with the development of the Project; and if any such easement is owned by City, City shall, at the request of Developer and in the manner and to the extent permitted by law, take such action and execute such documents as may be necessary to abandon existing easements and relocate them, as necessary or appropriate in connection with the development of the Project, all at the cost and expense of the Developer. In addition, to the extent that temporary or permanent easements on property adjacent or in close proximity to the Project Property will be required in order for Developer to develop all or portions of the Project, the City shall cooperate with Developer in efforts to obtain or secure any such required easements. 5. Periodic Review of Compliance. 5.1 Annual Compliance. In accordance with Govt. Code Section 65865.1, the Director of Community Development shall review compliance with this Amended Agreement on an annual basis during the Term of this Amended Agreement. At such annual reviews, Developer and City must demonstrate their good faith compliance with the terms of this Amended Agreement. Developer and City agree to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance. In the event that City reasonably contests the information provided by Developer, City shall have the right to audit the books and records of the Property at the Developer's reasonable expense upon City request to evaluate compliance with Section 3.1. 5.2 Management Agent. Developer and/or the Developer's contracted management agent (if Developer has delegated such duties) shall operate the Project in a manner that will provide decent, safe and sanitary residential facilities to the occupants thereof, and will comply with provisions of this Amended Agreement. Upon the written request of the City, the Developer shall cooperate with the City in the periodic review of the management practices and financial status of the Affordable Units in the Project. The purpose of each periodic review will be to enable the City to determine if the Affordable Units within the Project are being operated and managed in accordance with the requirements and standards of this Amended Agreement and the Housing Agreement. Results of such City review shall be provided to Developer. 6. Permitted Delays; Supersedure by Subsequent Laws. 6.1 Permitted Delays. 4822-0001-6929.1 13 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 In addition to any other provisions of this Amended Agreement with respect to delay, Developer and City shall be excused from performance of their obligations hereunder during any period of delay caused by acts of mother nature, civil commotion, riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or prevention of work in process by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties, litigation, acts or neglect of the other party, any referendum elections held on the Enacting Ordinance, or the Land Use Ordinances, or any other ordinance effecting the Project or the approvals, permits or other entitlements related thereto, or restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental or quasi-governmental entities, enactment of conflicting provisions of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America or the State of California or any codes, statutes, regulations or executive mandates promulgated thereunder (collectively, "Laws"), orders of courts of competent jurisdiction, or any other cause similar or dissimilar to the foregoing beyond the reasonable control of City or Developer, as applicable. Each Party shall promptly notify the other Party of any delay hereunder as soon as possible after the same has been ascertained. The time of performance of such obligations shall be extended by the period of any delay hereunder. 6.2 Supersedure of Subsequent Laws or Judicial Action. The provisions of this Amended Agreement shall, to the extent feasible, be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with any new Law or decision issued by a court of competent jurisdiction (a 'Decision"), enacted or made after the Effective Date which prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Amended Agreement. Promptly after enactment of any such new Law, or issuance of such Decision, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of any such modification or suspension based on the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Amended Agreement. In addition, Developer and City shall have the right to challenge the new Law or the Decision preventing compliance with the terms of this Amended Agreement. In the event that such challenge is successful, this Amended Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, except that the Term shall be extended, in accordance with Section 2.1 above, for a period of time equal to the length of time the challenge was pursued, to extent such challenge delayed the implementation of the project. 7. Events of Default; Remedies; Termination. 7.1 Events of Default. Developer is in default under this Amended Agreement if one or more of the following events or conditions occur and the same is not cured within the Cure Period (defined below) by taking the actions specified in a written notice of default issued by the City ("Event of Default"): (i) If a warranty, or representation made or furnished by Developer to City is false or proves to have been false by a court of competent jurisdiction in any material respect when it was made. (ii) A finding and determination by the City made following a periodic review under the procedure provided for in Government Code, Section 4822-0001-6929.1 14 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 65865.1 that upon the basis of substantial evidence Developer has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or conditions of this Amended Agreement. (iii) Developer's failure to maintain the Project in substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the Project, less ordinary wear and tear, or to restore promptly in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be damaged or destroyed. (iv) Developer's failure to appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this Amended Agreement, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear. Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the alleged default and the manner, if any, in which such default may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Amended Agreement. With regards to any default alleging that Developer has not complied with the terms and conditions of this Amended Agreement, Developer shall have at least thirty (30) days following receipt of the notice of default (the "Cure Period") to take the specified remedial actions and achieve compliance. During the time periods specified for cure of a failure of performance, the Party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of termination of this Amended Agreement, institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or issuance of any permit, map, certificate of occupancy, approval or entitlement with respect to the Project. 7.2 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the City shall have such rights and remedies against the defaulting Developer as it may have at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, the right to terminate this Amended Agreement or seek mandamus, specific performance, injunctive or declaratory relief, but not the right to damages, except to enforce payment obligations provided for under the terms of this Amended Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing and except as otherwise provided in Section 8.4 hereof, if either Developer or City elects to terminate this Amended Agreement as a result of the occurrence of an Event of Default, such proceeding of termination shall constitute such Party's exclusive and sole remedy, and with respect to such election, except in a case where the City has been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have unlawfully terminiated the Amended Agreement in which case Developer may be entitled to damages as awarded by the court. 7.3 Waiver; Remedies Cumulative. Failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Amended Agreement by the other Party shall not constitute waiver of such Party's right to demand strict compliance by such other Party in the future. All waivers must be in writing to be effective or binding upon the waiving Party, and no waiver shall be implied from any omission by a Party to take any action with respect to such Event of Default. No express written waiver 4822-0001-6929.1 15 72500.0001 1\29619077.1 DRAFr 3/8/17 of any Event of Default shall affect any other Event of Default, or cover any other period of time specified in such express waiver. 7.4 Effect of Termination. Termination of this Amended Agreement by one Party due to the other Party's default shall not affect any right or duty emanating from any approvals, permits, certificates or other entitlements with respect to the Project Property or the Project which were issued, approved or provided by the City prior to the date of termination of this Amended Agreement. If City terminates this Amended Agreement because of Developer's default, then City shall retain any and all benefits, including money, land or improvements conveyed to or received by the City prior to the date of termination of this Amended Agreement, subject to any reimbursement obligations of the City. If Developer terminates this Amended Agreement because of City's default then Developer shall be entitled to all of the benefits arising out of, or approvals, permits, certificates or other entitlements" on account of, any Exactions paid, given or dedicated to, or received by, City prior to the date of termination of this Amended Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 7.4, all of the rights, duties and obligations of the Parties hereunder shall otherwise cease as of the date of the termination of this Amended Agreement. If this Amended Agreement is terminated pursuant to any provision hereof, then the City shall, after such action takes effect, cause an appropriate notice of such action to be recorded in the official records of the County of Riverside. The cost of such recordation, shall be borne by the Party causing such action. 7.5 Third Party Actions. Any court action or proceeding brought by any third party to challenge this Amended Agreement or any permit or approval required from City or any other governmental entity for development or construction of all or any portion of the Project, whether or not Developer is a party defendant to or real party defendant in interest in such action or proceeding, shall constitute a permitted delay under Section 7.1. 8. Encumbrances on Pro erty. 8.1 Discretion to Encumber. The Parties hereto agree that this Amended Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer's sole discretion, from encumbering the Project Property or any portion thereof or any improvements thereon with any Mortgage or other security device securing financing with respect to the Project Property. The City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain modifications to this Amended Agreement, and the City agrees upon request, from time-to-time, to meet with Developer and/or representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for modification. City further agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested modification. 4822-0001-6929.1 16 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFr 3/8/17 8.2 Mortgage Protection. This Amended Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach of this Amended Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect to the Site or any portion thereof by a Mortgagee (whether pursuant to a Mortgage, foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise) shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Amended Agreement. 8.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.1, no Mortgagee will have any obligation or duty under this Amended Agreement to perform the obligations of Developer or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, except that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Developer is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance hereunder. 8.4 Estoppel Certificates. Either Party may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other Party requesting such Party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Amended Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Amended Agreement has not been amended or modified, or if so amended or modified, identifying such amendments or modifications, and (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees, assignees and lessees of the Developer and the holders of any Mortgage. 9. Transfers and Assignments; Effect of Amended Agreement on Title. 9.1 Rights and Interests Appurtenant. The rights and interests conveyed as provided herein to Developer benefit and are appurtenant to the Project Property. Developer has the right to sell, assign and transfer any and all of its rights and interests hereunder and to delegate and assign any and all of its duties and obligations hereunder. Such rights and interests hereunder may not be sold, transferred or assigned and such duties and obligations may not be delegated or assigned except in compliance with the following conditions: W Said rights and interests may be sold, transferred or assigned only together with and as an incident of the sale, lease, transfer or assignment of the portions of the Project Property to which they relate, including any transfer or assignment pursuant to any 4822-0001-6929.1 17 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 foreclosure of a Mortgage or a deed in lieu of such foreclosure. Following any such sale, transfer or assignment of any of the rights and interests of Developer under this Amended Agreement, the exercise, use and enjoyment thereof shall continue to be subject to the terms of this Amended Agreement to the same extent as if the purchaser, transferee or assignee were Developer hereunder. 9.2 Covenants Run with Land. (i) All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Amended Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, lessees, and all other persons acquiring any rights or interests in the Project Property, or any portion thereof, whether by operation of laws or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns; (ii) All of the provisions of this Amended Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law; (iii) Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act on the Project Property hereunder (A) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property, (B) runs with such lands, and (C) is binding upon each Party and each successive Developer during its ownership of the Project Property or any portions thereof, and shall benefit each Party and its lands hereunder, and each such other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such lands. 10. Notices. Any notice to either party shall be in writing and given by delivering the same to such party in person or by sending the same by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, to the following addresses: If to City: City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 If to Developer: c/o New Cities Investment Partners, LLC 12 Ring Lane Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Attention: Mr. Lee Newell, President Either Party may change its mailing address at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other Party in the manner provided herein. All notices under this Amended Agreement shall be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is affected or, if mailed, on the delivery date or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt. 4822-0001-6929.1 18 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 11. Indemnification. 11.1 Developer's Obligation. Developer will defend, indemnify and hold the City and its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers free and harmless from any loss, cost or liability (including, without limitation, liability arising from injury or damage to persons or property, including wrongful death and worker's compensation claims), which results from (i) any obligation of Developer which arises from the development of the Project Property, including, without limitation, obligations for the payment of money for material and labor; (ii) any failure on the part of Developer to take any action which it is required to take as provided in this Amended Agreement; (iii) any action taken by Developer which it is prohibited from taking as provided in this Amended Agreement and (iv) any claim which results from any willful or negligent act or omission of Developer. Anything contained herein notwithstanding, City shall be responsible for any loss, cost or liability (including, without limitation, liability arising from injury or damage to persons or property, including wrongful death and worker's compensation claims), which results from or is caused by City's own negligent acts or omissions or intentional conduct, and not caused to any extent by Developer's negligent acts or omissions or intentional conduct. In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of this Amended Agreement, the procedures leading to its adoption, or the Project Approvals for the Project, Developer and City each shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action. Developer, at its sole expense shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City (including its agents, officers and employees) from any such action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City, subject to Developer's approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and at Developer's sole expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify Developer and cooperate in the defense. Developer upon such notification shall deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of City Finance Director to cover the expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of Project Approvals without Developer's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 11.2 Environmental Assurances. Developer agrees to indemnify and hold the City and its elected officials, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers, as may be applicable, free and harmless from any liability deriving from the execution or performance of this Amended Agreement, based or 4822-0001-6929.1 19 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 asserted upon any act or omission of Developer, its officers, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to hazardous or toxic materials, industrial hygiene, or environmental conditions created by the Developer or its officers, agents or employees, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors after the Effective Date on or under the Project Property, including, but not limited to soil and groundwater conditions, and Developer shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys fees, the City and its elected officials, employees, agents and volunteers, as applicable, in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. Either Party may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such action. The provisions of this Section 11.2 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Amended Agreement. 12. Miscellaneous. 12.1 Relationship of Parties. The Parties specifically acknowledge that this Amended Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and knowingly and voluntarily entered into by the City and Developer and that the Developer is an independent contractor and not an agent or partner of the City. The Parties further acknowledge that neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this Amended Agreement. None of the terms or provisions of this Amended Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties in the business of Developer, the affairs of the City, or otherwise. City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained in this Amended Agreement or in any document executed in connection with this Amended Agreement shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners. The only relationship between the City and Developer is that of a governmental entity regulating development and the Developer of the Project Property and developer of the Project. 12.2 Consents. Unless otherwise herein provided, whenever approval, consent, acceptance or satisfaction (collectively, a "Consent") is required of a Party pursuant to this Amended Agreement, it shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Unless provision is otherwise specified in this Amended Agreement or otherwise required by law for a specific time period, Consent shall be deemed given within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written request for Consent, and if a Party shall neither approve nor disapprove within such thirty (30) day period, or other time period as may be specified in this Amended Agreement or otherwise required by law for Consent, that Party shall then be deemed to have given its consent. If a Party shall disapprove, the reasons therefor shall be stated in reasonable detail in writing. This Section does not apply to development approvals by the City. 4822-0001-6929.1 20 72500.0001 1\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 12.3 Not a Public Dedication. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of the Project Property, or of the Project or any portion thereof, to the general public, for the general public, or for any public use or purpose whatsoever, it being the intention and understanding of the Parties that this Amended Agreement be strictly limited to and for the purposes herein expressed for the development of the Project as private property. 12.4 Severability. If any term, provision covenant or condition of this Amended Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable by judgment or court order, the remainder of this Amended Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Amended Agreement as so invalidated would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the relevant circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of this Amended Agreement. 12.5 Exhibits. Each reference to a Section or Exhibit in this Amended Agreement shall mean the sections of this Amended Agreement and the exhibits attached to this Amended Agreement, unless the context requires otherwise. Each such exhibit is incorporated herein by this reference. 12.6 Entire Agreement. This written Amended Agreement and the Exhibits hereto contain all the representations and the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this Amended Agreement and the Exhibits hereto, any prior correspondence, memoranda, agreements, warranties or representations are superseded in total by this Amended Agreement and Exhibits hereto. 12.7 Governing Law; Construction of Agreement. This Amended Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the parties, shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The provisions of this Amended Agreement and the Exhibits hereto shall be construed as a whole according to their common meaning and not strictly for or against any party and consistent with the provisions hereof, in order to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereunder. The captions preceding the text of each Section and subsection hereof are included only for convenience of reference and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Amended Agreement. Wherever required by the context, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. 12.8 Signature Pages. 4822-0001-6929.1 21 7 25 00.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 The signatures of the Parties of this Amended Agreement may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages which, when attached to this Amended Agreement, shall constitute this as one complete agreement. 12.9 Time. Time is of the essence of this Amended Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof. 12.10 Prevailing Party's Attorney's Fees and Costs. If any Party to this Amended Agreement shall fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, or if a dispute arises with respect to the meaning or interpretation of any provision hereof or the performance of the obligations of any Party hereto, the defaulting Party or the Party not prevailing in such dispute, as the case may be, shall promptly pay any and all costs and expenses (including without limitation, all court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) incurred by the other Party with respect to such dispute or in enforcing or establishing its rights hereunder. 12.11 Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals and all defined terms set forth herein are hereby incorporated into this Amended Agreement as if fully and completely rewritten. 12.12 Third Party Beneficiaries. This Amended Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of Developer and the City and their successors-in-interest, heirs and assigns. No other person or entity shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this Amended Agreement. 12.13 Interpretation. This Amended Agreement is the product of mutual negotiations and participation by both the City and Developer. For purposes of construing the meaning or effect of this Amended Agreement, or any portion hereof, it shall be presumed this Amended Agreement was drafted by both Parties and not as if it had been prepared by one Party or the other. Each Party to this Amended Agreement specifically acknowledges that it had sufficient opportunity to review the Amended Agreement, confer with its separate legal counsel regarding the meaning of this Amended Agreement and any provision contained herein, and negotiate revisions to this Amended Agreement. Each Party relies solely upon its own judgment and the advice of its counsel in interpreting the provisions of this Amended Agreement and is not relying on any representation, interpretation, presumed assent, or implied agreement of the other Party which is not expressly contained in this Amended Agreement. Accordingly, neither Party shall use or 4822-0001-6929.1 22 7 2500.00011\2961907 7.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 rely upon California Civil Code Section 1654 in order to interpret any uncertainty in the meaning of this Amended Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amended Agreement as of the date and year first above-written. DEVELOPER: New Cities Investment Parnters, LLC., a California limited liability company By: Lee Newell, President New Cities Land Company, Inc. a Califronia corporations managing member CITY: CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California By: Jan Harnik, Mayor Attest: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk Approved as to Form By: Robert W. Hargreaves of Best Best & Krieger LLP City Attorney 4822-0001-6929.1 23 72500.0001 1\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness, accuracy,or validity of that document. State of California ) County of Riverside ) On , before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy,or validity of that document. State of California ) County of Riverside ) On , before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature 4822-0001-6929.1 24 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 EXHIBIT A PROJECT PROPERTY THE LAND REFERRED TO IS SITUATED IN THE CITY O FPALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 4822-0001-6929.1 25 72500.00011\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF UNITS _ a r 0.m LJJ —79-- m Q a _ to z _ w I � a � V 49 fi m I` - t a E i it 8 pp L � ¢tae, : 7�, 1 mO b n 3h:z S:j 04 r a as m m � w a iz I V rn I� a iN34N3SY3-Sv �J3d3�83dY3StlNY1.LZ m 4822-0001-6929.1 26 72500.0001 1\29619077.1 DRAFT 3/8/17 CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Telephone: (760) 346-0611 Fax: (760) 776-6417 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Project Title: The Sands Palm Desert Apartments City Project No: Environmental Assessment,Case No. 16-394 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,California 92260 Phone: (760)346-0611 Fax: (760)776-6417 Project Location: Hovley Lane East,Palm Desert APNs 624-040-019 and 624-060-089 Applicant: Mr. Lee Newell New Cities Land Company, Inc. 12 Ring Lane Carmel Valley,CA 93924 General Plan Designation: 'i Existing: Town Center Neighborhood 7.0-40 du/ac Proposed: Town Center Neighborhood 7.0-40 du/ac Zoning Designation: Existing: Planned Residential 17.5(P.R. 17.5 du/ac) Proposed: Planned Residential 17.5(P.R. 17.5 du/ac) Project Description: The project proposes the development of fifteen two-and three-story apartment buildings with up to 412 dwelling units, located south of Hovley Lane East on approximately 18.13 acres. The development will include one, two, and three bedroom units a community clubhouse, community room, fitness center, courtyard and outdoor common open space. Thee will be 179 one-bedroom units, 189 two-bedroom units and 44 three-bedroom units, ranging from 615 sq.ft. to 1, 308 sq.ft. The maximum height of any proposed building is 8.3 feet. Two proposed A entries with enhanced landscaping on Hovley Land would provide vehicular access to the complex, while gated points would separate the visitor areas from the interior drive aisles to the residential units and parking spaces. The westerly entrance will be emergency access only. The main entry at Hovley Lane and Jasmine Court will include a traffic signal. The features and characteristics of the proposed buildings are intended to establish an attractive architectural presence while providing a desirable environment for residents. The site design incorporates context sensitivity in its setback, orientation, and placement of structures, particularly in relation to the presence of neighboring residential uses. The site plan's easterly, southerly and westerly edges are designated to accommodate parking spaces with landscaping features,rather than structures. gThe Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 2 The project areas closer to single-family residential neighborhoods, including the south half of the westerly boundary and the entire southerly boundary would be occupied by two-story structures instead of the taller three- story structures. In addition, a 27-foot landscaped buffer will be preserved along the southern edge, increasing the separation of structures from the adjoining residential community. The northern residential buildings and clubhouse, visible from Hovley Lane, will also be two-stories. The proposed three-story structures will be arranged in the more central and eastern areas of the site, creating compatibility to the adjoining multi-story Canterra Apartments. As such, the placement, scale and massing of the proposed structures are expected to replace an unimproved site and its impaired surrounding views with a developed environment and unified visual character. The proposed architectural style for the development would incorporate two complimentary color schemes with light-colored stucco finishes, accented by natural tones and pitched tiled roofs. The design aesthetic will be visually complementary to the adjoining Canterra Apartment Homes (Phase 1). The landscaping design in the project interior, along its edges, and frontage will include a mixture of trees, palms, shrubs and groundcover plantings to serve as an enhancement to the site design and streetscape. Along with this Environmental Assessment, project processing includes a Development Agreement Update and Precise Plan,20%of the Project's units will be reserved for low income housing resulting in a 35%density bonus. Development Impact Fees for affordable units will be offset by the City's housing mitigation fund. The applicant will pay the larger remainder of the fees. Land Use and Setting North-Marriott's Desert Springs Villas East- Canterra Apartments complex, Palm Desert Soccer Park South-Portola Country Club West-Venezia residential development,James Earl Carter Elementary School Other Public Agencies who's Approval is Required (e.g.,permits,financing approval,or participation agreement): • Coachella Valley Water District • State Water Resource Control Board • Regional Water Quality Control Board I� tl � i I 6 a.. W e �xr a. N s �tt( Project`— Site ,. N.T.S. MSA CONSULTING, INC. Regional Location Map PLANNING ■ CIVIL ENGINEG ■ LAND SURVEYING 34200 BOB HOPE DRrvE■RANcHG MIRAGE■CA 92270 THE SANDS TELEPHONE(760) 320-9811 ■ FAx (760) 323-7893 Initial Study • GERALD FORD DRIVE Lu 10 �tiT � F Ile �O FRANK SINATRA DRIVE w > w w LLJ CITY OF cn CITY OF Q� RANCHO J :hePALM MIRAGE p O DESERT w ui m z� Q:� u > O >® O m <1 w COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE >- O w � W® HOVLEY LANE O p� (WEST) Q HOVLEY LANE w (EAST) SITE CITY OF 111 INDIAN \ � � WELLS �\FRED WARING DRIVE \ ti0q.l� N.T.S. MSA CONSULTING, INC. Vicinity M a p PLANNING ■ CIVIL ENGINEERING ■ LAND SuRvEYING RID34200 BOB HOPE DRivE■RANCHO MIRAGE .CA 92270 THE SANDS 2 TELEPHONE(760) 320-98U ■ FAx (760) 323-7893 Initial Study LLA O HOVLEY LANIA o- w t. ` e7 e u � d , .z PROJECT SITE _.. . APN: 624-040-019 . r r a o � � a , ,mow r ,g t , x. F 4i �P9 MSA CONSULTING, INC. Aerial Photograph PLANNING ■ Crvu.ENGINEERING ■ LAND SURVEYING 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE•RANCHO MIRAGE .CA 92270 THE SANDS 3 TELEPHONE (760) 320-98U ■ FAx (760) 323-7893 Initial Study TECHNICAL SITE PLAN DATA TAN! —.. - r- _ 11 : 1 1 i ¢aVw. fi I _1 ,nrn:'wgwwao:r:aca 11 xNps � :at :ousxuc <ww afam IDMSA CONSULTING, INC. Site Plan PLANNING■Clve.ENGIN mtLNc ■LAND SukVE G 34200 soe Hore DRm.RANcao MIRAGE.CA 92270 THE SANDS 4 TELEPHONE(760)320-9811 ■ FAx(760) 323-7893 Initial Study The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 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. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards& Hazardous ❑ Emissions El Materials ❑ Hydrology/ Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Trans ortation/Traffic Tribal Cultural p ❑ Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless ❑ mitigated" impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all ❑ potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature City of Palm Desert Date Printed Name City of Palm Desert For The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 8 Environmental Checklist and Discussion: The following checklist evaluates the proposed project's potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the project's potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. Potentially Less Than Less Than No 1.AESTHETICS--Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b)Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ® ❑ views in the area? a, c) Less than Significant Impact. The perception and uniqueness of scenic vistas and visual character can vary according to location and composition of its surrounding context. The subjective value of views is generally influenced by the presence and intensity of neighboring man—made improvements, such as structures, overhead utilities, and landscaping, often in relation to the aesthetic quality offered by a natural background, such as open space, mountain ranges, or a landmark feature. The proximity and massing of structures, vegetation and other visual barriers interacts with the visibility of surrounding environments to restrict or enhance local characteristic views. The proposed development is located immediately south of Hovley Lane and approximately one quarter-mile east of Portola Avenue. The Project property is rectangular in shape and characterized by sparse vegetation coverage on gently sloping sand dunes, resulting in noticeable changes in elevation(depressions and mounds) across the land ranging from approximately 173 feet to 204 feet above sea level. The site's higher grades are approximately 15 feet above the street level of Hovley Lane to the north. The easterly and southerly project boundaries are delineated by concrete masonry unit (CMU) block walls. The south half of the westerly boundary is demarcated by a CMU block wall, while the north half is improved as a chain-link fence adjacent to the James Earl Carter Elementary School. The property's northerly boundary (street frontage) measures approximately 602 feet and is absent of any physical delineation or landscaping improvements. Historic aerial photographs indicate that the general undeveloped condition presently observed has characterized the project site since at least 1953 due to lack of permanent on-site development or other improvements. However, a majority of the private site has been subject to prior ground disturbance, particularly within the past decade. The based on historic high-resolution imagery, in 2007, approximately 5 acres of the site were extensively cleared and graded to accommodate temporary construction staging (laydown) activities for an off-site project. The fenced staging area occupied the property's northeast corner with various dirt paths established and utilized throughout the site. As a result, the on-site conditions were permanently modified. After completion of the off-site project, and as a requirement under the City's Fugitive Dust (PM 10) Control Ordinance (Chapter 24.12), the disturbed areas were treated with a dust suppressant, resulting in a hardened ground surface condition and presence of a green dye that is typically required for such application. The previously graded and stabilized areas remained visible along the entire street frontage (northerly edge). Tire marks on the ground throughout the property are indicative of recent off-road vehicular The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/1'age 9 movement. As such, the previously disturbed vacant site does not exhibit any on-site natural landmarks, vegetation coverage, or unique native features with a recognized aesthetic value. Furthermore, the private vacant condition of the property does not fit the criteria of quality open space, as depicted in the City of Palm Desert 2016 General Plan, because it is not available to the public for gathering, playing or enjoying recreational uses. Reviewing City of Palm Desert 2016 General Plan land use designations helps provide a context for evaluating the Project's location and compatibility with surrounding conditions. The adopted 2016 General Plan designates the purpose and intended land use for each parcel within the City, and as a result, establishes the intended visual setting of a locale by outlining the nature, intensity and character of development. The City's land use designations are categorized into neighborhoods, districts, and centers. Each land use designation is defined by a distinctive physical character, which guide the features related to streetscape and connectivity,parks and open space, and built form and character. Under the 2016 General Plan, the project site has a land use designation of Town Center Neighborhood, which also applies to the adjoining Canterra apartment complex to the east. The intent and purpose of Town Center Neighborhoods are to provide moderate to higher intensity neighborhood development for a variety of housing choices. As such, the residential densities for this category are said to range from 7.0 to 40 dwelling units per acre and up to three stories. Allowed uses include a variety of multi-family residential dwellings organized along walkable streetscapes with focused commercial/retail activity within walking distance. As with any form of new development, Town Center Neighborhood proposals are subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission, which help ensure that the City's design objectives specified in the General Plan are achieved. In relation to the surrounding land uses and characteristics, the north side of Hovley Lane includes Marriott's Desert Springs Villas (Resort and Entertainment), which consists of a resort community with multiple two- story buildings at a slightly higher elevation, surrounded by a private golf course with artificial lakes, gentle hills and low points as part of its design. On the east, the Project is bordered by Phase I of the Canterra Apartments complex (Town Center Neighborhood), which includes two-story buildings and share the same land use designation as the proposed development. This residential complex is followed by the Palm Desert Soccer Park (Open Space). Land to the south includes the Portola Country Club (Golf Course & Resort Neighborhood), which includes detached single-story homes. Land to the west includes the Venezia residential development (Golf Course & Resort Neighborhood) with detached single-story homes. The north half of the westerly boundary is adjoined by James Earl Carter Elementary School (Public Facility/Institutional). From the site, views of the Indio Hills to the northwest, north and northeast are distant and considerably obstructed by two story structures, mature tree plantings, and landscaping treatment corresponding to the Desert Springs Villas resort complex. The private golf course surrounding the complex also includes mature tree plantings and hill design features that characterize the northern streetscape. Views of the San Jacinto Mountains to the west/southwest and of th Santa Rosa Mountains to the south/southeast are partially impaired by the neighboring existing structures and planted trees of various sizes. Existing carport structures and planted trees on the west edge of the existing Canterra apartment complex constitute an existing visual barrier on the east side of the Project boundary from at-grade perspectives. On the south and west, adjacent to existing residential uses, the existing walls and private landscaping improvements also constitute an existing visual barrier from at-grade perspectives. In this existing context, the proposed project would occupy the entire unimproved site for the development of fifteen two-and three-story apartment buildings with up to 412 dwelling units. The project site plan includes a clubhouse and designated recreational open spaces. The maximum height of any proposed building is 38.3 feet. Two proposed entries with enhanced landscaping on Hovley Lane and would provide vehicular access to The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 10 the complex, decorative fencing would separate the visitor areas from the interior drive aisles to the residential units and parking spaces. In conformance with Chapter 25.68 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Decisions by the Architectural Review Commission), the proposed design features of the Project are intended to establish a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, by incorporating a good composition of materials, textures and colors. The site design incorporates context sensitivity in its setback, placement, and orientation of structures, particularly in relation to the presence of neighboring residential uses. In particular, the site plan's easterly, southerly and westerly edges are designated to accommodate parking spaces with landscaping features,rather than residential structures. Project areas closer to single-family residential neighborhoods, including the south half of the westerly boundary and the entire southerly boundary would be occupied by two-story structures instead of the allowable three-story structures. In addition, a 27-foot landscaped buffer will be preserved along the southern edge, increasing the separation of structures from the adjoining residential community. The northern residential buildings and clubhouse, visible from Hovley Lane, will also be two-stories. The proposed three- story structures will be arranged in the more central and eastern areas of the site. The proposed architectural style for the development would incorporate two complimentary color schemes with light-colored stucco finishes, accented by natural tones and pitched tiled roofs. The design aesthetic will be visually complementary to the adjoining Canterra Apartment Homes. The landscaping design in the project interior, along its edges, and frontage will include a mixture of trees, palms, shrubs and groundcover plantings to serve as an enhancement to the site design and streetscape. As such,the placement, scale and design of the proposed development are expected to replace an unimproved private site with a residential environment consistent adhering to the intended physical character of the Town Center Neighborhood designation. For security purposes,the Project will provide varied nighttime lighting to safely illuminate the parking areas, entrances, signs, walkways and other project features in accordance with the City's Outdoor Lighting Requirements. These requirements are established to minimize light pollution and trespassing. Compliance with the City's lighting requirements is demonstrated in the proposed photometric site plan, included with the architectural plans. The photometric plan provides point-by-point lighting levels (measured in foot-candles) for the entire project. The plan, which is subject to City review for architectural plan approval, indicates that the proposed placement, orientation and intensity of exterior light fixtures has been designed, such that illumination is sufficiently diminished at the project edges, where walls are existing or proposed. Based on the evaluation of context and proposed development characteristics, the project is not expected to result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas, nor is the project expected to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the private vacant site and its surroundings. b) Less than Significant Impact. The undeveloped Project property exhibits gently sloping mounds and depressions with sparse vegetation coverage. These terrain conditions are not specific to the site since prevailing wind-blown sand depo its tend to create similar conditions across various areas oft e Coachella Valley where development has n t occurred. As previously discussed, a considerable portion o the site has been subject to prior clearing a d grading in the past decade. The disturbed ground surface exhibits topographic high and low points range from approximately 173 feet to 204 feet above sea level, but these grades are split above and below the street level of Hovley Lane. As a result,the site's highest mounds rise to approximately 15 feet above the grade of Hovley Lane, while the depressions drop to approximately 15 feet below the street grade. The vacant project land lacks any natural landmarks, historic buildings, trees, or rock outcroppings. Project implementation would introduce a landscaping design in the interior, edges and frontage to enhance its visibility in a manner that concords with the surrounding developments. The project is not located adjacent to or near any state or county, eligible or designated scenic highway. The purpose of the State Scenic Highway Program is to preserve and protect scenic State highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. State highways can be officially The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 11 designated as Scenic Highways or be determined to be eligible for designation. The status of a state scenic highway changes from eligible to "officially designated" when a local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) approves the designation as a Scenic Highway. According to the Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan Update, the nearest State Designated Scenic Highway is Highway 74, located approximately 2 miles to the southwest of the project. Based on distance, the proposed site plan, architectural design, and landscaping design would not result in in adverse impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway or other local transportation corridor. Less than significant impacts are expected. d) Less than Significant Impact. The project property lacks any structural or lighting improvements; therefore, it does not constitute an existing source of glare or light. In the project surroundings, existing sources of fixed nighttime lighting can be attributed to the adjoining James Earl Carter Elementary School, which for safety purposes, includes pole- and wall-mounted light fixtures primarily oriented downward to cover the facility interior(sidewalks, driveways, and drive aisles) and school access points. The Desert Springs Villas complex found on the north side of Hovley Lane includes various nighttime light sources illuminating the resort entry, landscaping, and other interior facilities. Furthermore, the adjoining residential uses to the east, south and portion of the west include lighting typically consisting of low-intensity, wall-mounted, downward-oriented fixtures in the common areas,patios, side and front yards of homes. The project's Hovley Lane frontage is not improved with street light posts or illuminated traffic signals, but day-time glare and nighttime lighting can be attributed to existing vehicular traffic. The proposed project would utilize the vacant property for the development of up to 412 dwelling units configured in fifteen two-and three-story buildings,consistent with the intended physical character associated with the land use designation of Town Center Neighborhood. The project site plan includes a clubhouse facility and interior recreational open space for residents. The project includes nighttime lighting to safely illuminate the site entrances, signage, parking, walkways and other project features with the appropriate fixtures in accordance with the City's Outdoor Lighting Requirements. These requirements are established to ensure that proposed development includes a minimum uniformity of light coverage, while minimizing light trespass. As a standard condition of development, a project-specific photometric site plan has been prepared and submitted for City review, illustrating the point-by-point lighting levels(measured in foot-candles)for the entire project in relation to the proposed locations, intensities and types of lighting sources. The photometric plan identifies three primary sources of lighting: 1) post-mounted fixtures for the uncovered parking areas, 2) ceiling-mounted fixtures for the covered parking spaces, and 3)tree-mounted fixtures for the palm trees at the primary project entry. Additional sources of low-intensity lighting will consist of wall-mounted fixtures for the dwelling unit exteriors and landscaping illumination throughout the interior walkways. The photometric plan demonstrates that the proposed placement, orientation and intensity of exterior light fixtures will provide the necessary on-site coverage, while preventing light spillage onto adjoining properties by ensuring that the illumination is sufficiently diminished at the project edges and adjacent properties. Pertaining to glare and reflectivity, the proposed residential structures are expected to have light-colored stucco finishes that do not have highly reflective properties or other surface conditions that would cause substantial daytime or nighttime glare. With the proposed landscape plan that includes a strategic placement of trees, palms, shrubs, groundcover, and accent plantings, the potential visibility of nighttime light sources and building surfaces is expected to be partially screened. Less than significant impacts are expected. Mitigation: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 12 2.AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES--In determining whether impacts to Potentially Less Than Less Than No agricultural resources are significant environmental Significant Significant Significant Impact effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Impact with Mitigation Impact Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Incorporation Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or El El Ela Williamson Act contract? c)Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of forest land,timberland,or timberland zoned ❑ ❑ ❑ Timberland Production? d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ❑ ❑ ❑ e)Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? a-e) No Impact. The proposed project is located within an urbanized area of the City of Palm Desert. There are no farmlands in the vicinity of the project as designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The vicinity and Project are generally defined as "Urban and Built-up Land." Additionally, the project is not located on lands zoned for agriculture and is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. There are no areas of forest land; timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production within the desert area. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on agricultural resources. Mitigation: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 13 3.AIR QUALITY—Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable Potentially Less Than Less Than No air quality management or air pollution control Significant Significant Significant Impact district may be relied upon to make the following Impact with Mitigation Impact determinations.Would the project: Incorporation a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ standard(including releasing emissions,which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial El El ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ El ® El number of people? a) Less than Significant Impact: The Project is located in the Coachella Valley region within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Air quality in the SSAB is influenced by the regional climate as well as the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine. The Coachella Valley is an and desert region with a climate characterized by low annual precipitation, low humidity, hot days, and very cool nights. Wind direction and speed (which in turn affect atmospheric stability) are the most important climate elements affecting local ambient air quality. Desert regions are typically windy because minimal friction is generated between the moving air and the low, sparse vegetation. This allows the wind to maintain its speed crossing the desert plains. Additionally, the rapid daytime heating of the air closest to the desert surface leads to convective activity and the exchange of surface air for upper air,which accelerates surface winds during the warm part of the day. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Town Center Neighborhood. The existing land use policy applicable to the project site and the adjoining Canterra apartment complex is intended to provide moderate to higher intensity neighborhood development for a variety of housing choices. The proposed development relies on a density bonus under California Government Code Sections 65915 — 65918 and reserves 20 percent of the total dwelling units for very low income qualifying families/individuals. The 412 proposed dwelling units on the project site are deemed to be consistent with these density thresholds. The proposed residential development is deemed compatible with the surrounding uses established under the City's 2016 General Plan.The north side of Hovley Lane includes Resort and Entertainment uses. To the east, the project is bordered by Town Center Neighborhood uses, while neighboring properties to the south and west consist of Golf Course and Resort Neighborhood uses. No conflicts with the General Plan conditions or implementation are expected. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. In March of 2017, SCAQMD released the most current Final Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP), which is a regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 14 includes both stationary and mobile source strategies to ensure that the approaching attainment deadlines are met and public health is protected to the maximum extent feasible. As with every AQMP, a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures is updated with the latest data and methods. Land use designation considerations are an important component of the AQMP development. The 2016 AQMP provides local guidance for the State Implementation Plans (SIP), which establishes the framework for the air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS). The Project will not require a General Plan Amendment. The City's General Plan EIR found that adoption and implementation of the City of Palm Desert's General Plan policies and programs would comply with the regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Projects that are consistent with local General Plans are considered consistent with the air quality related plans and attainment efforts included in the AQMP, the PM10 CVSIP and other relevant regional plans. Less than significant impacts are anticipated relative to conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan following the implementation of standard conditions. b) Less Than Significant Impact. An impact is potentially significant if concentration of emissions exceed the State or Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. The two primary pollutants of concern in the Coachella Valley including the City of Rancho Mirage are ozone (03) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin, which has been designated by the California Air Resources Board as a nonattainment area for ozone (8-hour standard) and PM10. Violations of the air quality standards for ozone are primarily due to pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. Ozone (03) is formed when byproducts of combustion react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. This process occurs in the atmosphere where oxides of nitrogen combine with reactive organic gases, such as hydrocarbons, in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is a pungent, colorless,toxic gas, and a common component of photochemical smog. Although also produced within the Coachella Valley, most ozone pollutants affecting the Valley are transported by coastal air mass from the Los Angeles and Riverside/San Bernardino air basins, thereby contributing to occasionally high local ozone concentrations. Particulate Matter (PMIO and PM2.5) consists of fine suspended particles of ten microns or smaller in diameter, and are the byproducts of road dust, sand, diesel soot, windstorms, and the abrasion of tires and brakes. The elderly, children and adults with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease are most susceptible to the effects of Particulate Matter. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for specific pollutants on individual projects. These thresholds related to project construction and long term operations are shown in the Mass Daily Thresholds table below. Project effects would be considered significant if the emissions exceed these thresholds. Project effects would also be considered potential significant if emissions affected sensitive receptors such as schools or nursing homes, or if the project conflicted with the regional AQMP and/or local air quality plans. Table III-1 The following table illustrates SCAQMD's Air Quality Significance Thresholds: Emission CO VOC NOx Sox PM10 PM2.5 Source Construction or Operation 550 75 100 150 150 55 (Pounds/Day) Source:Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook,Chapter 5. Prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.www.agmd. og v/cega/hndbk.html The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.1; Released in September of 2016) was utilized to estimate the short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 15 gas emissions that would be associated with the construction activities necessary to implement the proposed Proj ect. Based on the most current project information available, the construction and operation parameters involved 412 dwelling units (apartments), 724 paved parking spaces, and a recreational facility (clubhouse) of 9,100 square feet. An estimated total of 276 dwelling units would be configured in eight (8) three-story buildings, while 136 dwelling units would be configured in seven (7)two story buildings. The project population factor (866 persons) is estimated based on the City's average household size of 2.1. Default construction parameters incorporated in CalEEMod were assumed for those construction activities for which site-specific information is not currently available. The SCAQMD requires any emission reductions resulting from existing rules or ordinances to be included as part of the unmitigated project emissions. Those measures that are legally mandated and therefore required of all developments by applicable ordinances, rules, and regulations are not considered mitigation. Once the unmitigated project emissions have been determined, additional mitigation measures may be applied to reduce any potentially significant air quality impacts to the maximum extent feasible and identify the net project emissions. Title 24, Chapter 12 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code outlines the minimum requirements for construction activities to reduce man-made fugitive dust and corresponding PM10 emissions. The City will require the preparation of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan identifying the fugitive dust sources at the site and the work practices and control measures proposed to meet the City of Palm Desert minimum performance. These standards are consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403 and 403.1 and require implementation of Coachella Valley Best Available Control Measures (CVBACM), as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook published by SCAQMD. Fugitive dust control measures that are required to comply with the City Municipal Code are generally not considered mitigation by the SCAQMD. Similarly, compliance with applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations is not considered mitigation by the SCAQMD. Table III-2 Air Pollutant Emissions Associated With Construction of the Proposed Project (Pounds/Day) ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 Total 45.1254 61.0582 47.5209 0.0888 9.4358 5.8520 Emissions (Summer) Winter Summer Summer Summer (Summer) SCAQMD 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Threshold No No No No No No Exceeded Table III-3 Operational Air Pollutant Emissions Associated With Development of the Project (Pounds/Day) Emission ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 Source Total Area, 20.3371 68.0947 121.4465 0.2919 14.4093 4.5044 Energy Use, Summer S Mobile Sources ) (Summer) (Summer) (Summer) (Winter) (Winter) SCAQMD 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Threshold No No Exceeded No No Na FN;771 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 16 Table III-2 summarizes the unmitigated short-term emissions of the six criteria pollutants associated with the construction activities required to implement the proposed project. Peak day emissions estimates are provided by construction phase type and reflect activities in the season or year with the highest daily emissions modeling data included in this report. As shown, the unmitigated peak day air pollutant emissions during the construction phase with the highest projected emissions are not projected to exceed any of the applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds for short-term construction-related emissions. Moreover, none of the projected daily emissions of the six criteria pollutants are expected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance associated with long-term operational impacts. Based upon the projected emissions of the criteria air pollutants,the proposed project would have less than significant impacts relative to short term and long-term impacts to air quality. c) Less than Significant. The Coachella Valley is designated by the California Air Resources Board as nonattainment for ozone, based on exceedances of both the state 1-hour and 8-hour standards; and for PM10, based on exceedances of the state 24-hour and annual average standards. Adherence to the SCAQMD rules and regulations and compliance with locally adopted AQMP and PM10 State Implementation Plan control measures will help reduce the pollutant burden contributed by the individual development project. Appropriate air quality measures are required by the City of Palm Desert and implemented through enforcement of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Title 24, Chapter 12) consistent with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1. As mentioned, relative to PM10 threshold exceedance, construction associated with a future project will be required to adhere to the City's Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control policies and ordinance to minimize potential temporary construction related emissions. An approved Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control Plan will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. Implementation of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan is required to occur under the supervision of an individual with training on Dust Control in the Coachella Valley (Rule 403 and 403.1). The plan will include methods to prevent sediment track-out onto public roads, prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding a 20-percent opacity, and prevent visible dust emissions from extending more than 100 feet (vertically or horizontally from the origin of a source) or crossing any property line. The most widely used measures include proper construction phasing, proper maintenance/cleaning of construction equipment, soil stabilization, installation of track-out prevention devices,and wind fencing. Project-related short-term construction and long-term operational emissions are not expected to exceed the SCAQMD mass daily regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the residential project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of NOx and ROG emissions during construction activities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Less than Significant. Sensitive receptors are facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Land uses considered by the SCAQMD to be sensitive receptors include residential, long-term health care facilities, schools, rehabilitation centers, playgrounds, convalescent centers, child-care centers, retirement homes, and athletic facilities among others. The project occurs in a locale that includes residential uses and the James Earl Carter Elementary School, all of which are deemed to include sensitive receptors. The project's future resident population would also be considered a sensitive receptor. During construction, the project is expected to produce temporary and localized emissions, which based on the Air Quality Study's modeling results would not exceed the SCAQMD mass thresholds of significance. As previously discussed, the project applicant is required to comply with Chapter 24.12 (Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control) of the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code by preparing a project-specific dust control plan. The plan will outline required activities and best management practices for preventing or reducing temporary emissions from reaching any substantial concentrations. Dust control measures include a temporary fence with a wind screen to prevent propagation of emissions, utilizing properly maintained equipment, maintaining stabilized soil through water or soil binder application, and constructing track-out prevention devices at The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 17 construction access points. At any point during construction, the project will be required to prevent sediment track-out onto public roads, visible dust emissions from exceeding a 20-percent opacity, and visible dust emissions from extending more than 100 feet (vertically or horizontally from the origin of a source) or crossing any property line. These standard requirements are consistent with the SCAQMD Rule 403 and 403.1 and the Coachella Valley Best Available Control Measures (CVBACM), as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook. Fugitive dust control measures that are required to comply with the City Municipal Code are generally not considered mitigation by the SCAQMD. Similarly, compliance with applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations is not considered mitigation by the SCAQMD. Moreover, construction management activities, including the Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), must be designed to minimize disruption to the James Earl Carter Elementary School. In particular, the construction management team must properly identify the existing location of school facilities and situate the temporary construction access and on-site staging locations with the greatest possible separation from the elementary school boundary, its classrooms and playgrounds. During the life of the project, activities and operations related to the proposed project is not expected to generate emissions concentrations that exceed the SCAQMD mass thresholds. The traffic generated by the proposed project along the existing local roads and on the proposed private driveways, would not contribute significantly to an increase in the frequency or severity of violations of the ambient air quality standards or sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. e) Less than Significant. Objectionable odors can be associated with toxic or non-toxic emissions. While offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant and lead to considerable annoyance and distress among the public. The SCAQMD has compiled a list of facilities and operations that tend to produce offensive odors. Examples of such facilities that commonly generate odors include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, composting/green waste facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, painting/coating operations, rendering plants, and food packaging facilities. Certain facilities, land uses and populations are considered more likely to experience concern over odors. These include retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, and athletic facilities among others. The proposed project is not expected to generate objectionable odors during any of the phases of construction or at project buildout. The proposed project has the potential to result in short term odors associated with asphalt paving and use of construction equipment. Such odors would be detectable in localized areas and quickly dispersed below detectable thresholds as distance from the construction site increases. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are expected to be less than significant. The proposed residential project is not located near any facility known to generate objectionable odors and the proposed residential development will not introduce facilities that would generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The future residential uses would involve minor, odor-generating activities, such as backyard barbeque smoke, lawn mower exhaust, and application of exterior paints from home improvement activities. These types and concentrations of odors are typical of residential communities and will be subject to restrictions established in the community association. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 18 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES--Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,and regulations or by ❑ ❑ ❑ the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh, ❑ ❑ ❑ vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ ❑ ® ❑ corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conservationplan? a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. In December 2016, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. conducted a Project specific Biological Resource Impact Analysis for the 18.13 acre site. The biological survey and analyses were designed to ascertain the impacts of proposed development on the potential biological resources of the Project site and immediate vicinity, as mandated by CEQA and required by the City of Palm Desert. Survey methodology included reviews of literature and institutional records to determine the possible occurrence of sensitive species. A biological field survey was conducted on December 26, 2016 to document the existing conditions. The report states the site is an undeveloped vacant lot and consists of a sand dune community, scattered native shrubs and weedy vegetation. Soils on the site consist of Myoma fine sand and the site is primarily void of vegetation. The report states that no sensitive plant communities occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The desert sand dune habitat on the project site provides marginally suitable habitat for Coachella Valley milk-vetch. However,none was observed on the Project site. Sensitive wildlife included those species listed as engendered or threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and also includes California Species of Special Concern as designated by CDFW. The project site and surrounding area provide habitat for wildlife species that commonly occur in sand dune and ornamental communities. No amphibian, reptilian, or mammalian species were observed or detected during the field survey. Per the Project report no migratory birds were observed on the project site and no nests or nesting activity was observed during the field survey. The Study concludes the while no sensitive plant species or wildlife was The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 19 observed, the project site's sand dune habitat is marginally suitable habitat for the milk-vetch and the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard. Both of these species are covered under the CVMSHCP. The shrubs located on and within the immediate vicinity of the Project site provide suitable nesting habitat for several avian species. Therefore, pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, project construction should be conducted outside of the nesting season (February through August), to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Additionally, any construction activities that occur during the nesting season will require a clearance survey from a qualified biologist. The study concluded that no adverse significant impacts to biological resources in the region are expected to result from Project implementation. Therefore, less than significant impacts to are expected to species identified as candidate,sensitive, or special status species in local of regional plans, policies,or regulations, or by the CDFW and USFWS, following the recommended mitigation listed below: Mitigation: 13I0-1: The applicant shall ensure that any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February through August) will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are observed, construction activities must be prohibited within a 500-foot buffer around the nest until the nestlings have fledged. All construction activity within the vicinity of active nests must be conducted in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. Construction activity may encroach into the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. Responsible Party: City Planning Staff, Project Developer Schedule: Prior to grading and other ground disturbing activities b) No Impact. The biological survey performed on the Project property did not find any on-site naturally occurring springs, permanent aquatic habitats, drainages, or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or the CDFW or the USFWS. No blue line steam or desert washes were found within the project boundaries. As a result of the absence of significant wash or riparian vegetation,absence of other sensitive natural communities,no impacts are expected. c) No Impact. Per the project specific biological report, the project site does not contain federally protected wetlands,mashes or other drainage features. As a result, implementation of the project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to any of these resources. The project will be designed with stormwater facilities that, during the life of the project, will comply with the City's drainage requirements by preventing the discharge and transport of untreated runoff associated with the Project. A project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is expected to be prepared to ensure that the project does not contribute to pollutants of concern in any project storm runoff.No impacts are expected. d) Less than Significant Impact. The biological assessment did not observe any migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites on the project or adjacent properties. The project area is currently an undeveloped vacant lot with scattered native shrubs and weedy vegetation. The project site is surrounded by development on all sides and is not located near any existing drainages that would support wildlife corridors nor is it located in a known wildlife corridor. However, as mentioned, a migratory bird survey will be conducted. Therefore, the proposed project will not interfere with movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or impede a wildlife nursery and no impacts are expected. e) No Impact. The Project site is vacant with scattered vegetation and Project implementation would not result in demolition or tree removal. The project will comply with the CVMSHCP and there are no other unique local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources that would cause a conflict nor does the site support high value biological resources that could be affected. Additionally, the proposed project will not The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 20 conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and no impacts are anticipated. f) Less than Significant Impact. The Project lies within the boundary of the CVMSHCP which outlines policies for conservation of habitats and natural communities and is implemented by the City of Palm Desert. The project site is not located within a Conservation Area under this plan and there are no known significant biological resources on the project site. The CVMSHCP implements a habitat mitigation fee for new development to support the acquisition of conservation lands, to be paid to the City. Therefore, the proposed project will comply with all required plan provisions and pay the required mitigation fee in conformance with the CVMSHCP and City Ordinance. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 21 Potentially Less Than Less Than 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES--Would the Significant Significant Significant No project: with Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation Impact a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ §15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ❑ ® ❑ ❑ to § 15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ feature? d)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resource as defined in Public Resource Code 21074? e)Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® El outside of formal cemeteries? a) No Impact. The Project is located on approximately 18.13 acres of undeveloped land in the City of Palm Desert. The Project site is zoned Planned Residential P.R.47.5 (17.5 du/ac). The Project specific Cultural Resource study prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. found no evidence of settlement or land development activities on or near the project area. The research methods performed by Helix as part of this assessment includes a records search, Native American scoping, historical background research and pedestrian field survey. According to the Eastern Information Center(EIC) records search, three (3) cultural resource sites have been recorded within the search radius of the Project site. One National Register structure is within the 1-mile search radius. Additionally, fourteen (14) area-specific survey reports are on file with the EIC for the search radius, none include the project area. This suggests the project area has not been previously surveyed. The field survey results were negative for cultural resources. The project site was inspected for any evidence of prehistoric or historic periods, but none was found. Portions of the parcel covered in concrete or asphalt which provided no visibility, such as the walkways along Hovely Lane East, were not examined. No buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or artifacts more than 50 years of age were encountered. Additionally,Native American input during this study did not identify any sites of traditional cultural value in the vicinity. Therefore, there are no recognizable potential historic resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA guidelines that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. This includes any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant and no impacts are anticipated. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Archaeological resources are described as cultural resources, such as structures of objects that provide evidence to past human activity. They are important for scientific, historic, and or religious reasons to cultures,communities,groups or individuals. As previously discussed, Helix conducted a project and site specific study on historical and archaeological resources. The assessment included records searches, Native American scoping, historical background research, and field survey. The field survey did not encounter onsite buildings or structures. Outside of the project area but within a one-mile radius, three (3) historical/archaeological sites were previously recorded. Furthermore, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) sacred land record search did not indicate the presence of Native American resources within a half-mile radius of the project. The NAHC recommended The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 22 that additional local Native Tribes be contacted for further information. Upon receiving the NAHC's response, Helix sent written requests for comments to 33 Tribal individuals. Only the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has responded and indicates that the project site is not within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation, however, it is within the Tribes Traditional Use Area(TUA). They have requested copies of the Cultural report and any records research in addition to Native American Cultural Resource Monitoring. Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected following the recommended mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure: CR-1 The applicant shall ensure that if during the course of grading or construction, artifacts or other cultural resources are discovered, all grading on the site shall be halted and the applicant shall immediately notify the City Planner. A qualified archaeologist shall be called to the site by, and at the cost of, the applicant to identify the resource and recommended mitigation if the resource is culturally significant. The archaeologist will be required to provide copies of any studies or reports to the Eastern Information Center for the State of California located at the University of California Riverside and the Aqua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office(THPO)for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register. CR-2 The project applicant shall ensure the presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be required during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the monitor shall notify a qualified archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines)to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Office and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office(THPO). The archaeologist will be required to provide copies of any studies or reports to the Eastern Information Center for the State of California located at the University of Riverside and the Agua Caliente THPO for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register. Responsible Party: City Planning Staff, Project Developer Schedule: During grading and other ground disturbing activities c) Less than Significant Impact. Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of plants, animals and associated deposits. The lakebed of Holocene Lake Cahuilla has produced many paleontological resources generally containing freshwater mollusks of Holocene age. Per the Riverside County Land Information System, the property is recognized as having low potential for Paleontological Sensitivity. Areas recognized for having low potential have a reduced likelihood for containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources, including vertebrate or significant vertebrate fossils. Therefore, less than significant impacts to Paleontological resources are expected. d) Less than Significant Impact. Public Resource Code 21074 identifies "Tribal Cultural Resources" as "sites, features, pleases, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe" and that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion on the national, state, or local register of historic resources or that are determined by the lead agency, in its discretion, to be significant when taking into consideration the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. As previously discussed, the NAHC was contacted by Helix as part of their research for the project specific cultural study. The Native American scared land research did not indicate the presence of Native American resources within a half-mile radius of the project site. However,the NAHC recommended that additional local Native Tribes be contacted for further information. Upon receiving the NAHC's response, Helix sent written requests for comments to 33 Tribal individuals. Only the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has responded in writing. Based on the correspondence as described in Section V-b), there are no known Tribal cultural resources as defined by Public Resource Code 21074 on the project site. Less than significant impacts The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 23 are expected following the procedure established in Mitigation Measure CR-2 of this initial study is implemented. Mitigation Measure: CR-2 e) Less than Significant Impact. The project is not expected to affect any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. As previously discussed, a field survey of the project site did not show any evidence of human activities dating to prehistoric or historic periods, and no other sites, features, artifacts, or built environment features were encountered. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, state law requires that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any located other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent and may be Native American, in accordance with Public Resource Code 5097.94, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of the find. Therefore, the project will comply with State law and less than significant impacts relative to human remains are expected. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 24 6.GEOLOGY AND SOILS--Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State ❑ El ❑ Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ El ® ❑ liquefaction? iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of El ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ❑ (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater El El Eldisposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a) i. No Impact. This site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, nor are there active faults located on- site. According to the Geotechnical Report the site is located approximately 5.8 miles southwest of the South Branch of the San Bernardino Mountains segment of the San Andreas Fault system (the Banning Fault portion.) Impacts associated with fault rupture on the project site are not expected. ii. Less than Significant Impact. Strong ground shaking is the geologic hazard that has the greatest potential to severely impact the Palm Desert planning area. Major faults in the region, such as the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults,have the potential to produce strong seismic shaking in Palm Desert and its vicinity. According to the General Plan Update EIR, six historic seismic events have significantly affected the Coachella Valley region in the past 100 years. The Palm Desert Technical Background Report (TBR) indicates that the last major earthquake to occur on the southern San Andreas was the Hector Mine Earthquake that occurred on October 16, 1999, and was measured a magnitude M 7.1. All structures in the planning area will be subjected to this shaking, and could be seriously damaged if not properly designed. The proposed project will result in habitable structures, thus increasing the exposure of people to risks associated with strong seismic ground shaking. The City requires that all new construction meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. In 2002 and 2008, the California Geological Survey (CGS) and the USGS completed probabilistic seismic hazard maps. EarthSystems used these maps in the evaluation of the seismic risk at the site. The The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/1'age 25 recent Working Group of California Earthquake Probabilities estimated a 59%conditional probability that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake may occur between 2008 and 2038 along the southern segment of the San Andreas Fault and 31%for the San Jacinto fault. The development recommendations set forth in the site specific Geotechnical Report will ensure the geotechnical feasibility and safety of the proposed project. All plans will be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure compliance with construction standards. These requirements are designed to reduce impacts related to strong ground shaking to less than significant levels. iii. Less than Significant Impact. The GP EIR states that according to the Riverside County Land Use Information System(2014), the majority of the City is located in an area susceptible to moderate liquefaction potential. Liquefaction susceptibility in the City is based on sediment type, depth to groundwater, and proximity to the San Andreas Fault. The TBR indicates that liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated and loose, fine-to medium-grained soils and where groundwater lies within 30 feet of the surface, but it may also occur in areas where groundwater lies up to 50 feet beneath the surface. The Geotechnical Report indicates that liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden shock (usually earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which saturated soil loses shear strength and deforms as a result of increased pore water pressure induced by strong ground shaking during an earthquake. If liquefaction would occur, lateral spreading might be a hazard in an area adjacent to a defined channel. The Report further states that factors known to influence liquefaction include depth to groundwater(within 50 feet of the ground surface), soil type, structure, grain size, relative density, confining pressure, depth to groundwater, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose sandy soils and low plasticity clay and silt. These soil types are present throughout the site area. Current and historic groundwater depths at the site area are greater than approximately 85 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction is typically limited to the upper 50 feet of the subsurface soils. Additionally, no perched conditions were observed and the potential for perched conditions is considered to be low. The results of the analyses indicate that historic groundwater depth is below 50 feet and therefore, according to Earth Systems,the liquefaction potential is low. Adherence to the standard design requirements for seismic zone 4 and recommendations within the Geotechnical Report will ensure impacts related to liquefaction are reduced to less than significant levels. iv. Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palm Desert TBR (Figure 7.5) indicates that potential landslide hazard is primarily located in hillsides or mountainous areas of the southernmost portions of the City. The project is located in a central area of the City that is not designated as having landslide susceptibility. The areas of the proposed project are largely characterized by flat to gently rolling topography associated with partially disturbed native desert conditions. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. According to the GP EIR Palm Desert is susceptible to wind erosion and hazards associated with wind erosion. The sand dunes along Interstate 10 and the Whitewater River are the two most significant sources of wind-blown sand in the planning area. Figure 7.2 of the TBR indicates that the property is located in an area with a Very High Wind Erodibility Rating. The project will involve ground disturbance, which has the potential to increase soil erosion. The project contractor will be required to implement a PM10 Fugitive Dust Control Plan per SCAQMD Rule 403.1 that is submitted and reviewed as part of the grading permit process to minimize potential impacts caused by blowing dust and sand during construction. Procedures set forth in said plan will ensure that potential erosion is controlled during the construction process. Once completed, the project area will consist of stabilized surfaces, which will resist The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 26 erosion and protect improvements. Implementation of this standard condition will work to reduce wind-borne erosion. Additionally the proposed project is surrounded by developed property, which offers protection from wind impacts. See Air Quality section of this document for further discussion. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. c) Less than Significant Impact. The GPU EIR indicates that subsidence refers to the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling and compaction of soil and other surface materials with little or no horizontal motion. The discussion further states that it does not appear that expansive clays or soils exhibiting shrink- swell characteristics underlie the City. The Geotechnical Report indicates that the project site is within a"susceptible"subsidence zone as designated by Riverside County (Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency) land information website (RCLIS 2016.)) The Coachella Valley is being studied by the United States Geological Society due to groundwater withdrawal induced ground subsidence. 2009 data suggests that the site is outside the closest Palm Desert subsidence zone. Furthermore, during the course of the analysis, no significant evidence of linear cracking along the peripheries of the site was observed that would be suggestive of tensional stresses or fissuring related to differential areal subsidence. Satellite photograph analysis for lineaments was also performed to evaluate the presence or absence of fissures.No fissure-related lineaments were observed. Building and seismic code requirements assure that the potential site specific impact associated with ground subsidence is reduced to less than significant levels through site preparation techniques such as ground compaction to ensure site soils are stable. Compliance with the project specific Geotechnical Report as well as Standard Conditions relative to grading activities will work to reduce impacts to less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the GPU EIR discussion states that it does not appear that expansive clays or soils exhibiting shrink-swell characteristics underlie the City. Additionally the CBC includes common engineering practices requiring special design and construction methods that reduce or eliminate potential expansive soil-related impacts. According to the Geotechnical Report, during laboratory testing and visual observations, site soils were observed to be predominately granular. As such, the Expansion Index of the onsite soils is "very low" as defined by ASTM D 4829. Samples of building pad soils should be tested during grading to confirm or modify these findings. Following implementation of the recommendations within the Geotechnical Report and Standard Conditions, less than significant impacts are anticipated. e) No Impact. The proposed project is surrounded by urbanized development within the City. The proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer lines in the area and no septic systems will be permitted. No impact is expected. Mitigation:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 27 Potentially Less Than Less Than No 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS--Would Significant Significant Significant Impact the project: Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impact on the environment? b)Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emissions of greenhouse gases? a-b) Less than Significant Impact. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) is a gaseous compound in the earth's atmosphere that is capable of absorbing infrared radiation,thereby trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere. Common greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere include: water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), ozone, and to a lesser extent chlorofluorocarbons. Carbon dioxide is the main GHG thought to contribute to climate change. In response to growing concern for long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change, California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires California Air Resource Board (CARB)to reduce statewide emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 32 (SB32) that requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.1); was utilized to estimate the operational air pollutant emissions and the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the implementation of the proposed Project. These GHG emissions would occur as a result of project-related area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, solid waste disposal, water usage, and wastewater treatment. Area sources include: natural gas combustion (for cooking and space and water heating); landscaping equipment; consumer products and cleaning supplies; and the reapplication of architectural coatings for routine maintenance. As shown in Table VII-1,the project is expected to would result in 5,374.830 CO2e per year. Table VII-1 Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Summary Emissions(metric tons per year) Emission Source CO2 CH4 N20 Total CO2E Area 13.7143 5.11003e-03 1.6000e-04 13.8895 Energy 1161.517 0.0387 0.0140 1166.663 Mobile Sources 3,882.529 0.3206 0.0000 3,890.544 Waste 38.4709 2.2736 0.0000 95.3099 WaterUsage 179.7892 0.8818 0.0221 208.4240 Total CO2E(All Sources) 5,374.830 Source:CalEEModTM output. Note:Totals obtained from CaIEEMod and may not total 100%due to rounding. However, there is currently no statewide adopted threshold for GHG emissions for residential or commercial sector projects to date. Additionally,the City of Palm Desert has adopted an Environmental Stability Plan and Greenhouse Gas Inventory as a systematic approach to lessening GHG emissions. As such, the project will be constructed with all current and applicable building codes and Title 24 standards. Statewide programs will further reduce GHG emissions, such as, water use efficiency, recycling, and energy efficient appliances. The project is not expected to contribute significant GHG emissions to the environment and will not conflict with the plan and policies established under Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 375 or Senate Bill 97. Less than significant impacts are expected. Mitigation:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 28 Potentially Less Than Less Than No 8.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-- Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ® ❑ materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or ❑ ❑ ❑ where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a,b) Less than Significant Impact: The Code of Federal Regulations(CFR Title 40, Part 261)defines hazardous materials based on ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and/or toxicity properties. The State of California defines hazardous materials as substances that are toxic, ignitable or flammable, reactive and/or corrosive, which have the capacity of causing harm or a health hazard during normal exposure or an accidental release. As a result, the use and management of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances is regulated under existing federal, state and local laws. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal methods to reduce their potential to damage public health and the environment. Manufacturer's specifications also dictate the proper use, handling, and disposal methods for the specific substances. Construction of the proposed project is expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances. The nature and quantities of these products would be limited to what is necessary to carry out construction of the project. Some of these materials would be transported to the site periodically by vehicle and would be stored in designated controlled areas on a short-term basis. When handled properly by trained individuals and consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and industry standards, the risk involved with handling these materials is considerably reduced. The Contractor will be required to identify a staging area for storing materials and equipment, and will be required to implement best management practices to assure that impacts are minimized and that any minor spills are immediately and properly remediated. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 20I 7/Page 29 To prevent a threat to the environment during construction, the management of potentially hazardous materials and other potential pollutant sources will be regulated through the implementation of control measures required in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) for the project. The S WPPP requires a list of potential pollutant sources and the identification of construction areas where additional control measures are necessary to prevent pollutants from being released on-site or into the surroundings. Best management practices are necessary for Material Delivery and Storage; Material Use; and Spill Prevention and Control. These measures outline the required physical improvements and procedures to prevent impacts of pollutants and hazardous materials to workers and the environment during construction. For example all construction materials, including paints, solvents, and petroleum products, must be stored in controlled areas and according to the manufacturer's specifications. In addition, perimeter controls (fencing with wind screen), linear sediment barriers (gravel bags, fiber rolls, or silt fencing), and access restrictions (gates) would help prevent temporary impacts to the public and environment. With such standard measures in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated during construction. Activities in the proposed homes are expected to involve the presence and transport of chemicals for household and facilities maintenance. These will occur in limited quantities and are not expected to represent a potentially significant impact. The proposed residential activities are not expected to involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities or conditions that would pose a hazard to public health and safety or the environment. The project also does not include facilities with foreseeable risk of accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. c) Less than Significant Impact. James Earl Carter Elementary is located within t/4 mile of the Project site. The nature of the project is not anticipated to result in the release of hazardous emissions or hazardous materials, or waste. Temporary impacts during construction will be mitigated by standard operational procedures and protocols as well as Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the project specific SWPPP. Less than significant impacts are expected. d) No Impact. Record searches on the project property were performed within multiple database platforms compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 and its subsections. The resources consulted included GeoTracker, EnviroStor and the EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online(ECHO). GeoTracker is a database maintained by the State of California Water Resources Control Board that provides online access to environmental data. It serves as the management system for tracking regulatory data on sites that can potentially impact groundwater, particularly those requiring groundwater cleanup and permitted facilities,such as operating underground storage tanks and land disposal sites. EnviroStor is a database maintained by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The EnviroStor database identifies sites with known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. It includes the identification of formerly contaminated properties that have been released for reuse; properties where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses; and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at contaminated sites. Moreover, the ECHO database focuses on inspection, violation, and enforcement data for the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and also includes Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA)and Toxics Release Inventory(TRI)data. In December of 2016, a search was performed on all three database platforms. The search results did not identify any records or sites in connection with the subject Property. The GeoTracker, EnviroStor, and ECHO database results did not identify any Leaking Underground Storage Tank(LUST)Cleanup Sites, Land Disposal Sites, Military Sites, DTSC Hazardous Waste Permits, DTSC Cleanup Sites, or Permitted The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 30 Underground Storage Tanks on or around the project property. From the three database platforms, the nearest registered facility is a LUST Clean-Up site located approximately 1,689 feet south of the Project property. The facility, associated with the Portola Country Club, was discovered in October 2001 and the tank was closed and removed in November 2001. The case was deemed complete and closed as of February 2002 and no further discharges have since been reported. As previously stated, the facility is approximately 1,689 feet away from the Project site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. e, f)No Impact. The project is not located near an existing airport or airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airport facility to the project is the Bermuda Dunes Airport, located approximately 5.5 miles to the east/northeast.No impacts are anticipated. g) Less than Significant Impact. The Safety Element of the City's General Plan Update is designed to address concerns regarding the City's capability to respond to potential natural or man-made disasters and establishes goals, policies and programs to ensure effective response. The proposed project will be developed adjacent to existing residential communities in an area of the City that is primarily zoned for residential use. The proposed project site design will be reviewed by the Palm Desert Fire Department for compliance with project-specific emergency access, water pressure and similar requirements as a routine aspect of the City of Palm Desert's design review process. Therefore, emergency access and evacuation of the site will not be impaired by project development. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. h) No Impacts. The site is surrounded by developed land primarily consisting of residential use and is not adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. Therefore, no impacts are expected related to wildland fires. Mitigation: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 3] 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ El ® Eldischar a requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would El El ® ❑ drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ranted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner,which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ ❑ ❑ Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures,which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,including ❑ ❑ ❑ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Less than Significant Impact. The Clean Water Act(CWA)of 1972 establishes regulations pertaining to the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from point sources. Subsequent amendments to the CWA in 1987 established a framework for regulating non-point source stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Presently in the State of California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer the regulation, protection and administration of water quality pursuant to the NPDES. Their regulations encompass storm water discharges from construction sites, municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), and major industrial facilities. The proposed Project is located within the Whitewater River Watershed in the Colorado River Region (Region 7). The City of Palm Desert is a Permittee of the Whitewater River Watershed MS4(Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System). The proposed residential development is required to comply with these existing regulations. The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent disturbance in an area greater than one acre. Therefore, the developer must comply with the State's most current Construction General Permit (CGP) The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 32 (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ). Compliance with the CGP involves the development and implementation of a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality during the period of construction. The required plan will identify the locations and types of construction activities requiring best management practices (BMPs) and other necessary compliance measures to prevent soil erosion and stormwater runoff pollution. The plan will also identify the limits of allowable construction-related disturbance to prevent any off-site exceedances or violations. Based on the Project location and setting, the SWPPP is expected to identify at least one temporary sediment track-out prevention device at the entrance/exit point on Hovley Lane. This BMP will provide stabilization for the vehicular access point to prevent sediment track-out and fugitive dust emissions. Linear sediment barriers will be warranted along limited portions of the project perimeter to prevent soil erosion impacts. Existing CMU walls along the easterly, southerly and south half of the westerly boundary will provide linear sediment barrier protection. All proposed storm drain inlets will require temporary protection to keep sediment or pollutants from entering the on-site storm drain system. Construction activities will be subject to good site housekeeping requirements pertaining to street sweeping, proper waste management, proper material handling and storage. Furthermore, the plan must be designed to minimize disruption to the James Earl Carter Elementary School by identifying temporary construction access and on-site staging locations with the greatest possible separation from the elementary school boundary, its classrooms and playgrounds. During construction, the Project will also be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's(SCAQMD) Rule 403 and 403.1, which prompt the requirement for preparation and implementation of a Fugitive Dust (PM 10)Control Plan. Implementation of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan primarily pertains to air quality, but also supports water quality protection through the requirement of soil stabilization measures to prevent sediment erosion and track-out. The concurrent implementation of the required SWPPP and Dust Control Plan plans will prevent the potential construction-related impacts to water quality at the site and its surroundings. The Project proponent has been required to develop a Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff and the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit and with the City's Water Quality Ordinance (Palm Desert Municipal Code, Title 24.20) by preventing the off-site discharge and transport of potential pollutants associated with project runoff. The Project-Specific WQMP, currently in a preliminary form, identifies a strategy of site design, source controls, and treatment controls with a component of maintenance and monitoring to address post-construction runoff quality and quantity. The site plan, grading design, and storm drain design of the project are factored in the Project-Specific WQMP development. As designed, runoff from throughout the project's impervious areas (buildings, hardscape and paving) will be conveyed primarily via surface flows to corresponding storm drain inlets protected by inlet inserts. The runoff will subsequently be carried via proposed piped flows to separate underground infiltration facilities, consisting of a series of perforated pipes, located under parking spaces and common areas. Surface flows from both proposed driveways on Hovley Lane East will be conveyed to respective storm drain inlets protected by filter inlets, which will drain to individual proposed drywells and underground retention structures within the property. The proposed inlets will also accept runoff from the landscaped areas within the property via small drainage swales. The proposed drywell devices will infiltrate the first-flush and potential nuisance runoff from the paved entries, preventing discharge into the public road. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. b) Less than Significant Impact. Groundwater is the primary source of domestic water supply in the Coachella Valley. The project area and City of Palm Desert are underlain by the Whitewater River subbasin, which forms part of the Coachella Valley groundwater basin. The Whitewater River subbasin underlies a major portion of the Coachella Valley floor and is shared and managed by the Coachella Valley Water District The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 33 (CVWD), Desert Water Agency (DWA), Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, and the cities of Indio and Coachella. The project site and City of Palm Desert are within the service area of the Coachella Valley Water District(CVWD), which is the largest provider of potable water in the Coachella Valley. Local groundwater resources are managed under the 2015 adopted CVWD Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP) Final Report, dated July 1, 2016. The 2015 UWMP serves as a planning tool that documents actions in support of long-term water resources planning and ensures adequate water supplies are available to meet the existing and future urban water demands. The 2015 UWMP indicates that the Coachella Valley groundwater basin historically has been in a state of overdraft. An overdraft condition occurs when the outflows (demands) exceed the inflows (supplies) to the groundwater basin over a period of time. To address this condition, the water management strategies have combined water conservation measures with groundwater replenishment facilities to stabilize the groundwater levels and eliminate the overdraft. Artificial replenishment, or recharge, is recognized by the water districts as one of the most effective methods available for preserving local groundwater supplies, reversing aquifer overdraft and meeting demand by domestic consumers. As indicated in page 6-9 of the 2015 CVWD UWMP, "the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is presently not in overdraft due to active management of the Basin through Coachella Valley Water Management Plan programs like the GRP and non-potable supply to golf courses on private groundwater wells." According to the CVWD web site on Ground Replenishment and Imported Water, the CVWD and DWA groundwater replenishment program has percolated 650 billion gallons of water back into the aquifer to date. Local replenishment efforts have also been coupled with a reduction in demand through improved water efficiency use in homes, yards, gardens, and businesses. The Project is required to conform to the local strategies and policies set forth by CVWD. The Public Utilities & Services section of the 2016 General Plan includes Goal 1, which pertains to stormwater management system that leads to clean water, basin recharge, and increased water retention. Policies 1.1 through 1.13 under Goal 1 identify the preferred stormwater management strategies that promote groundwater recharge, including a preference for on-site retention, infiltration and low impact development. The Project's stormwater management design includes a system of on-site underground retention structures designed to collect and infiltrate stormwater runoff. The expected combined infiltration capacity of this system is approximately 107,739 cubic feet, which represents the entire volume resulting from the controlling 100-year event. As such, the entire volume of stormwater runoff generated on-site up to the 100-year event will be percolated on-site, contributing to groundwater recharge. This information is provided in the Project- Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is required to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff and the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit and is subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. Furthermore, the proposed development will be expected to implement water conservation measures to reduce impacts to public water supplies. These measures include low-flow plumbing fixtures, drought-tolerant (native) outdoor landscaping, and water-efficient irrigation systems. The project site design is not expected to interfere with groundwater recharge conditions and impacts on groundwater supplies and recharge are expected to be less than significant. c,d) Less than Significant Impact. The project property is surrounded by existing development in the form of residential, resort and school facility uses. The existing easterly, southerly and westerly limits of the property are delineated by a combination of concrete masonry unit (CMU) block walls and chain-link fencing, while the northerly boundary (street frontage) is absent of any physical improvements aside from those on Hovley Lane. The undeveloped project property with sparse vegetation coverage exhibits gently sloping mounds and depressions caused by the wind-blown sand deposits. As a result, the sites topographic high and low points range from approximately 173 feet to 204 feet above sea level, but these grades are split above and below the street level of Hovley Lane. The site's highest mounds rise to approximately 15 feet above the grade of Hovley Lane, while the depressions drop to approximately 15 feet below the street grade. As such,the project is absent of any defined drainage pattern or course, such as a stream or river that would be affected through an The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 34 alteration, increase in runoff, erosion or siltation, on-or off-site. Existing depressions throughout the property accept the on-site runoff. The proposed residential development will result in the conversion of undeveloped (pervious) land to an impervious condition in the form of residential buildings, hardscape, and asphalt surfaces. This modification would typically result in a site-specific increase in the rate and amount of surface runoff. To prevent drainage conditions (patterns, quantities, or velocities)that can potentially result in adverse erosion and sedimentation impacts, the project will incorporate engineered storm drain facilities based in part on the findings of a required project-specific hydrology study and Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan. The site design, grading and storm drain improvement plans will dictate the conveyance mechanism (surface and piped flows). As previously described, runoff from throughout the project's impervious areas (buildings, hardscape and paving) will be conveyed primarily via surface flows to corresponding storm drain inlets protected by inlet inserts. The runoff will subsequently be carried via proposed piped flows to separate underground infiltration facility, consisting of a series of perforated pipes, located under parking spaces and common areas. Surface flows from both proposed driveways on Hovley Lane will be conveyed to respective storm drain inlets, which will drain to individual proposed drywells within the property. The proposed inlets will also accept runoff from the landscaped areas within the property via small drainage swales. The proposed drywell devices will infiltrate the first-flush and potential nuisance runoff from the paved entries, preventing discharge into the public road. The underground retention system introduced with the project will have a combined capacity of 107,739 cubic feet, which is sufficient to retain the entire runoff volume resulting from the controlling 100-year storm event. As a result of these improvements, the project will not result in storm runoff discharge conditions that would impact the existing stormwater drainage system, any local drainage courses, or result in any substantial increases in the rate or amount of surface runoff. e,f) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed residential development includes on-site underground retention facilities with a combined capacity to retain/infiltrate the site-specific stormwater volume requirements. The storm drain system and retention facilities would be subject to review and approval by the City to ensure compliance with the local retention ordinance. Adhering to this ordinance will help minimize the discharge and transport of pollutants associated with the new development though the control of volume and rate stormwater runoff. As discussed previously, the Project proponent will be required to develop and implement a Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff and the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit. The Project-Specific WQMP is required to identify a strategy of the necessary site design, source controls, and treatment controls with a maintenance and monitoring program that, throughout the life of the project, will address post-construction runoff quality and quantity. Through this required compliance, the project helps prevent impacts to the local receiving waters and avoids project violations to the established water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. As a standard process for new development projects, the Project-Specific WQMP must be submitted and approved prior to the first discretionary project approval or permit. The Project-Specific WQMP also outlines the required maintenance practices necessary to ensure that the water quality facilities remain effective during the life of the project. These include a maintenance covenant, inspection and maintenance program, with regular monitoring for all proposed measures and devices. Less than significant impacts relative to the substantial degradation of water quality are expected. g,h) No Impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) evaluates potential flood hazards for the City. The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) serve as the basis for identifying those potential The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 35 hazards and determining the need for and availability of federal flood insurance. According to FIRM panel 06065C2226G, effective August 28, 2008, the entire project and its immediate surroundings are located in a Zone X, area of minimal flooding. As designed, the proposed development would not considerably alter the existing flood zone characteristics identified in the FEMA maps. Stormwater runoff generated by the project would be managed by an on-site storm drainage system with retention facilities. The proposed improvement plans will be subject to agency review and approval ensure that the proposed grading and drainage conditions are acceptable to the City standards. The Project is not located in an area subject to flooding by the base(100-year, i-percent-annual-chance)flood depths designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Development of the project will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area.Neither will the project place structures within a 100- year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. i j) No Impact. The proposed project is not located near a levee or dam. The project site is not located near areas with the potential for inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, no impacts are expected. Mitigation:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 36 10.LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ El conservation plan? a) No Impact. The project proposes a multi-family apartment complex that would involve the construction of 15 residential buildings for a total of 412 units, a clubhouse, two community pools and recreational amenities. The Project site sits on approximately 18.13 acres of vacant land in Planned Residential (PR) zoning district. Existing surroundings consist of residential developments, an elementary school, and resort golf community. The Project site is currently vacant and therefore will not divide an established community. No impacts are expected. b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a 412-unit multi-family residential community on approximately 18.13 acres. The Project's General Plan designation of Town Center Neighborhood allows 7.0 to 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Zoning Designation is Planned Residential with 17.5 du/ac. The City of Palm Desert has granted a density bonus, per State requirements and the City's Municipal Code Sec. 25.34.040, which reserves 20% of total units for very-low income qualifying families/individuals. With the density bonus the 18.13 ac Project's density can be increased a maximum of 35%. The Project's proposed density is 23 du/ac (an increase of 23% re: zoning.)This density is below the General Plan maximum density of 40 du/ac. The proposed Project is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Less than significant impacts are expected. c) No Impact. The project site is not within a Conservation Area as designated by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). As a standard condition, all new development will pay the most current mitigation fees for the implementation of the CVMSHCP and support the acquisition of conservation lands. The Plan establishes a simple and uniform mechanism for mitigating the effects of development through the payment of a Local Development Mitigation Fee. The project will comply with the existing CVMSHCP Mitigation Fee Ordinance which is based on the project's total acreage. Less than significant impacts are expected. Mitigation: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 37 11.MINERAL RESOURCES--Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan? a,b) No Impact. In accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), mineral land classification maps and reports have been developed to assist in the protection and development of mineral resources. As shown in the Mineral Land Classification Map for the project area, the project site is located in Mineral Zone MRZ-3, which indicates an area containing mineral deposits however the significance of these deposits cannot be evaluated from available data. There are currently no mining/extraction sites within the City. The nature of the project does not involve the extraction of mineral deposits. Construction of the proposed facilities would rely on existing local and regional aggregate resources from permitted facilities. The project is not expected to result in a considerable extraction and/or loss of known mineral resources that are considered important to the Coachella Valley Region or residents of California. No impacts are expected related to the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Mitigation:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 38 12.NOISE--Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ❑ ® El general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ ® ❑ existing without theproject? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ El Elairport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing El El El working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a, c)Less than Significant Impact.The project site is presently undeveloped and is surrounded by existing block walls on the east, south, and a portion of the west boundary. As such, the vacant project area does not constitute an existing source of ambient noise. In relation to the surrounding land uses and characteristics, the north side of Hovley Lane includes Marriott's Desert Springs Villas surrounded by a private golf course. On the east, the project is bordered by Phase I of the Canterra Apartments complex, which includes two-story buildings. Land to the south includes the Portola Country Club, which consists of detached single-story homes. Land to the west includes the Venezia residential development with detached single-story homes. The north half of the westerly boundary is adjoined by James Earl Carter Elementary School. The existing noise setting in the vicinity can be characterized by residential activities, such as intermittent noise generated during landscape maintenance, building maintenance, trash pick-up, deliveries, vehicular circulation, and air conditioning unit operation. The adjacent James Earl Carter Elementary School activities also contribute to the existing noise setting. The Noise Element of the City's 2016 General Plan and EIR identifies vehicular traffic as the principal source of noise in the community. Based on these documents, major roadways within the City include Monterey Avenue, Washington Street, Fred Waring Drive, Country Club Drive, Frank Sinatra Drive, Gerald Ford Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, Portola Avenue and Cook Street. From these major roadways, higher volumes are observed on Washington Street, Monterey Avenue, and Fred Waring Drive. Figure 4.12-1 and 4.12-2 identify the existing and future noise contours respectively along these major roadways using day-night average levels. Future noise contours are also shown in Figure 7.1 of the General Plan. The segment of Hovley Lane, from Portola Avenue to Cook Street is not listed as a major roadway where noise levels have been measured, either in the existing or General Plan build-out condition. The Noise Element of the 2016 General Plan includes goals and policies for maintaining noise compatibility between differing land uses through design strategies and minimizing noise conflicts between neighboring properties. Sources of excessive noise generating activities are restricted for residential areas pursuant to the The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 39 Palm Desert Noise Control Ordinance (Title 9, Chapter 9.24 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code), and the community restrictions that will be established for the complex. Based on the General Plan EIR, Noise sources typically associated with residential development include opening and closing of vehicle doors in the parking lot, people talking, car alarms, delivery activities, trash pick-ups, and operating HVAC equipment within the confines of the Project. However, these noise generating activities would be subject to the requirements and enforcement of the City's Noise Control Ordinance, which establishes limits on noise generated by these activities. The construction activities of the Project are expected to generate a short-term noise increases compared to the existing levels. Two types of noise impacts are anticipated during future construction activities. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the site would incrementally increase noise levels along the local roadways leading to and from the sites. Second, the noise will be generated by the actual on-site construction activities. The loudest construction noise is generally the grading phase, when more heavy equipment is used more consistently on a site.Noise levels are periodic and decrease significantly with distance,thus having less impact on sensitive receptors at greater distances. The project will be required to abide by the construction hours established in the Palm Desert Noise Control Ordinance. From October 1 to April 30, construction activities are only permitted between 7:00 a.m, and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday. From May 1 to September 30, construction is permitted between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or government code holidays. In accordance with the General Plan and EIR, the proposed development is required to implement various standard measures for reducing short-term noise sources. • Notification shall be mailed to owners and occupants of all developed land uses immediately bordering the construction site, and posted directly across the street from the construction site, providing a schedule for major construction activities that will occur for the duration of the construction period. In addition,the notification will include the identification of and contact number for a community liaison and a designated construction manager who would be available on-site to monitor construction activities. The construction manager will be located at the on-site construction office during construction hours for the duration of all construction activities. Contact information for the community liaison and the construction manager will be located at the construction office, City Hall,and the police department. • During all construction site excavation and grading, the construction contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. • The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the construction site. • For off road construction the contractor shall utilize grading and excavation equipment that is certified to generate noise levels of no more than 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. • All equipment designed for use on public roads shall be properly maintained with operating mufflers and air intake silencers as effective as those installed by the original manufacturer. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the construction site during all project construction. Construction activities will be limited to the hours prescribed in the City Noise Ordinance, which are limited to the less sensitive daytime hours. Active work areas must be properly delineated to prevent construction- The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 40 related circulation from occurring beyond the permitted areas. Planning and design of construction management activities shale take into consideration the proximity of James Earl Carter Elementary School, such that the temporary construction access, on-site staging and equipment operation occurs with the greatest possible separation from the existing elementary school boundary, its classrooms and playgrounds. With these practices in place,no violations of the existing noise standards are anticipated. During the life of the project, vehicular traffic is expected to represent the most perceptible form of noise. As previously discussed, Hovley Lane has not been identified in the City's 2016 General Plan as one of the major roadways where high traffic volumes have warranted specific noise assessments. Based on the proposed site plan, the nearest residential building facade to Hovley Lane is located approximately 56 feet from the right- of-way and approximately 100 feet from the street centerline. A typical noise exposure level along a street frontage of approximately 65 dBA would be reduced to the interior 45dBA standard established in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, due to standard construction techniques that reduce interior noise. As referenced in the Noise section of the General Plan EIR, standard new residential construction typically provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of 25 dBA or more with a closed-window condition. Noise sources associated with the proposed development are expected to include opening and closing of vehicle doors in the parking lot, people talking, car alarms, delivery activities, trash pick-ups, and operating HVAC equipment. In addition to the enforceable Noise Ordinance controls established to minimize noise conflicts between properties, the existing and proposed solid ways are expected to reduce noise levels by approximately 10 dBA based on references in the General Plan EIR. Other forms of noise control include the various activity restrictions which will be established for the apartment complex to maintain an orderly and quiet living environment for residents and neighbors. Less than significant impacts are anticipated regarding generation of exceeding noise levels or substantial permanent increases in noise levels. b) Less than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibration also referred to as earthbome vibration, can be described as perceptible rumbling, movement, shaking or rattling of structures and items within a structure. Groundborne vibration can generate a heightened disturbance in residential areas. These vibrations can disturb residential structures and household items while creating difficulty for residential activities such as reading or other tasks. Although groundborne vibration is sometimes perceptible in an outdoor environment, it is not a problem as it is when this form of disturbance is experienced inside a building. Groundborne vibration can be measured in terms of amplitude and frequency or vibration decibels (VdB). Trains, buses, large trucks and construction activities that include pile driving, blasting, earth moving and heavy vehicle operation commonly cause these vibrations. Other factors that influence the disturbance of groundborne vibration include distance to source,foundation materials,soil and surface types. Construction of the project is expected to involve the temporary use of vehicles and equipment that would result in localized, short-term groundborne vibration increases within the permitted construction hours established by the City. Best practices in construction management are expected to minimize the use of equipment near existing residential and school areas to the best practicable extent. As previously mentioned, the schedule, planning and design of construction management activities shall take into consideration the proximity of James Earl Carter Elementary School and ensure that construction access, on-site staging and equipment operation occurs with the greatest possible separation from the existing elementary school boundaries. After construction and during operation, the proposed residential development would not typically involve activities that would be expected to generate vibration or be situated near roadways with high traffic volume. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Less than Significant Impact. There would be some short-term increases in noise levels during construction of the proposed project. However, the City's Municipal Code limits the time period that construction activities may occur, as specified by the City's Noise Control Ordinance. Construction is expected to occur The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 41 only during the less sensitive daylight hours, when ambient levels of noise are higher, and therefore construction noise is less perceptible. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. e, f) No Impact. The project is not located in the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip, or located within the 65 dBA CNEL contours of any public or private airports.No impacts are anticipated related to these issues. Mitigation: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 42 13.POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example,by proposing new El El ® El and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ housing elsewhere? a) No Impact. As discussed in the Land Use and Planning Section of this document, the proposed project involves the construction and operation of a 412-unit multi-family residential community on approximately 18.13 acres. The Project's General Plan designation of Town Center Neighborhood allows 7.0 to 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Zoning Designation is Planned Residential with 17.5 du/ac. The City of Palm Desert has granted a density bonus, per State requirements and the City's Municipal Code Sec. 25.34.040, which reserves 20% of total units for very-low income qualifying families/individuals. With the density bonus the 18.13 ac Project's density can be increased a maximum of 35%. The Project's proposed density is 23 du/ac (an increase of 23% re: zoning.) This density is below the maximum (40 du/ac) allowed by the General Plan. Furthermore, the Project site is within an area that is fully served by existing infrastructure, public services and utilities. As a result, development of the project would not cause potentially growth inducing effects by extending utilities into an undeveloped area. Therefore, approval and development of this Project is not expected to significantly increase population growth in the City. Less than significant impacts are expected. b) No Impact. The entire property is currently vacant land designated by the City General Plan as Town Center Neighborhood and zoned for Planned Residential Developments (P.R.) and would not displace any existing housing or require replacement housing.No Impacts are anticipated. c) No Impact. The proposed site is currently vacant and the proposed action will not displace existing housing, affordable housing, or people. The Project will not require any replacement housing and no impacts are expected. Mitigation: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 43 14.PUBLIC SERVICES— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services. Fire protection? Police protection? El 1:1 El Schools? El El El Parks? Other public facilities? a) Fire Less than Significant Impact. Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), under contract with the City of Palm Desert, provides 24-hour fire protection and emergency medical services to the City. Additionally, the City of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells are entered jointly into the Cove Communities Service District. Through this District agreement, each city benefits from fire and emergency services provided by the other two cities as needed. Furthermore, the Riverside County Fire Department operates under a Regional Fire Protection Program, which allows all of its fire stations to provide support as needed regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. RCFD maintains three fire stations within the City of Palm Desert. Fire Station 33 is located at 44400 Town Center Way, and covers the central portion of the City, and is approximately 3.1 miles from the proposed project site. Fire Station 67 is located at 73200 Mesa View Drive and covers the south portion of the City and is approximately 4.5 miles from the project site. Fire Station 71 is located at 73995 Country Club Drive and provides service to north Palm Desert. This station is approximately 1.1 miles from the project site. Development of the project would result in an increase in demand for fire services, however based on the project site's proximity to Fire Station 71, the proposed project could be adequately served by fire protection services within the 5-minute response time and no new or expanded facilities would be required. The project will be reviewed by City and Fire officials to ensure adequate fire service and safety as a result of project implementation. As discussed previously the project is below the General Plan maximum allowable density of 40 du/ac. The project would be required to implement all applicable fire safety requirements, to include, installation of fire hydrants, and sprinkler systems. Additionally,the project would be required to comply with the Fire Facilities Impact Fee in place at the time of construction (through a combination of funds from the applicant and the City's housing mitigation fund.) Payment of these fees helps offset impacts by providing sufficient revenue for necessary improvements to ensure acceptable fire facilities, response times, equipment and personnel are maintained. Less than significant impacts are anticipated with project implementation. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 44 Police Less than significant Impact. Law enforcement services are provided to the City of Palm Desert through a contractual agreement with Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's department provides 24- hour municipal police services associated with a City police department. The Sheriff's station is located at 73- 705 Gerald Ford Drive and is approximately 3.7 miles from the project site. Per the Palm Desert Police Department website, the City's contract consists of 80 sworn deputy sheriff's position, 36 of the 80 positions are dedicated to the patrol division. The remaining deputies are dedicated to various assignments such as Traffic, Special Enforcement, School Resources, and other special assignments. Project development will increase the need for police services. However, this demand is not expected to hinder the City's ability to provide police services or create demands that would require the construction of a new police station or new facilities. The project will be reviewed by City and police staff to ensure adequate service is maintained as a result of project implementation. The project would also be required to comply with Development Impact Fees in place at the time of construction (through a combination of funds from the applicant and the City's housing mitigation fund.) These fees on new development allow the City to continue to finance public facilities which goes towards the funding of various public services including police. It also assists in offsetting impacts by providing sufficient revenue for necessary emergency service improvements to ensure acceptable response times, equipment and personnel are maintained. Therefore, development of the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts to police services. Schools Less than Significant Impact. Public education services are provided to the City of Palm Desert by two school Districts; Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD). DSUSD serves most of the developed portion of the City, including the areas south of Frank Sinatra Drive and East of Washington Street, while the PSUSD serves the northwestern portion of the City. The proposed project is located within the DSUSD; James Earl Carter Elementary is the closest school to the proposed project and is adjacent to the project at 74-251 Hovley East Lane. Palm Desert Charter Middle School is approximately 1.5 miles away and Palm Desert High School is approximately 2 miles away. The project proposes the development of a multi-family apartment complex, comprised of 15 buildings and 412 dwelling units, with a mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms. Per the U.S. Census Bureau, the average person per household (PPH) is 2.10 persons (2010-2014). The project has the potential to generate 158 new students based on the District's Student Generation Rate (See Table XVI-1). The DSUSD 2016 Fee Justification Report indicates that the District's current and existing school building capacity has an excess capacity at each of the school levels. An additional 158 students would not result in over capacity. Table XIV-1 DSUSD District Wide Student Generation Rate SchoolType Dwelling Units Generation Rate* Students Generated Elementary School 412 0.1704 70 Middle School 412 0.0909 37 High School 412 0.1261 51 Total New Students 158 *Source:2016 DSUSD Fee Justification Study for New Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development,April 29,2016 Education funding comes from a combination of federal, state, and local sources. Assembly Bill 2926 and Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) allow school districts to collect "development fees" for all new construction for residential/commercial and industrial use. At the time of writing, is $3.48/sq.ft. to residential and $0.56/ sq.ft for commercial. Monies collected are used for construction and reconstruction of school facilities. Moreover, school age children may also attend several private schools located in the Coachella Valley. The project will The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 45 comply with DSUSD development fees (through a combination of funds from the applicant and the City's housing mitigation fund)and less than significant impacts to local schools are expected. Parks Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palm Desert offers a wide range of park and recreation facilities with various amenities. The City operates and maintains over 200 acres of parkland with more than 12 parks, 2 community centers, an aquatic center, and over 25 miles of multi-purpose trails. The proposed Project would also provide additional recreational amenities such as, common open space, 2 community pools, a wading pool, playground, half basketball court, clubhouse, and other passive recreation amenities. The project will be required to comply with the City's Development Impact Fees which includes a Park& Recreation fee Therefore, less than significant impacts to parks are expected. Other public facilities No Impact. No increase in demand for government services or other public facilities is expected beyond those discussed in this section(14). Mitigation: None required. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 46 15. RECREATION— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ® ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse ❑ ❑ ® ❑ physical effect on the environment? a,b) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palm Desert offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities including golf courses, bikeways, and parkland. The City is also located near thousands of acres of National Park and National Monument lands, U.S. Forest Service wilderness lands, as well as state, regional and tribal parks, with miles of hiking, biking and equestrian trails. The 21 acre Hovely Soccer Park is located approximately 500 feet east of the subject property and provides an array of outdoor recreational amenities. The proposed Project would also provide additional on-site recreational amenities such as passive parks, a clubhouse and two community pools. The increased use of existing park facilities associated with the project would not be so substantial as to accelerate their physical deterioration and less than significant impacts are expected. Mitigation:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 47 16.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant ❑ ® ❑ ❑ components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not limited to level of service standards established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ® ❑ management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian El ❑ ® ❑ facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a) Less than Significant With Mitigation. A Draft Traffic Operations Assessment(TOA)was prepared for the proposed project by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. According to the report, the traffic operations assessment was prepared based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method for unsignalized intersections, an approved method by the City of Palm Desert for this study. The objectives of this report were: • To document existing lane geometry at the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court(The Marriott's existing driveway). • To determine the existing, future, and mitigated LOS for the study intersection. • To evaluate the potential need for a future traffic signal at the proposed project driveway. The TOA was based upon an analysis of existing roadway conditions in the project vicinity, a variety of traffic count sources (including peak hour counts collected by the consulting traffic engineers), the 2016 General Plan Mobility discussion, planned roadway improvements and other data and information. The Assessment provides documentation and analysis of existing traffic conditions, trips generated by the project and projected future traffic conditions. An analysis of the study intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court/proposed project driveway was performed to determine whether the intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The period studied for this purpose is the post-project condition, after construction and full occupancy of the proposed proj ect. According to the Palm Desert Mobility Element, Policy 1.3 states that the City will "determine appropriate service levels for all modes of transportation and develop guidelines to evaluate impacts to these modes for all The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 48 related public and private projects." The GPU EIR states that this move away from a formal level of service (LOS) is consistent with a region and statewide emphasis on complete streets, alternative transportation and an encouragement to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The GPU EIR indicates that the guidelines will be developed over the next several years so as they are being developed the EIR considered LOS D as the minimum acceptable level of service for intersections and roadway segments in Palm Desert. For peak operating periods, LOS D and/or a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 is provisionally considered the generally accepted service level. Existing Conditions Summary As noted above and as analyzed in the project traffic operations assessment, Hovley Lane East was analyzed with a focus on the Hovley Lane and Jasmine Court/Project Driveway Intersection. Under existing (2016) conditions,the southbound approach of the study intersection is the worst-case LOS due to the stop-controlled approach and operates at LOS `C' during the AM peak hour and LOS `13' during the PM peak hour. All approaches of the study intersection would operate at LOS `C' or better, under existing conditions. (Table XVI-1 of this discussion). Traffic signal warrants for existing conditions were prepared based on existing peak hour intersection volumes at the unsignalized study intersection at Hovley Lane and Jasmine Court. Proiect Impacts Industry standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 9t' Edition trip generation rates were utilized to determine trip generation for the proposed project. The land use type used was Apartment. The TOA calculates that, upon buildout, the project will generate approximately 2,740 daily vehicle trips or average daily trips (ADT), with 210 ADT expected to be generated in the morning peak hour and 255 ADT in the evening peak hour. Future Traffic Conditions According to the Traffic Operations Assessment, the background traffic volumes for the project year (2018) were calculated based on existing traffic counts and a conservative annual traffic growth rate. An annual growth rate of 2.0% was applied to the existing (2016) traffic counts to get the future (2018) volumes. The future (2018) post-project volumes were produced by adding the AM and PM trip generated volumes from Table 1 to the future(2018)pre-project volumes. Signal Warrant Analysis As mentioned previously an analysis of the project's study intersection was conducted to determine whether the intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The period studied for this analysis is the post- project condition, after construction and full occupancy of the proposed project is complete. The California MUTCD traffic signal warrant 3 peak hour analysis was conducted for the AM and PM peak hours during the future (2018) post-project conditions for the study intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court/proposed project driveway,. The TOA states that the criteria for "70%" volume level is fulfill d for AM and PM peak hours. Therefore,the traffic signal warrant is satisfied for the intersection. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 49 Table XVI-1 Level of Service Analysis: Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court/Project Driveway Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Approach Approach Approach Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS s/veh s/veh Existing 2016 Southbound Approach 16.7 C 14.5 B Eastbound Left Approach 9.3 A 8.6 A Future(2018) Pre-Project Southbound Approach 17.4 C 15.2 C Eastbound Left Approach 9.4 A 8.6 A Future(2018) Post-Project Northbound Approach* 36.5 E 26.7 D Southbound Approach 23.6 C 23.5 C j Eastbound Left Approach 9.4 A 8.6 A Westbound Left Approach 9.2 A 9.4 A Mitigation(2018) Northbound Approach* 10.0 A 9.8 A Southbound Approach 9.6 A 9.7 A Eastbound Left Approach 4.8 A 4.7 A Westbound Left Approach j 4.9 A 4.6 A *The northbound approach of this intersection is the proposed project driveway. The driveway would not be operational until the post-project period. The information in Table XVI-1 was derived from the TOA Table 3. The Assessment's summary of the table is as follows: Under existing ((2016) conditions, the southbound approach of the study intersection is the worst-case LOS due to the stop-controlled approach and operates at LOS `C' during the AM peak hour and LOS `B' during the PM peak hour. All approaches of the study intersection would operate at LOS `C' or better, under existing conditions. Under future (2018) pre-project conditions, the sou hbound approach of the study intersection is the worst-case LOS due to the stop-controlled approach a d operates at LOS `C' during the AM and PM peak hours.No roadway or intersection improvements duri g the pre-project period are assumed. Under future (2018) post-project conditions, with project traffic, the worst-case LOS at the study intersection becomes the northbound approach with a LOS `E' during AM peak hour and LOS `D' during PM peak hour. As for the southbound approach, the project traffic is expected to change LOS to `C' during AM and PM peak hours. The delays and LOS reported for this condition show significant peak hour traffic impacts that require mitigation. As a mitigation measure for the northbound approach, a traffic signal is recommended at the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court/proposed project driveway under the future (2018) post-project conditions. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 50 Under mitigation(2018) conditions,the signalizing at the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court/proposed project driveway will allow the intersection to improve to LOS `A' for all approaches during the AM and PM peak hours. The Transportation uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program identifies network backbone and local roadways that are needed to accommodate growth. The regional program was put into place to ensure that developments pay their fair share and that funding is in place for the construction of facilities needed to maintain an acceptable level of service for the transportation system. The TUMF is a regional mitigation fee program and is imposed and implemented in every jurisdiction in Western Riverside County. According to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Handbook, effective July 1, 2012, the following are provisions from the TUMF Ordinance and provided as background information: • The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply only to new development yet to receive final discretionary approval and or issuance of a building permit or other development right and to any reconstruction or new use of existing buildings that results in a change of use and generates additional vehicular trips. • No tract map, parcel map, conditional use permit, land use permit or other entitlement shall be approved unless payment of the mitigation fee is a condition of approval for any such entitlement. The mitigation fee shall be paid to the applicable jurisdiction. • No building or similar permit, certificate of occupancy or business license reflecting a change of use shall be issued unless the applicant has paid the mitigation fee. Mitigation fees shall be imposed and collected by the applicable jurisdiction and shall be transmitted to CVAG to be placed in the Coachella Valley Transportation Mitigation Trust Fund. All interest or other earnings of the Fund shall be credited to the Fund. Mitigation Measures: TRA-1: The applicant shall participate in the funding or construction of off-site improvements through the payment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and City of Palm Desert Development Impact Fees (DIF), or a fair share contribution as directed by the City. These fees, required as standard conditions,assist in alleviating cumulative impacts. Responsible Party: City Planning Staff, Project Developer Schedule: Prior to grading and other ground disturbing activities b) Less than Significant Impact. The County congestion Management Plan(CMP) requires a LOS E or betteIr for regional roadways. As noted previously, the generation, distribution and management of project traffic is not expected to conflict with the CMP; Monterey Avenue, Highway 74 and Highway 11 I are the only CMP roadways in the City. The project and background traffic will not exceed City level of service standards or travel demand measures, or other standards established by the City or Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)for designated roads or highways. c) Less than Significant Impact. The project will have a very limited impact on the facilities or operations of regional airports, and will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels. The project is located more than 8.5 miles southeast of the Palm Springs International Airport, and approximately 5.0 miles west/southwest of the Bermuda Dunes Airport. The proposed development will not The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 51 affect the operations of these airports nor create a substantial safety risks. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Less than Significant Impact. The project will be developed in accordance with City design guidelines and will not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. The two project access points will be located with adequate sight distances and offsets, and sharp curves are avoided by design guidelines. The westerly entrance (nearest the school) will be for emergency access only. During construction activities, the project will be required to prepare a traffic control plan to reduce conflicts with the adjacent school. Impacts will be less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impact. Access to the planning area is via Vehicular Oriented Arterials, Enhanced Secondary Roadways, Balanced Arterials and a variety of local streets. Design guidelines further ensure that emergency access will be created and reserved for the proposed project. Both the Fire department and Police department will review project plans to ensure safety measures are addressed, including design details of the two access points. The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. f) Less than Significant Impact. SunLine Transit has one bus line in the vicinity of the proposed project, Route 53. Route 53 runs through Palm Desert from Highway I I I and the Westfield Mall to Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street, with a stop on the south side of Hovley Lane,just east of Portola Avenue, approximately .25 miles west of the project. The project will improve the frontage of the project adjacent to Hovley Lane. Improvements will include connection of the sidewalk system between the adjacent development to the east and the elementary school to the west. The project design will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 52 17.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Would the project cause a substantial Adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource,defined in Public Resource Code Section 21074 as either a site,feature,place,cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size scope of the landscape,sacred place,or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,and that is: i)Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources,or in a local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Register of historical resources as defined in Public Resource Code Section 5020.1(k),or: ii)A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.In applying the criteria ❑ ® ❑ ❑ set forth in subdivision(c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1,the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. a) Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed in the Cultural discussion of this document, Helix conducted a project and site specific study on historical and archaeological resources. The assessment included records searches, Native American scoping, historical background research field survey. The field survey did not encounter onsite buildings or structures. Outside of the project area but within a one-mile radius, three (3) historical/archaeological sites were previously recorded. Furthermore, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) sacred land record search did not indicate the presence of Native American resources within a half-mile radius of the project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As previously discussed in the Cultural discussion of this document and above,the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) sacred land record search did not indicate the presence of Native American resources within a half-mile radius of the project. The NAHC recommended that additional local Native Tribes be contacted for further information. Upon receiving the NAHC's response, Helix sent written requests for comments to 33 Tribal individuals. Only the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has responded and indicates that the project site is not within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation, however, it is within the Tribes Traditional Use Area(TUA). They have requested copies of the Cultural report and ny records research in addition to Native American Cultur I Resource Monitoring. Therefore, less than s gnificant impacts are expected following the recommended mi igation measure. Mitigation Measure: See CR-2 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 53 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion or existing facilities,the construction of which could ❑ ❑ ® ❑ cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements ❑ ❑ ® ❑ needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g)Comply with federal,state,and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project falls under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) wastewater service area. CVWD has developed a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for Sanitary Sewer Systems. The primary goal of the SSMP is to minimize frequency and severity of Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). The SSMP will cover the management, planning, design, and operation and maintenance of the District's sanitary sewer system. The wastewater system serves approximately 265,000 customers. The system collects municipal waste from residential and commercial users, delivering the collected wastewater to one of six Wastewater Reclamation Plants. The system includes approximately 1,100 miles of sewer, 34 lift stations andpproximately 17,000 manholes. The Project proposes a multi-family residential development comprised of 412 dwelling units which will result in an increase in wastewater flows. The Project will connect into the existing 33" sewer line on Hovely Lane, through an 8" sewer line and 6" sewer lateral improvements that are proposed as part of the Project design. The infrastructure and design components for the project will be consistent with CVWD requirements and water management plan. The project will also be reviewed by CVWD and City staff to assure compliance with all current and applicable wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, the project is not expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Less than significant impacts are expected. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 54 b) Less than Significant Impact. CVWD provides domestic water and wastewater service in the project vicinity and is the largest provider of potable water in the Coachella Valley. It operates more than 100 wells and serves a population of 283,000 in its service areas. CVWD's 2012 adopted Water Management Plan and 2010 Urban Water Management Plan have been developed to assist the agency in reliably meeting current and future water demands in a cost effective manner. Additionally, CVWD treats nearly 6.3 billion gallons of wastewater a year. The District operates six(6)water reclamation plants and maintains more than 1,000 miles of sewer pipeline and more than thirty (30) lift stations that transport wastewater to the nearest treatment facility. The proposed project would connect into the existing infrastructure, and the project will comply with the existing water management program in place. The proposed development will be expected to implement water conservation measures to reduce impacts to public water supplies. These measures include low-flow plumbing fixtures, drought-tolerant (native) outdoor landscaping, and water-efficient irrigation systems. The project will undergo review by CVWD and City staff to ensure wastewater capacity and compliance with the current wastewater treatment requirements. Additionally, sewer and water installation and connection fees in place at the time of development will be collected by CVWD. No new or expanded treatment facilities are expected as a result of project implementation, or is the project expected to exceed wastewater capacity. Less than significant impacts are expected. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Clean Water Act(CWA)of 1972 establishes regulations pertaining to the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from point sources. Subsequent amendments to the CWA in 1987 established a framework for regulating non-point source stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The proposed Project is located within the Whitewater River Watershed in the Colorado River Region (Region 7). The City of Palm Desert is a Permittee of the Whitewater River Watershed MS4. Individual projects, like the proposed development, are required to comply with these existing regulations. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 06065C2226G, effective August 28, 2008, the entire project and its immediate surroundings are located in a Zone X, area of minimal flooding. As designed, the proposed development would not alter the existing flood zone characteristics identified in the FIRM. Storm water management would be achieved through an engineered drainage system. All storm runoff generated on-site will be conveyed via surface flow to grated inlets located throughout the Project. The runoff will then be conveyed via storm drain lines to underground storage. The proposed improvement plans will be subject to agency review and approval which will ensure that the proposed grading and drainage conditions meet the City standards. Furthermore, the Project is not located in an area subject to flooding by the base(100-year, 1-percent-annual-chance)flood depths designated by the FEMA. The project will comply with the City's drainage requirements by preventing the discharge and transport of untreated runoff associated with the Project. As such, the Project proponent will be required to develop and implement a Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff and the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit. The Project-Specific WQMP will identify a strategy of site design, source controls, and treatment controls with maintenance and monitoring program to address post- construction runoff quality and quantity. No new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities are anticipated from project implementation. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Less than Significant Impact. Groundwater is the primary source of domestic water supply in the Coachella Valley. CVWD is the largest provider of potable water in the Coachella Valley and currently provides potable water to the City of Palm Desert. It operates more than 100 wells and serves a population of 283,000 in its service areas. CVWD's 2012 adopted Water Management Plan and 2015 Urban Water Management Plan have been developed to assist the agency in reliably meeting current and future water demands in a cost effective manner. The comprehensive Water Management Plan guides efforts to eliminate overdraft, prevent groundwater level decline, protect water quality, and prevent land subsidence. The 2015 UWMP serves as a The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 55 planning tool that documents actions in support of long-term water resources planning and ensures adequate water supplies are available to meet the existing and future urban water demands. Moreover, the Public Utilities & Services section of the 2016 General Plan includes Goal 1 with Policies 1.1 through 1.13, which pertain to the preferred stormwater management strategies that promote groundwater recharge, including a preference for on-site retention, infiltration and low impact development. The Project site is vacant and undeveloped land and therefore is not currently utilizing domestic water services provided by CVWD. The project proposes a multi-family residential development comprised of 412 dwelling units which will result in an increase to water supplies. The proposed project would connect into the existing infrastructure on Hovely Lane through on-site improvements of a 12" and 8" water lines. The Project will comply with the existing water management program in place. The infrastructure and design components for the project will be consistent with CVWD requirements and water management plan. The project will also be reviewed by CVWD and City staff to assure compliance with all current and applicable requirements. The proposed development will be expected to implement water conservation measures to reduce impacts to public water supplies. Additionally, water installation and connection fees in place at the time of development will be collected by CVWD. To address the City's groundwater recharge policies, the Project will implement a stormwater management design with an on-site underground retention structures designed to collect and infiltrate stormwater runoff. The expected combined infiltration capacity of this system is approximately 107,739 cubic feet, which represents the entire volume resulting from the controlling 100-year event. As such, the entire volume of stormwater runoff generated on-site up to the 100-year event will be percolated on-site, contributing to groundwater recharge. Therefore, no new infrastructure will be required as a result of project implementation and less than significant impacts are expected. e) Less than Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the Project will be conveyed to CVWD Wastewater Reclamation Plant. As previously discussed, CVWD operates 6 water reclamation plants and maintains more than 1,000 miles of sewer pipelines and more than 30 lift stations that transport wastewater to the nearest treatment facility and nearly 6.3 billion gallons of wastewater is treated yearly. Per CVWD's website, current expansions and improvements to the wastewater collection system and reclamation plans are taking place throughout the Coachella Valley. Therefore, sufficient capacity is available and impacts would be less than significant. f, g) Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste disposal and recycling services for the City of Palm Desert is provided by Burrtec. Solid waste and recycling collected from the proposed project will be hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station. Waste from this transfer station is then sent to a permitted landfill or recycling facility outside of the Coachella Valley. These include Badlands Disposal Site, El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill and Lamb Canyon Disposal Site. Cal-Recycle data indicates that these landfills have 40-50% of their remaining estimated capacity. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and guidelines. Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected relative to solid waste and applicable regulations. Mitigation: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/Page 56 19.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation 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 periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are ❑ ❑ ® ❑ considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ® ❑ human beings,either directly or indirectly? a) Less than Significant Impact. As concluded in the Biological and Cultural Resources sections of this document, the proposed project would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts to these resources. The project is compatible with the City of Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning and its surroundings. The project will not significantly degrade the overall quality of the region's environment, or substantially reduce the habitat of a wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Based upon the information and mitigation measures provided within this Initial Study, approval and implementation of the project is not expected to substantially alter or degrade the quality of the environment, including biological, cultural or historical resources. Less than significant impacts are expected. b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project and its location, is found to be adequate and consistent with existing federal, state and local policies and is consistent with the City of Palm Desert General Plan and surrounding land use. Approval and implementation of the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts related to cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in impacts related to environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The project has been designed to comply with established design guideline and current building standards. The City's review process will ensure that applicable guidelines are being followed. Mitigation measures and project design features incorporated into the project will reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2017/1'age 57 REFERENCES City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016 City of Palm Desert General Plan Update &University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR), August 2016 City of Palm Desert Draft Technical Background Report, August 2015 Traffic Operation Assessment,prepared by Kimley Horn,November 2016 Biological Resources Impact Analysis,prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., December 2016 Phase 1 Cultural Resource Assessment,prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.,January 2017 Geotechnical Engineering and Percolation Report, prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, December 2016 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by MSA Consulting,January 2017 Preliminary Hydrology Report,prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc., February 2017 The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Section Responsible for Impact after Mitigation Measures Timing Number Monitoring Mitigation 4. Biological 11I0-1:The applicant shall ensure that any Developer Prior to any Less than Resources construction activities that occur during the nesting ground significant season(February through August)will require that Planning disturbance all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for Department presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist Qualified Biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are observed,construction activities must be prohibited within a 500-foot buffer around the nest until the nestlings have fledged.All construction activity within the vicinity of active nests must be conducted in the presence of a qualified biological monitor.Construction activity may encroach into the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. 1 The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section Responsible for Impact after Mitigation Measures Timing Number Monitoring Mitigation 5.Cultural CR-1: The applicant shall ensure that if during the Developer During grading Less than Resources course of grading or construction, artifacts or other and other significant cultural resources are discovered, all grading on the Planning ground site shall be halted and the applicant shall Department disturbing immediately notify the City Planner. A qualified Qualified activities archaeologist shall be called to the site by,and at the Archaeologist cost of, the applicant to identify the resource and recommended mitigation if the resource is culturally significant. The archaeologist will be required to provide copies of any studies or reports to the Eastern Information Center for the State of California located at the University of California Riverside and the Aqua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office(THPO)for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register. CR-2: The project applicant shall ensure the Developer During grading Less than presence of an approved Native American Cultural and other significant Resource Monitor(s) shall be required during any Planning ground ground disturbing activities (including Department disturbing archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried Qualified Native activities cultural deposits be encountered, the monitor may American Cultural request that destructive construction halt and the Resource Monitor monitor shall notify a qualified archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and 2 The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section Responsible for Impact after Mitigation Measures Timing Number Monitoring Mitigation Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Office and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). The archaeologist will be required to provide copies of any studies or reports to the Eastern Information Center for the State of California located at the University of Riverside and the Agua Caliente THPO for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register. 16. TRA-1: The applicant shall participate in the Developer Prior to Less than Transportation funding or construction of off-site improvements grading and Significant through the payment of the Transportation Uniform Planning other ground Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and City of Palm Desert Department disturbing Development Impact Fees (DIF), or a fair share activities contribution as directed by the City. These fees, required as standard conditions, assist in alleviating cumulative impacts. 3 _ " K � � � r /3-voFmoWAmNGDRIVE mw^ 000n.CALIFORNIA vo6v 2578 nu7wa^-"u/ | om./w m/-/oyu CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. D/VPPYEA16-394 NOTICE OFA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AREQUEST gY NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC. FOR THE APPROVAL OFAMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND CONSTRUCTION OF 412 APARTMENT um|TS. CLUBHOUSE p*u|uTY. AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES LOCATED AT74-351MOVLEY LANE EAST The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity un the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CE08), has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that any potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level and a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for this project. Project Lu:eUon/oosc,iption: [roiecLLocatioo: 74'351 Hov|ey Lane East Proiect Description: A Development Agreement, Precise Plan, and Environmental Assessment applications have been submitted for the development of a 412-unit apartment complex on an undeveloped 17.5-acre parcel located along Hovley Lane East, west of the Palm Desert Hovley Soccer Park and east of James Carter Elementary School. The project consists of a one-story recreational building, seven (7) two-story apartment buildings, and eight (8) three-story apartment buildings. Other site improvements include covered parking, 220 garage units, on- site landscaping and recreational areas.A new signalized intersection will be provided at Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court. Eighty-two (82) of the 412 apartment units are identified for |owepincnmnhouoeho|ds. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt e resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council. Public Hearing: The public hearing will beheld before the Planning Commission on August 15. 2017. ouO:OOp.m. Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEO8, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date. The public comment period for this project is from July 25, 2017 to August 15. 2017. Public Review: The Development Ageomend, Precise Plan, and Environmental Assessment applications and related documents are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. /f any group challenges the action in court, the issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, o, prior to the Planning Commission hearing.All comments and any questions should bo directed to: Ermocja. Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73'51O Fred Waring Drive Palm Douo¢ C8S22OO (760)346-0611 ycov@uhyofpo|mdesort.mg PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYANSTENDELL. Secretary July 27. 2017 Palm Desert Planning Commission e 9 — I N i • s 1V p 1l uj pA 06 LU cr r; m. C J7 j kr z cn co cn J O CL I J Z Z Z �- 0 0 0 Of w> O r- F- F- OOw > > > OJ�w w w w w w ConW ` .Am ¢ zzmOm �O� l m ¢ Q w w w p S 0 i Q a d O O O m m J J J J po F- I-- � :D 0- � zZ000 �UJ QQ �tQ4QQQQ � � z l m C7 0 ZO � Z � c a J t �--CL LU 'If Z I W d- Z 0 O m c_w O J O O p cn m_.-, LL wZ wF-cnw F- cl� Q�¢ Q v O 1 i z¢0Qz ozo OJ � -,ao 0MiQJQ� FL00>- Ir CL cr- O O F- ,- l t. II # I i 1 t� _x a a 4 J a U) o m = U� W 0 O Y EEv pp ' //� v 3 V/� a �W may` W V� 2 _ n o ��U �jv Qf j yy c O i� Z a 11�. co P � I S ' �r r� c. W ✓rl�N n ' Z W ;! w > .. ' Uj U i � IA n f S � N _ U D _ r =�Vi au_ £ 3 3NVI A31AOH ¢ Z n o co z - N � Ivi Y s � PI �D m m Q ¢ 11 CD co N ■ - cll� ¢ m a a = < m a iu f o • �Ill Ir/� y UJ U m m U U Q Q Z • ca m m m oLL � �U Qom Q m m C6 u Q ¢ O QIn ca ' 45 Q Q ¢ m V C C V m m - m m co Q Q Y J Q m co Q ¢ m m ¢ a m ¢ ■ r?+ Q Zui m m W Of M M < m ¢ Q � Li F ti' -i .s:ae_.: ;camas.. flimieaa LU 2 lJJ •� W F- � — _ V <t a Q Ll "` Q m 77 ¢ v v ¢ � U N N N m 1_ -' U U m � � - Q m Q Q m j -- - uj 1 _ ui Q Q a m ` Q r— • m m m m _ �' a _ Q �w m Q N V C N w Y: r U m m U U) d" 0 Q a AO'Blla • N C C U m m U � --- _Y Yf C N y,@gy g ""pp .. U m m U '}f si�l 4p' p11 l @E{'� P.„ay��r° ` __ ' CV 11 d.s� f� 6�� � �.arJ-rtR��aS9��fA�YE'4� i v �d� f/J LU tV m m U M V' Q V U Q m Q Q m m Cn c Q W m r o t_ of d m > 2wco o y o W LL 'moo (= LU ZLLI x y v }p d < (N N U m m or o U U o W O Q Q Q N m w m z cn \ a o C Y) w w W m m I F- O z C m m ¢ ¢ co Q I � N O m m Q ¢ m ¢ ¢ m m U U ( ¢ _ i O .b _ s 1N3W3SV3 ,SV 1 _ - ' ' 213dd(18 3dVOSONVl IZ o uj n- o a/ ,�/ilc:�wliit'^'""�►�'+A�s�l:iYyiw.,. 1� ai!�'':"1�� J n J; #`iOSA ski ` r fir` ? ii= .�, �.+r.� I � F o a LLTTVV44 1 � � O 4 77 LLJ _m Lu Cc o •W '�l Is C.0 W nul�1 W F— L C r w _''�- rk, CO cn o LLI ' �• W Q S A f-- co LLJ CD -30 k i _ ■��F-i+^,�'•a•_��� � i�E��1r � III � _ y + t MAN, _ - -- -' ------ �► e N i • ui it ■ - z <a da o a o 0 o c o o— — — — — — — — — — H a a a a a a a U a a • v] N N h N h M W h N ED ECD _ > ■ • 4 E� o�-: o -• lK O vOc O OOcw » ti ���>'cU� 2 w �Eoy��h�zOw oL�ra vr��b yBoi°a�_00' m UU•c uOQEo2UUo. noo oO > i p i a`wo r O>aO ] ■ gw�t NZ ZmaaQo4UQ>¢00`m`��OS�im U (_ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 �� d_— w 0 a a a a a a a a a a o • � m � 3.2 oa } o „QU mN � ° V w ag2Q Ow >'dU' mpa.o� w c?�a>oawuZ� Ooo�� O awaw LU • h ER Ono=a05:EvZEfs�Tpa 'uQ >w m o°o?oz azpzw3ppzcz ��c3.�whx7 c0m�o--E='O��w'cU cc OUz �a�.�ZU�UmUwU'O.�-E��°�3>¢daz ZD Z ® O ® • W LLJ LU uj 8 8 8 8 J — — — d O — - — d — d u+ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 ai I 7 i O N C w rU °zo E.r Z > HLU UO 1_m5 U W Ox wUQ OI � 0 y._�� o �� mc`��5'uw FOptQ iwW �m Nd'o �OoW uaa a ''Ew�w�Q�Q EQ (9.6 o on az Oz CL-a¢oI Ou CD EEO-�mUOxa >z 2oQ�w°uz=r-8a�aiVix.woa x ` aOw-Qo z '08.Vm.n � goQO+ wu. • D \.O \^ O h C 6 6 6P 6'P 6 6 6 -d 6 i �Z U= V Uw U2 U� U_>' U?'U.2' U U2 U?' Z o�o>o - � �d Md NO \d Nd No \d Nd `d id < b,d bDd ZOd - t� O Y O Y O Y O Y O Y d _ N m m C m C m C m C m C m C m C m C m C m C W M v A A . m Cl O! O) c m Ol O) W O) Et K - J> J _> Q 2— �O O O� c0 ec O c�Z to OQ O � mBO oa �¢ EpyVU OZ,° �z � w at op oZ moaz� O Q . w o EO o Q °z 80 < C'nU o °z3 �w ' o 83 Q z `U Qf oZ p dU z a03 vE Wye o �I I- a r i x_ O i J a w O U� z coLU i z Ya F— E O�// ,.i > E -- W =m C^N � WK.is v r � x a v � M U _ W Of CL • • U) F— Q _ • L1J i+ wt r • Q F— cn UJ }, • • c/) a _W F— U W CD CN RE p- ` $ 10 ' - r_ * a • mt5� m g> AL N • s • 3NVI A3]AOH • • tV >- L� . m m U O V . * F- ® N • N O U1 n � M � m � n N � h • �} Q C, 4`, 00 00 U cu n1 W UJ o � d M � v N C OJ • a � vi Z n a 0 cv C = N � a n m m e � � � o w o � • a �m Q m Q K N® N 00 ®ct LL m m Q m Q ODD Q m Q N wp Z ti O Z w P m m ? a O cn O w I`• m Q Qi m Q O ® M d to w00 y z N aC 6 O ¢O CC9� Z a. b b eN.l W N O N a D �a Y Z to to J � o ~ Y • a � Y r- � X d LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S g g o 0 0 0 0 0 o g $ g o Z • o N N N N N N N N N N 1 n c L J = J • F- J t7 Qf N O TrnN- V R I M N j+ eM- OD to ^ Of c`7 i0 M N M W N OP �n uY N N N M N 4M'1 Q CO P M ep 1 co O p p p �p L Z iA O O O W O o N fD (O h tP�. O O O O^ O .1j O N 0 d W M M P tt0 N N M N N OD N fA W v N N` Y� jI o ee - O 2 p N l0 �D CO z w N UZ Z y N W O o O O 0 co 0 N 6 P N N N N Q - P M P N N IN P P N N M N N P M M N O W •� Ln a = ✓� O� N .n M O O� O N .t1 M 6f � a o`e � K O O O m to 'o I N N P M M O to 0 N N P M M ui a' U a Z a tp cD ry w � FO ti tp M M P � COO m O a - a o + O I w LL LL U. W o N N N r n R N N N ^ J Z ❑ VS (a V1 W J A N N O O O h Q N ♦ O O e0 N p h p W 0 o w v v m > rn o 12 .n v v o 0 0 O O W P P O O W P P Z 01 lA m (o CO i 00 co +� .- .- .- w co W LU = Z 7 Sr O O _ a re 9 m O 0 a " _ � O a w u qq dd� Q d a a a a a a w m o l V w W d m m m m m m ttt m m m m m m m m m a5 m m m m m [_O m_} m m m m m J tO N N N N N N N OD ca c C0 (n m m co co Go < Z a s a a a a a a a � a a a a a a s y VI Z co m CD CD CO CO m CO [0 m m m m m m m m m (D m m m m m m m m m m m W W N N N N M M N N N N M M z o w w a O a a O J J LL Z ?J J GJ J O J J > SJS O a 2 L Q Z O O O 5 w IXa P V O+i M C < P N N r7 P K V M Q O P N N O M ? V V' co V' V 'P N N O d W 0 q Q d 4 CO [0 CO CO U U Vt ¢ d d Q m CO m Cl) m m m m U U Gf O ♦ s a u w w N q z Q a = o = o a e a m m X ^ Z L L O : J a ` c/ Llj s- U J �� LL 0 UA8z C �.. .. �Ci�f A Ey a�'i z • T.,� . Cl) s; 7w ^ Nco Lli Q p J I G = E E OZS '�tm 10 ui t z 0— "' 0 {{ ,.. - c. •=ems •ai. CIO Z w• c z :15: MP Q CIL V L='" � v) ,T z z w C!� co w z �• • v) w i; •� F- .' #� I.U C r- • z o N N -L • . E • d U $.Y w d �r a x G J a U� o w � Y r 4 m ry E p ui ui • W.`r,dz n,�N • • � R $Q co U LD Qp lr^-i �pQ m E w m � a q W • C Z rLLJ = a d� J 2 g Q 0 co LLJ C (n ui • W • z d ^Q v� p z z w • W j ' z z • w • —LU 00 LO c0 LLJ Z N V • N . ' N O • • U LO Q O K� d me�, � � ± U�E� Q mya ui � ui_ _ QA &- Qf co cli LLJ ui qI6 w } \ . � G e \ � } C � \ 7 ¢ % � Z � W Z � - � w . W � © : - co - U LU y w o \ - - Z - ' 7 _ < � . 2 _ o < : . _ w co 2 2ƒk{, e � � � ► . y � * JJ`f< < }� \/\ - � a(§ z icy /�!&z CU ■ i Q Z i4 Z W M z <D � Cl) Za MX ■ - © N (�J Q? Z Zo m In w ■ _ ul m n .. Uo -. o w w U J o ■ Cl) ■ U- 1 o0 0 U- i=i _i -_T I :--I. �•7- G CE i • I 5 1 s 1 T I cli s. 9 I I I I � 0� i� • - I r) �I I '1 j t l i� I{I• ,I M a oaf i � • z E R \w z u . < _ EL� �2 = � CO - / - . �mm � z« \ G �f � — �/ . m§ gymcn , ! CL) w fey . : 0 ( .. / Cl) - 1 D- �L x 9 - � - \ � \ { r, . �� � ^ «� � ■ � — � 2 t ------------------------H e � . . . . F � r �© < OO • ❑ Q Lu CIO o LU Z LLJ w m i Q .I Go Lu s - � 0 z Z o � _ J o � z <t oLL m o b . 2 uj CO CO LL • m � u� .• AM �� Zrnti j -- wLu Q • � - U U) • - ..... r li --- J I T \ i �--- � is . I�I ' r F" J ■ W Q Q z co cr- 00 Of UJ I, I ^.. / .! LLJ LU r - O o. �- O_X . .-...m LLJ:7 � III Q Z Q i - - - HU- m CO L— ,� Z O O y x I' Q(n Lo O Zgin. I li h Ijf L � ; j Ll - I I �. L/ - — z� J Z Q 3 U- m Q � LL —_ U) LO oa Z co co O X ,T M — ui Q o Z w O x m cc& LL Cl)O N m cLU ) o er o o - tL [nLj- U) o Q � U L ,I cn 0 m a LK • 0 0 N � x Z M i W J o z Q ..4 m u m m Z -d- Lo -- � x p N W m � I �W 1 o > z2 w y d- �- Z Q i o x m IL m N I^ vl _ Z O Lo M M N r r is I _ oo- ; w^ __S�I J o Cn LLJ _ o = �' Eo LL g'? - W Z w < o aU E w =m m O a Wry z 3 w z W b s O 'UPW E.. oo P,ftl < CL i U) _ w . w F-- ;� w till! i 4111� uj z LIJ LL cfl R� z CV 1� �t r' N 0 I M.Z ailr it'll A k M z, Pill c a cmg;�a� x w J � U) $ V W ry Y cr Ulu O 'LL .. :z N . ZxE 0 E =m _ 25 >- T % W �� z �r dw V Q � p c„ cam') CL fy w i c- teamm4M' . i— t LG wC �-_ -•�• �F R U) w F— cn .. '� w ;.�, 19 IF C) L w CD Z N N N T Ism OL jw U v ■r �r �� a MEN � 3 ''1 � a rs U o W � Y r O o�3 r' ag W a 1 Qo !1 qo T W °C d a � a y 4t _ Q a C/) _ w IRA Q SIM t . W 75 r<E w aLLJ � �--- CO W �. _ CID . ' W a � .2 :s z o - CV o p Y K � EF x� IieiY9N5 3s h sR y a 6 aaY�t ®�`abFs (Y • r z . QW M • W af X • Ow CV OZ J a U- o 0o • O w rj= of p ZA 5 � i 01 I: zzi OI I / � 43 - 1 7 a ® m ®a D • W` A 0 wi2� {W ,f z oi 93 -.... Or 1 ,... • ,��, 0 0 mo 0 0 �' c - 1 � • �Icr Zo oil w a; ( t r t-- • CY7 Q " Z W N d W ^^ CL L x 010 N —— -- — 114' ---- 0 ' `0 ° ° a ° ° w ++ - � i71 cq ra - - - - —� U I t ° 1 I • i ® ° ° QI i Z,a.' 'M w;a' f - ® ° 1 - L ° I ° I I I 1 I ® ° a _ J 4 U W Y E c C-) �" • r i cc � � w � Ew C/) dilIP %!' w CL i.herILI �fIK CO 11WAI C7 %­ ui � Q i Q CO I— rf 1 ii W ire i/ „aI U) co -� 1► W > r,7M }; cn _ w LLJ CD ;r law �t� �.�M 4 r /fp . Sri f W ice' xa 11op� R " Fri s u�I- 1I�10 n: Jltrst J _ gg .n o-.11 8 8- � ~ lJ L - o_ - IRDE ul - �I Z QI � ® F r w c.i od cl 8 dx qo Z Bag oI- �r a UP 0 E yo LO o y IL rn EIF RL I I _ I b W �e Or ir , Z 4 fn 0 - Ha Z. � 0 0 � o 0 Lu aofLL W§ - s LI a I � - 0 C U Z II a Z - Ljj _ I LU � 0 r w I .LL-Al 9 0 Q h T L1 W I J W I i � LLI � � I co II ®' I 4 T CI cn 11 LU MO, AILS-A .t•A ML o-,tt 83 U� �g W W 8 ro g W N E g w bgs oo g2 i� LL is W 4 wQF o --r 6 1. a w " w < - �I!� W C/) V, F2 _ c" Q N? N U a a W i ii U 2 0 MI'�'INtIKT•L[L1W/tU'MYL[R-li-lO-WAY-9NtlICOU 0101®YMYBiV�G MMM V WI-OIY!1H9L\SMP�NM1