Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-20 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2018 — 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 MARCH 20, 2018 A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 20, 2018. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application to merge two parcels at 48-322 Northridge Trail (APN Nos. 652-350-007 and 650- 350-028). Case No. PMW 18-0001 (The Paolella Trust, Langley, B.C., Canada Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 18-0001. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER Vill. NEW BUSINESS IX. 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 recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 396-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue. Case No. PP/CUP/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 approval of Case No. PP/CUP/EA 16- 394. Action: X. MISCELLANEOUS None 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Agenda\3-20-18 agn.docx AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2018 XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XII. COMMENTS XIII. 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 161h day of March 2018. Monica O'Reilly, Recording Sec tary 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. 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Agenda\3-20-18 agn.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES • TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2018 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER �I' Chairman Joseph Pradetto called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chairman Ron Gregory ''��"'�"'�' Chairman Joseph Pradetto Staff Present: Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Ron Moreno, Senior Engineer/City Surveyor Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Joseph Pradetto led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 2018. Rec: Approved as presented. Upon a motion by Commissioner DeLuna, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER UI I�y'lll�il Noneli� 'I' Vill. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS iilp,i!I�ill'll A. 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 (CEQA) for an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue. Case No. PP/EA 16-394 (New Cities Investment Partners, LLC., Walnut Creek, California, Applicant). Principal Planner Eric Ceja noted that the applicant met with the owner of Canterra Apartments prior to the Planning Commission meeting and changes to the project were proposed. The proposed changes include: eliminating 12 units (412 to 400 units) and reducing some of the building heights along the eastern property line from three stories to two stories. He continued and presented the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He mentioned the applicant provided sight lines for Venezia and agreed to relocate the garages. The applicant also agreed to plant a double row of trees along the southern property line to limit the visibility from Portola Country Club and the proposed project. Lastly, he said copies of letters from surrounding property owners were given to the Planning Commission before the meeting and the City Attorney would like to address one of the letters. City Attorney Robert Hargreaves addressed a letter from Ms. Katherine Jenson, an attorney with Rutan & Tucker, LLP. He believed the City could address the issues raised in the letter. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the proposed project and make a decision based on a land use planning perspective, 2 &Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 and not worry about the legal arguments. The City will address the legal arguments as they move forward. Mr. Ceja recommended approval of the proposed project to the City Council. Chairman Pradetto briefly explained the process of the public hearing. He asked that the audience withhold any comments, clapping, boos, or jeers until it is their turn for public comment. He wanted to make sure everyone has a chance to be heard and be respected. He asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner John Greenwood said one of the Conditions of Approval mentions a housing agreement and the dispersion of low-income units. He asked staff to explain the dispersion of low-income units throughout the proposed project and when it is reviewed. Mr. Ceja explained that the applicant is conditioned to enter a housing agreement with the City's Housing Authority. The City's practice is to disperse the affordable units throughout the project site and between different unit types. Therefore, the affordable units would not be concentrated in any single building. Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell added that the City's Housing Authority is not a supporter of restricting low-income units to specific numbers (101 , 105, etc.). The Housing Authority prefers that it is a little more fluid. The housing agreement is an instrument in place to guarantee the low-income units are throughout the project. He said the City desires some level flexibility and Housing staff works with the applicant to ensure that happens. Vice Chairman Ron Gregory asked staff to indicate the 12 units that have been eliminated. Mr. Ceja responded that he would let the applicant go into more detail regarding changes to the proposed project. However, he believed the units being eliminated are in Building No. 1. Building No. 1 would be changed to a two-stories, as a result, 12 units would be eliminated. Chairman Pradetto asked when the applicant and staff agreed to the reduction of units. Mr. Ceja replied within the last hour. Chairman Pradetto asked if there is no visual representation of the new changes. Mr. Ceja replied no. Chairman Pradetto inquired if there is a requirement for the garage units. 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Mr. Ceja responded that the City's parking standards for multi-family or apartments are 50 percent of the parking provided shall be shaded such as a carport or garage. He noted that the applicant has provided both options. The property owner could charge more for a rental unit with a garage. Chairman Pradetto asked if the removal of the garage units would affect the sight lines and would the wall still be 9 or 11 feet tall. Mr. Ceja replied no. He said the existing perimeter walls would not change. As proposed with the garages, there would be a six-foot-high wall with a building above the wall that would be visible. However, without the garages, there would only be a six-foot-high wall Chairman Pradetto said a concern that was previously mentioned is the site location sits several feet higher than the adjoining properties on the east and the sight line visual did not reflect that. Mr. Ceja responded that the grade as shown to staff is within 12 inches of the surrounding properties. He stated there is a lot of sand that would be brought down within a foot. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked how much space there is between the houses and the project site. Mr. Ceja replied that the graphic indicates 97 feet between building faces and pointed to the area. Chairman Pradetto asked what the Planning Commission is being asked to approve. Mr. Ceja responded that staff is asking the Planning Commission to approve a 400- unit apartment project with a density bonus. Chairman Pradetto asked if the Planning Commission would be making any determination on the environmental document. Mr. Ceja replied no. The City Council will make any determination on the environmental document. Chairman Pradetto commented that under the City's code, the setbacks on a Planned Residential zone are set through the Precise Plan application process. He asked how the Planning Commission could recommend a zero-lot-line on the proposed project without going through the Precise Plan process. Mr. Ceja responded that there are multiple application entitlements that staff takes to the final approving authority. With the current project, the applicant is proposing 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the density bonus which requires City Council approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission should look at the Precise Plan as part of their decision; however, the project goes to the City Council for final approval. Vice Chairman Gregory clarified that the applicant has proposed garage units because they could charge more money for those units. The garages have nothing to do with the density bonus and carports are allowed. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Chairman Pradetto mentioned that the Findings in the resolution states "the Planning Commission further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts . . ." Therefore, the Planning Commission is being asked to say there are no significant findings. He said it might likely be true; however, they are in the middle of the comment period and they have not received or responded to all the comments. He asked how staff expects the Planning Commission to predict in that circumstance, Mr. Ceja responded that staff provided the Planning Commission with a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for review and comment. He said the Commission can discuss anything they are not comfortable within the MND. Mr. Hargreaves made clear that the recommendation to be made by the Planning Commission is based on the record that was provided by staff. He stated the comment period has not closed. The comment period will close before it goes to the City Council Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. LEE NEWELL, New Cities Investment Partners, LLC., Walnut Creek, California, stated that he met with Mr. Ceja, Mr. Moran (owner of Canterra Apartments), and Mr. Moran's attorney before the Planning Commission meeting. He said they have not had an opportunity to meet and discuss the proposed project. He felt they all arrived to a middle ground and a game plan, but have not nailed everything down. He noted that his development team is present to answer any questions. He shared that he started visiting the desert 68 years ago and has had a residence in the desert for 30 years. He bought the project site because he felt it is a perfect property for the proposed use. He believed Palm Desert is in need of affordable housing and somewhat of an epidemic at this time. In addition, he has been doing 80/20 deals which are 20 percent affordable and 80 percent market rate since 1984. He mentioned he did the first density bonus that the State of California approved, as well as, the second school mitigation program. He has been doing mostly family housing bond deals and four percent tax credits for many years, and felt they would do a great job on the proposed project. They plan on 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 building the finest class "A" luxury apartment community in the desert with generously sized one-, two-, and three-bedroom units that include top quality finishes. The proposed project would also include a clubhouse. He said there has not been a market-rate apartment building of any size built in the desert for the past nine years since the recession. He said they are able to make this project economically work because of their financing vehicle that is facilitated by the 20 percent affordable units; therefore, it is a win-win situation and a good thing for the City. Mr. Newell noted that in the last 11 years they have only produced 50 very- low-income units, and there is a remaining 1,051 affordable units that need to be provided to meet State requirements. He also noted that they would have 82 workforce very-low-income units, which would be spread throughout the project. If they reduce the project by 12 units as mentioned earlier, there might be a couple of very-low-income units less. Approximately nine months ago, they met with the Venezia homeowners' association president to present the layout of the project. At that time, there was an agreement with the proposed project. However, that has changed and they are now trying to be a good neighbor by moving the garages away. He briefly went over the traffic study and noted that the traffic signal, median, and the turn lane would improve traffic in the area. Mr. Newell disclosed that the project was approved in 1989 and it contributed 20 acres to the soccer park. In regard to Portola Country Club (PCC), he met with the manager and the manager did not feel there were any issues. He let the manager of PCC know that they were proposing a double row of 24-inch box trees so PCC residents cannot see the apartments. He noted face of the building to face of the building is 117 feet from PCC and 97 feet from Venezia. He referred to the General Plan use for a town center neighborhood, which shows three pictures with three-story residential use. Based on discussions with Mr. Moran, they will have 10 two-story buildings and only five three-story buildings. He said one of the three-story buildings will be along the eastern boundary and the other three-story buildings will be at the center of the project. He explained that Building No. 1 would be reduced to a two-story building and noted that the parking ratio changes with the reduction of the 12 units. Building Nos. 6, 7, and 10 will be reduced to two stories. Building No. 11 will remain three stories and Building No. 3 will become three stories with a total of 400 apartment units. He stated after almost 30 years, it is time for the property to be developed and thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Commissioner DeLuna asked staff if there are other projects in the City of Palm Desert with three-story buildings or are planned for three-story buildings. Mr. Ceja replied there is one existing three-story apartment building on Deep Canyon Road near Shadow Hills Road, south of Highway 111. He said there are other sites planned for three-story apartments in north Palm Desert. Chairman Pradetto asked Mr. Moran if he planned on speaking. 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. RICK MORAN, Canterra Apartments, Palm Springs, California, thanked Mr. Newell for meeting with him and his attorney. They all put their heads together and felt Mr. Newell made a lot of concessions and appreciated that he has agreed to lower Building Nos. 1 , 6, 7 and 10 from three stories to two stories. The changes eliminate view blockage from their project. He believed Mr. Newell is trying to be a good neighbor by removing carports behind Venezia and kept buildings at two stories. He also realized that there is never a perfect solution, but he felt satisfied with the arrangement they have agreed to and hoped the project could move forward. i�,,k Commissioner Greenwood asked staff to clarify the number of units and the number of buildings going down to two stories and one building going to three stories. Mr. Ceja pointed to the site plan and said Building No. 3 would go from two stories to three stories, which would become similar to Building No. 14, Vice Chairman Gregory inquired if Building No. 3 would then lengthen. Mr. Ceja responded that Building Nos. 3 and 5 would lengthen. MR. LOREN CAMPBELL, Palm Desert, California, commented that he bought a home in Venezia a few months ago. He is concerned with the sight lines and the two-story buildings. However, now there is so much confusion with the changes made before the meeting and he has no concept of what is really going on. He noted that the site plan indicates two buildings that are numbered 14. He would want to look at the MND document to see what the impact will be on the schools. He urged the Planning Commission to not make a decision on the project, defer until the public comments are closed, and staff has had time to address public comments. MR. DAVID NEWMAN, Palm Desert, California, stated that based on the modifications, he would submit his written objection to the original plan for the proposed project. He said he will protect his interest as a resident of Venezia at another time, if necessary. MR. JAMES GUGINO, Palm Desert, California, said he and his brother bought a house in Venezia as a second home because they like the area. The area is beautiful and well kept. However, they discovered that more than 400 apartment units are being proposed which is like a small city. He voiced his concern with the three-story buildings. He pointed to the site plan and asked what are the red boxes. Mr. Stendell responded that the red boxes indicate garages. 7 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. GUGINO stated that 400 apartment units are a large amount. He said the Planning Commission would also be concerned if they had two-story and three- story buildings being built across the street from their home. He mentioned he paid over $900,000 for his home and it does not make sense to have an apartment complex in his area. He understood there is a need for apartments, but there have to be other properties available to build apartments. He felt the homeowners in Venezia should be protected. MS. DIANA ALTOFER, Palm Desert, California, asserted that Mr. Gugino is directly affected by the proposed project. She stated that the garages are being eliminated; however, there is no buffer. She also stated they did not receive a scale model to see the ratio of the project. She said there are going to be 594 homes looking at apartment buildings. She was glad that the garages were eliminated because she felt they are a fire hazard and a perfect place for middle school kids to hang out. She referred to dust removal and noted that the report states it is insignificant. She voiced that the size of sand mounds are big and she does not believe it will not make a difference. In addition, there will be a three-story building overlooking the kindergarten play yard and has notified the school's superintendent. She suggested the building be moved in a different way so it is not overlooking the play yard. Ms. Altofer listed all the proposed amenities, which would be next to their sleepy neighborhood. She stated that the project is contrary to what they thought they were moving next to. MS. SUSAN YOUMANS, Palm Desert, California, shared that the City's core values and moral code include honesty and integrity. So she asked why the project was brought up during the summer when many residents were not in town. She asked why the City and the developer get several months to prepare and residents get three minutes to oppose. She asked why their opinions do not matter. She asked what makes the City think that the project would not affect the residents of Chaparral, Silver Sands, and the other complexes along Portola Avenue. She asked if more could be done than just a small blurb in The Desert Sun and letters to a handful of adjacent homeowners. She asked who is going to be responsible for the cracks in their windows, sheetrock, and brick walls from the excavators and heavy equipment. She asked how will the residents be compensated. Will they need to hire lawyers? The City's website calls Palm Desert a unique, beautiful desert city and a premier resort destination. If the City continues to allow three- to five-story buildings to be constructed, she asked how long will it take residents to decide to move to a different Coachella Valley city. She stated the three-story project will obstruct views and asked the Planning Commission to not vote to change the landscape of Palm Desert. MS. JUNE ENGBLOM, Palm Desert, California, requested a few extra minutes to address the Planning Commission because she already had written her comments, but the facts have changed. She said during the meetings in the summer, residents brought up the following concerns: traffic, the views, noise, and water among other issues. The MND indicates there will be a traffic signal at 8 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Jasmine Court, but there is only the promise of a signal warrant analysis. However, the signal would be installed after post project condition, and after construction and full occupancy of the proposed project so who knows if a signal will ever be installed. There are also painted lines proposed on Portola Avenue to make two right-turn lanes onto Hovley Lane East. The bike lane appears to be gone, which could become a safety issue. Concerning the view, the MND claims their views are already obstructed by trees, carports, or brick walls—so what are a few three-story buildings going to matter. She asked the Planning Commission to take a look at the site and her backyard so they can see for themselves. The noise, the MND predicts there will not be temporary, permanent, or periodic increase ambient noise levels. With bulldozers and 865 new neighbors, the adjacent residents will certainly experience increased noise. In regard to the water, the Coachella Valley Water District told the City there is no problem. If there is not a problem, she asked why are they being told not to flush each time they use the bathroom. The MND mentions that no reptiles or mammals were observed. However, she hears coyotes howling in the morning and lizards on her wall. In addition, she sees hawks, doves, roadrunners, other birds, and hears owls at night. In the MND, Mr. Ceja signs off that the project could have a significant effect on the environment. Supposedly revisions by the developer have been made, she asked what revisions have been done. Over and over again, the MND states "allowed under the General Plan." She voiced that perhaps the real problem is the General Plan. She asked why did the City Council approve multi-story buildings. She asked if the views and overcrowding do not matter to the Council. She asked how were the residents informed of the General Plan. Was there some small tidbit in The Desert Sun? If people were to be polled on how they feel about two-to five-story buildings in Palm Desert, she bet that most people would respond no. She mentioned she received 78 signatures opposing the project. She referred back to the MND which states "allowed under the General Plan," the City could build seven to 40 units per acre anywhere. So on the Hovley Lane East site, there could be a minimum of 126 to 720 apartments. She pointed out that the General Plan would allow up to 720 apartments on a tiny piece of land. She asked that the Planning Commission consider the applicant's request carefully and on how they are impacting the future of beautiful Palm Desert before they vote in favor of three-story buildings. MS. DIANE RICHEY, Palm Desert, California, communicated that she walks her dog of the Palm Desert Civic Center two to three times a week and is always astonished by the beauty of the surrounding area that the City has created for the residents. She shared that the City Council's bios on the website mention that many of them enjoy the outdoors and one day they are going to look out and see three-story buildings. She felt that three-story buildings are not appropriate on the proposed site. She said the developer is from northern California and he might not care what happens in southern California. She stated the City needs to take care of the Palm Desert residents. If the City cares, they need to keep the buildings at two-stories. With the original plan of 306 units, the developer could still provide 60 low-income units. She hoped when it is time for the Planning Commission to vote, 9 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the Commission thinks about all things in question. If the Commission lived next door to the proposed project, she asked how would they vote. MS. COLLEEN HILL, Palm Desert, California, said she became a resident in Palm Desert five years ago. She chose to buy in Venezia because the views were amazing and it was a lovely community surrounded by lovely buildings. She stated that three-story buildings do not fit in the proposed area. She would not have bought a home in Venezia if she knew there would be three-story buildings. She voiced her concern with giving the developer a lot of concessions. She asked why the City is allowing the developer to have zero-lot-line setbacks and three-story buildings. Secondly, if PCC could have a 127-foot separation, why can they not have the same for Venezia. Thirdly, she is concerned with property taxes. There is going to an impact on the schools, police, and fire. So she asked if Palm Desert residents are going to be hit with extra assessments to pay for the additional services. MS. ROCIO MARTINEZ, Palm Desert, California, stated she is a resident in Venezia and one of the six residents that would be impacted by the project. She mentioned that she is a banker and not familiar with terms that have been brought up during the meeting. She shared that she specifically chose to live Palm Desert because she was raised in the Coachella Valley. She attended school at the University of Riverside and moved back to the desert because she now has two kids. She chose Palm Desert to have a good quality of life for her kids. If she would have known about the monstrous project in her backyard, she would not have bought her home in Venezia. Just a year ago, she bought her dream home in a nice and quiet area, and it is quickly turning into a nightmare with three-story buildings being proposed. She mentioned even if the sand dunes are leveled, she would still be able to see the apartments and they would be able to see her. In addition, her children will soon be attending Carter Elementary School, which she has no choice unless she enrolls her children in a private school in Rancho Mirage. With the recent tragedy in Las Vegas and the vantage point that the three-story buildings will have over the schoolyard, she would be scared for her children. She said if she could, she would sell her home. However, she just purchased her dream home and has used every dollar that she had from selling her home in Riverside to be in Palm Desert. She does not understand why the project needs so many amenities. She expressed that the project does not need to be in their backyard, it does not need to be near their children, and it does not need to be in Palm Desert. Ms. Martinez stated she does not think the Planning Commission would vote in favor of the project if it was in their backyard, if they had children, or affect their privacy. MR. JIM KENNEDY, Palm Desert, California, stated his concern is with noise pollution. He said there are going to be more cars around PCC and Venezia. He commented currently there is no noise. He said the MND states the traffic would not have a significant impact; however, he believed ambient noise would be impacted. He noted that PCC has approximately 499 residents and the proposed 10 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 project will have an additional 400 residents. He stated the proposed amenities are also going to impact noise pollution; therefore, he is not in favor. MR. DAN STICKELS, Palm Desert, California, said he lives in PCC. He thought the open space would be a golf course or similar; not a high-rise building. He asked if the applicant is prepared to repair cracks to floors and walls for the residents that live next to the proposed project due to the construction. He mentioned when trees were removed along the property line, many homes got cracks in the floors and walls. He had a concern with lights coming from cars and felt the applicant should propose a higher wall. MR. ROBERT AULT, Palm Desert, California, stated he is a resident of Venezia. He does not live next to the affected area; however, he is affected because he lives off Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane East. He communicated that the traffic is already impacted due to the elementary school, and adding the proposed number of units to the area will impact him gravely. He voiced that he does not appreciate the traffic and the proposed two-story buildings. They are not necessary and could be built somewhere else. He is concerned with the density and utilities, and the possibility of increased taxes. He stated concessions have been made to the developer and asked why the residents do not have concessions. Commissioner Greenwood asked staff if Burrtec reviewed and approved the trash enclosures. Mr. Ceja replied that Burrtec did review the plans and approved the project. Commissioner Greenwood commented that the housing density bonus is a matrix by the State of California, known as Assembly Bill No. 2222. He asked staff what are the requirements when someone is applying for a housing density bonus. uallll:` Mr. Ceja explained that if an applicant is proposing to utilize the State's density bonus provisions and they provide a certain level of low-income affordable units, the applicant can receive a density bonus. In this case, the applicant is proposing 20 percent of their units at a different income level; therefore, they are able to receive a 35 percent density bonus. He said in exchange for the density bonus and the applicant providing additional affordable units, the City can grant concessions for the development which is being proposed by the applicant. In terms of the history of the proposed site, Commissioner Greenwood inquired if it is correct that the site has been zoned and entitled since 1989 for apartment use. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the 1989 development agreement is still in effect for another couple of years. 11 G\Planning\Monica OAeilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Mr. Ceja replied that the development agreement expires in 2019. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that he is concerned with the CEQA provision even though the Commission has been advised that it is a technical matter and to not be concerned with CEQA. However, he is concerned with any decision the Commission makes might be impacted later by things they do not know about. He requested clarification. Mr. Hargreaves responded that the comment period on the CEQA document does not expire for another week or two weeks. Therefore, inevitably there is an opportunity for comments to come in that would not go before the Planning Commission. He indicated that CEQA does not require that an advisory body have a completed CEQA document before the advisory body makes a recommendation to the final authority. He stated when the City Council considers the project, staff will have a complete CEQA document. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the 1989 development agreement would have traction in court if the owner of Canterra Apartments were to dispute the proposed project. Mr. Hargreaves answered that the City does not believe the development agreement would have traction in court. Typically, he said development agreements exclusively provide entitlements for a particular piece of property. He said a development agreement is not like Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) where it is promised to a neighboring property. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if one were to assume, because of the relatively updated General Plan, would the General Plan supersede the 1989 development agreement. Mr. Hargreaves responded that it depends on the development agreement. He said the 1989 development agreement was kind of at the beginning of development agreements. In a current development agreement, the City would be very explicit about the entitlements that were grandfathered in. It would provide that no subsequent changes affect the property, etc. The 1989 agreement provides that the developer donate certain property, which is now the soccer park in exchange, the City zoned the property to permit 612 units. He stated that as long as the City has entitlements covering the property to permit 612 units, it is sufficient under the development agreement. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the garages are omitted from the properties abutting Venezia, what type of plantings will be installed to improve the property line. Mr. Ceja responded that a shift in the area would be required to accommodate a new landscaping along the property line. 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the driving lane would be okay where there was an opportunity to mitigate the property line. Mr. Ceja said it may require a bend or kink in the drive aisle to accommodate a landscape planter on the property line. Vice Chair Gregory said he is disturbed about the concerns being raised by parents and others regarding the three-story buildings overlooking the schoolyard. The applicant has indicated interest in working with his neighbor to the east. He asked if the applicant would consider not adding a third story to Building No. 3 so it is not overlooking the schoolyard. Mr. Ceja replied it is possible. Chairman Pradetto asked for a quick 101 on general planning and housing allocations. He mentioned that the question has been asked about how the City of Palm Desert could build and plan for multi-story units. His experience has been that there are other jurisdictions struggling with similar constraints of having to plan for more units because of State law. He stated it is not something that the City necessarily chooses to do, but it is coming from the State on how the City must meet housing allocation requirements. The City has to plan the units in the most intelligent way possible and there are people that buy land, which is zoned and planned for apartments. He asked staff if that is accurate. Mr. Ceja replied yes. He explained that regions are assigned an allocation for housing from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) on how many units need to be provided in the City of Palm Desert over an eight-year period. He noted that the units are broken down by income. He stated Palm Desert is required to build approximately 100 very-low-income units in an eight-year period, which the City is not meeting that requirement. With the proposed project, Palm Desert could get closer to meeting the requirement. As far as the General Plan, the proposed project site and other areas of the community have been rezoned to allow for three-story buildings and greater density. Commissioner Greenwood said he is sensitive to the main entry. He noted there is a lot of pedestrian circulation along Hovley Lane East coming from the elementary school. He understood the drawings are preliminary and asked the civil engineer what he foresees so kids are not further out from the main entry. MR. MIKE ROWE, MSA Consulting, Rancho Mirage, California, responded by adding a traffic signal they can control traffic. They also have crosswalks. In addition, existing sidewalks will be moved back to give kids a safer path to travel. With the traffic signal, the traffic level of service increases to a level A. 13 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory appreciated Mr. Moran's effort in working with the developer and coming to some kind of agreement. However, he is curious about the garages that are against the Canterra Apartments property line. MR. MORAN responded that he realized with all the compromises there should be give and take on both sides. He stated the most important thing for Canterra Apartments was to reduce the three-story height to two-stories as much as possible to reduce the view blockage. He commented that they do not like the garages; however, they did not object because the developer was willing to take them out by Venezia. He said they do not like the garages and rather have carports; however, he believed the developer needs the garages for the project to be financially successful. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. MS. ALTOFER interjected that she had an additional comment. Chairman Pradetto reopened the public hearing. �IH�IIIa0lll l g0i�hl�i MS. ALTOFER commented that she called nearby cities and was told by the City of Indian Wells that they know about concessions; however, they would not allow a zero setback. She voiced her disappointment with Palm Desert. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened at 7:29 p.m. Commissioner Greenwood said he would like to speak to the applicant and requested Chairman Pradetto reopen the public hearing. Chairman Pradetto reopened the public hearing. Based on discussion with Mr. Moran and the revised design, Commissioner Greenwood asked Mr. Newell to walk the Planning Commission through the changes. He is unclear on the number of units. MR. NEWELL responded that the project as revised would have five three-story buildings and 10 two-story buildings. Building Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 will be three- story buildings and Building Nos. 1 , 6, 7, and 10 go from three-story buildings to two-story buildings. He said they are eliminating 12 units from Building No. 1 , which is the third floor. They are going to try to replace the units in Building Nos. 1 and 3. He noted that they are looking at various options, such as, do they increase Building No. 5 or have Building No. 10 extend to the west. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the garages being omitted are going to be relocated. 14 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. NEWELL replied that the garages will be relocated between Building Nos. 6 and 7. They will also possibly relocate some garages south of Building No. 4. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the Planning Commission has been studying the project for over a six-month period. She has seen a lot of movement on both sides, which is a spirit of cooperation. She said it is a complicated issue and the site has been zoned for apartments since 1989. She also said that the density bonus is an added element that is permitted and is being used throughout the City. She felt the developer has done a sensitive job dealing with the needs of the community and has remained flexible. She is pleased with the revisions and believed the developer has a great project. She welcomed the project to the City. From a land use component, Commissioner Greenwood does not have a concern. He also felt it was a nice project. His only concern is not having a defined plan and would prefer to see a revised plan. He asked the Planning Commission how they felt about continuing the item. Vice Chairman Gregory agreed with Commissioner Greenwood. He was very happy so many compromises were made to allow the project to move forward which is very admirable. However, there were so many changes that he is uncomfortable voting on the project until there is a revised plan. He believed it would also give the applicant an opportunity to address many of the items discussed during the meeting. Chairman Pradetto asked Vice Chairman Gregory if that is a motion. Vice Chairman Gregory replied yes and Commissioner Greenwood said he would second the motion. Commissioner DeLuna asked the Chairman to repeat the motion. Mr. Hargreaves interjected and suggested that the Planning Commission continue to a date certain and reopen the public hearing so staff does not have to re-notice the public hearing. He asked if two weeks was enough time to bring the item back to the Commission. Chairman Pradetto encouraged that the item be continued to the second Planning Commission meeting in March. Vice Chairman Gregory amended his motion to continue the item to the second meeting in March. Mr. Stendell interjected that the applicant is able to bring back plans for the first Planning Commission in March. 15 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Chairman Pradetto remarked that the Planning Commission understands the applicant's request. Vice Chairman Gregory stated he stood by his motion. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there is a reason why the developer is requesting to return to the Commission in two weeks. MR. NEWELL responded that they are requesting two weeks because they need to meet the bond application period with the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC). The Committee meets in May and they need to attend the meeting to qualify for the bonds, which are needed for the financing and tax credits. He said they cannot have impediments to entitlements. He mentioned the application must be submitted two months in advance (March 13, 2018), or they could possibly request an extension subject to the City's action. Commissioner DeLuna remarked that if the applicant feels they could be back in a couple of weeks, she asked why the Commission would deny them to be back in two weeks. Commissioner Greenwood responded that he wants the project done right. He does not want a rush job. A month will give the applicant ample time to make adjustments. Vice Chairman Gregory added that he is concerned with the project being resubmitted to City staff with sufficient time for staff to review. Chairman Pradetto concurred with the two Commissioners. However, there's another concern with the developer's deadline pushing the Commission forward. Additionally, the residents have continually suffered from poor notification. He felt it is not fair that the developer's deadline should preempt their ability to review the project. He stated he understands the pressures; however, he does not want to bend just because they have been dealing with this project for so long and now have to move on it quickly. Therefore, he supported the one-month delay. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the delay would affect the ultimate outcome of the project if the developer is not able to get the application in on a timely fashion. Chairman Pradetto replied probably. He mentioned he has a concern with the zero- lot-line setback being part of Planned Residential as a mechanism to provide flexibility. He said the City has projects that utilize the zero-lot-line setback; however, he does not want that to set the pattern that becomes the default. So he asked if the proposed project is the right project to enact the zero-lot-line setback. He commented that he wants the zero-lot-line setback to be addressed, and continuing the item one month would allow more time to comment on the environmental document. Lastly, he felt it is not fair to the Planning Commission or 16 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the residents to comment or weigh in on the project without a concrete plan. He repeated that the motion is to continue the item for a month. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that when buildings are lengthened, other issues arise. He felt the additional time will allow the architects an opportunity to take a good look at the long and tall buildings. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the project would be compromised if it is delayed for a month. Mr. Stendell responded that the decision to delay the project for a month is under the purview of the Planning Commission. Based on the timeline indicated by the developer, he believed a delay would get in the way of the project in one way, shape, or form. He stated he does not know what the delay does to the economics of the project; however, he does not believe a two-week or one-month delay is a material change at this point. Chairman Pradetto inquired what is the probability that the Planning Commission recommends a continuance and staff determines the continuance puts the project in jeopardy. He asked if staff would take the project before the City Council without taking it back to the Commission. Mr. Stendell replied no. The Planning Commission has to review the project. Mr. Hargreaves interjected that the motion should include reopening the public hearing. Vice Chairman Gregory amended the motion to include reopening the public hearing. Commissioner Greenwood concurred with the amendment. Vice Chairman Gregory moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. PP/EA to March 20, 2018, and reopen the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0-1 vote with Commissioner Holt ABSENT (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). X. MISCELLANEOUS None 17 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.dccx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 XI. COMMISSION MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS Commissioner Greenwood requested that staff look into the process within the Architectural Review Commission, in terms of the review of construction documents to make sure the documents are in conformance with the original approval. He noted not changing the process for all projects, but for high-exposure projects such as a new hotel. He commented that it is difficult for any commission to review a 200-page technical document and give it the attention it deserves. Mr. Stendell responded that staff and the ARC have discussed ideas on a couple of levels. Iail 1!fl IihII,i�„���pl,,��� I II lilli(�I' XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chairman Pradetto adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. h fl�ll�l,i��WIN JOSEPH PRADETTO CHAIRMAN ATTEST: III;I,�Itli, RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 18 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: RYAN STENDELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: RON MORENO, CITY SURVEYOR Date: March 1 , 2018 Subject: PARCEL MAP WAIVER NO. 18-0001 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 17-160: Applicant/Owner: Debbie Paolella 5645 199 Street, Langley, BC, V3A 1 H9 Canada Project Address: 48322 Northridge Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 Representative: Benjamin Egan, PE, PLS 42945 Madison Street, Suite A Indio CA 92201 RO ORENO, P.E., P.L.S CITY SURVEYOR/SR ENGINEER EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL MAP WAIVER—PMW 18-0001 PARCEL 1 That certain parcel of land located in the City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of California, being those portions of Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot "I" of Tract Map No. 30438-2 as shown by a map filed in Book 396 of Maps, pages 82 through 89 inclusive, records of said County of Riverside, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwest corner of said Lot 6, said point being located on the southerly line of Lot "D", "Northridge Trail" of said Tract Map No. 30438-2; Thence along the southerly line of said Lot "D" North 73049'07" East a distance of 15.09 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northwesterly, having a radius of 110.00 feet; Thence continuing along said southerly line of Lot "D" northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 48°30'58" an arc distance of 93.14 feet; Thence continuing along said southerly line of Lot "D"tangent from said curve North 25'18'09" East a distance of 92.92 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave southeasterly, having a radius of 100.00 feet; Thence continuing along said southerly line of Lot "D" northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 17`50'28" an arc distance of 31.14 feet to the most northerly corner of said Lot 7; Thence along the easterly line of said Lot 7 South 40'43'23" East a distance of 138.74 feet; Thence continuing along said easterly line of Lot 7 South 24°37'20" East a distance of 137.56 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 7; Thence along the southerly line of Said Lot 7 South 73045'24" West a distance of 95.39 feet to the most southerly corner of said Lot 7; Thence along the westerly'line of said Lot 7 North 51`3456" West a distance of 56.09 feet to the most easterly corner of said Lot 6; Thence along the southerly line said Lot 6 South 33'47'29" West a distance of 41.69 feet to the most easterly corner of that certain parcel of land identified as "TRANSFER PARCEL" as described in "Certificate of Compliance—Waiver of Parcel Map PMW 07-09" recorded May 15, 2007 as Doc. #2007-0322267 of Official Records of said County of Riverside; (legal description of Parcel 1 is continued on page 2) Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL MAP WAIVER - PMW 18-0001 (continued legal description of Parcel 1 from page 1) Thence along the southerly line of said "TRANSFER PARCEL" South 17°38'48" West a distance of 42.94 feet to an angle point in the southerly line of said "TRANSFER PARCEL"; Thence continuing along the southerly line of said "TRANSFER PARCEL" North 76'17'01" West a distance of 54.11 feet to the most westerly corner of said "TRANSFER PARCEL", said point being located on the southerly line of said Lot 6; Thence along the southerly line of said Lot 6 South 66'49'03" West a distance of 16.13 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 6; Thence along the westerly line of said Lot 6 North 22*29'41" West a distance of 128.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.99 Acres (43,076 Square Feet), more or less. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of record. Graphically depicted on 'EXHIBIT "B"— PLAT', attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. This legal description was prepared \.AND S� by me or under my direction. �\o���OANIFI o� , Benjamin Daniel Egan, PLS 8756 Prepared: March 1, 2018 s�qT£ DF Page 2 of 2 ()ERCORDRECO A DATA PER EXHIBIT 111311 SHEET 1 OF 1 MB 396/82-89 ADJUSTMENT PLAT ()R2 RECORD DATA PER PMW 07-09 RECORDED 5/15/2007 AS / DOC. #2007-0322276 %\ (N Co 2 w R1 r ,mow ��' (0=17 50 28 L=31 . 14' )R1 0=48°30'58" / LOT LINE TO 8 R � � BE DELETED =110.00' L=93. 14' �'� PARCEL A\, 7 -PMw 07-09 PARCEL 1 moo; (AREA=0.99t ACRES) (43,076f SQ. FT. ) �513 cp ° °7!3 1R� , 2 � �N2 g 9 s "TRANSFER L07 r PMw 07 L 09 PARCEL MAP WAIVER - PMW 18-0001 PREPARED BY: �pL LAND D A AllF!sG�G <c. P IA mNO. 8756z �- a s ` Q BENJAM IN DANI EL EGA N, PLS �qTF 0 CA \Y� LS 8756 DATE: 03/01/2018 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: March 20, 2018 PREPARED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner REQUEST: Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 396-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue. Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2699 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project as conditioned for the construction of a 396-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 and 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 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. The following additional conditions were recommended: • ensure proper screening of air conditioning (AC) units and gas meters, • balcony walls shall be 12 inches thick, • Carport roofs shall be gabled with an approximately nine-foot plate on both sides. Planning Commission At the Planning Commission meeting on February 20, 2018, the Commission continued the applicant's request to March 20, 2018, to allow sufficient time to update the project's site plans, which were made in response to neighborhood input. The following changes have been made to the project design: March 20, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 2 of 5 • The number of three-story buildings has been reduced from eight to five. • Garage units have been replaced with an eight-foot landscape buffer and carports along the Venezia property line. • The total number of units resulting from above referenced changes has been reduced from 412 to 396. Background Analysis 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 18 acres in size and is undisturbed with the exception of perimeter block walls to the south, east, and west. Additionally, public roadway improvements and a sidewalk at the northern property line along Hovley Lane East. 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 15 feet from Hovley Lane East 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 Project Description The project includes the construction of 396 apartment units, a clubhouse facility, two outdoor swimming pools, recreational and open space, covered and uncovered parking spaces, and garages. Landscape is provided in all non-parking and non-building portions of the site. Vehicle access into the project is provided at the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court. A new traffic signal will be installed at this intersection as part of the project. On February 20, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in which the proposed project was continued to allow the applicant to revise site plans and to make changes to the proposed project. The applicant has made changes to the project, as listed above, to address the concerns raised during the public hearing. \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\3.20.18\PC Staff Report-The Sands(3.20.18).doc March 20, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 3 of 5 The following table highlights the changes made to the project since the last public hearing: Original Proposal Current Proposal Max. Allowed by Code Apartment Units 412 396 426 3-Story Buildings 8 5 All 2-Story Buildings 7 10 All Parking Ratio 1.75 1.77 2 Analysis A. Land Use Compatibility: In 1989, the City Council approved a development agreement (DA) 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 known as the Canterra Apartments. Under the current agreement, 306 apartment units remain to be built on the remaining undeveloped 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 is utilizing "density bonus" provisions permitted by the State (AB 2222) and the City's Zoning Ordinance (PDMC 25.34.040) to increase the project density from 306 units to 396 units. B. Density Bonus: The applicant continues to utilize the State's density bonus provisions allowed under AB 2222 as discussed in the staff report dated February 20, 2018. Projects denied under the State's density bonus provisions may be litigated under the fair housing law and over-turned by the courts. In certain circumstances, the courts may impose monetary penalties for failing to approve projects that meet the States goals for affordable housing. C. Building Height: The applicant has modified the project to reduce the total number of three-story buildings from eight (8) to five (5). The current zoning and development standards for this property allow for three-story buildings at 40 feet (40') in height. The proposed three- story buildings are shown at a height of 38 feet 4 inches (38'4") and comply with the development standards for the PR zoning district. D. Parking: The City's Zoning Ordinance requires two (2) parking spaces for each apartment unit. For this project, parking standards are reduced from two (2) parking spaces per apartment unit to 1.77 per unit. The reduction in parking standards by 0.25 spaces per unit is reasonable and matches parking standards for "mixed-use" and residential \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\3.20.18\PC Staff Report-The Sands(3.20.18).doc March 20, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 4 of 5 parking standards in the City's Downtown (D) zoning district and for other apartment projects within the City. Staff believes that parking for the site is sufficient. Reduced parking standards have been applied to apartment projects throughout the City, including the existing Canterra Apartments which has a parking ratio just under the two (2) spaces per unit requirement. E. Traffic: The General Plan identifies Hovley Lane East as a "Balanced Arterial" designed to accommodate 30,000 vehicles at a level of service C (LOS C). LOS C provides a stable stream of vehicle traffic that efficiently and comfortably moves vehicle traffic. In 2016, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan was completed. The EIR showed that traffic volumes along this portion of Hovley Lane East are approximately 15,000 daily trips westbound and 12,000 daily trips eastbound. The traffic analysis prepared as part of the MND shows that a total of 2,740 average daily trips are generated by this project. The additional daily trips generated by the project equate to less than a total of 18,000 daily trips along this portion of the roadway. With the addition of the proposed project, Hovley Lane East will function at approximately 60 percent of its designed capacity and will continue to meet the intent and goals of the City's General Plan Mobility Element. F. Zero-Lot-Line Setback: As discussed above, the applicant has removed 50 garage units along the western property line adjacent to the Venezia community. More than 150 garage units are still shown along Carter Elementary and the Canterra Apartments. Staff supports the placement of garage units at a zero-lot-line along these adjoining uses as a means to provide security, screening of vehicles, and as an additional buffer between the apartments and the surrounding uses. Public Input The surrounding communities of Venezia and Portola Country Club continue to be in opposition to the project and community correspondences have been provided to the Commission. Most correspondence centers around the following: increased traffic, impacts to Carter Elementary, affordable housing, and three-story buildings being incompatible with the surrounding single-story neighborhoods. These concerns have been analyzed in other sections of this report. Conclusion Staff supports the proposed apartment project at this site. The originally approved DA for this property allows for two-story apartment buildings with portions of the units set aside for affordable housing. The Zoning Ordinance also allows for building heights up to three (3) \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\3.20.18\PC Staff Report-The Sands(3.20.18).doc March 20, 2018 - Staff Report Case No. PP/EA 16-394 The Sands Apartments Page 5 of 5 stories and up to 40 feet in height. The developer has made changes to the site plan to accommodate concerns raised by the surrounding neighborhoods and to provide 20 percent of all units at affordable rents. The intent of the original agreement is achieved and concessions related to density bonuses and development standards are applied in accordance with State law and the City's density bonus provisions. The designs of the buildings are attractive and harmonious with the existing Canterra Apartments adjacent to the site and similar multi-family housing within the City. Environmental Review For the purposes of the CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposal to develop this site with 396 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 MND for the purposes of CEQA. Findinqs 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. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER N/A _ N/A N/A Robert W. Hargreaves Ryan Stendell Janet Moore Lauri Aylaian City Attorney Director of Community Director of Finance City Manager Development APPLICANT: Lee Newell New Cities Investment Partners, LLC 1850 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Ste. 337 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2699 2. Public Hearing Notice 3. Planning Commission Minutes: June 20, 2017, August 15, 2017, & February 20, 2018 4. Architectural Review Commission Minutes: March 28, 2017 5. City Attorney Response to Comments 6. Public Comment Letters 7. Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. Project Exhibits \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\PP\PP 16-394 Canterra II\PC\3.20.18\PC Staff Report-The Sands(3.20.18).doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 396-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT WITH CLUBHOUSE, RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS CASE NO: PP/CUP/EA 16-394 WHEREAS, Lee Newell and New Cities Investment Partners, LLC propose to develop 396 dwelling units on an undeveloped 18.13 site, abutting James Carter Elementary School and Venezia to the west with site improvements consisting of new two- and three-story apartments, clubhouse building, and on-site recreational amenities ("Project"); and WHEREAS, vehicular access to the site is provided along Hovley Lane East and street improvements include the signalization of the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court; and WHEREAS, the site's 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 applicant has agreed to provide 20 percent (20%) of all units within the development for very-low income qualified persons, and as such is eligible for a density bonus provided by AB 2222 (Government Code section 65915 et seq.) and Palm Desert Municipal Code Section (PDMC) 25.34.040; and WHEREAS, 20 percent (20%) of the 396 units are reserved or lower-income households; and WHEREAS, under the density bonus provisions of the PDMC, the applicant is entitled to a density bonus of 111 units, for a total of 426 units, which is more than the 396 units proposed for this project. The Code also allows the applicant to request up to three (3) concessions from the City's Zoning Ordinance; the agreed upon concessions incorporated into the project entitlements are: 1) a reduced parking requirement; and 2) elimination of certain development impact fees on the affordable units; and WHEREAS, final approval of the project is contingent on developer entering into a housing agreement (HA) with the City's Housing Department to finalize affordable housing requirements as specified in project entitlements. The HA shall be signed and completed by both the City and the developer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15367 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Palm Desert's ("City's") Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the Project and prepared an Initial Study pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15063 to determine if the Project could have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project would have potentially significant impacts but that those impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the City determined that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") should be prepared for the Project, and an MND was prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21064.5 and 21080, subdivision (c), and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15070 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15072 on July 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of June 2017, the 15th day of August 2017, and the 201h day of February 2018, previously hold duly noticed public meetings where members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project; and WHEREAS, the City determined that after public notice of availability of the MND had been given, but prior to its adoption, new information was added to the MND to clarify and amplify the MND, and revisions were added in response to comments on the Project's effects identified in the proposed MND which are not new avoidable significant effects; and WHEREAS, although revisions to the subsequent MND do not constitute substantial revisions as the revisions did not identify any new, avoidable significant effects or require new measures or revisions to reduce effects to less than significant, the City decided to recirculate the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 in an abundance of caution; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, the City recirculated the subsequent MND for public review by distributing a second Notice of Intent to Adopt a subsequent MND pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15072; and WHEREAS, the City provided copies of the revised draft subsequent MND and Initial Study to the public and the State Clearinghouse for at least a 30-day review and comment period beginning on February 2, 2018 and ending on March 5, 2018, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21091(b); and WHEREAS, in order to align the public comment period with that of state agencies and address public comment, the City extended the public comment period through March 14, 2018, and provided notice of the same; and 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15074(d), the City has prepared a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects (the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program" or "MMRP"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City has endeavored to take all steps and impose all conditions necessary to ensure that impacts to the environment would not be significant, which are attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence before it as a whole; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the MND, Initial Study, and all other relevant information contained in the record regarding the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, at its regular scheduled meeting, the public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project and the MND and the Initial Study, and the Planning Commission discussed and continued the Project, the MND and the Initial Study until March 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission, the public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project and the MND and the Initial Study, and the Planning Commission discussed and considered the Project and the MND and Initial Study; 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 make the following findings to justify the approval of said request: WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution. SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND, Initial Study, and administrative record on file with the City and available for review at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council find that the MND and Initial Study have been completed in compliance with the CEQA (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 SECTION 3. Findings on Environmental Impacts. In the City's role as the lead agency under CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that the MND and Initial Study contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Planning Commission further finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City of Palm Desert local CEQA guidelines. The Planning Commission further finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the MND, Initial Study, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning Commission further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts, and that any comments received to date regarding the Project have been examined and determined not to modify the conclusions of the MND or the Planning Commission. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that the MND has not been substantially revised after public notice of its availability and recirculation is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5.) The Planning Commission finds that the MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. SECTION 4. Findings on Conditional Use Permit. In recommending approval of this project, the Planning Commission makes the following findings in accordance with PDMC Section 25.72.050: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The purpose of the Planned Residential (PR) zoning district is to provide areas flexibility in residential development by encouraging creative and imaginative design for the development of residential projects with densities between 4.0 to 40 dwelling units per acre and allows multi-family developments to be considered through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposal to develop multi-family housing with integrated affordable units at this location complies with the City's goals and the objectives of the zoning designation, and the project's density complies with the density limits established under the PR zoning district. In 1989, the City approved a development agreement for the development of a 55- acre community with an affordable housing component. Portions of the development agreement (DA) have been executed and this portion of that project is undeveloped. Development of the project site complies and exceeds the minimum requirements established in the development agreement by providing additional affordable housing units in compliance with the State's density bonus provisions. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed location and development of this project at this site will be monitored and cared for by an on-site manager. Maintenance issues or resident complaints can be addressed on-site. As designed, and as conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, as the project is designed below the maximum height permitted by the zone, contains 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 significant landscape screening along the southern property line to limit visual intrusion into surrounding communities, and has a landscape setbacks along the single-family community bordering the project to the west. Similar multi-family apartments have been constructed in the City and none have been detrimental to public health and safety. Adequate off-street parking is provided at the site and the proximity of the project to employment centers, schools, and City parks encourages walking and non-motorized transportation. Roadway improvements along Hovley Lane East ensure efficient traffic movements near the project site. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. The proposed development complies with the development standards of the PR zoning district, including maximum building height, minimum unit sizes, and setbacks. The City's parking requirements, listed under PDMC Section 25.46.040 requires a parking ratio of two (2) parking space per unit for 792 total parking spaces. The project proposes a parking ratio of 1.77 space per unit, resulting in 699 total parking space. The applicant has requested a modification to the parking standards in accordance with the State and City density bonus provisions. Other apartment complexes have parking standards that are below the required 2 space per unit, including the adjacent Canterra Apartments. To date, staff is not aware of any on-going parking issues at existing apartment sites and the 1.77 ratio is adequate to meet the parking needs of the proposed community. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed development complies with goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, in that it provides affordable housing units in accordance with the City's Land Use & Community Character and Housing Elements. The project complies with the General Plan intent and purpose of the Town Center Neighborhood designation by developing multi-family housing within walking distance of commercial activities and meets several long-range goals of multi- family housing by including the following: mixed affordability, recreational amenities, a pedestrian focus, and affordable housing in proximity to transit and educational facilities. SECTION 5. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the subsequent MND prepared for the Project. SECTION 6. Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 7. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve and adopt the Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit applications for the Project. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 SECTION 8. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve and adopt the Project subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "B". SECTION 9. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City's office at 73- 510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Ryan Stendell, the Secretary to the Palm Desert Planning Commission, is the custodian of the record of proceedings. SECTION 10. Notice of Determination. The Planning Commission recommends that, if the City Council approves the Project, that the City Council direct Staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of any Project approval. SECTION 11. Execution of Resolution. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission sign this Resolution and the Secretary to the Commission shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 2011 day of March 2018, by the following vote, to wit: �I�IIln li liil +P+i r. IIiI(I�ii:i111iji��I(Ij�tiei� uiI I�IIII��I'II�') +Ii��fi +II II AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOSEPH PRADETTO, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Section Mitigation Measures Responsible for Timing Impact after Number Monitoring Mitigation 4.Biological BIO-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. The Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018 Section Responsible for Impact after Mitigation Measures Timing Number Monitoring Mitigation 5.Cultural CR-1: If during the course of grading or Developer During grading Less than Resources construction,artifacts or other cultural resources are and other significant discovered,all grading on the site shall be halted and Planning ground the applicant shall immediately notify the City Department disturbing Planner. A qualified archaeologist shall be called to Qualified activities the site by, and at the cost of, the applicant to Archaeologist 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(TlIPO) for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register. CR-2: The presence of an approved Native Developer During grading Less than American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be and other significant required during any ground disturbing activities Planning ground (including archaeological testing and surveys). Department disturbing Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Qualified Native activities monitor may request that destructive construction American Cultural halt and the monitor shall notify a qualified Resource Monitor archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 1he Sands Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018 Section Mitigation Measures Responsible for Timing Impact after Number Monitoring Mitigation 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 is responsible for the Developer Prior to project Less than Transportation installation of the traffic signal at Hovley Lane East completion Significant and the Project's entrance, prior to completion of Planning Project construction. Department TRA 2:The applicant will participate in the finding Developer Prior to Less than or construction of off-site improvements through the grading and Significant payment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Planning other ground Fees(TUMF)and City of Palm Desert Development Department disturbing Impact Fees (DIF), or a fair share contribution as activities directed by the City.These fees,required as standard conditions,assist in alleviating cumulative impacts. 011,lllI , ���1.i��Il�p,,,I�I;� i�,�,i�l .���Vl�fl�lll(;II ,i►i��l��� 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP/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 applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the adoption of these Project Approvals for the Project, or the Project Approvals themselves, Developer and City each shall have the right, in their 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, unless Developer materially breaches this indemnification requirement. 3. 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 standards listed in the PDMC, and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Housing Agreement (HA) with the City's Housing Department to finalize affordable housing requirements as part of this project. No less than 20% of all units within the project shall be available at affordable rents as specified in the HA. The HA shall be signed and completed by both the City and the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. 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: 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 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. 6. 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. 7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 8. The project is subject to the Art in Public Places program. The applicant is encouraged to utilize the fee for installation of an on-site art piece. Please contact Ms. Deborah Glickman at (760) 346-0611 to discuss the Art in Public Place process. 9. 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. 10. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with PDMC Section 24.16 for any landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area. 11. A minimum of an eight-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the shared property line with the Venezia community to the west. No carports, garages, or other physical parking structures shall be installed within this landscape setback. 12. 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. 13. Final landscape plans shall be submitted to the City's Department of Community Development and the CVWD for review and approval. The landscape plan shall conform to the landscape palate contained in 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. 14. 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. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 15. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations made by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and as specified in the ARC Notice of Action dated March 31, 2017. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: 16. 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. 17. The grading plan shall identify all proposed and existing utilities. 18. The applicant shall submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of PDMC 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 submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify 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. 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 Apartments 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: 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 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, the 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 Code 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). 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 PDMC, 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 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2699 location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from the street, height from grade, height from the 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. 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. 13 I I I Y 01 P 0 1 M 01SIgI I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:760 346—o6tt FAX:760 341-7098 in(o@pa{m-desvt.org NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD RE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION By this notice,the City of Palm Desert,as Lead Agency,is announcing the extension of the public review period under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"). The original CEQA Notice of Intent to adopt a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration("MND")for the proposed Sands Apartments(Canterra 1I)(SCH#2018021032)was released for public review on February 2,2018,and stated that the CEQA comment period would end on March 5,2018. However,and to provide additional time for public review, the City is formally extended the CEQA comment period on the MND through the close of business on March 14,2018. Project Description: The proposed project will result in the development of 400 dwelling units on an undeveloped 18.13-acre site,abutting James Carter Elementary School to the west. Twenty percent (200,,0) of the 400 units are reserved for lower-income households. Site improvements consist of new two-, and three-story apartments, clubhouse building, and on-site recreational amenities. Vehicular access to the site is provided along Hovley Lane East. Street improvements include the signalization of the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court. Project Location: The project is bounded by Hovley Lane East to the north,Venezia and James Carter Elementary School to the west,Canterra Apartments to the east,and Portola Country Club to the south. APN:624-040-019 and 624-060-089. CEOA Environmental Review: The City of Palm Desert,as Lead Agency,has prepared an Initial Study and MND. The Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency's staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft MND. To allow more time for public review and comment on the MND, as well as to align the comment period with that of the state agencies, the City has extended the public comment period through March 14,2018. Potentially Sienificant Environmental Impacts: Mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or minimize potentially significant impacts relative to the following resources: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources. With implementation of mitigation measures identified in the MND, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a level that is less than significant. Copies of the Draft MND and its Technical Appendices are available for review at the City of Palm Desert Community Development Department offices at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,California,92260.This notice is posted at City Hall on the public notice board outside the Council Chamber. Comments on the MND must be received,in writing,by 5:00 PM,Wednesday March 14,2018. Submit comments to Eric Ceja, Principal Planner via mail (73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, 92260) or email (eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org). The City's Planning Commission will also hold a meeting to consider the Project and the MND on March 20,2018. CITY OF PRIM 01 1 R T 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL:760 346—o6i i info Ca7cityofpsimdesert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP/EA 16-394 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC, FOR THE APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND A PRECISE PLAN APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 412 APARTMENT UNITS, CLUBHOUSE FACILITY, AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES LOCATED AT 74-351 HOVLEY LANE EAST The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 Location/Description: Project Location: 74-351 Hovley Lane East Project Description: A 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. Sixty-three (63) of the 412 apartment units are identified for lower-income households. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on February 20, 2018, 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 for this project is from February 2, 2018 to March 5,2018. Public Review: The 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. 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 February 4, 2018 Palm Desert Planning Commission MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 Chair DeLuna remarked that if the subject matter is continued, there will be a public hearing on July 18. MR. WEINSTEIN clarified that the gentleman not being present tonight will not eliminate him from speaking at the July 18 meeting. Chair DeLuna replied that is correct. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair Pradetto moved to, By Minute Motion, continue Case No. CUP 17-089 to July 18. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). B. 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 (Lee Newell, Walnut Creek, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to a date uncertain. He said the Commission received many letters from surrounding developments that are opposed to the proposed project. In addition, staff asked that the applicant update their Mitigated Negative Declaration to reference the adopted General Plan. The continuance of this item would allow the appropriate amount of time for the applicant to update the documents. It would also allow time for staff to review the environmental documents and send out a new notice for the next public hearing. Chair DeLuna understood that she could open the public hearing for public comments. However, the Planning Commission will not discuss or respond to any comments. She asked if that is correct. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. He noted that not only is the public able to comment tonight, the public will have an opportunity to comment at the next public hearing. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. RICK MORAN, Canterra Apartments, Palm Springs, California, stated that Canterra Apartments (Canterra) would be negatively impacted by the proposed 412-unit apartment project. He said the project is over scale, overly dense, and 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission2017\Minutes\6-20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 overly tall. The project would take away the mountain views from most of their tenants that are adjacent to the project. He said that the height of Canterra is 24 feet. He noted that the two-story units for this project have elements that go up to 34 feet and the three-story units go up to 39 feet. Mr. Moran stated that five of the eight three-story units are along Canterra's property line, which would cut out the mountain views. He expressed that people will lose their views and privacy; the project will impact traffic and overcrowd the nearby elementary school. MR. STEVEN SMITH, Palm Desert, California, stated that he is opposed to the scale and size of the proposed project. He said that he had no idea this meeting was taking place tonight until he found out through a neighbor. He also said many property owners in Venezia are part-time residents and others are on vacation. They did not know about this meeting. He suggested that this item be delayed so other property owners have an opportunity to express their concerns. MR. TRAVIS VAN LIGHTEN, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, on behalf of Canterra, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for the consideration to continue the proposed project and the content of a letter their office sent to the City of Palm Desert. He looked forward to reviewing the revisions and the proposals from the applicant. Mr. Van Lighten requested that they are given enough time to adequately review any of the additional documents that might come forward. For a project of this magnitude and with so many residents in an uproar, it deserves a thorough vetting and review from both the Planning Commission and staff. MS. PATTI MC NANCE, Palm Desert, California, communicated that she purchased her home in Venezia about five years ago with the intent of retiring in Palm Desert. They have a beautiful view from the back of their property, which is right against the proposed project. She voiced her concern that there is a zero setback, and as a result, she would see a garage in her backyard. Additionally, there is a huge pile of sand that would need to be moved. The dust will create environmental issues, which would affect all of the residents in Venezia. She knows there are mitigations in place, but they need to go above and beyond the mitigations. Secondly, the density is an issue and she hoped that scaling the project back is considered. She noted that there are three concessions; however, she does see a concession for the zero lot line. It is a fourth concession, which she does not see in the staff report. MS. DIANE WOHL, Palm Desert, California, said that she would piggyback on what others have said. She voiced that she and her neighbors are very upset in which the proposed project has been handled and not communicated to the residents. She felt that their trust for the city and the people that represent them has not been honored. Increasing the density of the development would create significant traffic problems and would adversely affect their health due to the school traffic that is backed up twice a day. In addition, three-story buildings in a residential area are not appropriate. She noted that there are no residential communities in Palm Desert that have three-story buildings and they do not want 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\6-20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 to be the first community. It is not fair and residents in the area felt that they have not been taken into consideration. Ms. Wohl commented that they moved into Venezia as retirees because of the peace, the quiet, the lack of traffic, and for health reasons. They also object to the setback and parking variances being proposed, which they did not know about until a few days before the meeting. Last she quoted the words from the Code Compliance website page, ". . 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." She stated that she would like the city to do just that. MR DAVID VIDULICH, Palm Desert, California, stated that the proposed project was originally approved for 308 units, which that alone is a high-density project that would create more traffic. He voiced that the applicant is changing the project to three-story buildings and 412 units. He asked if there is an Environmental Impact Report on the project. Chair DeLuna responded that the Planning Commission is not responding to questions, they are only receiving comments this evening. MR. VIDULICH remarked that environmental studies should be looked into because the project is too big for the parcel and for the people that live in the area. He stated he was not notified of the public hearing. He found out about the meeting through one of his neighbors and felt that was not right. He commented that he is not worried so much with the view. He believed that when you purchase a lot, you do not buy it as a view lot. Mr. Vidulich said fire codes could possibly not be met with so much density and no setbacks. He stated there should be more environmental studies done and residents need to be notified of the public hearings. MR. ORRIN WEINSTEIN, Palm Desert, California, stated that he is the vice president for the Venezia homeowners' association (HOA). He had the opportunity to meet the representative for the proposed project. During the presentation to the HOA, he believed that some of the items the representative discussed were glossed over, which are now being brought to light. He noted that he and his wife drove in from Scottsdale, Arizona, to attend this meeting. He is concerned that the project would hurt the value of his property. He has been living in Venezia for 14 years, and his expectation for his property is that the value increases. They will no longer have a quiet neighborhood and there will be dust. He stated that the city is not going to pay a cleaning crew to clean each one of their homes. He voiced that he wants the Planning Commission to think about that since he has been paying taxes in Palm Desert for 14 years. All the residents in their community pay taxes and they all should be heard. He hoped they all come to an amicable decision on moving forward and thanked the Planning Commission for their time. 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\6-20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 MS. DIANA ALTORFER, Palm Desert, California, stated that she is married to the Venezia HOA chairman. Her husband was told earlier in the day that the meeting was cancelled. She said she was on the phone for 30 minutes to let people know the meeting was cancelled and the proposed project was off the table. However, they found out that the project is not off the table. She expressed that there were people prepared to talk, who may not be available for the next meeting, are not present tonight to comment. She voiced that the communication for this project has been bad. Residents in the area did not know of the increased density and that it would allow variables. She said they moved to Palm Desert 14 years ago from Connecticut. They bought the house when there were no model homes and bought the home with trust in the community. Ms. Altorfer mentioned that her husband had seen the presentation, and he was planning to give the presentation to the community. It had been a month since the chairman received the presentation. They did not have time to introduce the project to the community because they had a board meeting scheduled for June 21 . She said she blasted a newsletter to the community with the little information she had, and thanked her friends at Canterra who were able to supply her with pictures and information. She stated that Ms. McNance currently has a view of the mountains; however, she will have a view of a 13-foot wall if the project is approved. Ms. Altorfer voiced that these are the things that people need to know about. She was very disappointed on how the process works in Palm Desert. MS. TAMMY VILLARINNO, Corona Del Mar, California, communicated that she manages Canterra. She stated that the proposed project will have a negative impact on their residents. She assumed that the additional units (306 units to 412 units) are because the applicant may have agreed to additional affordable housing, which gives them a density bonus. She noted that Canterra has moderate housing that will expire in 2019. She stated that the three-story buildings will impact the views of Canterra residents on the west side. She said they apply view premiums on units with those views and that those will be eliminated by the project. She also said there will be dust and noise for the residents during construction of the project. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair Pradetto asked staff how the residents would be notified and incorporated into the discussions. Mr. Ceja explained that staff notified property owners who were within 300 feet of the project. He stated that some owners were not notified because they were not within the 300 feet of the project. He noted that he received a lot of emails from property owners. As long as he has email addresses, he would be able to notify residents of the next public hearing. Vice Chair Pradetto addressed the audience and asked them to share the information with their neighbors. 6 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\6-20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2017 Commissioner Greenwood moved to, By Minute Motion, continue Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Pradetto and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). Chair DeLuna thanked everyone in the audience for attending the meeting. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapters 25.02, 25.04, 25.10, 25.16, 25.22, and 25.28 of the City's Zoning Map for consistency with the adopted General Plan. Case No. ZOA/CZ 17-105 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja outlined the salient points in the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityof pal mdesert.org). Commissioner Greenwood interjected and asked what the density ratio for PR-22 is. Mr. Ceja replied PR-22 is Planned Residential (PR), 22 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the zone would always be followed by the ratio throughout all the maps. Mr. Ceja responded that there is some flexibility in the PR zones. Staff identified the max densities for PR zones on the map. He continued with his presentation, and noted that staff only updated six zoning sections. He stated that staff will come back to the Planning Commission for other sections that need to be updated. Staff felt that the six sections being considered are the most impacted by the General Plan and recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. He offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair Pradetto mentioned that on page 04-3, Table 25.04-1 : Zoning Districts under Overlay Districts, still lists Mixed-Use Overlay and asked if it should be removed. Mr. Ceja replied that Mixed-Use Overly should be removed. Commissioner Lindsay Holt understood that they would go through this process again with additional chapters. For future chapter amendments, she asked if they could receive a redline version of the text changes. Mr. Ceja replied absolutely. 7 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission2017\Minutes\6-20-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 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). Mr. Ceja recommended that this item be continued to a date uncertain to allow staff to re-notice the public hearing. Staff also received a letter from an attorney representing the Canterra Apartments, and staff would like time to address the attorney's comments. He presented a brief staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.orq). Staff recommended a continuance and to hear public comments. Mr. Stendell, Director of Community Development, added that staff received significant comments from adjacent property owners. Staff recommends the continuance to allow staff to review the comments. There was also a request from the residents to hold the public hearing during the fall when more property owners are back in Palm Desert. Chair DeLuna invited public comments FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. KATHERINE JENSON, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, California, noted Rutan & Tucker is the counsel for the Canterra Apartments. She highlighted some issues for the Commission's consideration. She requested to re-notice the public hearing and complete a new environmental document. In regard to the 1989 development agreement, she said the zoning would be changed to provide for a total of 612 units, which half have been constructed (Canterra) and the other half are to be constructed on the vacant property. The development agreement is binding and effective as to the Canterra project; therefore, they are surprised there would be a unilateral modification to that agreement. Ms. Jenson said the Canterra Apartments are still a party to that agreement. She also said for 30 years Canterra has been subject to the agreement and have been collecting lower rent on the 31 low income housing units. The development agreement is still in effect and it cannot be modified without Canterra's consent. She communicated that they do consent to the increase in density. It is also double- dipping to give the proposed project a density bonus on top of the density it already received going from zero units to the acre when it was open space to what is now, which is 171/2 units per acre. Lastly, she said an environmental impact report is going to be required given the magnitude of the project. MR. RICK MORAN, Palm Springs, California, noted he is the owner of the Canterra Apartments. He and his business partner have been subject to the development agreement since ownership and they have complied with the agreement. They do not believe the City could unilaterally change the development agreement without Canterra's consent. Additionally, they do not 13 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-15-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 believe that the proposed 412 units could be built without their consent until the development agreement expires. He stated that the proposed project is zoned for 10 percent affordable housing. Therefore, under State code the percentage of affordable housing units cannot be increased. He noted Canterra and all the surrounding neighbors are opposed to the proposed project. The proposed project is grossly overscale, dense, and tall. He voiced the proposed height would block their views to the west and there would be more traffic in the area. MS. GERALDINE DAVIS, Palm Desert, California, pointed out that the first slide Mr. Ceja displayed on the screen was not the same representation of the apartment buildings they were shown at their Portola Country Club community meeting. Mr. Stendell interjected that the Mr. Ceja's presentation was extremely abbreviated. The whole presentation would be given at a future meeting. Mr. Ceja displayed the additional renderings on the screen. MR. ROB BERNHEIMER, Indian Wells, California, noted he is representing the Venezia community. He highlighted and asked that Commission to consider the following concerns with the proposed project: 1) zero lot lines for the garages and suggested setbacks of 10 to 15 feet from Venezia's residents' backyards; and 2) the proposed three-story buildings would be impactful and suggested the buildings be spread out and limited to two stories. MS. DIANE WOHL, Palm Desert, California, stated the density at the proposed location is inappropriate and incongruent. The three-story buildings are too dense for the proposed project site. She noted that some amenities for the project are duplicated with amenities available at the Hovley Soccer Park. She recommended removing some of the amenities being proposed for the project so there could be a bigger footprint for more buildings that are not three stories. MS. ROCIO MARTINEZ, Palm Desert, California, said she lives in Venezia and her property would be most impacted by the proposed three-story buildings that will be almost 40 feet tall. She mentioned that they currently have sand dunes that are approximately 15 feet tall, which she could see from her backyard and could provide Mr. Ceja with pictures. She commented that recently she had coyotes jump over her wall. The coyotes scared her because she has young children and a dog. She shared this story to paint a picture of how close and how greatly impactful it would be to have 40 feet buildings looking over her backyard. Ms. Martinez communicated she chose to live in Palm Desert for the privacy, the quality of life, and for the schools and amenities that are nearby. She did not know what would be a great recommendation, but pleaded for the City to take a look at the proposed project. In conclusion, she supports low income housing, but not at the expense of the quality of life for the local residents. Residents would lose their privacy and schools would be overpopulated. 14 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-15-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 MR. ORRIN WEINSTEIN, Palm Desert, California, said he is on the homeowners' association for Venezia. He voiced there are 94 homeowners that are very upset about the proposed project. The homeowners knew moving into Venezia that there would be a development; however, they were not expecting a 412-unit apartment project. He asked for the Commission's consideration and possibly have the proposed plans reworked. MR. DAVID NEWMAN, Palm Desert, California, respectfully asked Chair DeLuna to recuse herself from hearing and voting on the proposed project before it goes to the City Council. He was led to believe that Chair DeLuna's primary occupation is in the field of affordable housing and low income, which to him presents an apparent and obvious conflict of interest. He said his strong feeling on this matter is further evidence by the demeanor and tone of voice that he saw during the previous meeting. He felt Chair DeLuna does not possess the attributes to fairly assess the impact that The Sands project will have upon the existing neighborhoods of Portola Country Club, Venezia, and Canterra Apartments. He stated a fair and impartial decision would be influenced by Chair DeLuna sitting on the Planning Commission. He questioned the Chair's personal agenda and loyalties, whether it is for the City Council or to the politicians in Sacramento. He said it does not appear that Chair DeLuna has the citizens of the existing communities' best interest at heart. MS. JUNE ENGBLOM, Palm Desert, California, commented she lives in Portola Country Club. She voiced that The Sands project would look like the Magic Kingdom on Hovley Lane. She asked if students from Carter Elementary School would be uprooted to make room for kids that would live at The Sands, or would class sizes be increased. She pointed out that three members on the ARC expressed concern with the size of the project; however, only one member voted against the project. She agreed with getting rid of some amenities and adding more two-story buildings. If they are trying to accommodate low income housing, she asked why not consider 26 percent of the 306 units, then there would be 80 units for low income housing. She hoped a compromise would be offered. MS. PAULA SCHOFIELD, Palm Desert, California, said she lives in Venezia and her backyard would be backing up to proposed building number 12. She is a single woman living in the home and expressed her concern with garages being built on a zero lot line. She is concerned people would jump over the wall into her backyard. She stated she has serious environmental sensitivities, and also has a concern with auto fumes due to garages being so close to her backyard. With no further comments from the public, Vice Chair Pradetto asked staff how they plan to address comments made this evening for the next hearing. Mr. Ceja responded that staff would meet with the developer to discuss the evening's action and review letters received from the attorneys and adjacent neighbors. 15 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\8-15-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2017 Vice Chair Pradetto inquired if the Planning Commission would be provided with a response. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Vice Chair Pradetto requested that the response by staff is broken down issue by issue, so it is easy to follow. He asked staff if the applicant was present. Mr. Ceja remarked that the applicant decided not to attend once he found out that the item was going to be continued. Vice Chair Pradetto also requested discussion regarding Assembly Bill 2222, and whether there is discretion in the concessions. He noted that the staff report indicated there are three concessions, which one concession is the reduction in the parking count and garages with zero setbacks. He felt the concession was counted as one. However, it could easily be categorized as two concessions leading to four concessions, so he requested staff's opinion on that matter. Commissioner Holt commented she has a number of other questions she would like answered at the next hearing. She said she would email the questions to staff. Vice Chair Pradetto moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. DA/PP/EA 16-394 to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XIII. COMMENTS Commissioner Greenwood profusely thanked Ms. O'Reilly for the snacks. Commissioner Gregory agreed. 16 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2017\Minutes\8-15-17.docx ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: None B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 16-394 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: NEW CITIES INVESTMENTS PARTNERS, LLC, 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd Suite 337, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval for construction of a 412-unit apartment project with clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements at an undeveloped 18-acre parcel. LOCATION: South side of Hovley Lane East, east of Portola Avenue ZONE: P.R. 17-5 Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, stated this proposal was for a Precise Plan and Development Agreement for the Sands Apartments located on Hovley Lane East (Hovley). The project includes the construction of 412 apartment units, with a clubhouse facility, two outdoor swimming pools, recreational and play space, covered and uncovered parking spaces, and 220 garages. Landscape is used in all non-parking and non-building portions of the site, and a new project entry is provided at Hovley Lane East. 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 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1 Minutes\2013-2017\2017\170328min.docx Page 2 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 buildings are located in the center and eastern portion of the project site. One of the eight three-story building 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"). As mentioned, the project includes the development of 412 apartment units, which is above the 306 units remaining to be built on the site. However, the applicant has opted to reserve 20 percent of all units at the project site for very-low income households, which makes the project eligible for a "Density Bonus" under AB 2222 and the City's "Affordable Housing Density Bonus" Ordinance (Section 25.34.040). For their part in providing 82 affordable housing units, the applicant is eligible for development concessions. In this instance, the developer has requested an adjustment to the City's parking standards, an increase in maximum building height, and a reduction of certain side-yard setbacks. He stated there will be modifications to Hovley Lane to signalize this intersection, and new configurations to the median. Staff has been very supportive of these concessions as the project site is ideal for affordable housing and meets the intent of the original agreement. Commissioner Levin asked about the grading for the entire site. MR. LEE NEWELL, New Cities Investments Partners, LLC, said they will be grading the entire site and putting all the on-site improvements in during the first phase. Commissioner Levin was concerned with the school located next to this project and mentioned the dust created from grading, as well as safety concerns while kids are walking to and from school and passing the construction site. MR. MIKE ROWE, MSA Consultants, said in the PM10 process they will make special provisions during the school year to take extra precautions to alleviate those concerns. Commissioner Levin discussed the curb adjacent sidewalk along Hovley and said he would like to see a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the curb to get the kids farther from Hovley. Mr. Ceja stated this is a current condition and pointed out that the City is moving away from meandering sidewalks on arterials and are now looking for straight curb adjacent sidewalks. Commissioner Levin didn't have a problem with the architecture of the building but was concerned with the three-story. He felt it was just too much for that area. G:\Planning\Janine JudyWRC\1 Min utes\2013-2017\2017\170328m in.docx Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 Commissioner Vuksic and MR. VINCE CHUTCA, Humphreys Architects, discussed the thickness of the walls and shadow lines. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the balconies and recommended they be thickened to 12". Commissioner Brewer was concerned with the dimensions of the tube steel perimeter fencing and said the columns appear small compared to the overall massing of the fencing. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the plans. Commissioner Brewer recommended the columns be increased to 24" square. He asked about the tower element and the line of sight. MS. VELY ZAJAC, MSA Consultants, said the tower is purely an architectural element and they are trying to create massing reliefs. Commissioner McAuliffe said the architecture is very handsome and thinks it's a very nice project particularly the community building. He agreed with the comment regarding the thin walls on the balconies and said it's really easy to thicken those to one side and not negatively impact the usability of the balconies. He expressed that it is something important to take a look at. Commissioner McAuliffe and MR. NEWELL discussed the containment of the construction site. MR. NEWELL said for the short term it will be cyclone construction fencing. He expects the construction going on into the 24th to 30th month and stated there will definitely be a wall to separate both sites. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if solar was being considered and MR. NEWELL said solar will be located on the garages and the carports. Commissioner McAuliffe asked to see where and how the panels will be integrated in the exhibits and not be an afterthought to the project. Commissioner McAuliffe asked where the individual ground mount A/C condensers would be located and concealed and how does it relate to the site plan. MR. ROWE said they are tucked hard up against the building. Commissioner McAuliffe said because of the tight nature of the site how they will be treated will be important because they will influence the space between the buildings. He asked if the units would have gas and if so, how would the meters be addressed. MR. NEWELL said they will be in a cabinet of some sort. Commissioner McAuliffe said at this level this Commission often times have seen this get left to a later time and they end up with 40 gas meters at the front of the project. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\HRC\1 Minutes\2013-2017\2017\170328min.docx Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 Chair Van Vliet shared the concern about the three story units and said they will be quite visible where they are located. He was concerned with the neighbor's visibility of the 13' high garage wall and the long wall mass planned for each garage. He and the applicant reviewed and discussed the plans. MR. ROWE suggested they pitch the roof in both directions. They discussed the pitch of the garages, the eaves, as well as the property line of the fence and garages. MR. ROWE said it would actually be better to have a center pitched roof because it will look like a smaller building and be visually better for the neighbor. The only negative would be where they mount the solar. Commissioner Van Vliet also pointed out the same issue on the east side of the project. He recommended they restudy the separation between the back of garage and neighboring wall. MR. ROWE said instead of a single shed pitch it could pitch to the center that way instead of having a 9' plate on one side and 13' on the other there will be 9' on both sides. He said they would have to put a gutter on there and then take a down spout back to their side to keep from dumping water onto the neighbor's property. The Commission and the applicant discussed trash enclosures, the number of parking spaces in the complex, the three story buildings, line of site studies and signalizing the project. Commissioner Vuksic moved for preliminary approval with conditions and seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe. Chair Van Vliet asked for comments. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the location of the solar panels and the pitch of the roofs. He asked if the Commission has any control over the aesthetics of the solar. MR. NEWELL said their intention was to place the panels on the garages and the carports. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the western property line because now the neighboring property will not only see a 9' wall and roof, they will also see solar panels. MR. NEWELL stated he would not put panels on the west side. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1 Minutes\2013-2017\2017\170328min.docx Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2017 ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved for preliminary approval subject to: 1) balcony walls shall be thickened to 12"; 2) masonry columns at the gates shall be increased to 24" square and plastered; 3) roofs on carports shall be gabled with an approximate 9' plate on both sides; 4) the fencing that separates phase 1 and phase 2 development shall be more than construction fencing; 5) replace the tube steel with wrought-iron on the exterior fence; and 6) A/C units and gas meters shall be screened. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 4-1-2, with Van Vliet voting NO Lambell and McIntosh absent. 2. CASE NO: PP/CUP/EA 15-223 and TTM 37292 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MARY HSU, Mi Casa Property, LLC, 2275 Huntington Drive, Suite 518, San Marino, CA 91108 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval of architectural and landscape plans for a proposed six (6) unit tract map located on a vacant 0.42 acre parcel. LOCATION: 45-734 Highway 74 ZONE: R-3 18,000(3), S.P. (Residential Multi-Family, Scenic Preservation Overlay) Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, said the applicant is seeking approval of a six-unit subdivision and the construction of six (6) two-story detached single-family homes on a vacant 0.42 parcel in the City's R-3 18,000(3), SP zoning district. The project includes the development of six (6) detached single-family homes, perimeter block wall, two guest parking spaces, and new landscape. A single 1 ,800+ square-foot floor plan is provided for all single-family units. The first floor of each unit consists of a kitchen, pantry, living and dining areas, a half bathroom, and a two-car garage. The second floor of each unit consists of three (3) bedrooms each with its own bathroom and walk-in closet, and laundry room. The units are contemporary southwest architecture that includes an exterior textured stucco finish, stone, iron accents, exposed beams, and "s" tiled roofs. Trim details are added above and below windows and along the first floor of the units for additional detailing. Windows are also recessed to create additional shadows on the units. The roofs of the units are pitched at a 3:12 slope and are broken up by valleys and ridges. Architecturally, the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding properties located on this portion of Highway 74. The landscape design and plant materials are GAPlanningWanine Judy\ARC\1 Minutes\2013-2017\2017\170328min.docx Page 6 of 10 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 2018. Rec: Approved as presented. Upon a motion by Commissioner DeLuna, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto FOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). , '! ,Ii°, i, VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER II''I !Ili I�Ii Ip None I ii'I I;IIIII°' p lull!I'll Vill. NEW BUSINESS None I�lilll !' Il'�II'� I���IIJ II III IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS h I�IIVII !I ►III I 6"'A A. REQUEST FOR CONSID �, Iqll�11' recoRip dation to the City Council for Ythe construction of a 412-uAl part ect � a clubhouse recreational II o I I amenities, andil!!lioa� i,ay impr11e I n ��il I gated Negative Declaration in pill III J!'I III I0I I �' I��1I1i accordance �!II ugh #hli'!Iili iCaliforn III .I,� ronmen Quality Act (CEQA) for an undevelo ;; 8-acreatcel loca on the south side of Hovle Lane East and 1i'�'luil�h d�i� I,C I�'i�I�II!Ilb, Y east of,,li� , ��, ola Aven iie����l Case PP/EA 16-394 (New Cities Investment Partner ;ILC. Wain i6reek California A licant . '''q IIIIII I�III ,,,�Ili�!I li�!IIIII V!!IIII!Illil!IIIII��II,I I'I I � ;�. ''�II!�llllj0' Ill I� �, lll�ll!II!Illlllllll011 Prh Rime 4 nne ela note that e applicant met with the owner of Canterra lh�llll ���`rior to 1ii �� lanning Commission meeting and changes to the project 'I�llll; 9Ire propos�dj Ii The it I II'` sed changes include: eliminating12 units 412 to �I �Ih, g . ( 400 Ilii�I l and reduce soml;��, ,the building heights along the eastern property line ,,,its) o ilp !.;i 9 P P Y three stories,i wo sto1ies. He continued and presented the staff report (staff �I,II I ili�� �I V repo,, IIIIf}is available! iiI www.cityofpalmdesert.org_). He mentioned the applicant prove sight line r Venezia and agreed to relocate the garages. The applicant also agP ,Zld iilllto p Ili I? double row of trees along the southern property line to limit the visibilit�',Illi ,ll l„V ortola Country Club and the proposed project. Lastly, he said copies of let from surrounding property owners were given to the Planning Commission before the meeting and the City Attorney would like to address one of the letters. City Attorney Robert Hargreaves addressed a letter from Ms. Katherine Jenson, an attorney with Rutan & Tucker, LLP. He believed the City could address the issues raised in the letter. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the proposed project and make a decision based on a land use planning perspective, 2 GAI'lanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 and not worry about the legal arguments. The City will address the legal arguments as they move forward. Mr. Ceja recommended approval of the proposed project to the City Council. Chairman Pradetto briefly explained the process of the public hearing. He asked that the audience withhold any comments, clapping, boos, or jeers until it is their turn for public comment. He wanted to make sure everyone has a chance to be heard and be nor respected. He asked the Planning Comlpilssion if they had any questions II.,lli I'lll�;ili l I �111i111�4 III�JJ � Commissioner John Greenwood said one of the .Con"its ns of Approval mentions I l���ll��I�I���ui' a housing agreement and the dispersion of 11o4i �ncom� I ' 'ts. He asked staff to alp 1i' u�l�i�l� ��. explain the dispersion of low-income unitsi, Wughout thelllil osed project and when it is reviewed. I �I �pII II I'I'!'i'lil Mr. Ceja explained that the applicant''` IIII'I'�III lli, p pp t is.�onditioned to enter a howl a reement with the City's Housing Authority. The J,,Y, , pra Il gpi s to disperse t�11°e affordable �ll I���, ,Il a l��l;ll� units throughout the project site and betv� ,� �#Nrent unit types. Therefore, the affordable units would not bl lo,llcentrated ir�l";'II�i°1i, single building. III!I�'IVIII I�I��I�i�l I i II I' I Ilill�ll I I!IIII�q III..IIIIIIII,!'�IIII�� 1 Director of Community Develd�p' ent�',;O, Stendel1��'l dded that the City's Housing it I. „ qli���II�����III Authority is not a supporter o ili strictm 'I' �rnco ' iliunits to s ecific numbers gl 111llili�lllu il4lll p(101 , 105, etc ) using A or ,y p e t i is a little more fluid. The oII I I IIpllVllln, • it IIh mllh �''l 111II housing agree i 'a r'ijnstrum ; I,� .bp ace to �arantee the low-income units ,i i Ilil a ail�l 11�ll. are through?, H d it I�,i a pro eQl I!I e sa l he City desires some level flexibility and Housing sty II orks with applican 11 o ensure that happens. !I IIU I.i� III IIII'10,11" Ilil�l�o !!'Ilil #!IIII Vice Chairman e � to indicate the 12 units that have been el,i �I�pl,i�I �IIUI'I� Illllll��uul I�I i!IIIIII,,,h� .�I�� ��o,. ����l�ll III►'�,,, �i l; III III �� ,l;;ll' 111.. r. Ceja respohd�d thf ,l, would let the applicant go into more detail regarding II lil Il� I��III 'lllul'Ili�l. I� anges to the p� sed � 9ject. However, he believed the units being eliminated 1'e)n Building No.I. ! II uilding No. 1 would be changed to a two-stories, as a result, 121 On would be II'lll inated. Chairman'I 11 ad I �I ii .tasked when the applicant and staff agreed to the reduction of units. IIII�I� III��IIIII�I Mr. Ceja replied within the last hour. Chairman Pradetto asked if there is no visual representation of the new changes. Mr. Ceja replied no. Chairman Pradetto inquired if there is a requirement for the garage units. 3 WPlanning\Monica ClReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Mr. Ceja responded that the City's parking standards for multi-family or apartments are 50 percent of the parking provided shall be shaded such as a carport or garage. He noted that the applicant has provided both options. The property owner could charge more for a rental unit with a garage. Chairman Pradetto asked if the removal of the garage units would affect the sight lines and would the wall still be 9 or 11 feet tall. Mr. Ceja replied no. He said the existing perimeter walls would not change. As prop �911j!IIIG;I ili1�� above the waed ll that the gwould bethere would be y visible. However, �i t-fold llneh wall with a building here would only be a six-foot-high wall. III'! 11 IIII�!j lij!I,I,�, garages, �� II IIIl�i111 del "�'lllllli!l�ip Chairman Pradetto said a concern that v �.previouslyl !mentioned is the site oIP1,1 N location sits several feet higher than the lllliadfc�rning p rope rties1`9:,,the east and the sight line visual did not reflect that. si 11ljilii ,. g � I' ' ;� �,, III I II'lii I, I�II�I� IIIIIII� Mr. Ceja responded that the grade as: �I I �Iwn tl II 11 , f is within 12 1 ches of the surrounding properties. He stated there is Ad that would be brought down wl, , g within a foot. 'IIp11 III I,I��I!IIIII!IIIIII I!'glll l'191u111�� Commissioner Nancy DeLur{� II s �t ; w muchlllil'i°lace there is between the houses and the project site. I ��ll;'' IIIII, . IIMr. Ceja replihthl .l raphicl��l es 97 feet between building faces and pointed tot �! lelIII u I;Illll Il I'I Ilq, ' I IVn IIII Chairman tto a t t he '�I nnin Commission is being asked to a rove. II�� (IIII Ilillilllllll�IjIIIIIIhlg gPp 1IIII ,,1111!I;,I�I„�� �!II�IIIIIIII!'Illlu�l� I�If� .II11 Illilgpi;�` eja re jhded taff is asking the Planning Commission to approve a 400- ' �II iillu�l�, . IIII��'�I nit a artmenl ect 1 density bonus. p �; ,.IIII; I��,IIIIII � v ,i IIII�,� I '�IVII' II Chairman Pradettasked �f the Planning Commission would be making any I �,�� gllil�ll, deter�n�pation on tf� ;'' nvironmental document. I,i I I Ili „�� ill 11!III 1 I Mr. Ceja I!INil li po. The City Council will make any determination on the I I� 11 11 IIIenvironmelll illli„ ument. �I 1! .I Chairman Pradetto commented that under the City's code, the setbacks on a Planned Residential zone are set through the Precise Plan application process. He asked how the Planning Commission could recommend a zero-lot-line on the proposed project without going through the Precise Plan process. Mr. Ceja responded that there are multiple application entitlements that staff takes to the final approving authority. With the current project, the applicant is proposing 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the density bonus which requires City Council approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission should look at the Precise Plan as part of their decision; however, the project goes to the City Council for final approval. Vice Chairman Gregory clarified that the applicant has proposed garage units because they could charge more money for those units. The garages have nothing to do with the density bonus and carports are allowed. Mr. Ceja replied yes. I!Ilii Illllil I Chairman Pradetto mentioned that the Findings ;llil ale resolution states "the g IIIII "I, Plannin Commission further finds that there i , � t�bstantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the l ',; ojectll lrriayl, result in significant environmental impacts . . ." Therefore, the,lill !Ill nning Commission is being asked to saythere are no significant findings. i?�� Il�iid it mi ht like"fi) �I,be true; however, g g .II!lll,!ulilllll!, 9 Y�II I.> they are in the middle of the commllgl!l l,period and they haveiili�nlolt received or responded to all the comments. H, (asked ho lii!�I�!taff expects��ll�llllillili Planning I11 ullp!.:; Commission to predict in that circumst oe Ili I1III,I1 III, �Ili IIIIIIIIiIII II 1,'. Mr. Ceja responded that staff-p ovided the P ' Wing Commission with a copy of l Illllulll l l ll l 11 Ali l I II IINI�, the Mitigated Negative Declytl � I ' j ND) for U ew and comment. He said the Commission can discuss an��!i!!II Ilillp illii!IIi not ce� !�;ill : able within the MND. I I �'III�III, �i�ll ��I�IIIIII!I I�,,�� . ��Ill�jp,� Mr. Hargreaves TII I ar that it re �i �,; ehll l i i�o be made by the Planning �IIIII III II)II llillll Ili IUllillll I�!41!I� I1illll Commission is I e� ''i the red© at was provided by staff. He stated the IIIII!I!III�' !lill�!!!� !°' comment per as as not'e�Ilosed. T �L omment period will close before it goes to the City Co� bil. ill I(liii !I►ili�II!!I II►!I; Ills l�l, Il�,l�����,, III 11!Ilil II � ,I �ill llllll I II II lu I. .I , I Chairman Pradetto II h ' �� i a ilg open and invited public testimony �, II�iIII u,l llil� I �I �,I utV ( llliiiii. P11 'iIIIOSI „I lis matter. i lllllii1 ;1l„lll lll,II itjP illy, L ►II IIIills gIIIII;iI;l�1IIR. LEE NEI!; . Cities Investment Partners, LLC., Walnut Creek, „Illl, lifornia stated ,IIiI at hlegll ,,. et with Mr. Ceja, Mr. Moran (owner of Canterra g � plll!i!II!iments), and $01 Mo attorney before the Planning Commission meeting. Heathey have,; f had an opportunity to meet and discuss the proposed �protec �!I� felt thI arrived to a middle ground and a game plan, but have not nailed e' hi ;llii'I� n. He noted that his development team is present to answer any questi'o i; l!I�;;i shared that he started visiting the desert 68 years ago and has u1111�had a reside n in the desert for 30 years. He bought the project site because he felt it is a perfect property for the proposed use. He believed Palm Desert is in need of affordable housing and somewhat of an epidemic at this time. In addition, he has been doing 80/20 deals which are 20 percent affordable and 80 percent market rate since 1984. He mentioned he did the first density bonus that the State of California approved, as well as, the second school mitigation program. He has been doing mostly family housing bond deals and four percent tax credits for many years, and felt they would do a great job on the proposed project. They plan on 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 building the finest class "A" luxury apartment community in the desert with generously sized one-, two-, and three-bedroom units that include top quality finishes. The proposed project would also include a clubhouse. He said there has not been a market-rate apartment building of any size built in the desert for the past nine years since the recession. He said they are able to make this project economically work because of their financing vehicle that is facilitated by the 20 percent affordable units; therefore, it is a win-win situation and a good thing for the City. Mr. Newell noted that in the last 11 years they have only produced 50 very- low-income units, and there is a remaining 1,051 afford,111111 units that need to be IIprovided to meet State requirements. He also notedt they would have 82 II 1Il, workforce very-low-income units, which would be spreald throughout the project. If they reduce the project by 12 units as mentioned earlier, there might be a couple of very-low-income units less. Approximately nirel months ago, they met with the Venezia homeowners' association president to present the'layout of the project. At that time, there was an agreement with th'e proposed project.�However, that has changed and they are now trying to be a:good neighbor by moving the garages away. He briefly went over the traffic study and noted that the traffic'signal, median, and the turn lane would improve traffic in the area. Mr. Newell disclosed that the project was approved in 1989 and it contributed''20 acres to the soccer park. In regard to Portola Country Club:(PCC), he metnivlith the manager and the manager did not feel there were any issues.''!H1, ,let the manager of PCC know that they were proposing a double row of 24-inch box trees so PCC residents cannot see the apartments. He noted face of the,building to face of the building is 117 feet from PCC and 97 feet frp Venezia 'I'I re� �rNed to the General Plan use for a town I;4 lids'it Q I � �llllp IIII � center neighbo I'l ,�rhood, which show be pictures with three-story residential use. Based on discussions with Mr. Moran, they will have 10 two-story buildings and only five three story buildings. He said ne of the three-story buildings will be along the eastern boil a L�IIgi o er thr4llll ,story buildings will be at the center of the 11 Al l l ry I I� �lll.11 IV 1project. He exp� � I !4,1),Ili'would be reduced to a two-story building IIIu I I IV'and lthat th I ing ratio chas with the reduction of the 12 units. Building Ihl�ld)U del u�i No . 6, 7, and 10 will be reduced to two stories. Building No. 11 will remain three stories and BURding No. 3 will become three stories with a total of 400 apartment units. He stated after almost 30 years, it is time for the property to be developed and thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Commissioner DeL'una asked staff if there are other projects in the City of Palm Desert with',three-story buildings or are planned for three-story buildings. Mr. Ceja replied there is one existing three-story apartment building on Deep Canyon Road near Shadow Hills Road, south of Highway 111. He said there are other sites planned for three-story apartments in north Palm Desert. Chairman Pradetto asked Mr. Moran if he planned on speaking. 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018ftnutes\2-20-18 docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. RICK MORAN, Canterra Apartments, Palm Springs, California, thanked Mr. Newell for meeting with him and his attorney. They all put their heads together and felt Mr. Newell made a lot of concessions and appreciated that he has agreed to lower Building Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 10 from three stories to two stories. The changes eliminate view blockage from their project. He believed Mr. Newell is trying to be a good neighbor by removing carports behind Venezia and kept buildings at two stories. He also realized that there is never a perfect solution, but he felt satisfied with the arrangement they have agreed to and hoped the project could move forward. Ii I I' Commissioner Greenwood asked staff to clarify �'!I ''umber of units and the number of buildings going down to two stories °'�I!I ! dlihl, g g g iillll building going to three stories. I ICI �I ,I� ,II'llllll, Mr. Ceja pointed to the site plan and said Butl mg No. 3 wou d 'go„from two stories to three stories, which would become similar to Building No. 14. Vice Chairman Gregory inquired if Building No. 3 would then lengthen. Mr. Ceja responded that Bud Nos. 3 and 5 would lengthen. MR. LOREN CAMPBELL, Palen Desert, California, commented that he bought a home in Venezia a few months,' o. He �, Iconcerned with the sight lines and the i u ,�,IT two-story buildings ,,However In the I is so much confusion with the changes made before tlholllrrileeting and he �Ili�illl illll!e concept of what is really going on. He noted that the site plan indicates t �I uildings that are numbered 14. He would want to look at the MND document to�� III e what the impact will be on the schools. He urged the P�anninglColmlmililsiii,ion ot make a decision on the project, defer until the public Icomnrionts 'at� :i�! �IIII d l and staff has had time to address public commoots III iI I MR. DAVID NEWMAN, ,Palm Desert, California, stated that based on the modifications, he would submit his written objection to the original plan for the proposed project. He,said he will protect his interest as a resident of Venezia at I liil I i illi anofher,time, if necessary. MR. JAMES GUGINO, Palm Desert, California, said he and his brother bought a house in Venezia' as a second home because they like the area. The area is beautiful and 'iJl"ell kept. However, they discovered that more than 400 apartment units are being proposed which is like a small city. He voiced his concern with the three-story buildings. He pointed to the site plan and asked what are the red boxes. Mr. Stendell responded that the red boxes indicate garages. 7 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. GUGINO stated that 400 apartment units are a large amount. He said the Planning Commission would also be concerned if they had two-story and three- story buildings being built across the street from their home. He mentioned he paid over $900,000 for his home and it does not make sense to have an apartment complex in his area. He understood there is a need for apartments, but there have to be other properties available to build apartments. He felt the homeowners in Venezia should be protected. MS. DIANA ALTOFER, Palm Desert, California, asserted that Mr. Gugino is directly affected by the proposed project. She stated that 'the garages are being eliminated; however, there is no buffer. She also stated they did not receive a scale model to see the ratio of the project. She said t,bere are going to be 594 homes looking at apartment buildings. She was glad',I0hat the garages were eliminated because she felt they are a fire hazard and 9�` erfect place'for middle school kids to hang out. She referred to dust remova�la d noted that the report states it is insignificant. She voiced that the size of sand mounds are big and she does not believe it will not make a difference. In,lladdition, there will be a three;,is!�ory building overlooking the kindergarten play II yard and has notified the school's superintendent. She suggested the building Ilbe,!�II„eyed in a different way so it is not overlooking the play yard. Ms. Altofer list �ll the proposed amenities, which would !��I!�!Ilil,ju t what they the next tought they were moo their sleepy 'ng neighborhood.t oh�,p�stll,ti d that the project is contrary If I MS. SUSAN YOI��i.�ll !IIIpVi!l! , Palml'lilI!!iii�lslelll!i!!���III a�ifornia, s ared that the City's core values and mo� clude honesty a d integrity' So she asked why the project was brought upp"during the summer when many residents were not in town. She asked why the'City and the developer get several months to prepare and residents get three minutes to oppose. She asked why their opinions do not matter. She asked what makes the(City think that the'project would not affect the residents of ChapaI I I'li i I III I Iii, . it Ihl rral, Silver Sands, and the other complexes along Portola Avenue. She asked if more'could be done than just a small blurb in The Desert Sun and letters to a handful of adjacentho„meowners. She asked who is going to be responsible for the cracks in their windoVvs, sheetrock, and brick walls from the excavators and heavy equipment. She asked how will the residents be compensated. Will they need to hire lawyers? The City's website calls Palm Desert a unique, beautiful desert city and a premier resort destination. If the City continues to allow three- to five-story buildings to be constructed, she asked how long will it take residents to decide to move to a different Coachella Valley city. She stated the three-story project will oo'struct views and asked the Planning Commission to not vote to change the landscape of Palm Desert. MS. JUNE ENGBLOM, Palm Desert, California, requested a few extra minutes to address the Planning Commission because she already had written her comments, but the facts have changed. She said during the meetings in the summer, residents brought up the following concerns: traffic, the views, noise, and water among other issues. The MND indicates there will be a traffic signal at 8 GAPlanning\Monica OFeilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Jasmine Court, but there is only the promise of a signal warrant analysis. However, the signal would be installed after post project condition, and after construction and full occupancy of the proposed project so who knows if a signal will ever be installed. There are also painted lines proposed on Portola Avenue to make two right-turn lanes onto Hovley Lane East. The bike lane appears to be gone, which could become a safety issue. Concerning the view, the MND claims their views are already obstructed by trees, carports, or brick walls—so what are a few three-story buildings going to matter. She asked the Planning Commission to take a look at the site and her backyard so they can see for themselves. The noise, the MND predicts there will not be temporary, permanent, or periodic' ncrease ambient noise levels. With bulldozers and 865 new neighbors, the adjacent residents will certainly experience increased noise. In regard to the wat&11 111e;Coachella Valley Water District told the City there is no problem. If there'`is'I'not a problem, she asked why are they being told not to flush each timelihey use thel;Ibathroom. The MND , II I I mentions that no reptiles or mammals were observed. However, she hears coyotes howling in the morning and lizards on her wall. In addition, she sees hawks, doves, roadrunners, other birds, and hears owls at night In the MND, Mr Ceja signs off that the project could have a significant effectlllilonl ill, environment. Supposedly revisions by the developer have been madel;lille! ked what revisions have been done. Over and over again, t �� ���liulul g II hIMND states a�llq,li lled under the General Plan." She voiced that perhaps the realms is the Ge'il' ral Plan. She asked why did the CityCouncil approve multi��lQoll�ill�,��''�" n s. 9111i°bill'' pp ,�}} ►� �,�II g ��;�'' asked if the views and glib I. uu !1111II I''''I1I1Ii � NIII overcrowding do not matter toll�l e Co She a"Ned how were the residents I II�II�h �uIIII,��I�II1II IVII'lIIIIIIIpu,, n informed of the Gepne,ra,l Plan. there,somel�sifriall tidbit in The Desert Sun? If II iII�V� ; ul�l people were to be polled on how th Ali Iel about two' to five-story buildings in Palm Desert, she bet that most people wol respond no. She mentioned she received 78 signatures opposing It project. "Side referred back to the MND which states allowed under the Geno'ral Plan, the t� could build seven to 40 units per acre anywhere. So on the Hovley Lan11i�illliiia „� ite, there could be a minimum of 126 to 720 apartments. She pointed outs the General Plan would allow up to 720 apartments on a tiny piece of land. She asked that the Planning Commission consider the a ��eant's request carefully and on how they are impacting the future p�I luhl, of beautiful Palm II l sett before they vote in favor of three-story buildings. II�I' MS.` DIANE RICH�pI� yii Palm Desert, California, communicated that she walks her dog at the Palm Desert Civic Center two to three times a week and is always astonished by the beauty of the surrounding area that the City has created for the residents. She shared that the City Council's bios on the website mention that many of them'''''lenjoy the outdoors and one day they are going to look out and see three-story buildings. She felt that three-story buildings are not appropriate on the proposed site. She said the developer is from northern California and he might not care what happens in southern California. She stated the City needs to take care of the Palm Desert residents. If the City cares, they need to keep the buildings at two-stories. With the original plan of 306 units, the developer could still provide 60 low-income units. She hoped when it is time for the Planning Commission to vote, 9 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes�2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the Commission thinks about all things in question. If the Commission lived next door to the proposed project, she asked how would they vote. MS. COLLEEN HILL, Palm Desert, California, said she became a resident in Palm Desert five years ago. She chose to buy in Venezia because the views were amazing and it was a lovely community surrounded by lovely buildings. She stated that three-story buildings do not fit in the proposed area. She would not have bought a home in Venezia if she knew there would be three-story buildings. She voiced her concern with giving the developer a lot of concessions. She asked why the City is allowing the developer to have zero-lot-line 'setbacks and three-story buildings. Secondly, if PCC could have a 127-foot separation, why can they not have the same for Venezia. Thirdly, she is concerned with property taxes. There is going to an impact on the schools, police, and fire. So she asked if Palm Desert residents are going to be hit with extra assessments to pray for the additional services. MS. ROCIO MARTINEZ, Palm Des'lert,' California, stated she is a Iiresident in Venezia and one of the six residents thla would,be''impacted by the project. She mentioned that she is a banker and not famliliar,with' terms that have been brought up during the meeting. She shared that she specifically chose to live Palm Desert because she was raised in ,the C 'ghella Valley. She attended school at the h�l of II I q I'llllll II lulu h University of Riverside and m� ed ra lilt the deb"'rt because she now has two gIIIIIII IIU 0 p II III III� ,.. �lil I kids. She chose Palm Desert to"have ago �tl lity of life for her kids. If she would 1"I;11UIIIIq IIII'luI have known about ,the monstrous pro�e111 i I ckyard, she would not have g in:Venezia. Just Ia ly; g Il,llli II bought her home ear ago!s ought her dream home in a nice and quiet area, and it is quickly turning into a nightmare with three-story buildings being proposed:'!She mentio�l"ed even if the sand dunes are leveled, she would still be able to see the apartments and they would be able to see her. In addition, her children will soon be attending Carter Elementary School, which she has no,choice unless she enrolls her children in a private school in Rancho Mirage. i IJI'16�II'tlllj,!'� bu With the recR4 .0 i tragedy in Las Vegas and the vantage point that the three-story I� II ildings will ha I0overIti e,:schoolyard, she would be scared for her children. She said if she could,�'s'.' wou'id sell her home. However, she just purchased her dream hoIII and has use,i l�lIilvery dollar that she had from selling her home in Riverside to be in Palm Des; l She does not understand why the project needs so many amenities. She ex ssed that the project does not need to be in their backyard, it does not need tol"ulllelpl'Inear their children, and it does not need to be in Palm Desert. Ms. Martinez stated she does not think the Planning Commission would vote in favor of the project if it was in their backyard, if they had children, or affect their privacy. MR. JIM KENNEDY, Palm Desert, California, stated his concern is with noise pollution. He said there are going to be more cars around PCC and Venezia. He commented currently there is no noise. He said the MND states the traffic would not have a significant impact; however, he believed ambient noise would be impacted. He noted that PCC has approximately 499 residents and the proposed 10 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 project will have an additional 400 residents. He stated the proposed amenities are also going to impact noise pollution; therefore, he is not in favor. MR. DAN STICKELS, Palm Desert, California, said he lives in PCC. He thought the open space would be a golf course or similar; not a high-rise building. He asked if the applicant is prepared to repair cracks to floors and walls for the residents that live next to the proposed project due to the construction. He mentioned when trees were removed along the property line, many homes got cracks in the floors and walls. He had a concern with lights coming from cars and felt the applicant should propose a higher wall. !V MR. ROBERT AULT, Palm Desert, California, st t 6l,is a resident of Venezia. lull,II lug � He does not live next to the affected area, hoV , r, he,,',ls ,,affected because he lives off Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane E °�' ,, He communicated that the traffic is already impacted due to the eleme �11i°IIIIIIII'school and adding the proposed ula9:Illllllllll� number of units to the area will impa tt � m gravely. He voiced that he does not �lllllill� appreciate the traffic and the propose'cllo-story buildings. They are lilill!,„necessary and could be built somewhere else. He'is'concerned with the densit� and utilities, and the possibility of increased taxes. He �iliap d concessions have been made to the developer and asked wh f residents c�ll t have concessions. ''!��I�Ilil�l llillllllll'I'I , I�'Commissioner Greenwood as ds I �III rrtec ' e ed and approved the trash u!hill 'enclosures. lil .I I �I I�I�'I'I ��I I'I I I II „ IIIIII IIIIIIII I III�III�I I IIII,I, ,,Illi,lll LIIIIIIIVIIIIII Mr. Ceja repli III, a �j Ic did rellllt Illlp, a plans and approved the project. IIIIII°,I,''I�'I!p��u� ,III�IIIII,I��I , II II,, Commissid11,, Greenwoo Yommentge ',tthat the housing density bonus is a matrix �'��IIIIIIV' 'IIII191I�Ill by the State o Californi 'I'I'� n as As rmr�bl Bill No. 2222. He asked staff what ulllllull Vgo� ,Illlllllull (IIIIIII!� y are the require ` �b e,isapplying for a housing density bonus. l ,III ll II hlll! II I llIII i I II,III f I�I��I I Jill!] IIIIIGIII,�' �IIQ�jIIIII�IIII�pIIIIiIIIII!,III Ifllllll'Ilo, ttlif , �:� Ceja a �, fed t an applicant is proposing to utilize the State s density , nus rovisio a nd ; II rovide a certain level of low-income affordable units ll p I'Illll�.'` applicant cal"II!�IIb'' eiveu 'hII!iiensity bonus. In this case, the applicant is proposing II:WI'I 111!,,,III 2 ; rcent of thei Knits at a different income level; therefore, they are able to reee Ill a 35 perce density bonus. He said in exchange for the density bonus and 'uPIuIIII!. ll.,.'. the appli"'cant prov� �ng additional affordable units, the City can grant concessions ' Ir ,,Ilul!ulll,l�l for the deil �llc �il II !I which is being proposed by the applicant. i'IiII;II;�I�,III I,li:l In terms of th istory of the proposed site, Commissioner Greenwood inquired if it is correct that the site has been zoned and entitled since 1989 for apartment use. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the 1989 development agreement is still in effect for another couple of years. 11 GAPlanning\Monica CReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Mr. Ceja replied that the development agreement expires in 2019. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that he is concerned with the CEQA provision even though the Commission has been advised that it is a technical matter and to not be concerned with CEQA. However, he is concerned with any decision the Commission makes might be impacted later by things they do not know about. He requested clarification. Mr. Hargreaves responded that the comment period on the CEQA document does not expire for another week or two weeks. Therefore,' ''inevitably there is an opportunity for comments to come in that would not go before the Planning Commission. He indicated that CEQA does not re ''II�IllN rlihat an advisory body have a completed CEQA document before the advisdl"l� ody �1 es a recommendation to the final authority. He stated when the C&IJIl1lIlCouncil conl�til s the project, staff will have a complete CEQA document. ,�I,III IIII 'I''I � �I,IIIII, I'ill '�, I i I�pIiI Vl�l Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the' 1989 development agreemti',would have traction in court if the owner of Canterra /�IIplartme Iltllslwere to dispute the proposed project. Mr. Hargreaves answered that the City does not believe the development agreement would have traction in 1, court. Typically, he said development agreements exclusively provide entitlements for a particular piece of property. He said a development agreement is;IliiRt Iili IIIIII�Co�er ,nts, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) wherle,Jt is promised to a big ooring prJoperty. I, lu�l� Vice Chair Gregory asked if on'" ere to assume, because of the relatively 'lll�gtli lip„, r' Oil, IUI;,. updated Gener Plan Id e GeneUal Plan supersede the 1989 development "�1j1�1'I I I I�Iillllllllillllillllllllllllill��j��j� I „, i�IIIIIIUIi' agreement. , Irl I�'ll►IliliPl h"II'I!Ill i,, I(i I Ili ,�,,,I I III I,I Ii�IIIDo� IliaI!,ullifil Vlglil��llll►►I!II'llhlllul p P p g III! ar re � res anded that it depends on the development agreement. He �III� IVI I� Ilil,it id the 19$ �';1Illpidlleve�oblment agreement was kind of at the beginning of development agrle� lll� ents 1�14,0.,,a current development agreement, the City would be velW,lexplicit abou a entitlements that were grandfathered in. It would provide that no subsequent61"Ranges affect the property, etc. The 1989 agreement provides that the developer donate certain property, which is now the soccer park in exchang°a! the City zoned the property to permit 612 units. He stated that as long as the City has entitlements covering the property to permit 612 units, it is sufficient under the development agreement. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the garages are omitted from the properties abutting Venezia, what type of plantings will be installed to improve the property line. Mr. Ceja responded that a shift in the area would be required to accommodate a new landscaping along the property line. 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the driving lane would be okay where there was an opportunity to mitigate the property line. Mr. Ceja said it may require a bend or kink in the drive aisle to accommodate a landscape planter on the property line. Vice Chair Gregory said he is disturbed about the concerns being raised by parents and others regarding the three-story buildings overlooking the schoolyard. The applicant has indicated interest in working with his neigh)or to the east. He asked if the applicant would consider not adding a third story,t',I,IItailding No. 3 so it is not overlooking the schoolyard. jl III' Mr. Ceja replied it is possible. oll� III II II NI �IIIII� Iol,:. Chairman Pradetto asked for a quick,,,,,! I on general pl n,'ing and housing ll li Sul allocations. He mentioned that the questio as been asked about how the City of Palm Desert could build and plan formultkstory units. His experience has been that there are other jurisdictions strugglinglwith similar''constraints of having to plan for more units because of State law. He stated'iit'' s not something that the City necessarily chooses to do, but it is coming°frII om the State on how the City must meet housing allocation requirements The City',has to plan the units in the most II Vlilliii''"l ill, �� intelligent way possible and thes�e a�e� le that ibuy land, which is zoned and I'IIIIIIII�I, lylllllu Illi�" I planned for apartments. He aske staff i �I �I' accurate. •I I II II I��� III�II I��Mr. Ceja replie , II eII II IIII e I ly �regions I I'I aI!� r lue' assigned an allocation foret�I Il� housing fro,,ill�ll,�llle Regional Housing;'Needs Assessment (RHNA) on how many units needs 101"e provided'in the City of Palm Desert over an eight-year period. He noted that the Ill units are broken down by income. He stated Palm Desert is required to build approximately 100 very„�o ;li.inpme units in an eight-year period, which the City'is not meeting that require ght. With the proposed project, Palm Desert could get closer to meeting the requirement. As far as the General Plan, the Proposed project site and other areas of the community have been rezoned to allow for three-story buildings and greater density. Commissioner Greenwood said he is sensitive to the main entry. He noted there is a lot of pedestrian circulation along Hovley Lane East coming from the elementary,school. '''''He understood the drawings are preliminary and asked the civil engineer what he foresees so kids are not further out from the main entry. MR. MIKE ROWE, MSA Consulting, Rancho Mirage, California, responded by adding a traffic signal they can control traffic. They also have crosswalks. In addition, existing sidewalks will be moved back to give kids a safer path to travel. With the traffic signal, the traffic level of service increases to a level A. 13 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory appreciated Mr. Moran's effort in working with the developer and coming to some kind of agreement. However, he is curious about the garages that are against the Canterra Apartments property line. MR. MORAN responded that he realized with all the compromises there should be give and take on both sides. He stated the most important thing for Canterra Apartments was to reduce the three-story height to two-stories as much as possible to reduce the view blockage. He commented that they do not like the garages; however, they did not object because the deve offer was willing to take Itll III III Illli o them out by Venezia. He said they do not like the, ° 'rages and rather have carports; however, he believed the developer needsi'''llil�!Rill ' p p garages for the project to be financially successful. , � I�I Ilan With no further testimony offered, Chairman Prade 14111tleclared th III''', lic hearing closed. 111V!lIhy; illll"' IIIiII�I II I I I MS. ALTOFER interjected that she ha ill!I�IIIIIII= lull I II ,I additional comment. l . �II I I I Chairman Pradetto reopened the public hearirIIIII' IIII I I��, II°I "IIIII��I�lilllli,, IiI) ��!i,l ulll�llll�l �!lIl MS. ALTOFER commented th she called y cities and was told by the City at r4 ul�l 'I Ill,ui of Indian Wells that they kno abo oncessi�i II �I owever, they would not allow pI IVllll0 9U�IIIII a zero setback. She voiced h uIII� lis p l,l� ent wi` Im Desert. �I ,{I II►�I III , � III�IIII I II III, IIII�I llllll u�l I,� 6� With no further testimon offered, Chai n P,r 4to ared the public hearing closed. ,a ! III I II Illi ��I I�IIIIIIII�II!�II �IIIII�!�I��!�pllll I jI I;IIII11 Chairman P 1 etto calla' Ila reces t 7:25 p.m. and reconvened at 7:29 p.m. �IIQI�II I DIII� I ill, II:� I�ill I l�i j I iI I IwII IIII!I III I�I I q I I d�il�ll i 111 heCommissione 1, II, aid I iII'Il, Id like to speak to the applicant and requestedChai I I� l public hearing. 'I' i!' I IIII�III''llll j' I iIIIIII III IIII 'ul iilll�l!� lll I IIIIIIIII�( �!I,�I, IIIi I Ii II 1111 jl'l�Ill!ilVlh II iirmana tto a lll'Ined the public hearing. .III llllllll II�!I�'" "Illlljlll'IIII!I I 'll,l!� ' „IIIIbII� uI dIII Based on discussion wl �llilllr. Moran and the revised design, Commissioner u,l �,�VI,�Ii. Greenwood askedl,llll�illr. Ne ell to walk the Planning Commission through the changes He is unc f r on the number of units. IIIIIIIII�II Ili�'I II''IIIII� III III IIIr MR. NEIJV� L 8nded that the project as revised would have five three-story "'llli l l!!h 'dill ll li buildings an+ Il'' I,I o-story buildings. Building Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 will be three- story buildings'!'I'iland Building Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 10 go from three-story buildings to two-story buildings. He said they are eliminating 12 units from Building No. 1, which is the third floor. They are going to try to replace the units in Building Nos. 1 and 3. He noted that they are looking at various options, such as, do they increase Building No. 5 or have Building No. 10 extend to the west. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the garages being omitted are going to be relocated. 14 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. NEWELL replied that the garages will be relocated between Building Nos. 6 and 7. They will also possibly relocate some garages south of Building No. 4. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the Planning Commission has been studying the project for over a six-month period. She has seen a lot of movement on both sides, which is a spirit of cooperation. She said it is a complicated issue and the site has been zoned for apartments since 1989i1 She also said that the density bonus is an added element that is permitted ar eing used throughout the City. She felt the developer has done a sensitive job dealing with the needs of the community and has remained flexible. She is pleased with the revisions and believed the developer has a great project. She welcomed the project to the City. From a land use component, Commissioner Greenwood does not have a concern. He also felt it was a nice project. His only concern is not having a defined plan and would prefer to see a revised plan. He asked the Pinning Comms' ,IIIIIiin how they felt about continuing the item. Vice Chairman Gregory agreed with Commissioner Greenwood. He was very 11111111, happy so many compromises "'pro made to allow the project to move forward which is very admirable. Howeve ere were so many changes that he is uncomfortable voting on the pro ' t un lit Ith'ere is a revised plan. He believed it Ii iiii. !!luulli„I,III would also give the applicant otunity ,to address many of the items dJl 1I�yi�� li l'i l l�! !� Ill I� u l �p l l discussed during the meeting. (i� IP Chairman Praddetto asked,Vice Chairi�l! III n Gregory if that is a motion. rt up g ry Vice Chairman Gregory replied yes and Commissioner Greenwood said he would second the motion. �Il�i�l�!�i I,�,,i,�II;ICommissioner DeLuna asked the Chairman to repeat the motion. Hargreaves in and suggested that the Planning Commission continue to a d4Jle certain and 'reopen the public hearing so staff does not have to re-notice the puhNli iheann ll1,10'e asked if two weeks was enough time to bring the item back to the C `jim�ss� i l� Chairman Pradetto encouraged that the item be continued to the second Planning Commission meeting in March. Vice Chairman Gregory amended his motion to continue the item to the second meeting in March. Mr. Stendell interjected that the applicant is able to bring back plans for the first Planning Commission in March. 15 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Chairman Pradetto remarked that the Planning Commission understands the applicant's request. Vice Chairman Gregory stated he stood by his motion. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there is a reason why the developer is requesting to return to the Commission in two weeks. MR. NEWELL responded that they are requesting two v%illl I!IIII!I ebks because they need Ild�i � to meet the bond application period with the Calif 'r Debt Limit Allocation ,jlll:!I d Committee (CDLAC). The Committee meets in M yl!II l ,II Il ih, they need to attend the meeting to qualify for the bonds, which are neededIif6f e financing and tax credits. He said they cannot have impediments to I III�!I I I 'lllgntitlements,,cf He mentioned the iu application must be submitted two months ;'ll� dvance (Mar 13, 2018), or they Illll!I IIIII ul�" IiIlDllll III!1 could possibly request an extension sub'eCt!0 the City's actio ,l luI, I��I I IPI IIIIII! ,IIIIIII;II;I��'' � I!Il�ljlll Commissioner DeLuna remarked that if the applicant,lf,eels they could be back in a couple of weeks, she asked why the Co, missio 'would deny them to be back in I"i II II IIII two weeks. ulll! �!IIII II iIIIIIio 'lilillll!Illliliu!I�,I�,:. ill'll�l I, Commissioner Greenwood 1 0�, d that he !plants the project done right. He I!Illi'I 'lllllllll,t�ll!I, �I;,Iql�l� does not want a rush job A nr, �, II ive th�II licant ample time to make jll I; II,�!�Ii�l III adjustments. ill !!I IIIII,I); IIII �Ill� lilr, I I �III I!��I� �II. Ill- IIIiNII, II I Ilil� illi!IIIIUII'� Vice Chairma 'I; regorji' dded ail A"e is concerned with the project being II' ItlIIf Il ul' lll� it resubmitted i y staff � sufficie ime for staff to review. it II!l, � I fill I I�I!II� I II� III �I,,I�IiIL!I rillll Chairman P tto c curred with t Ill two Commissioners. However, there's IIIIIIuijl Illilullululollllul!Ipll!lul!III,II , Illillll� another concem,lllll!III ,IIII t�eelII I!iiSllid�lp dline pushing the Commission forward. I� A i !II �a �!, �II!Itlhe r nts have cor�tMually suffered from poor notification. He felt �I Ili III IIII, , ,I not fai II he }oper s deadline should preempt their ability to review the I I I IIII IIII li lull III ICI I'I !Illlf rotect. He sta I he uilll stands the pressures; however, he does not want to 1 Illu�l!I II!I!I!III Il!' d just becaushey he,been dealing with this project for so long and now IIII) I�!II, Q !I!II . e,,to move on i I�taickly. Therefore, he supported the one-month delay. ,,Ilill!yi IIII, III, Com!'I� �.. I�I Ijl,lil a;l li Iner Dellala asked if the delay would affect the ultimate outcome of the I u!, II��III project i I li;del � er is not able to get the application in on a timely fashion. 'll l IIII I!I I Chairman Pral l''etto replied probably. He mentioned he has a concern with the zero- lot-line setback being part of Planned Residential as a mechanism to provide flexibility. He said the City has projects that utilize the zero-lot-line setback; however, he does not want that to set the pattern that becomes the default. So he asked if the proposed project is the right project to enact the zero-lot-line setback. He commented that he wants the zero-lot-line setback to be addressed, and continuing the item one month would allow more time to comment on the environmental document. Lastly, he felt it is not fair to the Planning Commission or 16 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes�2-20-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the residents to comment or weigh in on the project without a concrete plan. He repeated that the motion is to continue the item for a month. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that when buildings are lengthened, other issues arise. He felt the additional time will allow the architects an opportunity to take a good look at the long and tall buildings. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the project would be compromised if it is delayed for a month. li I� �IIIb plliijl,l I. Mr. Stendell responded that the decision to delay the',iapr,,;oject for a month is under the purview of the Planning Commission. Based on'!the timeline indicated by the developer, he believed a delay would get in the way of the project in one way, shape, or form. He stated he does not know what the delay does to the economics of the project; however, he does not believe a two-week or one-month delay is a material change at this point. Chairman Pradetto inquired what is the probability that the Plan ning'Commission recommends a continuance and staff determines the continuance puts the project u�luuni��� in jeopardy. He asked if staf iWould take the pu��p,fect before the City Council without taking it back to the Commisl$`Ibn llq�illi l �II'li Till,, I�il'�lil��i I�� Ill��p�illlilll�l����llil ,, IIIII IIII 01, Mr. Stendell replied no. The Plate mg Co is on ha, to review the project. II illllllll1l�l;j li i���u IIIIIII�I�Ii�VIIIui, IIIII 1111i,11iu�I Mr. Hargreave I f that t II on sho Id include reopening the public hearing. I L'" i I l l Vice Chair I „ j'!1�!IGrego M ended the motion to include reopening the public i iuli��,. ,q I I IIIIIII il��illlllll��mo hearing. Commie �,,, eo curred with the amendment. r i �I � ulll�u�Vl;I� I Ill ,iI,Ill�ll!�IGIIlifl �I,IIII!IIIIIIIIP'lul,; III Iii! �I II�.VIIIIIIIIII Vice Chairman Gregory moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. PP/EA to March 20, 2018, and reopen the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-071 vote with Commissioner Holt ABSENT (AYES: DeLuna, ,Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). X. MISCELLANEOUS None 17 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx To: Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert Date: March 20, 2018 Re: Sands Apartment Project — Responses to Public Comments on CEQA A number of issues related to the proposed Sands Apartments (Canterra II) (the "Project"), have been raised by the public through oral comments provided at the Planning Commission's prior public hearing on February 20th, and through written comments submitted to the City. Copies of those written comment letters have been provided to the Planning Commission for consideration. Staff has carefully listened to and reviewed the comments and believes that the majority of the comments are already fully addressed through the existing Project application documents and through the analysis provided in the City's publicly circulated Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"), the review period for which closed on March 14th. Nonetheless, Staff would like to provide the following summary, which provides topical responses to a number of items as well as a few clarifications in order to ensure a complete and transparent record. I. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN A number of the public comments asked if the proposed Project would be compatible with surrounding uses, particularly due to the fact that the Project proposes to include three story structures, a concession for parking, and more overall units due to the provision of additional low income units than those originally proposed in the Development Agreement for the site. First,the Project site is flanked by existing residential development,as shown in Aerial Photograph 3 within the MND. Additionally, the Project is consistent with existing General Plan land use designations and the existing zoning designations. (See MND pp. 1, 55-57.) Second,the Project originally proposed to construct 412 apartment units, a clubhouse facility,two outdoor swimming pools, recreational and open space,covered and uncovered parking spaces and 220 garages. However,in response to public input, the applicant has agreed to reduce the number of requested units to 396 units and has made other changes to address concerns through the submission of a revised Site Plan. Additionally, the revised Project maintains the 27' landscape buffer along the southern edge of the property, separating the Project from the Portola Country Club residences. Further, the revised Project removes enclosed garages from the boundary with the Venezia residences and adds a landscape buffer along the western border along the Venezia community. Third,the majority of commenters opposed to the Project expressed concerns regarding the height of the buildings and that three story structures were proposed. The applicant has taken steps to address these concerns by reducing the height of three of the structures to two stories and redistributing the three story structures. Specifically, the number of three story buildings within the Project has also been reduced from eight to five, and the majority of the three-story buildings are now concentrated in Project areas farthest away from the adjacent residences in Venezia, Portola Country Club, and Canterra I. The elimination of most of the three story buildings along the eastern property line, adjacent to Canterra, addresses concerns regarding obstruction of views as well as privacy concerns. Further,in order to be consistent with the General Plan,which allows for three story buildings in areas designated Town Center Neighborhood, the City previously adopted changes to the development standards of the Planned Residential zoning district to allow for three story buildings with a maximum height of 40 feet. Accordingly, the Project's tallest buildings, proposed at 38'4", are consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. By revising the Project, the current layout allows for two story structures along the south and southwestern portion of the Project site to step down to the one story condition of adjacent single family residences, while stepping up from the two story Canterra buildings to three stories in the northwestern portion of the Project site along Hovley Lane. By providing an additional setback along the southwestern portion of the site, concerns regarding views from the adjacent Venezia community are better addressed. Fourth, as relates to the density of the Project, while the original site plan proposed 22.7 dwelling units per acre ("du/ac"), the revised Project proposes 21.8 dwelling units per acre. This density is below the General Plan maximum density of 40 du/ac. Although 396 units constitutes an approximate 20% increase in the base zoning requirement of 17.5 du/ac, such an increase is permissible under the State Density Bonus Law and the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, and even with the density bonus, there is not a significant impact due to increased Project density and the additional reduction in density by the applicant alleviates some public concerns. Finally, the revised Project also includes 699 parking spaces. With 396 units, this equates to a 1.75 ratio, which is slightly less than the Municipal Code's 2.0 per unit requirement. However, the reduction in parking standards, a concession under the Density Bonus Law, is consistent with parking standards for mixed use and residential parking standards in the City's Downtown zoning district, as well as for other apartment projects throughout the City. Commenters expressed concerns that residents would have to find parking in private residential developments to account for the lack of parking on site. However, no complaints were cited regarding Canterra's residents seeking additional parking, and that site also has a parking ratio of under 2 spaces per unit requirement. Accordingly, the 0.25 spaces per unit reduction is reasonable and the site provides adequate parking,especially given the proximity to the existing Sunline Transit stop approximately 1000 feet west of the Project and existing services located at the intersection of Cook Street and Hovley Lane. In conclusion,while the Project is more dense,it is designed to be compatible with the surrounding multi-family as well as single-family residential uses. It is consistent with General Plan policies, particularly Policy 3.4 regarding Balanced Neighborhoods, as the Project promotes a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood in order to accommodate diverse ages and incomes, and no potentially significant impacts are anticipated. II. NOTICE AND PUBLIC REVIEW The public review period for a proposed mitigated negative declaration shall be not less than 20 days. If the proposed negative declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review, the review period shall be at least 30 days. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091(b).) The public review period and the state agency review period may, but are not required, to begin and end at the same time. Day one of the state agency review period is the date that the State Clearinghouse distributes the - 2 - CEQA document to state agencies. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091(c)(2).) Further, if a proposed mitigated negative declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review and the period of review by the State Clearinghouse is longer than the public review period, the public review period shall be at least as long as the period of review and comment by state agencies as established by the State Clearinghouse. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091(c)(1).) The City filed and posted the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("NOI") with the Riverside County Clerk's Office on February 1, 2018, which provided the public review period for the Project would run from February 2, 2018 through March 5, 2018. However, the State Clearinghouse did not submit the NOI to the state agencies until February 12, 2018. Thus, in an abundance of caution and to ensure that all agencies receive the full 30-days to review the MND, the City voluntarily extended the public review period through March 14,2018 in order to align the public review period with that of the review period by state agencies. With the extension of the public review period, both members of the public as well as state agencies have been provided with the full required comment period (or more) under by CEQA. A commenter also raised concerns that the City did not post the NOI or Notice of Public Hearing on its website in accordance with CEQA Guideline section 15202(e). To be clear, CEQA Guideline section 15202(e)provides that"to the extent that the public agency maintains an Internet web site, notice of all public hearings should be made available in electronic format on that site." [emphasis added.] CEQA Guidelines section 15201 contains similar language as to procedures for public involvement. That section provides "such procedures should include, whenever possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the public agency." [emphasis added.] The language in the CEQA Guidelines is permissive, not mandatory. The City therefore did not violate CEQA by failing to post the NOI or Notice of Public Hearing on its website prior to the February 20, 2018 Planning Commission hearing. Nonetheless, the City sent notice of the MND's available to the public, published noticed in the local paper, posted the notice at the County Clerk's Office, and had the document available for public review at all times at City Hall. Accordingly, the City's noticing process fully complied with CEQA. III. NOISE The public expressed concerns regarding noise which may result from parking lot activities near adjoining residential communities. The noise element of the General Plan discusses noise sources in the City of Palm Desert, calling out freight rail service, and airports as substantial noise generators, and industrial operations, construction activities, special event noise, commercial activities that include live music, and lawnmowers and leaf blowers as other noise generators in the City. (Palm Desert General Plan, pp. 101-102.) Parking lots connected with residential uses were not identified in the General Plan as substantial noise generators within the City. The General Plan Noise Element Goal 1.1 addresses noise compatibility between differing types of land uses and provides "apply the Noise Compatibility Matrix, shown in Figure 7.1, as a guide for planning and development decisions. The City will require projects involving new development or modifications to existing development to implement mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce noise levels to at least the normally compatible range shown in the City's Noise Compatibility Matrix shown in Figure 7.1. Mitigation measures should focus on architectural features and building design and construction,rather than site design features such as - 3 - excessive setbacks, berms and sound walls, to maintain compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses. (Palm Desert General Plan,p. 105.) Thus,the fact that the City is not providing setbacks between the Project and adjacent residences is consistent with the General Plan's goal regarding noise compatibility. Further, the Noise Compatibility Matrix shows that low density single family,duplex, and mobile home residential land uses and multifamily residential land uses have the same level of conditionally acceptable community noise exposure levels—70 dBA CNEL. The same applies for schools. Schools and multifamily residential uses also have the same level of normally acceptable community noise exposure(65 dBA CNEL),while single family residential uses have a normally acceptable CNEL of 60 dBA with 65 dBA being conditionally acceptable. (Palm Desert General Plan, p. 103.) As such, no potentially significant noise impacts are anticipated from the Project. Further,enforcement of the City's Noise Control Ordinance would minimize impacts from private developments and residences. (See Palm Desert General Plan Noise Element Goals 2.1, 2.2, p. 106.) The General Plan EIR found noise from stationary sources and land use conflict noise impacts less than significant with adherence to General Plan policies, including those discussed above. (Palm Desert General Plan EIR,p. 4.12-25.) Based on the above, a multifamily residential use is compatible with both surrounding school, multifamily, and single family uses. The applicant will comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and the Sands Apartments will impose noise controls via activity restrictions within the complex. As the Project adds a residential use adjacent to other residential uses and a school,it will generate similar noises and is compatible with surrounding development from a noise perspective. IV. AESTHETICS The public raised concerns related to garages directly abutting five single family residences and a portion of a sixth in the Venezia community as it relates to views and privacy. As stated above, the revised Project removes enclosed garages from the boundary with the Venezia residences and adds a landscape buffer along the western border along the Venezia community to address this issue. Concerns were also expressed regarding lighting from the proposed shade structures replacing the garages, reflections from the structures themselves, as well as car headlights pulling into the structures. As stated, there will be a landscape buffer, as well as a solid wall separating the Venezia community from the Project, which would reduce any impact from headlights. The City would also condition the Project so that any lighting would be shielded and angled away from the residences and there would not be any spillover onto adjacent property. Finally, the structures will be constructed out of non-reflective material, eliminating any potential issues with glare in that regard. Impacts to views was also previously raised by Canterra as a concern. As set forth above, the revised Site Plan addresses this concern by reducing the number of three story buildings from eight to five, and concentrating those buildings farthest away from existing residential developments. Accordingly, view shed renderings submitted by Canterra do not depict the current Project as revised, which addressed the view shed issue by reducing the number of units, decreasing the height of three of the buildings, and relocating the majority of three story structures away from the Canterra complex. -4 - Commenters are concerned regarding impacts to their property values as a result of the Project. While such potential impacts may be of importance to neighbors, economic or social effects are not treated as significant effects on the environment under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15131.) The MND.adequately analyzes the physical impacts of the Project, including how those impacts may affect surrounding residences. Accordingly, the analysis is not flawed due to a failure to discuss any changes in property values of the surrounding residences. V. THE REVISED SITE PLAN REDUCES UNITS IN A MANNER THAT DECREASES POTENTIAL IMPACTS, THUS RECIRCULATION IS NOT REQUIRED Finally, the Project applicant has agreed to make certain minor revisions to the Site Plan in response to comments from the public. Overall,these revisions reduces the number of residential units,moves proposed garages away from adjacent residences, and decreases the height of several of the buildings, all of which will further reduce potential impacts as compared to those set forth in the publicly circulated MND. For example, fewer units means a smaller construction footprint, fewer air quality and GHG emissions, smaller energy and domestic water demands during operations, and fewer traffic trips. Further, these changes in the site layout do not exceed the original footprint of the site, nor do they add additional impacts. A lead agency must recirculate a mitigated negative declaration only when the document has been substantially revised after notice of its availability has been given,but prior to its adoption. (CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5.) A substantial revision includes a new, avoidable, significant effect is identified and new mitigation measures are required. (Id.) Recirculation is not required where new project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed MND which are not new avoidable significant effects. (Id.) That is the case here. The Site Plan modifications were made to address public concerns and further the goals behind CEQA, but do not create any new significant effects. Further, the mitigation measures identified in the MND are adequate to mitigate any effects from the revised site plan. Therefore, the MND has not been substantially revised as to require recirculation. 72500.00904\30624867.2 - 5 - RICHARD H. WOHL, M.D., DIANE H. WOHL March 8, 2018 To Mayor Jonathan, Palm Desert City Council members, members of the Planning Commission, members of Desert Sands Unified School District and Assemblyman Chad Mayes: We want to address 2 matters that we feel strongly impact the issue of the proposed "Sands"development. First, there is a fundamental subject that we feel affects the very character of our town: our State Assembly, and by proxy, our local representatives have been reacting indiscriminately to a media and political frenzy seeking a solution to the"California housing crisis,"and seem to approach the problem without regard to the welfare of the majority of the state and local residents. Last week, U.S. News and World Report published their annual "Best States Ranking"and California came out dead last - #50— in quality of life by being at the bottom in the natural and social environment categories. This should not be a "zero-sum"game! California residents are already suffering. The situation will not be solved by penalizing those who moved here in good faith, expecting their representatives to protect the environment and quality of life that attracted them here in the first place. At a coffee this morning, Mayor Jonathan emphasized his and the Council's dedication to and focus on quality-of-life here. High-density, high-rise structures, with many zoning exemptions that had never been allowed before should be placed in a new area of development that will not impact those who have invested in their homes and planned their lives, which are now being threatened with disruption. If placed in an area of new developments, others then buying and building there would at least honestly know what they are facing. Black Rock, the world's largest money manager, bought 167 acres in Palm Desert last August, near UC Riverside and Cal State campuses. That is the sort of place a development like"The Sands"should appropriately be located. We realize that the town has given preliminary approval to the developer and could be liable for expenses if the project is changed or cancelled, possibly reflecting negatively on the Council and Commission. But since this was done without proper communication or informed consent of the affected residents, respecting the interests of the majority of your constituents, we believe the Council should deny approval of the project as it is currently presented, and at least restrict all building to no more than two stories. Second, the March 7 New York Times reports an article from the Orange County Register detailing six potential school threats in 10 days in Long Beach. An article in The Washington Post this week described the mind of a school shooter whose ultimate ambition is to kill more children than have ever been killed in any of the many school massacres to date. Fifteen-year-old Jesse Osborne, in South Carolina, shot and killed his father and a 6-year-old elementary school child. He then told authorities that he wanted to outdo previous school shooters, e.g. Adam Lanza, with the aim of killing up to 150 children. Ominously, one massacre tends to beget another. Several very tall, 3-story buildings with towers that overlook the Carter School playground are planned in the Sands development. An hour and a half prior to the most recent Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 20, the developer, under pressure, made a last-minute concession to the attorney of Canterra Apartments, by moving one of the 3- story buildings from the side of the apartments to a position overlooking the school. That high building might have interfered with the views of some Canterra apartment residents, who are charged a premium for views, but with the change, will augment available overviews of the adjacent Carter School playground. We all accept the fact there will be development of the adjacent lot, but we and the many residents of Venezia that we have contacted all want �the project to be limited to two stories. OPV of, rh Dlesoti Z,e r Sincerely, MAR 0 9 2018 Community D v a elopment Richard H. Wohl, M.D., Diane H. Wohl 74175 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone (303)618-2962 e-mail: rhwohl@gmail.com NOTE TO: Planning Commissioners size_-, FROM: Diana Altorfer,Venezia Resident DATE: March 5, 2018 RE: The Sands Proposal Public Hearing of February 20, 2018 Thank You for asking questions of the developer that needed to be asked at the Hearing. It appeared that you were much more conscious of the homeowners and becoming more sensitive to the impact of the proposed development upon surrounding communities. This is the first 3-story, 40-foot-high,massive building ' complex to be developed in Palm Desert where two sides of the project are existing single story private homes. The �. action is unprecedented! When our homes were built in 2003-04,there was a 30-year agreement for future development in the lot next door,not to exceed 306 units, YUr' and 2-story height maximum.Nowhere in the surrounding � = communities are single story homes adjacent to a 3-story , complex. The comparison with Ariana Boutique's (at 9 - right) 3-story Apartment Complex on Deep Canyon south a of Hwy 111, is absurd. It is much smaller, it was built in 1978, is well under 40 ft high, is surrounded largely by ' businesses. The nearest apartment complex built subsequently. Where else do I look to see the contrast between 41 ft high buildings and single leve homes, three times the height of two surrounding neighborhoods. The question remains unanswered, which is why, and I apologize for this, I turned by back on Commission members to address the developer that a 3-dimentional mock up of this development should have been made available. An original homeowner of 41956 Via Garibaldi,purchased - K Price History DATE EVENT PRICE his home in 2004, and then put his home on the market in 01/30/18 Price $599,000 June of 2017, after learning about the development by 41956 Via Garibaldi change K notice of the Public Hearing. It's been 9 months and no 12/04/17 Price $624,900 change sale. His wife has MS and he needs to move to Northern A Price California for more support from family. Another home ® ' • 09/01/17 change $629,900 598K nearby has also been on the market since last July with 3 06/15/17 Lisle le $645,000 for price changes,to no avail. Who says this doesn't impact 632K home values? Word of it has reached realtors... One must NOT forget that Carter Elementary School will now be adjacent to two 3-story buildings, exposing the school yard: CBS News March 3, 2018: Investigators believe 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz tried to make a sniper's nest by shooting out a window in a third-floor stairwell. He fired 16 rounds into the glass, but the hurricane-proof material didn't shatter. Sources tell CBS Miami, Cruz then Ceja, Eric From: Beverly DiGregorio <bevo59@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 12:54 PM To: Ceja, Eric this an unsatisfactory plan. Bev DiGregorio 41726 Via Aregio Palm Desert 1 February 19, 2018 Mr. Eric Ceja Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, I have no expectation that the opinions of current residents living adjacent to or within a short distance of the upcoming project commonly known at The Sands will have anything to do with your decision making process regarding plans to continue develop of this project. You've already made that point. As mentioned in a previous letter to you, I pointed out several concerns and negative impacts this (expanded) development would cause. As I expected, nothing changed in the trajectory of this project. Your decisions tell me you have absolutely no regard for the physical or economic wellbeing of current residents living adjacent to or near this project. I'm sure you're acting within legal parameters but, that doesn't make it 'right'. As I learn more about the process and the decisions you have been a party to, it helps me understand why many people distrust and disrespect politicians and people in positions such as yours. As you know I'm beyond the 'public comment' period but, that's not important at this point. I think it IS important that you know that you're hurting more people than you're helping. I speak for myself only. I do not necessarily represent the opinions of any organization or association. David W. Beach 74174 Via Pellestrina Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Ceja, Eric From: June Engblom <juneengblom@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 4:45 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands I'm writing to express my opposition to three story construction in Palm Desert. If I speak am unlimited to 3 minutes? How many times may I speak? May I read a statement for someone who is afraid of public speaking or who cannot make the meeting? Thanks June Engblom Portola Cc resident Sent from my Whone 1 Ceja, Eric From: Dianne SanClemente <diannesanclemente@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:26 AM To: desertdianne@hotmail.com; Ceja, Eric Subject: Not in my backyard We oppose a 3 story apt complex in our backyard. The San Clemente Family 1 Ceja, Eric From: JoesephE.Stongle <stongj@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 11:04 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Apple Subject: Huge property going up beside/hind "VENEZIA" Dear Mr. Eric Ceja, I am quite certain that you're aware we have single family(all one story)on our property and what you want to build are two and three floors. I do not know if any of you thought of the terrible possibility that some of your buildings are perfect for a school shooting, similar to Vegas. Your project is massive and my immediate concern is that it will destroy the value of my property with its traffic of cars and people. Then there's the problem of views to some in our community. Please reconsider! Sincerely, J.E.Stongle i Ceja, Eric From: JoesephE.Stongle <stongj@aol.com> ` Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 1:33 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Apple Dear Mr. Ceja, I thought it best to write back and clarify my letter. I am a retired flight attendant and after 35 years of service I immediately think "SAFETY"/"EXIT" ECT. In light of the situation at hand in Fla. You plan to have buildings that face the back of the school yard and that concerns some of us at"VENEZIA" Sincerely, J.E. Stongle 1 Ceja, Eric From: Karla Lewis <karlalewis1373@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 7:08 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Project on Hovley Lane East February 18,2018 Eric Ceja,Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,CA 92260 Dear Mr.Ceja, I 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,I 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. I 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.If you come into our community and look at the homes along Angels Camp Rd. you will see that the parking lot at Canterra is at the same height as the roof of the homes backing it. This concerns me as the topography of the area is so different. Imagine if we are already eight feet below the parking lot what a three story project will look like from our vantage point. 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. That would mean we had two stoplights between Portola and Cook. 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: Diana Altorfer <ditorfer@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:14 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Re:Just one more Sands Question Thank you, Eric, Can you also say WHERE the other three developments are in Palm Desert which will have 3-story components? I have driven all over trying to find how high three story buildings are... So far I have pictures of the new hotel in Palm Desert (which I understand was planned for 5 stories but neighbors successfully complained and got it down to 3 stories)l??) and the center building at Ralph's (grocery)on Country Club and Cook. It sure would have been better had the developer been required by the City to do a 3-D model like many developers do when they present a proposal. It is so hard to fathom 8 of these 3-story buildings in the 17.5 acre lot. (Why do they say 18.5 acres in some documents when half of 35 acres is 17.5? 1 also taught math at middle school.) Diana Altorfer On Feb 16, 2018, at 4:48 PM, <eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org><eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org>wrote: Hi Diana, Yes,the plan is to bring the site down to roughly match the grades of the surrounding properties.Along Venezia the grades will match (within a few inches). Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org -----Original Message----- From: Diana Altorfer [mailto:ditorfer@gmail.com) Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 10:05 PM To: Ceja, Eric<eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject:The Sands Question Eric, Are the developers planning to REMOVE all of this sand to bring it level with the adjoining communities, or just try to level it out? It is quite high in several areas so it could also raise the height relative to adjoining communities if it's not removed... Please advise... Diana Altorfer 1 Ceja, Eric From: Dave Wood <dfwood55@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 1:51 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Proposed development next to Carter Elementary Dear Sir, Surely there are better development and desirable options than what is being proposed. The traffic generated around the school as well as the athletic fields will not be good. The height of some of the buildings proposed will not be good. The housing density that is being proposed will not be good. (I believe that it was increased from the original proposal) I urge you to consider other options! Regards, David Wood 41766 Via Treviso (Venezia) Palm Desert, CA 92269 260-414-0699 Onward... Dave Wood 260.414.0699 dfwood55 @ gmail.com There is NO traffic jam on the extra mile! i Ceja, Eric From: Jean Reid <jeanreid5678@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 7:41 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands Apartments Development Eric Ceja, We live in Portola Country Club and back onto this site. We are very concerned how this high density project will affect our quiet, peaceful community. We oppose the 3 story construction planned and the building of 412 homes in a spot earmarked for 306. Hopefully our community members' concerns will be considered. Best regards, Jean Reid Donna& Gerry Nye 74312 Angels Camp Road Palm Desert, Ca i Ceja, Eric From: Papillon Graphics <trish@papil long raphic`s.com> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 4:31 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands project Hi Eric, I've emailed you before but wanted to make a few points. In the legal notice sent to us from the City under"Project Location" there was mention of Carter School, Cantera, and Portola CC but absolutely NO mention of Venezia....why was this? Being an established community for over 14 years, we deserve some consideration.There are no set-backs for the garages and I understand that the garbage area is going to be located next to our East wall. We need set-backs for privacy and security reasons.Take 53 of the parking garages and fill them in on the uncovered spaces along the south side and then put the parking spaces on our back wall along with landscaping ficus trees that can't be climbed! The fact that the Sands development needs a stop light is another indication that the development is too large. Why not cut back 3 of those 8-3 story building to 2 stories. Cut back on some amenities; there are plenty of recreational facilities with-in walking distance.A Beer Garden....really? Best Regards, Trish Trish Pierce Papillon Graphics, Inc. V: 760.776.8714 F: 760.779.0723 M: 760.285.1944 1 Ceja, Eric From: Teri Coulter <coulterteri@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:04 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: [SPAM] - Low Income 3 Story Apt Project on Hovely We plan to attend the meeting at the Civic Center in Palm Desert on February 20th regarding the above apartment complex. We realize you have heard all the complaints but add ours to the list. We live next door and this project will have a tremendous negative impact on our entire area. We bought our house in 2014 with the intention to retire here. If we had known this land was going to be used in such an unethical manner, we would not have invested in this area. This project will: - Negatively impact our property values. - Decrease the security of our properties with a parking structure that will be built up against our back wall! - Remove our privacy when the height of the garages and the multiple story buildings abut the boundary walls. The property owners should have been informed about this project before the builder tried to "sneak" around the environmental impact studies. How does the planning commission plan to deal with the loss or privacy and security? Will additional police force be available to address the increase in noise complaints, and other intrusions? Teri and Steve Coulter Sent from my iPad 1 Ceja, Eric From: Phyllis Sherwood <fraydleps@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 8:16 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Venezia This is unexceptionable. We are absolutely against the future plans to building on the sands behind Venezia. Sincerely, The Barzman's Sent from my iPad 1 Ceja, Eric From: Valerie Davidson <valdavidson42@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:11 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Fwd: Projects Case No. DA/PP/EE16-394 Subject: Projects Case No. DA/PP/EE16-394 To: eceja(a�tbalmdesert.org, Mr. Eric Ceja: As a "snowbird" who resides 5 or more months of the year in Portola Country Club, I would like to express my concern and disapproval regarding the above project. We are a community of seniors and allowing a project of this height and density will very negatively affect our community. I would urge you to reconsider this project. Sincerely, R. Davidson, 42535 Tungsten Place, Palm Desert, CA 92260 1 Ceja, Eric From: Jack and Susan Youmans'<jackandsusanyoumans@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 1:19 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: New apartment complex on Hovley I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed three story apartments on Hovley Lane. I do not feel that we need three story apartments overlooking a 55+ Community, AND an elementary school. I do advocate for affordable housing in Palm Desert. However, the location is not appropriate for this type of housing. Susan Youmans Portola Country Club Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android i Ceja, Eric From: Jo <jypsyjo3721@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:S1 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands apartments Eric Ceja, I live in Portola Country Club and definitely oppose the 3 story apartments that the city is considering to be built on Hovely. Not only is the height of the building an objection but the amount of apartments to be built should not be acceptable by our city. I have lived in Palm Desert/Portola for 18 years and been very happy in your city but this plan is the most negative plan our city has proposed. Jo Pitman 74517 Azurite Circle East Palm Desert 92260 Ceja, Eric From: Suzanne O. <sunscrnl3C@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:30 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Fwd: Hovely Lane East proposed apartment development Subject: Hovely Lane East proposed apartment development I am a homeowner and full-time resident in Portola Country Club. My property is adjacent to the proposed apartment development on Hovely. First, I would like to say that I am grateful to see this property developed. Copious amounts of blowing sand from this site have not only created a health hazard during my residency on this property, it also leaves quite a mess for me to clean. Additionally, I have to remove numerous tumbleweeds every year that have blown into my yard from this property. However, I stress my strong opposition to the proposed development in two specific areas: 1). The three-story height of the proposed structure, and 2). The proposed density of the development. Proposed height points: 1.. A three-story structure is completely out of keeping with all of the surrounding properties. There are no structures of this height within blocks of this site in all directions. Not only will this create an eyesore in the area, it will compromise the aesthetics of the neighborhoods and diminish property values in the affected neighborhoods. 2. A structure of this height invades the privacy of adjacent properties. My yard and master bedroom will be easily visible from a third story vantage point. Children in the adjacent school will also be subject to surveillance from this vantage point, something that should be of great concern to all parents and safety-conscious residents of Palm Desert. Proposed density points: 1. At present, we enjoy a quiet and peaceful neighborhood. Every added resident in our neighborhood provides the opportunity for an increase in noise. It is in the best interest of all adjoining residents to minimize the noise pollution to the extent possible. 2. Every additional housing unit carries with it the potential of two addition vehicles. Not only does this create additional noise, it will significantly increase traffic congestion on Hovely and at the intersection of Hovely and Portola, an intersection that is already busy, especially during the hours that the school day is beginning and ending. Thank you for considering my points of concern. I trust that our elected officials will act in the best interests of existing residents rather than the monetary interests of developers. Suzanne Ostermann 74372 Angels Camp Rd. Palm Desert,CA 92260 1 Ceja, Eric From:' Kit Bishop <kitbishop730@gmai1:com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:31 AM To: Ceja, Eric I own a home in Portola Country Club. I object to the proposed new development. It is too big, would be a privacy invasion to homes on Angel's Camp and would cause more traffic problems on Hovley. Sincerely, Tom& Kit Bishop\ 74435 Gary Av Palm Desert, CA 1 Ceja, Eric From: Gini Estes <dandvestes@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:22 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Three story apartments At tonight's meeting, please consider the impact on the lives of palm desert residents who live and work in that area. We are opposed to the height of our next door neighbors and the impact on our views and traffic, noise, etc. the reason we chose Palm desert as our home was because of the life style we now enjoy, and do not want to see it ruined. Thank you, Don and Virginia Estes, owners and residents of Portola a Country Club. Sent from my iPad 1 Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner February 19, 2018 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Ceja, This letter is being written on behalf of the residents and Board of Venezia HOA whose property lines border on that of the proposed development called The Sands.The Board of the HOA, on behalf of its residents, opposes the development as currently designed. When a large majority of its residents bought homes in this development, it was understood that the vacant lot next to lames Earl Carter School and Venezia would some day be built. But it was clearly a complex with the number of apartments not to exceed 306. The town determined that this agreement, to which it is a signatory, could be changed. We believe that it is extremely unfair to change the design and diversity of the neighborhood after the fact. The residents of Venezia recognize the need for additional housing and are aware of the standing plans for the property next to Carter Elementary School. However, what they didn't bargain for was a development almost 35% larger than that already planned. As one of the members of your architectural committee stated, the project is too big for the site selected. It is akin to using a shoe horn to wedge your large foot into a small shoe. On two sides of the development are single level structures. And for 30 years it has been zoned 2 stories as Canterra II. Now we are being asked to accept multiple 3 story stuctures. It would be the first 3 story complex in this area. Further, the plan speaks glowingly of the setbacks from the Portola Valley Country Club and Canterra Apartments. It also states that as a giveback, the town can reduce the setback, but it didn't say that they could eliminate it.This is precisely what has transpired.Venezia seems to have been ignored when it comes to setbacks and landscaping. Instead,they get to see the backs of numerous garages with their attendant drain pipes, etc. It is as if the town has disregarded a few residents who are sacrificed for the interests of the many. The owners,who are property tax payers, are considered second rate behind the renters. We suggest that the setback be restored and the garages bordering Venezia be moved to another location. Then the landscaping can be added to make the ambience from Venezia looking east to be more acceptable. Lastly, we ask that the project be modified to revert to the plan that was signed by the town years ago, i.e. 306 units. This project is so large it needs its own traffic light! We sincerely hope that our suggestions receive the attention we believe they deserve. Best regards, S. Walter R.Altorfer President, Venezia HOA Board of Directors Cc: City of Palm Desert City Council Ceja, Eric From: Dianne SanClemente <diannesanclemente@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:26 AM To: desertdianne@hotmail.com; Ceja, Eric Subject: Not in my backyard We oppose a 3 story apt complex in our backyard. The San Clemente Family 1 Ceja, Eric From: Hester Wes <whester@foxholetechnology.com> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 10:39 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: ditorfer@dc.rr.com; CityhallMail; weber Subject: The Sands - A Negative Impact to the Palm Desert Community - Vote No! Eric, We are writing to express our non-support of The Sands project in Palm Desert Community as currently planned. We currently live in the Venezia Housing area,which is next to The Sands planned development thus have major concerns in the following areas: 1. Three story(3-story)buildings can not exist at The Sands-3-story(eight of them), two story(2—story)buildings(7 of them)are planned but can not exist as requested. o Does not conform with zoning codes applied to similar neighborhoods which only allows for 2-story buildings. o Extreme privacy and safety concerns of putting a 3-story building next to existing 1-story homes and a school play ground. In light of recent school gun issues and the recent Las Vegas Hotel shooting,we submit that allowing a 3-story building next to a school play ground and housing area violates privacy and safety issues. 2. Garages Must Have 25 Foot Setback from Venezia Homes-Garages lining the property line between Venezia: o Concern that The Sands will extend 5 feet or more(if sand isn't removed!)above backyard walls of Venezia. Causing privacy and visibility issues. o Garages too close to the Venezia Housing area wall should be 25 foot setback to allow for privacy and safety. A fire in a garage could cause damage to a Venezia Home. 3. Increased Traffic Congestion-Additional traffic in the area to include the over crowding of the school system is a major concern. 4. Redundant Play Grounds Not Needed—The Sands development plan calls for additional development of play grounds when there is currently a large outdoor recreational complex that could be used by The Sands residents just next door. The noise and lights from the additional play ground with in 100 feet of the Venezia Community will cause Privacy and Noice issues. Thus do not build. 5. Impact of Low Income Housing on Surrounding Areas- Addition of low-income housing next to a recently planned and established high-income housing area is going to reduce the value of the homes in the Venezia Housing Area. Thus request the City of Palm Desert immediately offer a Tax Assessment adjustment for 2018, and following years, of 40% less than 2017 tax assessment to account for the direct negative influence of the City Of Palm Desert Planning Division's impact on the home owners of Venezia. Again,thanks for your continued support regarding this critical issue to the Palm Desert Community. And if possible,I would like to request a meeting with you to further address our concerns. Warm regards, Wes Hester President & CEO e4"R" 11781 Lee Jackson Hwy, Suite 260 Fairfax, VA 22033 whester@foxholetechnology.com 1 Office Phone Number (0) 703-496-4514 Cell Phone Number (C) 703-586-3234 Fax Number(F) 202-379-1790 wWw.foxholetechnology.com RLTW ISO 9001:2015 1 CMMI°Level 3 1 VA Certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) I Nunn—Perry Small Business of the Year Please consider the environment before printing this email. Foxhole Technology,Inc.is not an agent of,nor does it have the authority to bind or commit,or otherwise allocate or budget funds of or from the Federal Government of the United States.This email and its contents are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)as they may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review, use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.If you are the intended recipient,please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access,review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator. Foxhole Technology,Inc.is not an agent of,nor does it have the authority to bind or commit,or otherwise allocate or budget funds of or from the Federal Government of the United States.This email and its contents are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)as they may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.If you are the intended recipient,please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access,review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator. 2 -s6uiujow AUDw 6uilmoq waH� jt)ag I—sa�oAoo a,jt) a,jaq. nog( aa�uDjDn6 I 'panuasgo a,jam sIDwwDw jo saj!. da,j ou +DH� pau'04uaw QNW uno/ �wooj �sa,j aH� asn am awii g:)t)a gsnll o� .you sn 6uijja. AaH� axD AHm uaH� 'walgo.id ou nog( pjo� QMAO :Ja. 'Dm alll -asiou pasea,A:)ui a:)ual,jadxa Aju!t)�,jao . sow ll!m am s.jogg6lau mau gg8 put) siazoplInq H. !m....slanal aslou . ua!quao u! ast)a,Aoui :)ipoljad ,jo �uaum jad jo Aut)uodwa. ou ant) { ll!m am „s�o!pa,�d„ QNW ,AnoA :as!ou ag1 san�asuno�( uo� �ooj pun asnoygnlo SO.? D14Jod jo sult)�sdn aH. o� auaoo...SanlasunoA ,col �ooj put) p,jt)A �ot)q Aw O. aWO:)...SanlasunoA ,job. �ooj put) s. uawa xDdt) age. o� awo.? ��H61,j 'ja� t)w o. 6u!o6 s6uipl!nq Ajo�s; g a,jow mal t) sjt)gm os—sllt)m �:)yq ,jo s�,jod,jt):) 'saa.A� Aq pa�on.j. sqo Apt)aAID a,jt) smain .jno +oH� QNW 34 ul wiDl:) no :main agl -AaInoH o�uo saut)l wn. . H61,j z 3�Dw 4 t)14JOd uo aull t) pa. ult)d osIt) no/, �ul o6 Jana ll!m It)u61s t) J! smou� og/A -a�ajdwoo s! �oarojd pasodo.jd aH. jo A:)ut)dn000 lin j put) uo!+on,j�suoo ,jagt) 'uoi. !puoo �oarojd sod dal. V s! �t)H� puy -slsAlt)ut) �UDJ jt)m IDu615 t) jo asiwo.jd Aluo si a,jaH{ pq au!ujst)r �t) luu61s :)l jpu� t) aq p,a,jaH{ p!t)s pogt) Ar)s nog( �DHm s,auaH 'uo auag WOJI QNW JIM II!m I Ho!Hm uol�t)JDJDaQ anl. t)6aN pa�t)6l�!W ,jnoA uI -sanss! ,A?H. O 6uouat) d?a DM put) 'aslou 'main ?H. ':)qp,j� :su,ja:)uo:) 6uimollol aH. do �H6no,Aq am 6ui�aaw suawwns siH. uI I see lizards daily up and over my wall. I see hawks, doves, road runners , small birds I cant identify. And I hear owls at night. In the MN() Eric signs off that he find the project could have significant effect on the environment. Supposedly revisions by the developer have been done to minimize this? What revisions have been done? Over and over again in the MND the words "allowed under the General Plan" occur to justify why this can be done or that wont be so bad. Perhaps the real problem here is the GP.Why did you council members vote to approve multi story construction in the first place? Arent you PD residents? Don't the views and overcrowding matter to you? How were we informed of the GP? Some small tidbit in the Desert Sun? If you sat at Albertsons and informally polled people...Excuse me, how would you feel about 3 to 5 story construction in PD? I bet my bottom dollar the overwhelming response would be NOOO..In just 30minutes at a pancake breakfast at Portola I obtained 78 signatures opposing 3 story construction. Getting back to the MND "allowed under the GP" yoou could put anwhere from 7 to 40 units per acre. On the Hovley plot that means from 126 apartments to 720 apartments. Think about that for a minute..you all voted to say 720 apartments would be allowed under the GP on that tiny piece of land. The fact that 720 could even be proposed is preposterous. Who knows, maybe someday we'll have 6 story apartment buildings on Gerald Ford and Dinah5hore just because the General Plan says its allowed. Just because you MAY do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Please consider carefully how you are impacting the future of beautiful Palm Desert before you vote for 3 stories. If you lived next door, how would you vote? From the city of PD website your core values and moral code include Honesty and Integrity..Why was this originallybrought up in the summer? Why say this is about low income housing when you propose 60 units out of 412 and summer you wanted 82? You could get those 60units doing20% of the original planned 306 apartments. Does anyone read our emails besides Eric? If you lived next door to this project, can you honestly say you'd vote to approve? Exemplary customer service...Why do you and the builder get several months to prepare and we get 3 minutes to oppose? Why do our opinions not matter? What makes you think this won't affect your customers at Chaparral, Silver Sands and the other complexes along Portola? Shouldn't more be done than a small blurb in the Desert Sun and letters to a handful of adjacent homeowners? Accountability and responsibility.....who is going to be responsible for cracks in our windows and sheetrock and in our brick walls from excavators and other heavy equipment? How will we be compensated? Will we have to hire lawyers? Your website also calls PD a uniquely beautiful desert environment and a premier resort destination..If you continue to allow 3 -5 story construction, how long will it take for residents to decide to move to different CV cities? And for tourists to say,I remember when I could see the mountians fromthis restaurant, but not any more...those 3 story buildings and 5 story parking garages on 111 totally obstruct my view. Three story construction, like Monterey Ridge apartments, when properly done don't have to make such a negative impact. Monterey Ridge is on the northern edge, more vacant area of town, whose footprint has not yet been established. Monterey Ridge was started well below street level, so you hardly notice how tall it really is. Via Bellagio, on the other hand, at just 2 stories, dwarfs the fire station and everything else at the corner of Portola and Country Club. Imagine another story on top of Bellagio. Now try to cram that in an established neighborhood of one story single family homes and older construction 2 story apartments. The Sands will completely engulf everything around it. Please don't vote to change the landscape of old Palm Desert. I walk my dog at Civic Park 2-3 x a week. I am always astounded by the beauty that surrounds me and the joy that these amenities bring to our citizens. The fact that our leaders now want to change the look and feel of our perfect little city by erecting 3 story apartments and office buildings, really has me stumped. I've read all your biographies on the city website and understand that you all love the outdoors and hiking, like many of us do as well. I hope one day you don't look down on Palm Desert from the Bump n Grind or the Cross and say to yourself, "What was I thinking in 2018 when I approved The Sands apartments?" I really hope you will look down on the city and realize that voting against the Sands being 3 stories put you on the right side of history. This builder is from northern California. He doesn't care about Southern California or low income residents. All he cares about is the almighty dollar. He 'll go back home to Carmel Valley and wont lose one minute of sleep after he destroys the feel of our beautiful Southern California town. If he cared about low income wage earners, he'd push for 82 units instead of 60. If he cared about Southern California, he would do two story construction. The original plan of 306 units could still provide 60 units of low income at the 20% plan. Hopefully, when you gather to vote on this, or any other proposal, your first question will be...if I lived next door, how would I vote? You are, after all, our neighbors and our elected representatives that we expect will take our feelings into consideration each time you vote. Have you received and read the emai is we have sent? We sure hope so, because once you fully understand our side of the story, we are confident you'll vote for us and against The Sands as a 3 story project. Dear Mayor Jonathan, members of Palm Desert City Council, and members of the Palm Desert PlAnin� Commission: We are Palm Desert residents residing in the Venezia subdivision, directly adjacent to the proposed "Sands" development. Because residents of our community are directly and harshly impacted by a proposed construction that would fundamentally alter the residential character of our neighborhood,we appeal to you for transparency and disclosure regarding this project.We have received little or no notification or information from the City regarding the "Sands" project to date, e.g. the Architectural Committee approval on March 28th, 2017. As parties most affected,we deserve better communication from the representatives we elected to represent us. We respectfully request that at the start of the Planning Commission's public meeting on March 20, 2018 that the Planning Commission disclose and detail the financial, political and tax benefits and concessions that would accrue to the developer and to the town of Palm Desert as a result of approval of the"Sands" project.As property-owning residents of Palm Desert who elected you to office to represent our interests, we feel it is your moral, and probably your legal obligation to explain why you have abrogated the rights and interests of our community and to some degree, the ether communities affected by the proposed project. Canterra apartments is a property that will be directly impacted, but unlike Venezia,the Canterra residents are renters,and can elect relocation with far less financial loss and logistical burdens than can the homeowners of single-family homes in Venezia. Any project with so many issues that would adversely affect the adjacent residents should include those residents in discussions and decisions: the traffic,the air and noise pollution,the degradation of views and aesthetics of the area, the increased difficulty of fire mediation and greater danger of fire to our community due to zero setback between garage or carport structures Venezia. Have any other structures been approved or built in Palm Desert with zero setbacks? With the recent rash of tragic school shootings, mothers and others in our community fear the potential danger to children in the playground of the Carter Elementary School,a playground that can be overlooked by anyone positioned high in the proposed adjacent 3-story buildings. At the meeting on February 20, 2018,we were told that a last-minute change in plans an hour and a half prior to the meeting added an additional 3-story building adjacent to the school. This type of development is inappropriate for our peaceful, low-rise residential area.As one drives north on Portola, one can see extensive tracts of open desert that would better accommodate such a high-rise, high-density development. Then subsequent adjacent and nearby developments could be planned with an awareness of that neighborhood's high-density character rather than having it forced upon them. All the residents of Venezia had trusted the integrity of the 306 unit zoning of the General Plan in force at the time we purchased our homes, and we have been blindsided by the annulment of the long-standing zoning regulations that abandon the common-sense and safety regulations of setback, population density, parking density and building height. Finally,we request that your staff research and disclose whether there are any similar proposed high density, 3-story developments with zoning regulations waived, planned in either of our two neighboring cities: Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells communities,whose representatives seem historically to be more inclined to protect the interests of their residents. It would not be difficult to limit the height of all the buildings in the proposed "Sands" development to 2 stories.The proposed development includes the following: A sand volleyball area, a regulation basketball court,two outdoor kitchens,two fire troughs, an event lawn,a sandy area with hammocks, a game lawn, 4 cabanas,a playground, a large lap pool with tiled surroundings,a secondary pool with tiled surroundings,a wading pool,a dog park for large dogs and another dog park for small dogs, and a BEER GARDEN! How many developments in Palm Desert have a beer garden?And if there are any, are they directly adjacent to an elementary school? There is almost 300,000 square feet of space set aside for such amenities, some of which could be reduced or eliminated, and elimination of some of those extensive amenities would tend to motivate the residents to participate in activities in facilities currently in place nearby.We already have a superb,large soccer park almost adjacent to the proposed development that includes basketball courts, playground, "Frisbee golf,"bocce ball field and horseshoe pits as well as gazebos, event kitchens and restrooms. Civic Center Park is minutes away and has extensive facilities including many gazebos, a playground, open fields,gym,tennis and volleyball courts, indoor basketball and pickle ball courts, as well as an extensive and very well equipped aquatic facility. Use of such community resources by the residents would tend to better integrate them into the community,as opposed to the use of inclusive self-contained amenities. As Palm Desert residents who elected you to represent the interest of ALL of your constituents,we hope that you will consider rejecting such a radical departure from historic Palm Desert norms, and deny approval of the project as planned, at least requiring revision of the plans to limit all building height to 2 stories. There have been extensive discussions of this issue in our community,and we believe that this letter represents the opinions of Venezia residents. Sincerely, 4wwv— Richard Wohl, M.D. -� n ca =gym N OM() rnmWalter Altorfer, President Venezia HOA "'� NET=' -v o�m 0 � rn Edward Knopf, Previous Presiden ,V ezia HOA Ceja, Eric From: Stanley, Jane Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:26 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: FW: 3 story complex Not forwarded to City Council -----Original Message----- From: Richard [mailto:ricfell3@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 3:50 PM To: CityhallMail <Cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: 3 story complex And there will be NO change in traffic!!! What incompetent individual came up with that scenario??? Imagine all the dust during construction blowing into Carter school. Imagine the environmental impact on the kids at the school. Maybe 2 levels at the most....but better no complex at all. And a beer garden on top!!!! Great!!!! Richard Feldman....my son goes to Carter i Ceja, Eric From: Deborah Maggio <dwmaggio@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 5:09 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: mike Maggio;Adrian Eichperger Subject: Sands Apartment Project I am a concerned grandparent of a first grader at Carter Elementary School. I am following closely the plans to build the three story apartment complex adjacent to the school. This is a flawed plan, that is not safe for the children. Has any study been done regarding the negative impact of this project to our children? If not,why not? If so,where can it be found? Please advise as soon as possible. Thank you Ceja, Eric From: Stanley,Jane Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:31 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: FW: 3 story complex Not forwarded to the City Council. From: Mia Sherman [mailto:miamaxsherman@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 3:16 PM To: CityhallMail <Cityhall@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: 3 story complex The 3 story complex buildings should not be built because it is very unsafe! they will be over looking the school and due to the recent school shootings it is a very bad idea! It overlooks that playground and school and i will not have it! I SAY NO! i Ceja, Eric From: Dave Dalton <midadal962@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:23 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Planned Apartments on Hovley, east. I am writing this email to oppose the three story apartments being planned for the open land next to Carter Elem. On Hovley East. Keep the plans to two stories only. I oppose the three story apartment complex. I oppose!! Regards, Dave Dalton 74264 Angels Camp Rd. Palm Desert, CA 92260 i Ceja, Eric From: Gloria Christini <rcgc73@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:47 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands project on Hovely We are protesting the Sands project on Hovely because of the height, 3 stories, zero setbacks, noise from a lighted volleyball court and beer garden . And you are allowing this right next to a school . Shame on you. Gloria and Richard Christini 42574 Tungsten PI Palm Desert , .ca 92260 i Ceja, Eric From: Steven Zoet <szoet57@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 3:56 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: CityhallMail Subject: [SPAM] - Proposed Sands Development Project Dear Eric, My wife,Pamela,and I retired to Palm Desert as full-time residents two years ago from Los Angeles and have enjoyed,to date,the high quality of life and services that Palm Desert has come to be known for. As residents of the Venezia development,however,we feel that the high quality of life we came to this specific community for will be greatly threatened if the proposed Sands project is developed as proposed on the currently vacant parcel that is adjacent to our development. I retired from a 37 year career in municipal service. Over the course of those 37 years,I had the pleasure of serving five different cities in three different states. The common thread to all of those communities,and,I would hope,to all communities in general,was the ability and willingness of staff and elected officials to work with their established residents and existing developments when proposing and integrating new development. I had the benefit and privilege of directing many different departments over the course of my years and served an extended term as an Interim City Manager as my Council took a year to fill that vacancy after a national search. I state that only for reasons of my having a broad understanding of and respect for the processes involved and the need for cities to integrate new development to serve the needs of a diverse citizenry. Throughout my experiences, which have dealt with the introduction and eventual construction of many large-scale housing and commercial developments,those that had the most long term success were always predicated on open dialog and compromise when existing residential communities and business factions opposed what was being proposed. My experiences,both personal and professional,have certainly allowed me to realize both the challenges and opportunities that typically are afforded these proposals and their outcomes. In the case of the proposed Sands project,I and my neighbors simply feel that it is too large and impactful for ourselves and the other bordering communities of Portola Country Club and Cantera apartments. As you and others involved in the review and approval process of this proposed project have no doubt heard on repeated occasions,the addition of the proposed 106 units over that which was previously zoned for the site(and the assumption on which I spent nearly my life-savings to buy into the adjacent Venezia development)is simply wrong and too excessive for the site. Too much impact,including three story structures(again,more than we had bargained for and understood was approved for future construction)is simply out of character and ill advised for the surrounding community. I don't presume that you,or any other readers of this correspondence,would appreciate the invasion of personal privacy by having residents of adjacent three story structures peering into your backyard and windows when it doesn't have to and shouldn't be the case. It is unsettling to say the least. Not even mentioning the very real liklihood of depreciating the value of our largest investment. I do not wish to project myself as an anti-growth/anti-development resident of the City. Quite the contrary. Given my professional background,I know the lifeblood that new residential,commercial and other development can be to any community. Responsible and appropriate growth,however,is and should be the bellwhether of any decision. If this project is approved as currently proposed it would be quite the contrary outcome to what I and many other feel to be appropriate for the site and its impacts on residents who have long existed in adjoining developments. On behalf of my wife and myself,who wish to continue to enjoy the existing peace and quite of our home and community,we implore you to please demand that the developer of this proposed project scale back its impact to something that is more suitable to the site while still accomplishing a favorable financial outcome for themselves which they are,of course,entitled to and in business for. Reasonable development that is suited to a site mitigates impacts that are forced onto other surrounding developments. This can and should be the desired outcome for all involved. I know that out-of-town developers,as is likely the case here,don't always share the same sentiments as they are not directly impacted as those of us who live and/or work within this wonderful,dynamic community. Please keep it as such by working through the processes of assuring and approving a development that is more suited to the site and in conformance with what was originally planned,namely some 300 units situated within two,not three,story structures. Additionally,reasonable setbacks should be assured so as to also protect the privacy and quality of life that will otherwise be impacted by those who are forced to live with them through no fault of their own. I would respectfully ask that this message also be provided to members of the City Council and Planning Commission as well. Together,as residents,staff and elected and appointed officials,I am sure we can all work with and through the developer of this proposed project to accomplish reasonable objectives for all,including opportunities for low income housing which we all acknowledge to be a pressing need within California. The amount of proposed low income units committed to this project,and the benefit of the overall additional units afforded as a result is simply,in sum,too much for this limited site. Reductions in numbers, 1 while still preserving opportunities for low income housing and the multitude of benefits it affords,can and should be made in the argument of reasonableness if nothing more. Thank you for hearing our viewpoints,and those shared by many others,as you work through this process. Having made a career of it myself,I know that it isn't always easy,but can,in most cases,result in successful outcomes when the interests of ALL parties are heard and served,even when that often necessitates compromises by all parties involved. Sincerely, Steven and Pamela Zoet Residents of Venezia 2 Ceja, Eric To: Hermann, David Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: RE: City of Palm Desert:Website Contact Us Form Submission From:webmaster@cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:webmaster@cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 8:25 PM To: Information Mail Subject:City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date&Time: 03/05/2018 8:25 PM Response#: 911 Submitter ID: 11373 IP address: 67.49.66.30 Time to complete: 19 min.,32 sec. Survey Details Page 1 { s Your Contact Information First Name Chris Last Name Clement Email Address chrisc3964@gmail.com Phone Number 7143283964 Address 42545 Sutters Mill Rd Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92260 1 am a: (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: I am writing with concerns over the Sands Project on Hovely.3 Stories is way too tall for this area.There is a school,and at least 3 housing tracts that will be affected,along with the added traffic to all within a small radius of this location. The new construction on Country Club and Portola, behind the Fire Dept is 2 stories and it is an Eye Sore!! Blocking some of the great views in Palm Desert.The 3 story Sands Project is going to create many problems,such as traffic, Police and Fire resources, and safety,along with many more issues. PLEASE do not let the developer overdevelop this property!!!!! Thank You,Chris Clement 1 Ceja, Eric From: mack <makingl9@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:13 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: FW: 3 story building oppose three story apartments on Hovley between the school and Post Office Margaret A. King Portola Country Club 74663 Azurite Cl E Palm Desert, CA 92260 1 Ceja, Eric From: rocio montejano-martinez <rocio.montejanomartinez@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 5:54 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan; oscarmartinez1978@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Palm Desert/Venezia Homeowner- Opposing "Density Bonus" Sands Development (2nd email) Hello Eric- can you please confirm that this letter in it's entirety will be on record? I resent the letter from August below. Thank you. On Feb 20, 2018, at 4:31 PM, rocio montejano-martinez <rocio.monteianomartinez@gmail.com>wrote: Thank you Eric, we really appreciate it. Had we known about the plans we wouldn't have purchased this $800k+home. If you can please also include these pictures that show the sand piles and their visibility, if we can see the sand piles we will also be able to see the 39ft proposed buildings and sadly they too will be able to see in, invading our families and elementary schools children's privacy. In addition, given the Las vegas massacre it is frightening that the city would allow 39 foot building near an elementary school (a scary vantage point). Our children don't have a voice or say in this long term decision as a parent and resident I pray that the city does not approve 3 story buildings putting our children at risk. There is not a"need" for all the recreational facilities included in proposal thus removing the need for 39ft buildings overlooking school/residential area. The school did not appear to know the proposal and it's specifics. <image 1.JPG> <image2.JPG> Sent from my Whone On Aug 11, 2017, at 8:06 AM, <eceia@cityofpalmdesert.org><eceja@cityoofpalmdesert.or2> wrote: Hi Oscar& Rocio, Thank you for your letter.A copy of your statement will be provided to the Planning Commissioners. Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org 1 From: rocio montejano-martinez [mailto:rocio.montejanomartinezCa)gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 11:47 AM To: Information Mail; CityhallMail; Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric Cc: rocio montejano-martinez; Oscar Subject: Palm Desert/ Venezia Homeowner - Opposing "Density Bonus" Sands Development Attention Palm Desert City officials- My husband and are taking the time to write this letter in efforts to oppose the approval of the "density bonus" in the Sands Development. We made every attempt to be concise in highlighting how this would have a negative impact on our"quality of life"by invading our privacy, impacting our communities noise levels, housing population (which would also impact school population) and local traffic. Brief background on our family: We have been married for 6 years, have 2 children (2 year old daughter and 2 month old son). We sold our home in Riverside (Dec 2016) and opted to purchase in Palm Desert (Jan 2017) for the 'quality of life'we know we could achieve for our growing family. My husband and I both work in the financial industry and have been with the same company for over 15 years. I was raised in Cathedral City, attended Cathedral City High school and College of the Desert. I moved to Riverside to attend UC Riverside where I met my husband and we opted to purchase our first home there. We enjoyed our life in Riverside but knew that once we started our family, we wanted to live in an affluent area, with great public schools that did not have the issues that are faced with overpopulation. Most of our family lives in the area so we opted to look into Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert. We viewed a home in the Venezia Community, central to great shopping, fine dinning, speciality grocery shopping in a quiet secluded area- it appeared to be the PERFECT area to raise our family. That is until we recently learned of the proposed project that appears to primarily have "business benefits" and greatly undermining the negative impacts to the homeowners. City officials perspective What we've read and heard city officials say regarding "business justifications" supporting the "density bonus": • It will help local businesses with recruiting employees - in our experience most employees do not live in the cities that they work in; especially considering the short commutes between the valley cities. • This is a"qualified" area for low income housing due to the bus line route, nearby employment offices -bus lines cross many communities within the city this is not a strong case for making this a good location for increase in population. • Having employees live and work in Palm Desert will keep dollars spent within the city of Palm Desert- the density bonus targets a specific population given income levels; local shopping in the area does not support this view. 2 • The state of California is encouraging cities to take advantage of"density bonuses" -this is great and we support it in the right areas that would not require 3 story buildings invading privacy, quality of life, views and ultimately home values. Our resident perspective Negative impacts that the "density bonus"will have on our quality of life and overall lively hood. Sentiments that we've heard are also shared by many local homeowner residents. 1 ) Privacy- 3 story buildings will allow overlooking into our private lives and into our backyards and homes. As parents to young children we take great comfort in allowing our kids to play in the privacy of their backyards without the worry of anyone prying. 2 )Noise Levels -having an apartment complex will naturally increase noise levels however, unnecessarily increasing the housing population by over 100 will cause extreme noise disturbance by cars,traffic, entering/leaving premise, recreational area activities. 3) Housing population - our community includes 90 homes, adding 306 additional households will already impact the population greatly, approving an additional 100 units is a negligent decision and will have severe impacts to classroom sizes, trash,public area usage such as local parks, library etc 4)Traffic - traffic is already an issue given the multiple elementary schools, post office, existing apartment complex and proximity to highway 111. Adding an additional 100 units will cause irresponsible traffic congestion that may increase safety for children. Thank you for your time and consideration, for you this may a one time business decision/transaction but for us it will impact our daily lives as our goal is to retire in this home. Oscar&Rocio Martinez Venezia Community Homeowners 74226 Via Venezia 3 Ceja, Eric From. C Petersen <Iangleypetersens@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:57 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Project Just two more voices STRONGLY opposing the 3 story Sands Project. The change in density and environment is not an improvement nor an asset to any of the surrounding communities. Though it might appear we are not not personally impacted (aka not immediately adjacent to the project) anyone who lives o. Or near Portola Ave, or travels on it, will be impacted due to the increase in density. Please return this project to its original 2 story, lower density project! Thank you, N & C Petersen 1 Ceja, Eric From: Annette Funk <amfunk41@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:54 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: The Sands Project This is to register my opposition to the proposed project of 3-story buildings in the lower density neighborhood and adjacent to the elementary school. I hope you will hear the voices of concern in the adjacent communities and deny the variances. Sincerely, Annette M. Funk 42390 Sutters Mill Rd Palm Desert, CA 92260 Sent from my iPhone 1 Ceja, Eric From: Alan Clendenon <alanandlindac@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:34 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Apartment Project Dear Sir, I would like to register my opposition to the proposed Sands Apartment Project. Please make no special concessions for these builder/investors. We moved to Palm Desert because we liked the area. This project is going to cause more traffic and congestion. please keep it to the 2 story limit if you must build something. Thank you. Alan Clendenon 74060 Mercury Cir W. Palm Desert, CA 92260. i Ceja, Eric From: Valerie Davidson <valdavidson42@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:26 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Project Dear Sir: I would like to voice my opposition to the 3 storey Sand project that you are considering. This would not be a good fit for our neighbourhood, and I sincerely hope that you will reconsider. Thankyou, Valerie and Roy Davidson, 42535 Tungsten Place i Ceja, Eric From: mikemudgett@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:13 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands development Please be advised that my wife and I oppose the development of this complex. The three story concept is unacceptable in this neighborhood. The original two story design would fit much better and not impact the quality of this community. We strongly urge you to reconsider this project. Mike and Cyndi Mudgett Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Tab E,an AT&T 4G LTE tablet 1 Ceja, Eric From: Meredith <mlh8108@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 1:34 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands Project Gentle persons: As a resident of Portola Country Club, Palm Desert, I'm writing to express my strong objection to a proposed plan to build three stories of apartments on raised property immediately next to our community. The proposal would mean that residents on the third story would have 24/7 views of back yards, patios and house windows on the north end of our community, as well as on areas further south. I ask the you keep this significant invasion of privacy foremost in your minds as you consider this proposal. A two story building of apartments would at least lessen the privacy concerns of our community....and would appear to be a win/win solution. The only adverse effect would be less profit for the developer on this sole project....surely less important than the many thousands of Palm Desert residents who would be negatively affected. Thank you for you consideration of this urgent objection. Sincerely, Meredith L Hardy 74368 Gary Avenue Palm Desert CA 92260 mlh8108@gmail.com Sent from my Wad 1 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission March 2, 2018 1 am responding to the project 74-351 Hovley Lane East, with great trepidation that our planning commission has decided to represent New Cities Investment Partners, LLC, and not the homeowners of their own community. We at Portola County Club have shared our concerns on the occasions open to the public, with little respect from our planning commission to realize our concerns, and protect our will being as continued homeowners and taxpayers of this community. One of the great reasons of moving to this area, 5 years ago was that the building sites were not higher than 2 stories, one didn't feel enclosed with buildings looking down over all the community. A real asset to Palm Desert, now apparently I am hearing that ruling has been updated, what a shame. Especially since there is such open areas for expansion to builders in the desert to continue with the original philosophy of not more than 2 store buildings. Those of us who live along the walls of PCC, will have people looking right in our back yards, not to mention the added traffic along Portola/Hovley Lane East. We have a primary school on that corner, with school traffic blocking that intersection twice daily, how in the world can this area accommodate the safety of the children with the upcoming 412 apartments projected. You normally can double an additional 824 cars passing through that area daily, without any other traffic restrictions is my understanding. I am very opposed to this project, the way it is projected and almost approved by some members on the planning commission board. It seems the decision has been made by some, without consideration of your immediate homeowners. Please reconsider your decisions. Respectfully Nancy Thorp 74013 Angels Camp Rd Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ceja, Eric From: Linda Holland <Iinnie8108@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 11:00 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Three story Sands debacle To you and elected Palm Desert officials: packing in more people,cars,floodlights, noise in the middle of Carter school, soccer fields, peaceful, longstanding senior neighborhoods is pure quantity over quality and lack of basic good sense. Please do not do this. Lin Holland, neighbor and voter Sent from my Wad Ceja, Eric From: barryatthelake267 <barryatthelake267@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:50 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands My name is Barry Smith and I live at Portola CC in Palm Desert. This email is to protest the proposed bulilding of a three story Sands. I feel like this is a security risk for our school that would be right next to this three story Sands. We live in a very peacefull comunity and this would change the very reason we purchased our property. We hope you will not allow the three story proposed Sands for these reason and many more we could bring up Barry Smith a concerned resident of Palm Springs Sent from my Galaxy Tab A 1 Bob Logelin &Jennifer Logelin 74240 Angels Camp Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 Council Members City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 March 4, 2018 RE: 74-351 Hovley Lane East, Case No. PP/EA 16-394,AKA"Sands Development" As homeowners in Portola Country Club, we—Bob Logelin and Jennifer Logelin -are writing in response to the report from Staff to the Planning Commission recommending the "Sands" project be sent to the Palm Desert City Council for approval. The current proposal to increase density, over the current allowable limits, by allowing a three story building in an area with predominately two story buildings and increasing the number of units is misguided. This appears to be an effort to address housing affordability and supply issues without understanding or considering the impacts of this decision, or considering the need for accountability in securing low income housing. Having worked in the Community Services Department for the City of Vancouver, in B.C. Canada, as Director of Housing and Community Operations, I,Jennifer(nee Standeven), do bring some experience to this discussion; in both the provision of low income housing and the use of"density bonuses" as a means to address housing issues. While laudable in what we assume is your intention, increasing housing for"lower income households;"these types of loose arrangements with Developers are ineffective and actually can harm the groups you are trying to assist, as well as the surrounding community. Density bonuses given to Developers for providing low income housing units are based on the following fallacies: • First, the only way low income housing can be developed is through the municipality giving up its long term community plans and its right to manage density and development. Developers are using the current housing market to push this belief as it provides an opportunity to increase their profit margin and, more importantly, set a precedent for future negotiations requesting exceptions to community plans and density/development rules. 1/3 • Second, is the fallacy that people who have low incomes and are in need of affordable housing will actually benefit from this type of divergence from community plans and density and development limits.The report provides no specificity as to who these "lower-income households" are, their income level, or their needs in terms of housing, in order to understand who may benefit from Council's generous waiving of density limits to the Developer. As well there is no description of how the process of selecting these "lower-income households" will occur, or whether this will be left to the Owner/operator of the project. Thus there is no assurance that any low income people will actually reside in these units or if this housing will meet their needs. • The third fallacy is assuming that these units will be secured over time for"lower-income households". From the report we are left with the impression that the City is assuming the Developer or Owner(or management company) will manage this in good faith over time, ensuring only "low-income households" will occupy these units. It's questionable whether this is a reasonable assumption as the purpose of these organizations is to generate profit not provide social benefits. Given that the generous waiving of density rules for this property will not change for the life of the building, and is unlikely to change when redevelopment takes place, it's reasonable to expect that the low cost units will be secured over time and not simply revert to market rents. However even where cities have registered this requirement on title there is seldom a cost effective mechanism for cities to ensure compliance, given finite staffing levels and other competing priorities, e.g. delivering other services to their taxpayers. We would ask Council to seriously consider whether they are able to provide the staff necessary to ensure oversight including auditing the operation of this development on an ongoing basis. If not,then there is a significant risk that Council will have given up reasonable density and development limits for the possibility of a short term benefit that may or may not continue, even though the benefit given to the Owner is ongoing. There is also no means to determine whether the value of the benefit given to Developer is cost effective in terms of evaluating options for the creation of affordable housing. Perhaps more important than the fallacies used to promote density bonuses, these arrangements do not recognize or quantify the unintended consequences on the surrounding communities. And to be clear our concern is not about the introduction of"lower-income households" into the Portola area, as there is already a brilliant mixed income community that evolved within Palm Desert's planning parameters. The Portola area has a mix of residential housing options including multi-unit housing, gated communities, rental units, manufactured homes, mobile homes and single family homes. One of the closest areas to the proposed development is Portola Country Club, with 499 units of housing, primarily manufactured housing,with a few"stick built" units. The residents are aged 55+, with some residents in their 90's; all "aging in place" as the experts in senior living advise us to do. Some residents are still working while many are retired and volunteering inside the Country Club and/or in the larger Palm Desert community. There are US and Canadian Snowbirds,year round residents, and permanent residents who head to the coast during the hottest months of the year(Desertbirds?). There are owners and renters here, some have mortgages and a few are financing their retirement through reverse mortgages. This is a community that already provides mixed income housing and housing for "lower-income households" through affordable home prices and rental rates. 2/3 Portola Country Club is a caring community. Neighbors look after each other. Neighbors take out and return the garbage bins for those who can't manage the large and heavy bins. There is a monthly community dinner to build connections and provide access to a great meal once a month,as well as a small food pantry to help those on low incomes. Some of the younger(in their 70's!) residents drive their elderly neighbors to doctor and other appointments, help them in their homes,and with their care. With numerous recreation options there is a cultural of physical activity and exercise. This is all done at the community level without the direction, oversight or funding by government. Although we don't believe that any Council, in any community in North America,would intentionally set out to harm this type of healthy, safe, and caring community,you are risking doing exactly that if you approve the current project proposal. Changing density and development rules that may impact the worth of homes and potentially the quality of life for the residents, is exactly what may occur if you allow the proposed three stories and increased units in this development. Is this really worth the risk? Especially given there is no guarantee that the goal of low income housing will even be achieved,either in the short or long term. Instead we are urging you to turn down this proposal and have staff investigate other approaches to providing affordable housing in Palm Desert that will include short term and long term accountability. And finally, one last word of caution—seniors vote! While the two of us are not eligible to vote in Palm Desert, please remember that most of the residents here can and do vote. Sincerely, Jennifer Logelin Bob Logelin CC Portola Country Club, Board of Directors Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Planning Commission 3/3 Ceja, Eric From: Deena Fernandez <deenanjoe@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 5:01 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Sands development Please reconsider the option of a three story versus a two story in the sands development. Why would you want to destroy the beauty of the desert with tall buildings. We all moved here to get away from the big city look. In addition to this consider the safety of the children near a three story building. Great hiding place for snipers® Deena Fernandez Portola CC i Ceja, Eric From: paula willis <pwillis0128@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 9:58 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: No No No to apartment building on Hovely City Council- Are our kids not under attack enough! That is too close to the school to have a revolving influx of unknown elements around little kids walking to school or playing in the school yard.Also,traffic to pick up and drop off the children is already horribly impacted. Imagine morning traffic on the two lane street of Hovely with some part of 50 residents going to and fro. Next you'll want to permit a liquor store on Hovely! Paula Willis 1 Ceja, Eric From: Paula willis <pwillis0128@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 9:58 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: No No No to apartment building on Hovely City Council - Are our kids not under attack enough! That is too close to the school to have a revolving influx of unknown elements around little kids walking to school or playing in the school yard.Also,traffic to pick up and drop off the children is already horribly impacted. Imagine morning traffic on the two lane street of Hovely with some part of 50 residents going to and fro. Next you'll want to permit a liquor store on Hovely! Paula Willis 1 74365 CHICORY ST 3/16/2018 18-0512 77550 MOUNTAIN VW 3/16/2018 18-0514 74251 FAIRWAY DR 3/16/2018 18-0523 CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Telephone: (760) 346-0611 Fax: (760) 776-6417 SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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: 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. There 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 38.3 feet. Two proposed 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 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 2 residential uses. The site plan's easterly, southerly and westerly edges are designated to accommodate parking spaces with landscaping features,rather than structures. 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 itl impaired surrounding views with a developed environment al�d 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. The 2016 GP EIR indicates that the City will see an increase of 7,365 households by the General Plan Buildout scenario year of 2040. The Proposed project will contribute 412 dwelling units on 18.13 acres. The proposed density of the Project is 22.7 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The maximum density allowed and analyzed under the General Plan for the project site is 40 du/ac (page 30 of the 2016 General Plan.) Utilization of the maximum density could result in a project with approximately 725 Dwelling Units. The project is proposing 313 dwelling units below the allowable maximum, reducing the total City increase attributed to buildout. Additionally, the subject property is the only remaining vacant parcel on the segment of Hovley Lane East between Portola Avenue and Cook Street.Therefore it can be assumed that construction of the project would result in buildout of this street segment. Along with this Environmental Assessment, the project is also processing a Precise Plan. Twenty Percent of the Project's units will be reserved for low income housing at a maximum density bonus of 35%. 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. Document Purpose and Scone This Subsequent MND/Initial Study tiers off the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR), SCH #2015081020 which is available for review at the City's Offices (73-510 Fred Waring Drive). The prior Program General Plan EIR confirmed that all environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant with the imposition of appropriate mitigation, with the exception of Greenhouse Gas and Transportation impacts, which were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. The Program General Plan EIR is incorporated into this document in its entirety by this reference. The type and intensity of use proposed as part of the current project is consistent with the development anticipated, analyzed, and approved as part of the existing General Plan EIR. The City's 2016 General Plan EIR analyzed future growth under Chapter 4.13 Population, Employment, and Housing pages 4.13-1 through 4.13-10. Table 4.13-2 (page 4.13-3) forecasts a population of 61,691 by year 2040. In 2016, the City had a population of 52,231 with an average household size of 2.10 persons (U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts). As a result of project build-out, the proposed Project could add 865 people into the city, and an approximate population of 53,096, which is below the 2040 population forecast of 61,691. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 3 Because the proposed project is within the scope of the previously certified Program General Plan EIR, and consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), this subsequent MND/Initial Study has been prepared to examine the proposed project in the light of the General Plan EIR in order to determine if the proposed project would result in any impacts greater than those previously analyzed and disclosed. In the following resource areas,the General Plan EIR identified Mitigation Measures that would be applicable to all subsequent developments: Greenhouse Gas, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Transportation. Those Mitigation Measures were imposed by the City through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and will be applied to this project, if approved. The MMRP is attached hereto as Appendix A. To the extent the impacts of the proposed project are already fully analyzed and accounted for in the General Plan EIR, this Subsequent MND/Initial Study will not further discuss the applicable resource areas. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines § 15168, this Subsequent MND/Initial Study provides the site-specific analysis anticipated by the General Plan EIR as to the following resource areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities/Service Systems. Finally, as depicted in the Initial Study's significance checkboxes for each resource only those resources for which site-specific mitigation(beyond that already imposed through the Program General Plan EIR)are imposed are identified as "less than significant with mitigation." Impacts to all other resources are either "less than significant" or"no impact"with the imposition, as applicable, of the mitigation measures previously adopted and imposed by the City through the certified General Plan EIR and MMRP. Land Use and Setting North-Man:iott'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 r y � s 1 p,c i r� Project WidopSite NOW t" x TJ�0' N.T.S. MSA CONSULTING, INC. Regional Location Map V34200 LANNING ■ CIVIL ENGINEP.EtING ■ LAND SURVEYING BOB HOPE DRIVE■RANCHO MIRAGE ■CA 92270 THE SANDS TELEPHONE(760) 320-9811 ■ FAx (760) 323-7893 Initial Study GERALD FORD DRIVE I U-1 10 O FRANK SINATRA DRIVE w > w w CITY OF CITY OF o RANCHO w' J 0 PALM m MIRAGE Z� O O DESERT w u > m O Q OLCOUNTRY CLUB DRIVE Lul O w: HOVLEY LANE O pI (WEST) 0 HOVLEY LANE w (EAST) SITE CITY OF I N DIAN \� WELLS �\ FRED WARING I DRIVE ' A-10 N.T.S. IDMSA CONSULTING, INC. Vicinity Map PLANNING ■ CIVII.ENGINEERING ■ LAND SURVEYING 34200 BoE HOPE DRIVE■RANCHO MIRAGE ■CA 92270 THE SANDS 2 TELEPHONE(760) 320-98H ■ FAx (760) 323-7893 Initial Study giro- p HOVLEY LAN 'WRIT v a. L_,,+ PROJECT SITE _ APN: 624-040-019 -�- VIA VENEZIA . el 74 Cc Q ' VIA PELLEST - P ll -J j) r 'IR 1 }y. a, O� MSA CONSULTING, INC. Aerial Photograph PLANNING ■ CIVR,ENGINEERING ■ LAND SURVEYING 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE ■RANCHO MIRAGE ■CA 92270 THE SANDS 3 TELEPHONE (760) 320-9811 ■ FAx (760) 323-7893 Initial Study TECHNICAL DAfA T 1 siawl MIE 1 -- 01 r rv � : { .ram �e i awrw. '•:- i t MSA CON3ULTTNO.IrrL MSA CONSULTING, INC. Site Plan PLANNING■Cry ENGINEETGNG m LAND$URvEyiNG IB� 34200 Hoe Hoes DiuvE■RANCHO MmAGE■CA 92270 THE SANDS 4 I�LerxoNE(760)32498ll ■ FAx (760)3237893 Initial Study nMi.. U 1 1 ! 1 1 IIIN=iili 111 31/11 1 G� Q � m:�uu aumaui Igl`w� n n nmann_mmnunuuluumw_nnnnuumm�unnnnn nnmm r�mnnnnnnunuuuuma i� , I CM II`■ yy10 � CIF t q • Ir1AI1141111l�:111111E911117111C1•l1aIIILill�for i/p11111i1IA� -- \.�1 f11E41111111IC7UG'llll11111. JIRSIIIIIIF� `� WA ' I I II ®. IF a 1 p r. I I q I EB .uws f � I pha I i ,p BECDON A-A VICNITV IMP MSA CONSULTING, INC. Canterra Apartments I Second Story Viewshed Analysis 1 Purxwo■Crim Emugmmo•LAND SuEvexDto 34200 BoB HOPE DRPIE■RAxcEo MneAGE■cA 9227o THE SANDS 6 IDTE[,EPHONE(760) 320-98H ■ FAx(760)323-7893 Initial Study I _.. - y Aruirrn _— _ Fq Ll �� ) rarmr � reraxv I' ■ EE p.a T BEGTION A-A w ro r LL VICNTVMAP IDMSA CoNsvi.TwG, INc. Canterra Apartments I Second Story Viewshed Analysis 2 RArmwo■QM Brmwwum.wro SuavaYM 34200 Boo Hoee Dxrve■RAxcHO MRtAGB■CA 92270 THE SANDS TELEPHONE(760)320-9811 ■ FAx(760)323-7893 Initial Study -- ---- ...... r MARRIOTT'S DESERT SPRINGS VILLAS , r {j i t ` 1 ¢9 JAMES EARL CARTER �� ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT SITE _ d a- EXISTING .., � - CHAIN-LINK FENCE V ,...-' —(TO BE IMPROVED BY SCHOOL PLAYGROUND I ; PROPOSED SOLID BOUNDARY) s ,.t C I/ EXISTING SOLID�.,�� I . BLOCK WALL ; € � _j - I VENEZIA CANTERRA 30738 ) APARTMENTS I TRACT MAP N; EXISTING SOLID BLOCK WALL - I -0 LEGEND Cu NTR CLUB PROJECT AREA 25 METERS(82 FEET)FROM PROJECT 50 METERS(164 FEET)FROM PROJECT N.T.S. /*V RECEPTORS WITHIN 25 MT(82 FT)OF THE PROJECT MSA CONSULTING, INC. Map of Localized Significance PLANNING ■ CIVIL ENGINEERING ■ LAND SURVEYING Threshold Analysis 34200 BoB HOPE DRIVE•RANcHo MIRAGE ■CA 92270 THE SANDS 8 IR TELEPHONE(760) 320-98H ■ FAx (760) 323-7893 Initial Study The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018'Page 12 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 Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ® Tribal Cultural 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. 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. 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 upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature / City of Palm serf D to ell tG C.Z�. Printed Name City of Palm Desert For The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 13 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. Based on publicly available aerial photography and the elevation values displayed in the Preliminary Grading Plan prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. on February 7, 2017,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 included in Appendix C of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for this project 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. Historic high-resolution imagery obtained from Riverside County's Geographic Information Systems platform indicates that, 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 (PM10) Control Ordinance (Chapter 24.12), the disturbed areas The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 14 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 movement. As such, the previously disturbed vacant site has not retained any on-site landmarks, natural vegetation coverage, or unique native features with a recognized aesthetic value. 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 Land Use and Community Character Element of 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. Although vacant, the site does not qualify as quality open space under the 2016 General Plan. Quality open space, as described in page 5 of the Palm Desert 2016 General Plan, is said to provide opportunities for residents to gather, play, and experience visual and emotional relief from the built environment. Quality open space is said to include small neighborhood parks, plazas, sports fields, and natural areas. Figure 3.1 in the 2016 General Plan identifies Open Space land use designations throughout the City and its Sphere of Influence and the project property is not identified as being Open Space in the General Plan Land Use Map. The nearest designated Open Space site to the project is the existing Palm Desert Soccer Park, located approximately 600 feet to the east. The private vacant condition of the property does not fit the criteria of open space, since it is not available to the public for gathering, playing or enjoying recreational uses. This property also does not form part of the preserved hillside or protected desert open space which predominately surround the City and the Coachella Valley. As previously discussed, the project site is delineated primarily by a combination of solid block walls and chain link fencing, visual barriers which were constructed by the neighboring residential and school uses prior to this project proposal. As such, the alteration of views from surrounding properties towards the private vacant project site was the result of prior adjacent development. Per Figure 3.1 in 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. Page 30 of the 2016 General Plan explains that 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. The location context and development characteristics of this land use designation have been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 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 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 15 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 the 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 o the existing Canterra apartment complex constitute an existi�g visual barrier on the east side of the Project oundary 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 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. As shown in the proposed Technical Site Plan, the project 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. The architectural plans and renderings prepared by Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. were used to support the following analysis. 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. Four of the three-story structures are oriented along a west-east axis to reduce their visibility profile from the neighboring properties. On the west, the distance between the existing two-story Canterra Apartment buildings and the nearest proposed residential buildings is approximately 150 feet. On the west, the distance between the existing single-family residential structures and the proposed residential structures is approximately 97 feet. On the south, the distance between the existing homes and proposed residential buildings is approximately 117 feet. This distance includes the previously mentioned 27-foot landscaped buffer. 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, where the General Plan land use designation is also Town Center Neighborhood. Based on the Landscape Plan prepared by Humphreys & Partners Architects,L.P.,the project interior, its edges,and frontage will include a mixture of decorative trees, palms, shrubs and groundcover plantings to provide a natural enhancement to the site design and streetscape. These proposed landscape improvements will partially screen the visibility of the proposed structures from surrounding areas. As such, the design, placement, and scale of the proposed residential development will The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 16 serve as an enhancement to the vacant condition of the fenced private property and will adhere to the intended physical character of the Town Center Neighborhood land use designation. The west side of Canterra Apartments I includes an estimate of 20 second-story units with windows and doors facing west, toward the project site. The first-story units on this side have existing altered views due to the existing solid wall, parking lot cover structures, and ornamental vegetation that already exists on the west edge of Canterra I. The distance between the existing two-story Canterra Apartment buildings and the nearest proposed residential buildings is approximately 150 feet. For comparison, this separation is greater than the width of Hovley Lane, north of the project. Other apartments within this existing development have openings facing other directions (�orth, east and south), which don't include views of the project site. A viewshed analysis has been performed with an emphasis on view shed impacts on the 20 westernmost second-story units mentioned above. Exhibit 6 Canterra Apartments I Second-Story Iiewshed Analysis, included in this Initial Study, identifies the proposed locations and configurations of one-, two-, and three-story structures based on the proposed site plan. This exhibit also illustrates the existing second-story views from the westernmost units within Canterra I. First-story units are not specifically assessed in this exhibit because views from those units are presently altered by the existing block wall,parking lot cover structures, and ornamental vegetation on the west edge of Canterra I. As such, the second story units have the most ample views. As shown in that exhibit, views from the existing second story openings (doors and windows) toward the southwest, west and northwest will be partially altered by the proposed development. Of the seven proposed buildings on the east side of the project, one will be one-story(clubhouse), one will be two stories (29-ft max height), and five will be three stories (38.3-ft max height). Four of these three-story structures are oriented west-to-east, thus reducing the visibility profile to a width of approximately 75 feet. Canterra Apartments I Second Story Cross Section Analysis 1 and 2 (Exhibits 6 and 7) provide the specific extent to which westward views will be altered for the worst case condition, being the westernmost Canterra I second-story units closest to a north-south oriented three-story building. From those units,the proposed three- story structure will alter the views of the San Jacinto and Tahquitz Peaks on the western horizon, which are located approximately 18 miles from the site. Following project implementation, a person standing on the second floor would not be able to see the highest peaks,but would see portions of the mountain ranges toward the northwest and southwest. The proposed one-and two-story structures would partially alter views of the mountain ranges, but the higher mountain elevations and highest peaks would remain unaffected. Pertaining to shadow effects,the distance of approximately 150 feet separating the easternmost units in the project from the westernmost units in Canterra I would reduce this impact. Only during the sunset hours would there be a possibility of shadows ample enough to reach the neighboring apartments. Since the sun sets behind the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountain ranges and not on a flat horizon, the sun would visibly set before a an expansive shadow could be created affecting Canterra I, therefore any shading impacts to the Canterra Apartments I would be less than significant. 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 as Appendix E of this Initial Study. 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 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 17 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 deposits tend to create similar conditions across various areas of the Coachella Valley where development has not occurred. As previously discussed, a considerable portion of the site has been subject to prior clearing and grading in the past decade. The disturbed ground surface exhibits topographic igh 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 and is consistent with the intended physical character for the Town Center Neighborhood regarding open space identified in the 2016 General Plan(2016 General Plan,p. 5). A review of the California Scenic Highway Mapping System web site operated by Caltrans, revealed that 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 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 physical character intended for Town Center Neighborhood land uses per page 30 of the City's 2016 General Plan. 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 Chapter 24.16 (City's Outdoor Lighting Requirements) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 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(Appendix E)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 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 18 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. The proposed light fixtures closest to the west and east boundaries of the project will be mounted underneath the covered parking structures and therefore focused on providing illumination to enclosed areas. Proposed light fixtures closest to the south boundary will be post-mounted,but separated from the neighboring uses by the 27-foot landscape buffer. The proposed tree-mounted fixtures will be configured at the primary project entry on Hovley Lane. Additional sources of low-intensity lighting will consist of wall- mounted fixtures for the dwelling unit exteriors and landscaping illumination throughout the interior �alkways. All proposed fixtures conform to the examples of acceptable lighting fixtures included in the City's Outdoor Lighting Requirements. Being in a residential zone, all proposed light posts will have a maximum height of 18 feet and the lamp lumens shall be fifteen thousand lumens or less with full-cutoff features. The project lighting levels, measured in foot-candles, shown in the Photometric Site Plan, demonstrate that the proposed placement, orientation and intensity of exterior light fixtures will provide the necessary on-site coverage, while being sufficiently diminished at the project edges to prevent light spillage onto adjoining properties. Light levels at the east project edge range from 0.0 to 3.4 foot candles and these levels are contained by the solid parking garage cover. Light levels on the south project edge range from 0.0 to 1.9 foot candles. Light levels on the west edge range from 0.1 to 8.1 foot candles. The solid block wall separating the project from the adjoining parcels will also provide additional light containment. 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 Measures:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 19 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 roiect: a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 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 ❑ ❑ Elforest 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 January 2018/Page 20 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 pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 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 publicly available regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards. The The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 21 2016 AQMP 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). A project is consistent with the 2016 AQMP if(1)the proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity, of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP; and (2) the project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project build-out phase. Specific construction and operational emissions are analyzed in the following section. As discussed below, 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, and none of the projected daily emissions of the six criteria pollutants are expected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance associated with long-term operations impacts. Therefore, the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment or air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP,thus satisfying the first criterion. As to the second criterion, the project will not require a General Plan Amendment. Page 4.3-8 in the City's General Plan EIR found that adoption and implementation of the City of Palm Desert's General Plan policies and programs,including land use designations,would comply with the regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The measures of compliance include consistency with AQMP growth forecasts and consistency with the AQMP control measures, as outlined in page 4.3-9 in the General Plan EIR. Project land uses that are consistent with local General Plans are considered consistent with the air quality related plans and attainment efforts included in the AQMP,the PMIO CVSIP and other relevant regional plans. Chapter 4.3 (Air Quality) of the Palm Desert General Plan EIR includes analysis of the General Plan's consistency with the growth and emissions forecast upon which the AQMP is based, and with the applicable AQMP control measures. The project is expected to be consistent with the General Plan and therefore consistent with the growth assumptions and applicable control measures as discussed below. Consistency with AQMP Growth Forecast Vehicle use, energy consumption, and associated air pollutant emissions are found to be directly related to population growth. A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population,housing or employment growth exceeding the forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. According to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts cited in the GP EIR, Palm Desert is expected to have a resident population of 61,700 in 2040. The full development facilitated by the proposed City's General Plan land uses, including the project, would add an estimated 11,905 permanent residents between 2012 and 2040, bringing the city's total population to 61,691, which is within SCAG's 2040 population forecasts of 61,700 from the 2016 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2016). As analyzed in the Population and Housing section of this Initial Study, build-out of the proposed project could add a population of 865 people to the project area, which is below the 2040 population forecast and the estimated City-wide increase in population expected by 2040. Moreover, the project site is within an area that is fully served by existing infrastructure, public services and utilities. Therefore, project implementation would not result in population growth outside of the City boundaries. As such, project implementation will not exceed or conflict with the General Plan growth assumptions and the SCAG growth assumptions which were factored into the AQMP Growth Forecasts. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 22 Consistency with AQMP Control Measures Consistency with the 2012 AQMP and subsequent 2016 AQMP is also a function of consistency with applicable AQMP control measures. The AQMP includes specific control measures to reduce air pollutant emissions in order meet federal and state air quality standards. One of the most important methods the AQMP relies on to achieve its goals is the use of emission control measures. As described in the 2016 General Plan EIR, many of the control measures toward meeting the air quality standards focus on incentives,outreach,and education to bring about emissions reductions. Many of these apply to regional planning efforts. The proposed development, being consistent with the land use and growth assumptions established in the regional plans, is not expected to conflict with the regional or local�ontrol measures. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the Policies and Implementation Programs found within the 2016 GP EIR GHG analysis (pages 4.4-5 through 4.4-14) and outlined in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section of this Initial Study. 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. Based on Table 2-4 of the Final 2016 AQMP, the two primary pollutants of concern in the Coachella Valley including the City of Palm Desert 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 impacted by pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. Ozone (03) is described in the Final 2016 AQMP as being 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) is described in the Final 2016 AQMP as consisting 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 (SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993, page 6-2). 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. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 23 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.iWmd. oe 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 gas emissions that would be associated with the construction activities necessary to implement the proposed Project. CaIEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use, modeling results for this project are included as Appendix C of this Initial Study. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Default data(e.g.,emission factors,trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) have been provided by the various California Air Districts to account for local requirements and conditions. Based on the most current project information available in the architectural plans and the Preliminary Grading Plan (Appendix B and F), 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. The project-specific information entered into CaIEEMod is shown below. Additional project characteristics include the proper climate zone, urbanization setting, operational year, and utility company, all included in Appendix C. CaIEEMod Project Characteristics Land Use Metric Size Parking Lot Space 724 Apartments Low Rise 2-Story) Dwelling Unit 136 Apartments Mid Rise 3-Story) Dwelling Unit 276 User Defined Recreational Clubhouse Area 9,100 CaIEEMod uses default construction parameters where project-specific information is not available. The default data calculations are built into the CaIEEMod program and the extensive supporting documentation for those models is publicly available through the AQMD web site. The Preliminary Grading Plan prepared for this project includes Preliminary Earthwork Estimates, including raw cut and raw soil fill volumes necessary to convert the current topography to a graded condition for development. The earthwork calculations also factor soil subsidence, shrinkage and over-excavation losses. The Preliminary Grading Plan indicates that when factoring the spoils from foundation thickness, pools, trenching, underground retention facilities, and an adjustment of approximately 0.6-ft grade adjustment, the soil volumes will be balanced and no import or export will take place. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 24 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. During grading operations, whit represents the phase when the most amount of fugitive dust can be generated, the unmitigated peak doily emission of fugitive dust(PM10) is expected to be approxmately 6.66 pounds. The approximate amount of smaller particulate matter(PM2.5) peak emissions is 3.38 pounds. 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 Exceeded No No No No No No 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 Mobile Sources ( ) (Summer) (Summer) (Summer) (Winter) (Winter) SCAQMD 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Threshold No No No No No No Exceeded 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. The term unmitigated indicates that the emissions values do not rely on reduction measures; therefore they are the most conservative metrics. 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. Construction-related emissions include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and application of architectural coatings. Site preparation involves an approximate duration of 10 days, grading involves an approximate duration of 30 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 25 days, building construction includes an approximate duration of 300 days, paving is expected to last 20 days, while architectural coating will occur intermittently at the completion of each building. 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. Operational emissions for fully built-out land use development fall into three categories: (1) area sources, (2) energy use, and (3) motor vehicle use. The sources of the operational emissions associated with the project include on-road mobile vehicle traffic generated by the land uses; architectural coating activities; landscaping equipment; use of consumer products, parking lot degreasers, fertilizers/pesticides, and cleaning supplies; natural gas usage in the buildings; electricity usage in the buildings; electricity sage from lighting in parking lots and lighting, ventilation and elevators in parking structures; water usage per land use; and solid waste disposal per land use. 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. An LST analysis is provided in sub-section e). 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. Per Table 2-4 of the Final 2016 AQMP, the Coachella Valley is designated by the California Air Resources Board as nonattainment for ozone, based on exceedances of both the state I-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(PMIO) 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. The fact that the project's emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds indicates the project impacts in these regards would be less than significant on an individual basis, and under SCAQMD significance criteria, would not be cumulatively considerable. Further CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) stipulates that for an impact involving a resource that is addressed by an approved plan or mitigation program, the lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the adopted plan or program. In addressing cumulative effects for air quality, the AQMP is the appropriate document to use because it sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the Basin, including the project area, into compliance with all federal and State air quality standards. As previously discussed at preceding section 3(a), the project is consistent with the AQMP. 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 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 26 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 modeling results would not exceed the SCAQMD mass thresholds of significance. As previously discussed, the project applicant is required to comply with Chapter 24.1 (Fugitive Dust(PM10) Control) of the City Palm Desert Municipal Code by preparing a project-speci tc 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 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. A Localized Significance Thresholds (LST)analysis has been prepared for this project. The purpose of analyzing LSTs is to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts in relation to the nearest exposed sensitive receptor(s).Air quality sensitive receptors include,but are not limited to, schools,churches, residences, hospitals, day care facilities, and elderly care facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project include one (1) school (James Earl Carter Elementary School) and seven (7) detached residences to the west; fourteen (14) mobile homes to the south; and the westernmost portions of six (6) apartment buildings to the east. These receptors are located within 25 meters(82 feet)of the project. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology(Methodology). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). It is worth noting that the methodology is guidance and voluntary for projects that are less than or equal to 5 acres. It is recommended that proposed projects larger than five acres perform project-specific air quality modeling, which has been done as part of this Initial Study and the results are included in Tables I11-2 and III-3. The project of 18.13 acres is larger than the 5-acre thresholds utilized in LST analyses, so the methodology involves dividing the total project area into 5-acre increments for comparison. For reference, each 5-acre increment represents approximately 28 percent of the entire project area. SCAQMD has developed mass rate look-up tables for each Source Receptor Area(SRA), which can be used to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts during The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 27 construction. The project is located in SRA 30, which covers the Coachella Valley. LST mass rate look-up tables help determine localized air quality impacts. The distance from the emission source and the maximum daily site disturbance are also factors in the screening analysis. The applicable emissions of concern are nitrogen oxides(NOx),carbon monoxide(CO),particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10),and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter(PM2.5). Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and analysis were implemented to identify all potential receptors at the shortest distance interval, which is 25 meters (82 feet). These receptors include James Earl Carter Elementary School and seven (7) detached residences to the west; fourteen (14) mobile homes to the south; and the westernmost portions of six (6) apartment buildings to the east. These receptors are shown in Exhibit 8 Map of Localized Significance Threshold Analysis.As a conservative approach to the methodology, all of these receptors were included in the analysis. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25 meter thresholds. CaIEEMod was utilized to determine the maximum daily on-site emissions that will occur during any phase of construction activity. As a conservative approach to the methodology, the peak emissions resulting from construction activities on the entire site were screened for LST compliance. These numbers are greater than peak emissions resulting from smaller 5-acre increments and therefore represent the worst-case condition pertaining to LST. The data provided in Table 111-4 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors, even when construction activities occur on the entire project. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project. The proposed project involves the construction and operation of residential units. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project included stationary sources,or attracted mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site(e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed.Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Table III-4 Localized Significance Thresholds(LSTs) Associated with Construction of the Proposed Project With Receptors at 25 Meters(82 Feet),5-Acre Area Increments (In Pounds/Day) Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Unmitigated Emissions Resulting from Site Preparation, 61 48 9 6 Grading,Building Construction, Paving and Architectural Coating (Rounded Value) LST 2,292 304 14 8 Threshold Exceeded No No No No Sources:CaleeMod Results and AQMD LST Look-Up Tables 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 certain types 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 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 28 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 minimal short term odors associated with asphalt paving and use of construction equipment. Specifically, pavement installation is expected to take place for a time frame of 20 or fewer days, with active work areas and operating equipment moving with the progress of installation. Asphalt installation and tenance is a prevalent activity that routinely takes place on public streets and on private paved surfaces. ;am dors resulting from asphalt installation would be detectable in localized active areas and quickly dispersed as distance from the construction site increases. Specifically, there is an existing separation of approximately 62 feet between the nearest existing residential structure within the Canterra Apartments and the shared property line. The nearest distances from existing residential structures on the south and west project boundaries are approximately 30 feet and 6 feet respectively. Short- term odors would be attenuated by the solid block wall separating the project from adjoining properties. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are expected to be less than significant. The proposed residential project is not located near any type of 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 January 2018/Page 29 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ reservation 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 January 2018/Page 30 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 resu from Project implementation. Therefore, less than signifi ant 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 Measure: Mitigation measures are required to reduce the potentially significant impact related to biological resources. The following mitigation measure is required: 11I0-1: 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. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 31 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 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 A�ea 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 January 2018/Page 32 Less Than Potentially Less Than 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES--Would the Significant Significant Significant No project: Impact with Mitigation Impact Impact p Incorporation p 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)Disturb any human remains,including those El El ® ❑ interred 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.-17.5 (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 that additional local Native Tribes be contacted for further information. Upon receiving the NAHC's response, Helix sent written requests for comments to 31 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 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 33 Cultural report and any records research in addition to Native American Cultural Resource Monitoring. Therefore,less than significant impacts are expected following the required mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures are required to reduce the potentially significant impact related to cultural resources. The following mitigation measures are required: CR-1: If during the course of grading or construction, artifacts or other cultural resources are discovered, all grading on the site shall be hed and the applicant shall immediately notify the City Planter. 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 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. 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 January 2018/Page 34 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 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 ❑ ❑ ® Elliquefaction? iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of El El ® Elto soil? 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 El El ® El(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 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 January 2018/1'age 35 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 3 1%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 accordin� 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 January 2018/Page 36 erosion and protect improvements. Implementation of this standard condition will work to reduce wind-borne erosion. A common BMP that will be required as a standard condition is pre-watering of site soils(including dunes)to the depth of the grading cut. Another common BMP is that soil moisture shall be maintained during active grading activities. These and other BMPs included in the required PM10 Fugitive Dust Control Plan will work to reduce windborne fugitive dust caused by earth movement to the greatest extent possible. 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 indicate 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 Measures:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 37 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 greenhousegases? 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 (N2O), 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. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are believed responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's climate, known as global climate change or global warming. The 2016 GP EIR further states on page 4.4-2 that emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural emissions sectors. The 2016 GP EIR focuses on the three primary sources of energy that are relevant to the City of Palm Desert: electricity, natural gas and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with buildout of the General Plan The California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development developed and adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), referred to as the CALGreen Code. This program is a statewide mandatory construction code. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with required measures under the categories of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation,material conservation and resource efficiency,and environmental quality. As identified in the 2016 GP EIR, the resultant emissions associated with the Palm Desert General Plan buildout exceeds the 2035 SCAQMD plan-level threshold of 4.1 metric tons per service population. A percentage of GHG emissions would be generated by mobile sources,which is an emission source that cannot be regulated by the City of Palm Desert. A statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the greenhouse gas emissions anticipated from the buildout of the General Plan. Chapter 4.4 of the 2016 General Plan EIR, analyzes GHG effects associated with the General Plan build-out. The 2016 General Plan update seeks to reduce the environmental impact(including GHG emissions) of land use development by increasing the viability of walking, biking, and transit by allowing mixed-use projects which provide land use arrangements that reduce reliance on the automobile, and thus reduce GHG emissions, and improve opportunities for pedestrian,bicycle,and transit use. The proposed project is adjacent to an existing Elementary School and is approximately 600 feet west of the City of Palm Desert Soccer Park. The proposed project is approximately 1700 feet west of the United States Post Office. The project is located approximately 0.75 miles west of existing services located near the intersection of Cook Street and Hovley Lane. These services include dining, banking and two small markets. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 38 In addition, an existing bus stop is located approximately 1000 feet west of the proposed project. Sunline Transit provides transportation throughout the Coachella Valley and to the City of Riverside. The project will improve its frontage on Hovley Lane to include a landscaped pedestrian walkway and a bike lane.The walkway will be the final segment of the pedestrian path connecting the existing apartment complex to the east and the existing school to the west,thereby enhancing the safety of pedestrians. The proposed project is consistent with the following Policies found within the 2016 GP EIR GHG analysis that are meant to reduce GHG emissions to the greatest extent practicable(pages 4.4-5 through 4.4-14.) Policies Land Use and Community Character Element Policy 1.3: Traffic generation. Balance medium and high intensity/density development with pedestrian- oriented and bicycle friendly design features so as to maximize trip and VMT reduction. Policy 2.1: Pedestrian focus. Design the streetscape of high volume corridors to balance regional traffic flow with pedestrian movement and safety and the unique physical environment of the area. Policy 2.4: Tree planting. Encourage the planting of trees that appropriately shade the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian experience throughout the city Policy 2.5: Streetscape. Enhance the pedestrian experience through streetscape improvements that could include new street lighting, tree planting, and easement dedications to increase the size of the sidewalks and pedestrian amenities. Policy 2.12: Destination Accessibility. Direct the development of new centers, parks, schools, and similar destinations so as to provide all residences within town'/4 mile to at least two amenities. Policy 3.1: Complete neighborhoods. Through the development entitlement process, ensure that all new Neighborhoods (areas with a "Neighborhood" General Plan Designation) are complete and well-structured such that the physical layout and land use mix promote walking to services, biking and transit use, are family friendly and address the needs of multiple ages and physical abilities. Policy 3.11: Connections to key destinations. Require direct pedestrian connections between residential areas and nearby commercial and public/institutional areas. Policy 3.14: Access to daily activities. Require development patterns such that the majority of residents are within one-half mile walking distance to a variety of neighborhood goods and services, such as supermarkets, restaurants, churches, cafes, dry cleaners, laundromats, farmers markets, banks, hair care, pharmacies and similar uses. Policy 3.1: Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and convenient circulation system for pedestrians that include sidewalks, crosswalks, place to sit and gather, appropriate street lighting, buffers from moving vehicles,shading,and amenities for people of all ages. Policy 3.4: Access to Development. Require that all new development projects or redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external pedestrian network. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 39 Policy 3.2: Prioritized Improvements. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in areas of the city with community and/or education facilities, supportive land use patterns, and non-automotive connections such as multi-use trails and transit stops. Policy 3.6: Safe Pedestrian Routes to School. Consider school access as a priority over vehicular movements when any such conflicts occur. Policy 5.1: Transit Service. Promote public transit service in areas of the City with appropriate levels of density,mix of residential and employment uses,and connections to bicycle and pedestrian networks. Environmental Resources Element Policy 7.1: Affordable housing—green design.Require affordable housing developments to prioritize green building design features that reduce monthly utility costs,enhance occupant health and lower the overall cost of housing. In April 2008,the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD), in order to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of GHG emissions identified in CEQA documents, convened a "GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group." The goal of the working group is to develop and reach consensus on an acceptable CEQA significance threshold for GHG emissions that would be utilized on an interim basis until CARB (or some other state agency) develops statewide guidance on assessing the significance of GHG emissions under CEQA. In September 2010, the Working Group released additional revisions that consist of the following recommended tiered approach: Tier 1: consists of evaluating whether or not the Project qualifies for applicable CEQA exemptions. Tier 2: consists of determining whether or not a Project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a Project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan, it would not have a significant impact. Tier 3: consists of screening values at the discretion of the lead agency; however they should be consistent for all projects within its jurisdiction. Project-related construction emissions should be amortized over 30 years and should be added back the Project's operational emissions. The following thresholds are proposed for consideration: ■ 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types or ■ 3,500 MTCO2e per year for residential; ■ 1,400 MTCO2e per year for commercial;or ■ 3,000 MTCO2e per year for mixed-use projects Tier 4: has the following options: ■ Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage (currently undefined) • Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures ■ Option 3: A project-level efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population as a 2020 target and 3.0 MTCO2e per service population as a 2035 target. The recommended plan level target for 2020 is 6.6 MTCO2e and the plan level target for 2035 is 4.1 MTCO2e Tier 5: involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance thresholds The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 40 Page 4.15-34 of the 2016 GP EIR indicates that the City will see an increase of 7,365 households by the General Plan Buildout scenario year of 2040. The Proposed project will contribute 412 dwelling units on 18.13 acres. The proposed density of the Project is 22.7 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The maximum density allowed and analyzed under the General Plan for the project site is 40 du/ac (page 30 of the 2016 General Plan.)Utilization of the maximum density could result in a project with approximately 725 Dwelling Units. The project is proposing 313 dwelling units below the allowable maximum, reducing the total City increase to approximately 7,052. Additionally the subject property is the only remaining vacant parcel on the segment of Hovley Lane East between Portola Avenue and Cook Street. Therefore it can be assumed that construction of the project would result in buildout of this street segment. No significant addition of trips is expected following construction of the Project,associated with future adjacent development. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.1); was utilized to estimate the construction and operational air pollutant emissions and the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the implementation of the proposed Project in comparison with greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the implementation of a Project constructed at the maximum allowable density on the property. To determine if construction emissions will result in a cumulative considerable impact, buildout GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period.The annual construction-related emissions amortized over 30 years are 32.00 MT/yr of CO2, 0.004 MT/yr of CH4, and 0.00 MT/yr of NZO, which totals 32.11 MT/yr of CO2E. GHG emissions from construction activities were projected by utilizing a conservative start date (i.e. assuming all construction would occur at the earliest feasible date) and applying the mobile-source emission factors derived from the SCAQMD recommended CaIEEMod. The emissions were estimated using the CaIEEMod tool,which incorporates the CARB OFFROAD2014 and EMFAC2014 models. The following measures were incorporated into the modelling activities and are considered standard construction activities: • Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment • Use Electric or Hybrid Construction Equipment • Limit Construction Equipment Idling • Institute a Heavy-Duty Off Road Vehicle Plan • Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System Table VII-1 Mitigated Construction Emissions Summary—Proposed Project Emissions(metric tons per year) Year CO2 CH4 N20 Total CO2E 1 270.5586 0.0487 0.0000 271.7756 2 960.1806 0.1207 0.0000 963.1983 3 36.8223 1 4.7600e-003 1 0.0000 1 36.9412 Maximum 1960.1806 10.1207 10.0000 1963.1983 Source:CalEEModTM output. Note:Totals obtained from CaIEEMod and may not total 100%due to rounding. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 41 Table VII-2 Mitigated Construction Emissions Summary—Maximum Density Project Emissions(metric tons per year) Year CO2 CH4 N20 Total CO2E 1 319.5695 0.0589 0.0000 321.0426 2 1161.3345 0.1282 0.0000 1164.5395 3 ,314.9542 0.0376 0.0000 315.8949 Maximum 1161.3345 0.1282 0.0000 11.164.5395 Source:CalEEModT output. Note:Totals obtained from CalEEMod and may not total 100%due to rounding. Operational 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. The Mitigation measures included in CaIEEMOD are largely based on the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: (http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/09/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14- Final.pdf) document. The CAPCOA measure numbers are provided next to the mitigation measures in CalEEMod to assist the user in understanding each measure by referencing back to the CAPCOA document. The measures utilized in the modelling activities can be considered project design features, rather than mitigation as they are related to the project's location and proposed density. The following table identifies the GHG strategy, range of effectiveness, and basis for GHG emissions reductions included in the Air Quality/GHG modelling. These measures are considered "Mitigation for Mobile Emissions" in CalEEMod. These measures are part of the project design and are therefore considered Project Design Features rather than mitigation per CEQA guidelines. Table VII-3 Mitigation for Mobile Emissions Factored into CalEEMod Measure Strategy Range of Effectiveness Basis Number LUT-1 Increase Density 0.8 — 30.0% vehicle miles VMT Reduction: Property land use traveled(VMT)reduction and designation exhibits one of the highest density therefore a 0.8 — 30.0% land uses in the City. reduction in GHG emissions LUT-3 Increase Diversity 9-30% vehicle miles traveled VMT Reduction: The project includes a (VMT) reduction and diverse mix of incomes, including affordable therefore 9-30% reduction in housing. Having different types of land uses GHG emissions near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport LUT-4 Improved Destination 6.7 — 20% vehicle miles VMT Reduction: The project property is less Accessibility traveled(VMT)reduction and than.25 mile from a Sunline Transit Stop that therefore 6.7-20% reduction provides access throughout all of the in GHG emissions Coachella Valley.Property is approximately 1 mile from a multitude of services including a market and park. LUT-5 Increase Transit 0.5 — 24.6% VMT reduction VMT- Locating a project near transit will Accessibility and therefore 0.5-24.6% facilitate the use of transit by people traveling reduction in GHG emissions to or from the project site. The use of transit results in a mode shift and therefore reduced The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 42 VMT.The property is less than.25 mile form a Sunline Transit Stop SD f-I Improve Pedestrian 0 - 2%vehicle miles traveled VMT-Providing a pedestrian access network Network (VMT) reduction and to link areas of the project site encourages therefore 0 - 2%reduction in people to walk instead of drive. This mode GHG emissions shift results in people driving less and thus a reduction in VMT. The project will be completing the pedestrian connection between the existing apartment project to the east and the existing school to the west. Table VII-4 Mitigated Operational Emissions Summary-Proposed Project Emissions(metric tons peryear) Emission Source CO2 CH4 N20 Total CO2E Annual Construction Emissions 32.0060 0.0040 0.0000 32.10661 Amortized Over 30 Years Area 13.7143 5.11003e-03 1.6000e-04 13.8895 Eneray 1161.517 0.0387 0.0140 1166.663 Mobile Sources 2,754.2435 0.2794 0.0000 2,751.2296 Waste 30.7767 1.8189 0.0000 76.2479 WaterUsage 129.6981 0.7048 0.0176 152.5554 Total CO2E(All Sources) 4202.6925 Source:CalEEModTM output. Note:Totals obtained from CalEEMod and may not total 100%due to rounding. Table VII-5 Mitigated Operational Emissions Summary-Maximum Density Project Emissions(metric tons peryear) Emission Source CO2 CH4 N20 Total CO2E Annual Construction Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 38.7111 0.00427 0.000 38.8179 Area 24.1168 8.8900-003 2.8000e-04 24.4226 Energy 1901.9064 0.0625 0.0233 1910.4794 Mobile Sources 4,726.7048 0.4588 0.0000 4,738.1736 Waste 10.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 WaterUsage 267.7541 1.2419 0.0313 1308.1177 Total CO2E(All Sources) 7019.9511 Source:CalEEMod*"output. Note:Totals obtained from CalEEMod and may not total 100%due to rounding. As shown in Table VII-4, the project is expected to result in 4,202.6959 CO2e per year following incorporation of project design features. Design features will undergo review and approval by the City. The proposed project is expected to contribute 2,817.2553 fewer metric tons per year than a project constructed to the maximum density allowable(Table VII-5)within the General Plan. There is currently no statewide adopted threshold for GHG emissions for residential or commercial sector projects to date. The City of Palm Desert has adopted the Palm Desert Strategic Plan, Palm Desert The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 43 Environmental Sustainability Plan and The Palm Desert Greenhouse Gas Inventory as part of the systematic approach to lessening GHG emissions. The project will be required to meet SCAQMD,Palm Desert Strategic Plan, and Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan requirements. The project is consistent with the City's greenhouse gas reduction plan, contained in the Palm Desert Environmental Sustainability Plan. Based on the discussion of the CAPCOA 2010 Working Group tiered approach, the project is covered under Tier 2, as a greenhouse gas reduction plan is in place, and because the project is consistent, it is anticipated to not have a significant impact. Palm Desert Sustainabili1y Plan The Palm esert Sustainability Plan indicates that while the definition of"sustainable" varies, one way to define it is to consider it as the aggregate of people living day by day, on par, in ways that are workable, manageable; in ways that maintain, support, conserve, restore, replenish, safeguard, perpetuate; in ways that allow us to continue living versus grinding to a halt; in ways that do not deplete, use up, or empty; in ways that have a net zero impact. The Plan further indicates that of the common elements of sustainable planning, the greenhouse gas (GHG) connection is most challenging. Most experts agree that sustainability and sustainable development require stemming and decreasing greenhouse gases in major proportions. According to the Palm Desert Sustainability Plan, Palm Desert's first Greenhouse Gas Inventory was completed in parallel with production of the Environmental Sustainability Plan. The Environmental Sustainability Plan includes a Greenhouse Gas Compliance section. This section of the Plan covers greenhouse gas emissions(GHG)and methodology for reducing the City's "carbon footprint"to comply with state,national and international mandates and agreements. The City's GHG Compliance program consists of a Three-Phase Implementation strategy. Phase I focuses on actions that can be addressed immediately. These are low-cost, no cost measures that include maintaining existing programs and initiatives such as the Energy Independence Program. Phase II focuses on Leveraging Opportunities. The second phase is anticipated cost more than Phase I, and will involve innovative financing and community partners. Phase III involves scaling up to sustainability, based on the success of the initial phases. This involves major steps that include significantly increasing renewable energy production and mandating net zero developments and remodels. The GHG Compliance Emissions Reduction Plan calls for a ten year,three-phase period to address emissions reduction goals. The reduction plan is based on adherence to the 11 principals, 17 goals and 20 actions outlined in Phase 1 of the Implementation Strategy. The Sustainability Plan indicates that adhering to the 11 principles presented, and taking action on 17 goals in the Plan will be a major boost to realizing emissions reductions. Implementing the 20 actions outlined for Phase I will be significant,providing an estimated 37,538 metric tons of annual reductions. The Environmental Sustainability Plan addresses six resource areas: The Built Environment, Energy Management, Materials Management, Regional Air Quality, Transportation and Water Management. Energy Management is a resource area that is primarily tied to direct City actions and programs and not applicable to project level analysis. The proposed project is consistent with the five remaining resource areas both directly and indirectly. The following discussion presents the applicable principles, goals and actions in which the Project exhibits compliance and or augmentation of the City's strategy for sustainability, along with a brief discussion of project specific relevance. Compliance will be implemented utilizing a combination of Standard Conditions and Project Design Features that are enforced by the City's required review and approval process. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/1 age 44 The Built Environment According to the Sustainability Plan, the City has focused on continuity in design of its built environment. Different neighborhoods were developed to transition seamlessly into each other. Older neighborhoods are located next to newer ones. Country club communities mix with time-shares; a half dozen mobile home parks provide affordable desert living. The Sustainability Plan indicates that the variety of housing products is desirable to the community. The proposed project will provide a mix of affordable and market rate multi- family housing in an existing neighborhood that currently includes multifamily housing, resort facilities, recreational facilities,commercial uses and an elementary school. Taking a Green Building Leadership Position • Goal: Be early adopters of the California Green Building Code,an addition to Title 24 The project will be constructed in compliance with the California Green Building Code. • Goal: Increase parking lot shading to minimize the heat island effect The project includes a mix of open parking and parking structures. New Construction • Recommended Action BE 1: Pass Green Building Ordinance to adopt the California Green Building Code,Title 24 addition The project will be constructed in compliance with the California Green Building Code. Parking Lots • Recommended Action BE 20: Provide incentives to retrofit parking lot lighting with LED or other high- efficiency lights. The project proposes to incorporate high-efficiency parking lot lighting. Materials Management • Goal: Implement a construction debris ordinance for private projects by 2010, complemented by contractor education. The project construction activities will be conducted in compliance with the construction debris ordinance. Mandatory Rec cling • Recommended Action MM 21: Enact by 2011 an ordinance for residential, commercial, and construction debris,that requires mandatory diversion of 100%inert, 75%other debris by 2012 The project will comply with the residential and construction debris diversion requirements. • Recommended Action MM 22: Make bins available to all residents, businesses, and construction sites; provide periodic bin inspections. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/1 age 45 The project will utilize appropriate bins for operational and construction activities. Regional Air Quality • Principle: The City will actively address local air quality issues. The project will be in compliance with standard local air quality requirements, including the required implementation of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan during construction. Regional and State Policies • Goal: Work in regional collaboration to remove PM 10 from the air. The project will be required to implement a Fugitive Dust(PM10) Control Plan during construction Landscaping • Recommended Action RAQ 6: Implement incentives for replacing turf with native low water-use plants, trees,ground cover and"hard-scapes." The project incorporates native and low water-use plant materials as well as "hard-scapes." • Principle: Palm Desert will enhance mobility and quality of life for residents and visitors by offering transportation options. The project is located less than.25 miles from a Sunline Transit stop. Indoor Air Quality The Green Building Standards Code coming into effect at year end 2009 contains requirements for ventilation(during construction)and a 14-day flush-out process before a building is inhabited.These new construction standards also list volatile organic compound limits for paints and coatings, carpets, flooring, and insulation. The project will be constructed in compliance with the most recent Green Building Standards Code. Transportation Resources • Goal: Community-wide,reduce gasoline by 5%in five years, 10%in ten years The project is located in an area that provides a variety of options to vehicle travel. These options include bus, bicycle and pedestrian access. • Goal: Increase passenger miles in alternative vehicles and transport modes by 10% in five years throughout the City The project is located in an area that provides a variety of options to vehicle travel. These options include bus, bicycle and pedestrian access. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 46 Biking • Recommended Action T 1: Develop plan for increasing the connectivity of Class 1 and 2 bicycle lanes and golf cart lanes. The project will complete adjacent roadway improvements which include a continuation of existing bicycle access. Regional Transportation Recent statistics show that there ar'e nearly twice as many jobs in Palm Desert as there are living units. • Recommended Action T 25: Continue to support the bus system and help expand its effectiveness The project is located less than.25 miles from a Sunline Transit Stop. School Sitins • Recommended Action T 29: Develop task force to work with relevant school district to make sure that new school construction brings schools back to communities to enable walking to school. The project is located adjacent to an existing elementary school. Water Management • Principle: Palm Desert will encourage and educate others on the value and appropriateness of desert style landscaping. The project incorporates native and low water-use plant materials. • Goal: To the greatest extent possible,eliminate"nuisance water" in five years. The project is required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan that includes the minimization or prohibition of nuisance water. As mentioned previously, the project would be required to implement energy efficiency design requirements consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code(California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code. The project will be constructed with all current and applicable building codes including Title 24 standards. Statewide programs will further reduce GHG emissions,such as, water use efficiency,recycling,and energy efficient appliances. The proposed project will not conflict with the 2016 General Plan as well as policies established under Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 375 or Senate Bill 97. The project is consistent with the City's greenhouse gas reduction plan. The project is not expected to contribute significant GHG emissions to the environment following implementation of Standard Conditions through the City's review and approval process. Conditions of Approval (COAs) will be issued by the City at the time of project approval. COAs will be added to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan to confirm enforcement. Less than significant impacts are expected. Mitigation Measures:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 47 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 th 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 January 2018/1 age 48 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 (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP 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 '/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 January 2018/Page 49 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 2016 General Plan Update (Chapter 8 Safety, page 109 through 130 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. During construction activities,the project will be required to prepare a traffic control plan to reduce conflicts with the adjacent school and other surrounding land uses. 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 Measures:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 50 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 ® ❑ discharge requirements? El 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 ® El to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner,which would El ® ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ® El 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 January 2018/Page 51 (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 wi�l 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(PM10)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 January 2018/Page 52 (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. Page 6-6 of the 2015 UWMP indicates that the Coachella Valley groundwater basin historically has been in a state of overdraft. overdraft condition occurs when the outflows (demands)exceed the inflows (supplies)to the groundwater b4sin 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. It is estimated that a project of this size could use 47,586 gallons per day or 53.3 acre feet per year(AFY). As previously discussed, a Will Serve Letter dated October 2016, has been provided by CVWD and the project's land use and density can be accommodated for potable and wastewater. The will serve letter is attached as Appendix G in this Initial Study. Page 134 of 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. As demonstrated in the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Water Quality Management Plan, 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 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 53 street level of Hovley Lane. Per the elevation values shown in the Preliminary Grading Plan, 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 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. Based on the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Water Quality Management Plan, 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. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 54 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 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, 1-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 Measure: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 55 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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,1 cal El El ® ❑ coastal program,or zoning ordinance)ado�ted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ 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) (page 30 of the 2016 General Plan) . The Zoning Designation is Planned Residential with 17.5 du/ac (Ordinance 1324 Amended August 2017). The City of Palm Desert has granted a density bonus to the Project, 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%. Specifically, under the City's Municipal Code section 25.34.040(D)(1)(ii), developments that make at least 5 percent of their"total units"available to very low income households are granted a density bonus. The"total units" are the total units permitted by the underlying land use designation (here, 315), not the total units inclusive of the density bonus. (See Government Code section 65915(b)(1) [density bonus awarded where at least 5 percent of"total units" are reserved for very low income], (b)(3) ["for the purposes of this section, `total units' or `total dwelling units' does not include units added by a density bonus awarded pursuant this section or any local law"].) Where 5 percent of total units are reserved for very low income, the Code grants a 20 percent increase above the otherwise maximum number of dwelling units allowed, and an additional 2.5 percent supplemental increase over that base for every 1 percent increase in very low income target units above 5 percent,up to 35 percent. Here,the project proposes 20 percent of the units it is permitted under the base zoning to be very low income units. While the General Plan designation permits up to 40 du/ac on the project site, the zoning designation permits only 17.5 du/ac as stated above. The project site is conservatively approximately 18 acres in size, meaning that the underlying zoning permits up to 315 dwelling units. If 20 percent of those units, or 63 units (315 x 0.20=63), are made affordable to very low income households,the project is entitled a density bonus of 35 percent,the maximum allowable: 20%bonus granted for the first 5%very low income units 2.5%bonus x 15 additional percentage points of very low income units The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 56 20+(2.5 x 15)=57.5%bonus,but the maximum allowed is a 35%bonus A 35 percent density bonus means the project is granted an additional number of units equal to 35 percent of the underlying maximum number of units. Here, the underlying maximum is 315 units, 35 percent of which is 110.25. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, fractal percentages are rounded up, meaning the project is entitled to an additional I I I units. (Govt. Code, § 65915(f)(5) ["All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number"].) When the base number of units (315) is added to the density bonus (111),the total maximum units to be developed as part of the project is 426. The project proposes 412 units, well within the nurr}ber of units the project is entitled to pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and the City's Municipal Code. The Project's proposed density is 22.7 du/ac (an increase of 23% re: zoning.) This density is below the General Plan maximum density of 40 du/ac and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the project is compatible with Land Use Policies in the City's General Plan EIR, under Chapter 4.10 Land Use and Planning,Land Use and Community Character Element(pages 4.10-5 through 4.10-10). Policies Land Use&Community Character Element • Policy 3.2 Conventional Neighborhood Design. Discourage the construction of new residential neighborhoods that are characterized by cul-de-sacs, soundwalls, long block lengths, single building and housing types and lack of access to goods and services. The proposed project is a high density apartment complex and is located in an area that would provide short walkability to services such as, transit use, James Earl Carter Elementary School, and Hovley Soccer Park. Local shopping centers are located approximately 2 miles away. • Policy 3.4 Balanced Neighborhoods. Within the allowed densities and housing types,promote a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood in order to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. For development larger than five acres, require that a diversity of housing types be provided and that these housing types be mixed rather than segregated by unit type. The proposed project is located in an urban residential community of the City with a mix of existing single family and high density residential development. The proposed project is consistent with the current land use designation and adds additional housing options to the City. Residential units would be offered at various price points that would serve the needs of various ages and income levels, including low income and very low income. The project will offer one, two, and three bedroom floor plans therefore, providing a range of housing types and choices. Mobility Element • Policy 3.4 Access to Development. Require that all new development projects or redevelopment projects provide connections from the site to the external pedestrian network. The project will improve the frontage adjacent to Hovley Lane. Improvements would include connection of the sidewalk system between the adjacent development to the east and the James Earl Carter Elementary school to the west. Further, under Assembly Bill 744, if a development includes the maximum percentage of low or very low income residential units, and is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop without unobstructed access to the transit stop, then the developer may request the City, or County to waive the standard vehicular The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 57 parking ratio,inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, in excess of 0.5 spaces per bedroom.These parking standards apply to the entire project, both market rate and affordable units. The project will comply with the City's Affordable Housing and Density Bonus Provisions (25.34.040), found in the Municipal Code under Chapter 25.34 Special Use Provisions. The proposed project is located in area that would provide short walkability to services, transit use, and addresses the needs of multiple ages, which complies with the intent and purpose identified for the "Town Center Neighborhood" land use designation (page 30 of the 2016 General Plan) . Therefore, 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 Measures:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 58 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 Measures:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 59 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in 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 theproject? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing ❑ ❑ 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 City's 2016 General Plan EIR identifies vehicular traffic as the principal source of noise in the community (page 4.12-2 of the 2016 General Plan EIR). 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 in the 2016 General Plan EIR (page 4.12-10 and 4.12-12) 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 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 60 properties. Sources of excessive noise generating activities are restricted for residential areas pursuant to the 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. Noise levels in the City's General Plan are quantified on the basis of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is a measurement scale that sets appropriate leve s of noise based on land use types. CNEL is a 24 hour weighted scale that considers the more sensitive time periods in the evenings and at night, and weights them accordingly. Sensitive receptors, such as residences and schools,have a lower acceptable CNEL level than commercial or business park noise levels. In particular, exterior noise levels at residential locations should not exceed an exterior CNEL of 65 dBA or interior CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. Table 7.1 of the Noise Element provides the Noise Compatibility Matrix with the level of acceptable noise for different land uses found in the City. For the proposed multi-family residential use, the normally acceptable noise exposure level ranges from 50 to 65 CNEL. The conditionally acceptable noise levels range from 60 to 70 CNEL. The generally unacceptable noise levels range from 70 to 75 CNEL,and the clearly unacceptable levels are those that exceed 75 CNEL. 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 heavy equipment is used more consistently on a site. Noise levels are periodic and decrease significantly with distance. The existing and proposed solid walls will provide noise attenuation, which according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), can reduce noise levels by 15 dBA. The project will be required to abide by the construction hours established in the Palm Desert Noise Control Ordinance(Title 9, Chapter 9.24 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code). Section 9.24.060 (Special Provisions — Exemptions) establishes a noise exemption for noise sources associated with construction activities, as long as they adhere to the other applicable sections in the Noise Control Ordinance. Per Page 4.12-13 in the General Plan EIR, the regulatory exemption reflects the City's acknowledgement that construction noise is a necessary part of new development and does not create an unacceptable public nuisance when conducted during the least noise sensitive hours of the day. 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. Table XII-1 provides a list of the expected type and amount of equipment that will be utilized during each phase of construction. This list is consistent with the CaIEEMod metrics provided in the Air Quality and GHG sections. Table XII-1—List of Construction Equipment Use Equipment Type Phase Name Amount Air Compressors Architectural Coating1 Cranes Building Construction 1 Forklifts Building Construction 3 Generator Sets Building Construction 1 Tractors/L.oadersBackhoes Building Construction 3 Welders Building Construction I Excavators Grading 1 Graders Grading 1 Rubber Tired Dozers Grading 1 Scrapers Grading 2 Tractors/LoadersBackhoes Grading 1 Pavers Paving 2 Paving Equipment Paving2 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 61 Rollers Paving 2 Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation 1 Tractors/LoadersBackhoes Site Pre aration I In accordance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1, found on page 4.12-16 of the General Plan EIR,the proposed development is expected 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 schedul for major construction activities that will occur for the duration of the construction period. Ifi 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- related circulation from occurring beyond the permitted areas. Planning and design of construction management activities shall 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. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/1age 62 Noise sources associated with the proposed development will be attributed to residential activities, which are not substantially more intense than noise sources in the adjoining apartments, single-family homes, and elementary school setting. Ambient noise sources will include vehicle operation(in the interior driveways and parking lot), opening and closing of vehicle doors in the parking lot, people talking, infrequent car alarms, delivery activities, trash pick-ups, and operating HVAC equipment. Noise sources from residential uses are regulated and enforceable under Chapter 9.24 (Noise Control) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, which is established to minimize noise conflicts between properties.Per Section 9.24.040, it is unlawful for any person or property owner within the city of Palm Desert to make, cause, or continue to make or cause loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive sound or noise that annoys or disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities of a distance of greate�than fifty feet from property line. Section 9.24.030 establishes ten-minute average sound level limits for residential uses ranging from 45 to 55 decibels between the nighttime and daytime hours. In addition to the enforceable Noise Controls established to minimize noise conflicts between properties, the existing and proposed solid ways are expected to reduce noise levels by approximately 10 dBA in reference to page 4.12-2 in the 2016 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, resulting in a marginal increase in ambient noise. 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 earthborne 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. According to page 4.12-27 in the Palm Desert General Plan EIR, groundborne vibration in the City is generated primarily by two sources: temporary construction activities and permanent traffic on roadways and railways. Both of these activities,while they are occurring, create"frequent"vibration events as defined in the Federal Transit Administration(FTA)May 2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, which sets a 72 VdB threshold for frequent events affecting residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 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. The project site is completely vacant and therefore will not generate noise or vibration related to the demolition of any structures. 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, as previously discussed sub-section (a), the City's Municipal Code limits The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 63 the time period that construction activities may occur, as specified by the City's Noise Control Ordinance. Construction is expected to occur 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. Based on the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission web site's list of Current Compatibility Plans Riverside County,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 Measures: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 64 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Inco oration a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example,by proposing new El ® ❑ homes 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) (page 30 of the 2016 General Plan). The Zoning Designation is Planned Residential with 17.5 du/ac. Per the State's Assembly Bill 744 (AB 744), where density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the General Plan,the General Plan density shall prevail. 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 22.7 du/ac(an increase of 22.7%re: zoning.)This density is below the maximum(40 du/ac)allowed by the General Plan. The City's 2016 General Plan EIR analyzed future growth under Chapter 4.13 Population, Employment, and Housing pages 4.13-1 through 4.13-10. Table 4.13-2 (page 4.13-3) forecasts a population of 61,691 by year 2040. In 2016, the City had a population of 52,231 with an average household size of 2.10 persons (U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts). As a result of project build-out, the proposed development could add 865 new residents into the city, for an approximate population of 53,096 which is an increase of 1.66%and still below the 2040 population forecast of 61,691. All though the project would contribute growth within the City of Palm Desert, significant growth to population, housing, and employment is already anticipated in the City's 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 Measures: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 65 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? ® El protection? El El❑ El ® ❑ Schools? El ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ El ❑ 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 and currently provides fire services to the area. 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, and the existing infrastructure in place, 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. Additionally, the project complies with the 2016 General Plan EIR, Safety Element Policy 7.2 and Policy 7.8 (page 14.4-4), in that the project will be reviewed by City and RCFD officials to ensure adequate fire service and safety as a result of project implementation. As discussed previously the projects density is 22.7 du/ac which is below the General Plan maximum allowable density of 40 du/ac under the Town Center Neighborhood land use designation (page 30 of the 2016 General Plan). 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.) Fire Facility Impact Fees are calculated per residential unit and the increase in units means an increase in fees to provide the needed service. Payment of these fees helps offset impacts by providing sufficient revenue for necessary improvements to ensure The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 66 acceptable fire facilities, response times, equipment and personnel are maintained. Less than significant impacts are anticipated with project implementation. 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 Sheriffs 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 divi�ion. The remaining deputies are dedicated to various assignrents such as Traffic, Special Enforcement, School Resources, and other special assignments. The 2016 General Plan EIR analyzes the forecasted population increase and indicates police service needs would continue to be met by the City and Palm Desert PD if additional patrol hours are deemed necessary (Chapter 4.14 Public Services and Utilities page 4.14-12. 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 proposed Project would be developed in an urban area and is surrounded by existing development which is already served by the Palm Desert PD. Additionally,the project complies with the 2016 General Plan EIR, Safety Element Policy 7.2 and Policy 7.8 (page 14.4-4), and 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-I). 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. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 67 Table XIV-1 DSUSD District Wide Student Generation Rate School Type 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 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. Moreover, the 2016 General Plan EIR analyzes the existing parkland and finds that the current parkland in the City is adequate and currently exceeds the amount of parkland required by the QUIMBY Act and new additional residents would not significantly impact park facilities (Chapter 4.14 Public Services and Utilities, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.14.4-1, page 4.14-21 and 4.14-22) 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 Dublic facilities No Impact. No increase in demand for government services or other public facilities is expected beyond those discussed in this section(14). Mitigation Measures: None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 68 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 rcject 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 Hovley 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 Measures:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 69 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. .,farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian El 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 project. The Kimley Horn TOA indicates that traffic counts were obtained on October 27, 2016. Counts were conducted in the fall, which is the time of year that the Coachella Valley experiences it highest traffic The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 70 volumes. This is due to the fact that area schools are in session and many 2"d home residents are in residence for what is referred to as"the season." The TOA indicates that three peak hours of traffic were extrapolated from the collected counts: • AM peak(7:45 am-8:45 am) • Mid-day peak(2:00 am-3:00 pm) • PM peak(4:00 pm-5:00 pm) The TOA further states that only the AM and PM peak hour roadway traffic were considered for the study. The mid-day period was identified as a peak due to the afternoon school traffic, however it was not utilized since the proposed project generation during the mid-day period was assumed to be very minor. This assumption is likely based on the probability that residential students would walk to and from school. According to the James Earl Carter Elementary website,the bell schedule is the following: • Mon,Tues., Wed,.and Friday(8:57 am-3:15pm) • Thurs.(8:37 am-1:59pm) Industry standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 9'h Edition trip generation rates were utilized to determine trip generation for the proposed project. The land use type used was Apartment (220.) The calculation standard is 6.65 DU/acre. When calculated 412 DU x 6.65 DU/acre = 2739.80, which was rounded up to 2,740. 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. The ITE Trip Generation Guidance allows provisions for defining apartments based on the number of floors. For example, Low-Rise Apartments consist of 1-2 floors, Mid-rise consist of 3-10 floors and High-Rise consist of buildings with floors that exceed 10. According to ITE, "Mid-rise apartments are apartments in rental buildings that have between three and 10 levels (floors)." Mid-rise apartments generate fewer trips per unit, which is consistent with land use/transportation research that has shown an inverse relationship between residential density and vehicular trip generation. As shown in the table below,AM and PM Hour rates are reduced when compared to the TOA prepared for the project. Table XVI-1 General Plan Level of Service Analysis:Hovley Lane East/Cook Street and Hovley Lane East and Portola Avenue Description ITE Code ITE Trip Units Daily AM flour PNI Hour Generation Rates Apartments 220 6.65 412 2740 210 255 Low-Rise Apt 221 6.59 136 896 63 79 1-2 floors Mid-Rise Apt 223 NA 276 NA 83 108 3-10 floors Total 412 NA 146 187 The Los Angeles Department of Transportation(LADOT)Transportation Impact Study Guidelines December 2016, indicated that residential or mixed-use developments that include Affordable Housing Units [as defined in LAMC 12.22-A.25 (b)] are eligible to use reduced trip generation rates, which are based on the total number and type of dwelling units reserved as affordable.These trip generation rates are based on vehicle trip count data collected at affordable housing sites in the City of Los Angeles in 2016. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 71 Table XVI-2 LADOT Affordable Housing Trip Generation Reductions Affordable Housing Daily "Trip ITE Trip Units Daily Type Generation Generation Rates Rate affordable) Famil 4.08 6.65 Affordable 4.08 NA 82 335 Market Rate NA 6.65 30 2195 Total 412 2530 The assumption can be made that the daily trip estimate from the TOA of 2740 can be considered conservative.Numerous studies have indicated that daily trips associated with affordable housing are less than the daily trips associated with traditional housing. The reduction is potentially approximately 200 trips (2740 vs.2530.) Additionally, according to the City of Palm Desert, a large percentage of school traffic associated with the adjacent elementary school is attributed to the dropping off and picking up of transfer students. Students that reside within the school district receive preferential treatment. Therefore it can be assumed that any Elementary School students introduced into the neighborhood by the proposed Project will result in a reduction in the number of transfer students allowed to attend the school, and therefore a further reduction in overall roadway trips in this vicinity when school is in session. Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of transportation system performance based upon the ratio of traffic volume relative to the capacity of the roadway or intersection. The volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) indicates the overall performance of the roadway segment or intersection and corresponds to a rating of A through F identifying its level of capacity utilization and relative level of congestion.LOS A represents free-flow traffic with little or no delay whereas LOS F represents a breakdown of traffic flow and a high incidence of delay. 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 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 `B' during the PM peak hour. All approaches of the study intersection would operate at LOS `C' or better, under existing conditions. (Table XVI-I of this discussion). The propose Project is located on Hovley Lane East, between Portola Ave and Cook Street. According to the 2016 GP EIR Technical Background Report,Table 14.8,the existing signalized intersection located at Hovley Lane East and Cook Street currently operates at LOS C for both the AM and PM Peak Hours. The existing The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/13age 72 intersection located at Hovley Lane East and Portola operates at LOS B during the PM Peak Hour. Figures 14.6 and 14.7 of the TBR illustrate the results of the INRIX database, which uses "crowd-sourced data from intersection detectors." No bottleneck data was shown on Hovley Lane East in either the AM or PM screenshots. Figure 3 of the Kimly Horn TOA indicates that traffic counts on Hovley Lane were 15,101 trips west of the project entrance and 11,770 trips east of the project entrance. Page 2 of the TOA indicates that traffic counts were obtained on October 27, 2016. According to the 2016 TBR Table 14.3 existing ADT on Hovley Lane East was estimated to be 14,200 east of Portola Avenue. The Palm Desert Model Validation Technical Memorandum states that traffic counts taken in December 2014 were 12,969 trips on Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Road. Appendix B: The Traffic Model Validated Base Year Traffic Assignment(Daily)estimated 20,694 trips in this same location prior to adjustment of the model parameters, so the results of the model can be assumed to be conservative. The Technical Memorandum further states that a model is accurately validated when it replicates the actual traffic counts on the major roads within certain ranges of error established in 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines(California Transportation Commission,January,2011). The Memorandum indicates that the extent to which model outputs match existing travel data validates the assumptions of the inputs. Most model validation guidelines have focused on the performance of the trip assignment function in accurately assigning trips to the street network. This metric is called static validation and it remains the most common means of measuring model accuracy. The following table illustrates the results of the static model validation of the Base Year(2014)Palm Desert Model. Table XVI-3 Results of Static Model Validation Base Year(2014)Palm Desert Model Validation Statistic Criterion for Model Results Acceptance Weekday Weekday AM Weekday PM Daily Peak Period Peak Period 2-N�a Sum of All Links Counted +/- IW1. -2% -2% 1% % of Links within Caltrans Standard >75% 78% 78% 80% Deviations RMSE <40% 26% 33% 1 27% Correlation Coefficient >0.88 0.93 0.93 0.95 %of Screenline within Caltrans Standard 100% 100% 100% 100% Deviations Traffic signal warrants for existing conditions for the proposed project location were prepared within the TOA based on existing peak hour intersection volumes at the unsignalized study intersection at Hovley Lane and Jasmine Court. Project Impacts Industry standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 9d 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. As discussed previously, utilizing Affordable Housing Trip Generation Reductions reduces the estimate when compared with the TOA.The reduction is potentially approximately 200 trips(2740 vs.2530.) The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 73 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. Page 4.15-34 of the 2016 GP EIR indicates that the City will see an increase of 7,365 households by the General Plan Buildout scenario year of 2040. The Iroposed project will contribute 412 dwelling units on 18.13 acres. The proposed density of the Project is 22.7 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The maximum density allowed and analyzed under the General Plan for the project site is 40 du/ac (page 30 of the 2016 General Plan.)Utilization of the maximum density could result in a project with approximately 725 Dwelling Units. The project is proposing 313 dwelling units below the allowable maximum, reducing the total City increase to approximately 7,052. Additionally the subject property is the only remaining vacant parcel on the segment of Hovley Lane East between Portola Avenue and Cook Street. Therefore it can be assumed that construction of the project would result in buildout of this street segment. No significant addition of trips is expected following construction of the Project,associated with future adjacent development. Page 9 of the Palm Desert Model Validation Technical Memorandum indicates that the Palm Desert Model incorporates buildout of the City's General Plan and incorporates approximately 21 years of growth outside of the City limits;the model generally forecasts conditions out to year 2035. This reinforces the assumption that traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project have been thoroughly analyzed in the City's 2016 General Plan EIR. A Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model was developed as part of the 2016 General Plan Update. The Model Validation Technical Memorandum indicates that a TDF is a computer program that simulates traffic levels and patterns for a specific area. The model's output includes projections of traffic volumes on major roads, turning movements at key intersections and estimates of vehicle miles traveled. The Palm Desert Model was developed by adding detail and refining model assumptions within the Riverside County Travel Demand Model (RIVTAM.) The RIVTAM model was developed form the regional Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) travel demand model that was validated (from a land use and transportation network perspective)to 2008 conditions. Although the entire SCAG region was included in the model,the Palm Desert Model focuses on land use and transportation network assumptions from 2014 conditions within the City limits. Modifications were made to key model components such as the street network, land use data,model time of day factors and trip generation rates. The Technical Memorandum indicates that the model predicts the change in volumes based on land use and network assumptions; however no automated tool can replace professional judgement. A data collection effort was undertaken as part of the City of Palm Desert General Plan process. Weekday daily traffic counts were collected at 40 selected roadway segments. AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected at 40 intersections within the City of Palm Desert. The section of Hovley Lane adjacent to the proposed project was included in the data analysis.The two major signalized intersections closest to the project, Hovley Lane/Portola Road and Hovley Lane/Cook Street were also included within the traffic analysis for the 2016 General Plan Update. Considering the recent nature of the General Plan Update and Citywide traffic analysis as well as the proposed project being well below the density analyzed within these previous studies, the City of Palm Desert determined that the proposed project would be required to update the analysis for the intersection of Jasmine Court and Hovley Lane. The analysis of the surrounding intersections contained within the General Plan Update would be appropriate to utilize for the proposed project. Exhibit XVI-1 Illustrates the intersections analyzed within the 2016 GP Update and EIR. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 74 Exhibit XVI-1 2016 General Plan EIR Study Area Intersections Dnf FA RamagRd *'s 0 [rtit`:,f Ir 0 p, y ® Reo6'..,rafr 0 ® 36th Ave 93 © ,:,,,., ry ® fr t;nnneJM m o ® CD00 r: s 0 Study Intersecnc n Park Travel demand models use traffic analysis zones (TAZs) to subdivide a study area for the purpose of connecting land uses to the street network. The model street network includes all freeways, expressways, arterials, mountain arterials, urban arterials, majors, secondarys and collectors within the model study area. Local Streets are represented by centroid connectors which determine how trips originating or terminating at TAZs access the collectors,arterials,etc.,included in the street network. Figure 5 of the Project TOA indicates that traffic counts on Hovley Lane are projected to be 16,881 trips west of the project entrance and 14,300 trips east of the project entrance at the project buildout year of 2018. According to the 2016 Palm Desert Model Validation Technical Memorandum, Future Year Traffic Assignment (Daily) Hovley Lane East, to the east of Portola, is projected to contain approximately 16,600 The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 75 total daily trips. Therefore according to the two model applications, the project could result in 281 trips above that projected in the 2016 General Plan EIR. However,as discussed previously,the methodologies for calculating trips associated with Affordable Housing and Varying Floor Count for Apartments can be utilized qualitatively to account for the additional 281 trips when comparing the TOA and the City's Model Validation Memorandum. The ITE standard trip generation rate for typical Apartments resulted in 2740 adt vs 2530 adt when incorporating the rates for Affordable Housing. This results in a reduction of 210 trips, and therefore a 71 adt increase in traffic east of Portola (16,671 total adt.) This represents a 0.42% difference in trip projections (compared to the GP EIR projected 16,600 total adt) which can be considered a less than significant difference. Considering the increase of 0.42%, the allowable deviation between traffic models, as well as the margin of error within the models, impacts are expected to be less than significant. Therefore it can be concluded that the project trips have been accounted for within the City of Palm Desert 2016 GP EIR. Page 4.15-3 of the GP EIR identifies Hovley Lane East as a Balanced Arterial specifically a Minor Arterial with 4 lanes. Table 4.15-10 HCM 2010 Roadway Segment Functional Class and Daily LOS Thresholds indicates that a Minor Arterial with 4 lanes has a LOS of C with 10,100 trips and a LOS of D at 28,200 trips. The Project TOA estimate of 16,881 trips (with the project) would assumedly be considered LOS D. As stated previously, 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. Table 4.15-23 Buildout (2040) Intersection Level of Service Palm Desert (Table XVI-5 of this CEQA document) indicates that the intersection of Hovley Lane East and Portola Avenue will operate at LOS B in both the AM and PM Peak Hours. The Intersection of Hovley Lane East and Cook Street is projected to operate at LOS C for both the AM and PM Peak Hours. 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 fulfilled for AM and PM peak hours.Therefore,the traffic signal warrant is satisfied for the intersection. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 76 Table XVI-4 Level of Service Analysis:Hovley Lane East and Jasmine Court/Project Driveway Intersection AM Pe PIVI -. Approach Approach Approach Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS _. ..:>. , /veh f .� ,_' . s/veh Existing 2016 Southbound Approach 116.7 C 14.5 B Eastbound Left Approach 19.3 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 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 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 Table XVI-5 General Plan Level of Service Analysis: Hovley Lane East/Cook Street and Hovley Lane East and Portola Avenue VM Peak Peak L A Approach Approach Approach Approach " JIDelay LOS Delay LOS s/veh s/veh Existing 2014 Cook Street&Hovley Lane East 27.8 C 26.9 C GP Intersection 3 Portola Ave.&Hovley Lane East 19.5 B 18.0 B GP Intersection 7 Future 2040 Cook Street&Hovley Lane East 25.4 C 26.9 C GP Intersection 3 Portola Ave.&Hovley Lane East 18.6 B 17.5 B GP Intersection 7) 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 `13' during the PM peak hour. All approaches of the study intersection would operate at LOS `C' or better,under existing conditions. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 77 Under future (2018) 12re-project 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 and PM peak hours.No roadway or intersection improvements during 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. 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. Congestion Management Plan According to the 2016 GP EIR, the Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is a State- mandated program administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission(RCTC)that provides a mechanism for coordinating regional land use and development decisions in conjunction with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA.)CMP facilities in Palm Desert consist of Highway 111, Highway 74 and Monterey Avenue. However, Highway 111 is exempt from CMP analysis because of its existing level of service at the time of the 2011 CMP analysis which was below the target LOS E threshold. The GP EIR further states that CMP intersections are analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)2010 methodology and require a minimum level of service of LOS E. CMP roadway segments are analyzed using HCM 2010 V/C threshholds and also require a minimum level of service of LOS E. The level of service for freeway segments (under Caltrans jurisdiction) is based on V/C ratios, density (passenger cars per mile per lane),speeds,and service flow rate(passenger cars per hour per lane)based on HCM 2010 methodology. The minimum acceptable level of service is LOS C. The 2016 GP EIR analysis indicates that one intersection currently operates unacceptably at LOS E: Portola Avenue and Magnesia Falls Drive (AM Peak hour). Additionally, a single study intersection under Caltrans jurisdiction operates unacceptably at LOS D: Monterey Avenue and East Bound I-10 Off-Ramp (PM Peak hour). All CMP roadway segments analyzed in the City were determined to operate acceptably at LOS E or better. The proposed project is located approximately 1.25 miles from Monterey Avenue (2 miles driving distance) and approximately 4.25 miles (5.25 miles driving distance) from the intersection of Monterey Avenue and East Bound I-10 Off-Ramp.) The proposed project is not anticipated to directly impact these CMP facilities; however it has the possibility of indirectly impacting these facilities, considering that Monterey Avenue serves as a primary north/south transportation corridor within the City. Potential impacts associated with the project are expected to be offset by fees,such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee(TUMF),required as Standard Conditions. 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. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/1 age 78 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 traclt map, parcel map, conditional use permit, land use permit dr 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. Following the implementation of Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions, the project is expected to have less than significant impacts relative to an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the circulation system. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are required to reduce the potentially significant impact related to traffic impacts. The following mitigation measures are required: TRA-1: The applicant is responsible for the installation of the traffic signal at Hovley Lane East and the Project's entrance prior to the completion of Project construction. Responsible Party:City Planning Staff,Project Developer Schedule: Prior to project completion TRA-2: The applicant will 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 better for regional roadways.As noted previously,project traffic is not expected to conflict with the CMP;Monterey Avenue, Highway 74 and Highway I I 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. Page 4.15-52 of the GP EIR indicates that the adoption and implementation of the General Plan would maintain the level of service standard(LOS E)for CMP intersections and roadways within the City of Palm Desert. The proposed project density is well below that analyzed in the 2016 GP EIR and can therefore be considered consistent with its analysis. Following the payment of required fees such as TUMF and DIF, less than significand impacts are anticipated relative to the CMP. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 79 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 affect the operations of these airports nor create a substantial safety risks. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Page 4.15-55 of the GP EIR indicates that the adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not modify the planning or operations of Palm Springs International Airport of Bermuda Dunes Airport or introduce land use patterns that may cause substantial safety risks to of form air operations. 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 project will be required to incorporate adequate stacking distances, as approved by the City Engineer, to prevent queuing and intersection clogging associated with the project. The westerly entrance (nearest the school) will be for emergency access only. Site entrances will be required to incorporate clear signage and striping for pedestrian and student traffic. During construction activities, the project will be required to prepare a traffic control plan to reduce conflicts with the adjacent school. Page 4.15-55 of the GP EIR indicates that the adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. The project is required to comply with the General Plan and the City's design guidelines. Review and approval of the project circulation design by the City Engineer and RCFD shall insure that 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. Page 4.15-56 of the GP EIR indicates that the adoption and implementation of the General Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access. The project is required to comply with the General Plan and the City's design guidelines. Review and approval by the City Engineer, Fire Department and Police Department will ensure less than significant impacts. 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. Page 4.15-57 of the GP EIR indicates that the adoption and implementation of the General Plan, which the Project is consistent with, would support the maintenance and expansion of transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities consistent with adopted local and regional plans. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 80 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 siz scope of the landscape,sacred place,or objO 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 with Mitigation. 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, 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 that additional local Native Tribes be contacted for further information. Helix sent 31 written requests to local Tribal representatives for comments and further information. 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 related to historical resources are expected following Mitigation Measure CR-2 of this Initial Study. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Public Resource Code 21074 identifies "Tribal Cultural Resources" as "sites, features, places, 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. To ensure that all significant Tribal Resources are identified and fully considered, the City of Palm Desert initiated a 30-day government to government Tribal consultation period with local tribes from January 23,2017 to February 23,2017. During the consultation period, two local tribes responded to consultation requests, the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians identified the project site as part of their Traditional Use Area, and requested a copy The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 81 of the cultural report. The Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians requested Native American Monitoring and consultation with the City. The consultation took place on November 30, 2017 with the City of Palm Desert and the Tribe.No additional concerns were raised by the Tribe and they are satisfied with the proposed mitigation for cultural monitoring. Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected following the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2 of this initial study. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the potentially significant impact related to Tribal Cultural Resources.The following mitigation measure is required: Mitigation Measure: CR-2 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,Native American Tribal Monitor Schedule: During grading and other ground disturbing activities The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 82 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 wast water treatment facilities or expansion of xisting 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 and approximately 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. A Will Serve Letter dated October 2016, has been provided by CVWD and the project's land use and density can be accommodated. The will serve letter is attached as Appendix G in this Initial Study. 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 January 2018/Page 83 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. CVWD maintains 5 sewer lift stations within the City's boundaries. Wastewater from the City is conveyed to CVWD's Cook Street Water Reclamation Plant No.10(WRP-10), which treats an average of 10 mgd and has a capacity of 18 mgd. The proposed project would connect into the existing infrastructure, and the project will comply with the existing water management program in place. Per the June 2017 CVWD Design Manual,the average sewage flow for residential is 200 gallons per day (gpd) per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). Therefore, the project could generate 82,400 gpd of wastewater. This increase would be treated by WRP-10, and is within the treatment capacity of this plant. A Will Serve Letter dated October 2016,has been provided by CVWD and the project's land use and density can be accommodated. The will serve letter is attached as Appendix G in this Initial Study. 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- The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 84 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. In Palm Desert, CVWD maintains 32 active domestic wells, 13 domestic water reservoirs, and 19 domestic water booster stations. From June 2013 to May 2014, Palm Desert customers used 28,899 acre- feet of water, with a daily average consumption of 25.8 million gallons per day. 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 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 (page 134), 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 proposed project density is 22.7 du/ac, well below the allowed maximum density of 40 du/ac. The Palm Desert General Plan EIR states "Water demand can be estimated based on current and future projected population and CVWD current and future service area population. The proposed General Plan's projected increase in population by 2035 would result in a 7 percent decrease of the forecast population for the entire CVWD service (2016 General Plan, Chapter 4.14 Public Services and Utilities, Impact 4.14.6-4, page 4.14- 39)as shown below in Table 4.14.6-3 Water Service Area and Proposed General Plan Population Forecasts h Crite alm DAII'M FCoachellAW Water ; CVWD Planning Are Population (CVWD)Service Area* Percentage of Service Area Baseline* 49,786 202,660 25% Future(2035) 60,226 512,200 18% Difference in Percentage of Service Area -7% Source:*CVWD 2011,p.2-8 Note:*Baseline for Planning Area is year 2012;baseline for CVWD is year 2010. Per the 2016 Palm Desert General Plan EIR, CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan(UWMP 2011)states the district has a current baseline water demand rate of 482 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Based on this baseline water demand rate, future growth anticipated in 2035 under the proposed General Plan would result in an increased demand of 5.0 million gallons per day(mgd), or 5,600 AFY. However, according to CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan,the district has a 2020 target water use demand of 473 gpcd(CVWD 2015,p. 5-7). The UWMP further states that the district's 2015 actual per capita daily water use of 383 GPCD is currently 19 percent below the 2020 target of 473 GPCD. CVWD has currently achieved its 2020 water use target but continues to implement demand management measures to reduce per capita water use. CVWD anticipates the average per capita use by its existing customers will at least maintain the 383 GPCD average usage observed in 2015. In addition, CVWD anticipates that CVWD future users will achieve a 291 GPCD average usage across all customer classes due to implementation of plumbing code and updated landscape ordinance requirements. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 85 The 2015 CVWD UWMP finds that within the CVWD service area,multi-family demand includes customers with more than one dwelling unit such duplexes,triplexes,apartments,other multiple dwelling properties,and mobile home and recreational vehicle parks served by a master meter. Many of these connections serve properties that are used seasonally. About 3 percent of CVWD's meters and about 7 percent of total water use are classified as multi-family residential. The estimated permanent population currently served by multi- family residential connections is 54,300 and the per capita use associated with that population was 123 GPCD for 2010-2014 and 107 GPCD in 2015. Given the seasonal use of many multi-family properties, this use is relatively low because many multi-family connections have separate landscape irrigation services. The UWMP further states,that future multi-family residents are expected to use less water than existing properties due to the previously mentioned mandated use of high efficiency plumbing fixtures under the ICalGreen building standards and reduced landscape water use mandated by CVWD's Landscape Ordinance. The City's Municipal Code has several ordinances in place to ensure water supply and efficiency measures are in place. Additionally, Section 24.04.010 of Palm Desert's Municipal Code codifies CVWD's water- efficient landscape ordinance(in compliance with the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance). This ordinance requires landscape design that incorporates climate appropriate plant material and efficient irrigation for all new and rehabilitated landscaping projects. Compliance with these ordinances will ensure that future development reduces water demand to meet target demands. Based on CVWD's 2020 target water use demand of 473 gpcd, the projected population growth assumed under the proposed General Plan would result in an increased demand of 4.9 mgd by 2035, or 5,531 AFY. However, using CVWD actual per capita daily demand of 383 gpcd,would result in an increased demand of 3.9 mgd or 4,478 AFY. 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. It is estimated that a project of this size could use 47,586 gallons per day or 53.3 AFY. As previously discusses, a Will Serve Letter dated October 2016, has been provided by CVWD and the project's land use and density can be accommodated for potable and wastewater. The will serve letter is attached as Appendix G in this Initial Study. 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. The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 86 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 the Bandlands Disposal site has 15,748.799 cubic yards of remaining capacity, the El Sobrante Landfill has a remaining capacity of 145,530,000 tons of solid waste, and Lamb Canyon Disposal has a remaining solid waste capacity of 19,242,950 cubic yards. Using the residential solid waste generation factor of 0.41 tons per dwelling unit from the Riverside County EIR No. 521,the project could generate up 168.92 tons of solid waste. As part of its long-range planning and management activities, the Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) ensures that Riverside County has a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for future landfill disposal. The 15-year projection of disposal capacity is prepared each year by as part of the annual reporting requirements for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The most recent 15- year projection by the RCWMD indicates that no additional capacity is needed to dispose of countywide waste through 2024, with a remaining disposal capacity of 28,561,626 tons in the year 2024 (County of Riverside 2015b). In addition, all future development would be required to comply with the mandatory commercial and multi- family recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. Furthermore, Public Utilities and Services Element Policies 4.1 through 4.4 would reduce the demand for solid waste disposal. Policies Public Utilities&Services Element • Policy 4.1: Provide waste and recycling services. Provide solid waste, recycling, and green waste services to the community at a reasonable rate. • Policy 4.2: Zero waste government operations. Strive for zero waste government operations, modeling best practices in solid waste management and recycling for the rest of the community. • Policy 4.3: Waste reduction. Seek to continually reduce Palm Desert's rate of waste disposal per capita,and to increase the diversion rate of recycling and green waste. • Policy 4.4: Recycled building material. Encourage the use of recycled building and infrastructure materials in new public and private development. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines. Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected relative to solid waste and applicable regulations. Mitigation Measures:None required The Sands Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2018/Page 87 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,redu a the number or restrict the range of a rare or enda0gered 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future ro'ects)? 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 January 2018/Page 88 REFERENCES City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016 City of Palm Desert Draft Technical Background Report,August 2015 LADOT Transportation Impact Study Guidelines"December 2016 City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborho d Specific Plan Dram Environmental Impact Report(DEIR),August 2016 CVWD Development Design Manual,2017 CVWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 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 F il J Nv .l�• } t 1 `� - ? �� i' / t'� � Tz_ —- �' .. f. „� � ,tea- �`'47 _•�, >�'�' ��� ka �R1 i _. r. ���r.����,i s s �- r.r-.. �_�a.t.��.1 •.�1� l • slrl�y ylrm _ ira ",� - ..►•..ter E+ -- ...:� , �- I �F ! ot N I�' )mr 'I ��• y Ir' ,`�' � `11�� / �� �, `� r� �$ :, f 1�5.. r '� �,. .t:�s�l t ,� ��;,. �i .L�.`; 1• � '�`, 'ill,_ �� -+� °—�-�" . .� � � �, t i�. -� � ,, ��t � 1� , �� , I Ii �y � � ��<., ,,a �. 1� �dl:� _ I ���..�� � >�� � � i ni`1 ►. �Li �t ( ► r, � _ �• c '~'► _t � I,I �>��� �� i� ��.. �-. ��— -�'� ___ — �•��!Y'i`_ .�_��`� -_ ��s +1 r s fir_ _ _ �-r�-��� � t - v^,�� 7. - _rY'�fi! — € ZO'3 t; HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP The arrangementsyofHdherein Archonly. Rturaiconceptualsiteparsare for ernvs)gabpurpose HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are the so properY of Humphreys Dory. Rehsrons may occur due to further mvesagation from 8 Partners Arch,tects.LP and may regulatory autronues and bwtding code analysis Dimensiors 5339 Alpha Roae,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 no:be reproduced in any form shown are of a strateg-c,nter:on,y Refer to surveys and oh, www.humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com wit-out as w•iaen permission drawings for technical information and measuremen's DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX SF(;TION A PHASE 2 PHASE 1 8'LANDSCAPEBUFFE. r-- r -T- - r_r -_— - - - - - - - 7s4 ) 10 I ,o ,o ,o rt i 0 E I 1 TT o s ,o fTTITIT TTTITTT Is T ��=1-�:�- ,o _ � • a ,o ,0 s 1 s 5 7 I A3 B4 A4b A4 64 A3 _ - L -- I J B4 A3 A3 B3 t 4 : - --._ -.C2 64 64 C2 � DOG I 1 I ; 1 cJ . PARK L_ v A ` „ 84 1 A4b 84 A3. B4 C2 B4 B4 C2 e B4 84 1 B4 A3 _ w A3 1"" A3 B4 1 Aft ' s 1 2 -�-�- _ A4b , A4b .� A4 A4 Z. A4 A4 s T1 ' 3 2 , M -*- 83 84 A4b' A4 B4 A3 ! B3 B4 A4b A4 64 I A3 \-- k �+ :' e t g 5 B4 B4 _o Ito , f Po B4 64 C_ E3 r._ o 0 A3 r B4 A4b A4 84 A3 A3 B4 A4b A4 B4 A3 -r A4 A4 �E - - A3 I W i T 14 _ -y -__------ �_ - -- - m : COA3 B3 A3 B3 A3 B3 — Z ,o B4 LJ C J lJ ,. - -- - -- i B4 84 B4 B4 -s -a 84 64 B4, - r _ _ I r c 83 A3 p b -*5 A4b A4b i A4 A4 - • • A4 A4 - ..., _ _ 11 10 7 6 A4 A4 A4 A4 / SEC !ON A3 13 110 � 1 I ILL B4 64 B4 B4 - e - s B4 64 1 �_- -- 13 - _.� — — ,. � AIN + '( A3 A3 e s 4- L 63 A3 g3 1 0 v� ENTRY - --- - € 10 ( I I I I I I I I h I I I I I 111 '011 - - 9 to _ 1 I' s - _I1 TT le R -' I I I I 1 I I f h0I—: '— I (I I I I tyre a=._ TRASH PHASE PHASE GARAGES CARPORTS ,z ENCLOSURES �.. co CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN w w I� 1-STORY TRASH ENCLOSURES PARKJNG STALLS z Scale 1"=40' (on 24"x36" Sheet)� — - 2 x 2CY bins each. 00 W, 2-STORY ® ��-� �'- Exterior to match CANTERRA APARTMENTS 0' 40' 1 160' _ 3-STORY Building Elevations. �a OPEN SPACE FIRE ACCESS sw„dero •coos•ime A— 1 THE AND The arrangements depicted herein Architectural concept al site plars are for feasibility purpose are the soie properly of Humphreys only Revisions mayoccur due to further investigation from NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS • PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory aittorities and building code analysis Dimensiors 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas, not be reproduced in any form shown are ofa strategic intertonly Refertosuiveysandwl1 � � . .. FL P. Wk LE �e THE SANDS 70.3 by HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS. L° The arrangements depicted prey Architectural nconceptual siteplaysarefcrnvsid6typurpose NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are the sole property of Humphreys only. Revisions may occur due to further investigation from 6 Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in ary form shown are of a strategic intert only. Refer to surveys and civil October 2 4 2 6 H PA#16341 www humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX PLANT LEGEND TREES NAME I UAN'17TY Parklndonla K'Dewrt MUSeum' 36'8ow3"Odd DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE Slnple Trunk I OM 63 TlpUana tlpu 36"BOX/3'Cd./ TIPU TREE Single Trunk I Oty.22 WC twlo chlnens6 36"Bowd'CdJ " INESE PLSTACHE $Iryyp I.*I Qty 39 K00-100 pan1cuf0ta 2!BOX/T Cd./ GOLDENRAIN TREE Sngle TM*I Oty.u 'asoplf bndubsa 24 BOX/T Cd./ TEXAS HBNEY MESQUITE Slnple TMtk I Qty.29 aE&E FERN OF HED SERT 2A"BOwTty 13 y3��22•• Slnple Trunk Oty:13 'LANDSCAPE- FASEMENi m Sophoro Secundlom 2f'1oK/7 Cold _._ TEXAS MOUNTAIN LAUREL Muhl T�urlk l MY:63 Acacia a-- N'BOwT Cd./ MULGA ACACIA Slnple TAft I W.39 Dalberpla sI— 2s'SOV7 COI./ is INDIAN ROSEWOOD Single Truck l Oty" 11 a e Hpl' "Bo T COL/ -- _ WAN H��FRUITUBS OLIVE Slnple Tr *I OM 21 IALIVE >d nicI COL/ ': '�• CALIFORNIA LIVE OAK Slnple inN[I Qty:21 _..,,� ........., t✓ .. 5 PALMS 7d0aATR9 63 B4 A3 Inoenh dacMlfma IB'-20 HI. A4b A4 B4 A3 C2 C2 B3 64 A4b'� A4 64 A3 83 DATE PALM O ..22 1 C2 B4 B4 C2 --- WeshinpraNa robusfo IB'-20'HI. C� 9 eI /� ---- - — _ - MEXICAN FAN PALM Qty.x A3 B4 A4b A4 B4 A3 C2 64 B4 C2 A3 B4 All A4 A3 64 B4 MEDITERRANEAN FAN PALM Qty:06 L- B4 B4 134 B4 _ I sit ... HRUBS TSD'xRTRi • •• .• — x.r •' •Fic.benlomino S GOI. Q S7 SCREEN 12 Aft A4b as A4 WEEPING fIG I'� SHRUBS - - - 3 -- / NAME SIZE/QUA Y B4 B4y. •• •• _ ` (� Bougal GLO X Torch NVIL S Gd. Qty.00 A4 All A3 B3 ' 6 A4 A4 RED BIRD OF PARADISE C—.Il i ja BOUGAINVILLEA Caesalpnb pulcherrirna 5 Gd. Qty 00 83 B4 A4b A4 B4 A3 F= B3 B4 A4b A4 B4 A3 Cal anwa aak amKa 5 Gal.I Qty.00 8 OA B4 r " BAJA FAIRY DUSTER /� V1 PI SknmoMsa ch hk S Gd. QN OD JOJOBA C2 V2 B4 B4 Dooa hutescens'Sdena Negra' SOd-I QM00 B4 B4 A3 B4 A4b A4 B4 A3 A3 B4 A4b A4 134 A3 BLACK DALEA -- HDOPSEED BUSH osa 5 Gd.I Qty.00 A3 A3 Etemophilo maculata'Valentbe' 5 Gd.I Qty 00 = VALENTINE EMU BUSH Tecama Starts 5Gal.I Qty:00 A4 A4 B3 A3 0 ARIZONA YELLOW BELLS ' 14 _ iHUNDRCOUD TEXAS SAGEum untlercbud'S GaLIQM 00 f I - S• L HIHUAHUAN SAGE otum 5Gd.I Qty.00 Z le_oYcroswides 5 Gd.I Qty.00 All A4 A4 �.. yT FEATHERY CASSIA 2y.-0. ♦ A3 B3 A3 �. GROUNDCOVERS I VINES ♦ r B4 64 I PU PLE TRAILING LANTANA ISM. Q fK/ ' Q M e I M --"- --�---'--_ Lanfona camaro New Gold' 1 Gd.I OM 00 - e, p, NEW GOLD LANTANA 64 64 B4 B4 p R B4 B4 "'L'e B4 �'/ '2 .,___._— _.—.�_ ? '-# LITTLEtJOHN BOTTEBRUSSls H Johli 1 Gal. QM OD 63 A3 _ Carina grand%bra Norwood 9-1y' 1 Gd.I Oty 00 A4b A4b A4 A4 A4 A4 - A4 A4 • a BOXW OOD BEAUTY NATAL PLUM Conv01YWU5 croorum 1 Gd.I Qty 00 /'� GROUND MORNING GLORY 11 1 O 7 --6 M T Dole.9 IN I Ga I City 00 `/ TRAILING INDIGO BUSH MYopavm parvfa6um 1 Gd.I Qty.00 i RAILING MYOPORUM A4 A4 Ro—w A4 A4 l A4 A4 A4 A4 I TRAILING ROSEMARYNo ha us' Gd.I any.W •' ? — YELLOW a AAobafa I Gd. QH/00 p� YELLOW DOT A�hgC2 B4 B4 C2 B4 B4 B4 84 B4 B4 pry QUEEN' WREA(epTH opus 3Gd.l Qyao • — � +@, QUEENS WREATH PUMenocs—sp. 3Gd.I Qty 00 HACIENDA CREEPER 13 I � � � � � � ,a. ACCENT NAM SI /QUA Y ; Nokno microcarpa 5 Gd.I Qty 00 C2 B4 B4 CZ BEAR GRASS A3 A3 B3 A3 B3 A3 B3 A3 A3 B4 A4b A4 B4 A3 - Pennnrlum sebceum'RWrum' 5Gd.I Qty:00 PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS Do y*ion wh—W 5 Gd,I Qty 00 DESERT SOTOL s �- •• • ''', Agave amencano 5 Gd.I Qty 00 VIM, _ CENTURY PLAM 31 b� Agave desmettma vamgota 5Gd.I Qty.00 B 1� VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE Agave viknoro is 3 Gd.I Qfy.00 OCTOPUS AGAVE Op-H.AVERT bIL CAC 3Gd. Qly.OD BEAVERTAIL CACTUS FoUqui5 Gd.I p OCOTILLO splenderss EACH I Qty:00> - RED YUCCA Hesperabe arviFlora OM 00 i Yucca igkda 15 Gal.I Qty.00 BLUE YUCCA LOW VOLTAGE SITE LIGHTING ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN n "ANTE QUANTITY148 NOT TO SCALE N O L.E.D.NO,Pi I DUCT-BYCSW.T LANDSCAPE I48 UGMING I PRODUCT f:8CB065-iB O L.E.D.LOUVERED WALL LIGHT-BY FXL.COM 66 PRODUCT e:LF-ILED-0G OBOLLARD UC49(MANUFACTURER TBO) 10 ♦ PRODUCT is TBD PEDESTRIAN POLE IJGM(MANUFACTURER TBDI 98 PRODUCT e:TBD HUMPHREYS PARTNERS THE r © SANDS e The arrangements depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose HUMPHREYS PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are the sole property of Humphreys onlol.Revisions may occur due to further investigation from 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240(972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis. Dimensions NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only. Refer to surveys and civil www.humphreys,com marketing@humphreys.com Without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX March 9th, 2018 PALM DESERT, CA HPA#16341 HOVLEY LANE PLANT LEGEND TREES NAM I )L Portiruonbz-M—PALMuseum' 36'—*l DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE Single Tnzkl Qty 63 . cxa censN Single Boz/3"Cd/'-.—__ ---_— 7lPuaraH Trunk I Gty.22 TIPU TREE $I T �+ x Pblo BoIcold I( CHINESE PLttACHE Sln Ie T,.*I CAI 30 KoekeNerb ponkdoto 24'Boz/T Cd./ .• FE: - G.LDENRAIN TREE Single Trunk I Oty:43 C 'C} Rosopls®"'011.1. 24"BEX/2' XONEy MESQUITE Single TNnk I Qty.29 y, LysllOmo mE—DESV 24"k I CGal./ FERN OF iNE DESERT Single Trunk I OM 13 ! Sopnom secuntlitkxo 24"III Cal./ >*TEXA.SMOUMAINIAUREL MUII Trunk I W43 Lr) Acacb ACACIA 2s"nngle k I Cel./ *€ r,.,• ♦ Da 39 lbe gW fmoo 51 24'BOX/'Cd/ INDIAN ROSEWOOD Single TM*I Qty:64 1V9 r.. -x •.,. ♦ 4 . ^ Y Oleo e SWAN HI TIE OLIVESingle �SS OL 2Tnn*/2'Cd.1 .F, *f. ! 4 R Fj•+ - A♦ .rs -n _ r Ouer cgrRoila N 36"Box/ CoI?/ -+r•; - q 1 V CALIFORNIA WE OAK Engle Trtzk I Qty.21 4. PALMS NAME m MQ DATE Phoen* N-ll W. +.� `/. _ ,,��yyk. DATE PRIM T-20 t, Wmhinpfonia roDuffE 1B'-2g Mt, , MEXICAN FAN PALM OIy,30 Cnamae AN AN 11,FA BOty 04 MEDRIRRANEAN FAN PALM Oty:04 �����I�Ii���I��l� t SCREEN SHRUBS M � � mot• � I 11 RE7CII�R1115� WEE ING FIG o S Gd.I QN:37 �.y.� < WEEPING FIG SHRUBS - L NAME SIZE/QUANTITY :� Bougoln 11—x'lorch Grow' 5 Go.I CITY'.00 .. TORCH GLOW BOUGAINVILLEA CoesElpinb pUlchemma 5 Go.I ON:CIO RED BIRD OF PARADISE raw i Ip01, •o-- --- -- C.M ndr coR—ica 5 Gd.I QN:00 • B119Y311B4D 1 FR1W � BAJA FAIRY DUSTER d � 30II)OW Simmondsio chinensis 5 Go.I ON:00 .: .. .u,., MOBOT — _ JOJOBA - - - BLACK OALEAens Sieno Negro 5Gd. ON:W „ BLACK OALEA 1~. ,l �A," k". _ aowawo Dodonoeo viscosa 5 Gd.I QN:00 f t• : 4 y- -^✓ s L 4' i,�.� _- HOPSEED BUSH ?^' 3"• ( EremopNb MU BUS o Valentine' S Gd. ON:00 •��. •�• •.. VALENTINE EMU BUSH .-. TecomE siEns 5Gd.I ON:00 .♦ i ! ` � r t+ _ 1BB01 c- ARIZONA YELLOW BELLS THUXERCILO cantl ASS 7hundercbutl'S Gd.1ON'.00 Le—pRCLOUD TEXAS SAGE ! i LeucopHUAN bevgatum 5Gd. ON:00 f - CHIHUAHUn SAGE FEATHERY CASSIA 5Gd. QN:00 GROUNDNO E Q ERS I VINES SIZE/QUANTITY LJJ < Lantana m,nt,,fdrw I Go. ON 00 Pool. PURPLE TRAILING UM ANA : --- Lantana COMOM Gob I Gd.I Orly:00 NEW GOLD LANTA IANTANA C.UTTILE em N BOTTLEto USH Jonn' I Gd.I QM 00 LITTLE JO ro BOTTLEBRBSN R K H FIRE TROUGH SO OD B A UT'Boxwood Beauty I Gd.I Oty 00 M M BOXWOOD BEAUTY NATAL PLUM Q ♦ GROUND I Gd. ON:00 lid" DakE greNDI 1 Gd. ON:00 Q GROUND MORNING GLORY O� TRAILING INDIGO BUSH MAILINGm YOPORAum 1Gd. ON:00 TRAILING MYOPORUM RoAILING s SEMAElB'REshalus' I God. ON:00 tt.Y. TRAILING ROSEMARY YELLOW tdbbafa I Gd.I QN:fA ■AIR,73S YELLOW DOT iO— )]szt. QUEAntEN'S WREATH us 3Gd.I QN-00 ♦ 440 ut.(f. L�ck/wn rh) QUEEN'S WREATH -435!it.(K'a bwp..) Padhenoc¢sus sp. 3 Gd.I ON:00 HACIENDA CREEPER m su,u sIELF - ACCENTS _i• ,4 M NAME SIZE/QUANT •■ • Etm icroc amarpa SGd. ON:00 S 00 BEAR GRASS „•[ *♦, ♦ i w PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS ubTum' S Gd. O1Y'.00 •.A.ytt PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS - DESERT on wheeled 5 Gd.I OtY:00 DESERT SOiOI '.i Agave YPLANTna 5Gd. ON:00 i CENTURY PLANT '♦ xpC V VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE Agave desmetfiana var egofE 5 Gad. QN:CO co Z Q Agave US AGAVES 5 ON 00 e I OCTOPUS AGAVE ! OAVERT bos A 3Gd. ON'.W BEAVERTAIL CACTUS ! w OCOTI Trio spkntlens EACH OtV:(q OCOTILLO parvMlorE 5Gd. QN:00 RED YUCCA RED YUCCA Yucca rigida 15 rd.I QN:00 HALF BASKETBALL /l r\ BLUE YUCCA .R - COURT �[ i[ p Q ¢ LOW VOLTAGE SITE LIGHTING NAME QUANTITY C0 CIO O L.E.D.UPLIGHi(i REESf-BY SOLLOS LANDSCAPE 148 LIGHTING I PRODUCT e:BCB065-TB ! w 0• ,! © LED.LOUVERED WALL LIGHT-BY F.XL.COM 66 /� C t PRODUCT is LFI LED-DG MATCH LI N G L O PRODUCT RGiBDMANUFAC URER iBD1 0 TC H LI N I _ _ _ _ PRO UCA•POOE LIGHT(MANUFACTURER iBD) 98 AAITCHLINE 2 - MATCHLINE L2 ' M AINk LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTE:IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO UTILIZE THE LATEST CNN(T 10' SPRAY EQUIPMENT,I EFFICIENCY WITDH SMART RIP IRRIGATION SCALE: = CONTROLLER/FLOW SENSING&WEATHER STATION SHEET 1 of 4 BHUMPHREYS PARTNERS THE SANDS The arrangements depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are the sole property of Humphreys orilt,. Revisions may occur due to further investigabon from 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas.TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 &Partners Architects.LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis Dimensions NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only Refer to surveys and civil www.humphreys,com marketing@humphreys.com PLANT LEGEND ArIMATCHLINE Li— TREES NAME RT M 51Z OUA°N7Y USEUM PALO VERDE leIty6gTn* Q :3 36 e.w3cd/CHLI � TCHLINE L2 Single Trunk I OM 22 �PBtacb c WAC. 36"BOX/3"Cd./ a CMINESE PLttACHE Angle Tnrnk I CITY:38 Q < 0KoekeWe b paNcubta 24"BOX/2'Cal./ i I ` GOLDENRAIN TREE Single Trunk I QtQtr.r3 •. +'., .(< - [1 EosopB pbndubfa 2a"Box/2'Cd./ M M XAS HONEYOMpESOUR N:E Shoo Trunk I O 29 • y NAMMocxs �y `'J Y FERN OFTHE DESERT Single Trunk I CryiJ ON SAND •. • LyfNoma micr hylk] 24'Bow2'Cd./ Q ¢ _ Sophoro secundfbro 24"BoX/2'Cd./ ` 7E%AS MOUNTAIN LAUREL MUM Trunk I CITY:43 • J, MULOA ACACIA Sho.T unk I ON:39 111111 V f� DdIAN fhao 2r Box/2'y:6A 4' � INDIAN ROSEWOOD Anple2TIuM I T N:d Oe oz 'G . y.:.'.•.' ,:.ti...; �, i'!T r SWAN Hlllo�RURLESS OLIVE Trunk* Single Trk I ON:21 00 3 _ _ u Ouercut -doll. WBOXITCold CAUF011 LIVE OAK Single Trunk l Oty.21 r. S y+.A' PALMS 1 �8,. �`y Phoena dac MHera 18-20 Ht. DATE PALM Oty:22 Q ¢ WOAhlnptonb robufta IB'-W HI. MEXICAN FAN PALM ply:JD �' M MEgI1RRANEAN PAN PALM pN:OA Chamoeroq hume l 1 B'•20 Ht. mM m m Q Q Q SCREEN SHRU83 SIZE/QUANIR9 • •PbWoenJOOm- 5 00.1 pfy:57 WEE1fING il Q _ SHRUBS NAME SIZE/OVAMRY r TORCH GBea z Torch Glow 5 Gd, ON:00 /y'� M TORCH GLOW BOUGAINVILLEA W Z W W C D IS RI)l F Pu RADISEherrin 5 Gd.I Oty:00 Co BIRD o PARADISE ;K Calfonda coefornlca 5 Gd.I ON:00 BAJA FAIRY DUSTER Simmondsio chinensis 5 Got.1 Oty:00 �..8. JOJOBA W • • + Dole.frutescens Sleua Neg.' 5 Gd.I QtY:00 BLACK DALEA • _r};{r HO SEE B vncosa 5 Gd. ON:00 EremopD BUSH EremopNb MU BUS o valentine' S Gd. ON:00 VALENTIT.—ma start U BUSH 5 Gal.I Oty:00 . ! ARIZONA YELLOW BELLS Leucophyllum candkium 7hundercbud'5 Gd.W.00 THUNDERCLOUD TEXAS SAGE Leucophy l un to-gotum 5 Gd.I ON:00 CHIHUAHUAN SAGE Senn.ortemltdas 5 Gd,I Oty:00 FEATHERY CASSIA GROUNDNO EERS I VINES s¢E/OUANrIrr W Q Lontonomontevidenas I Gd.l QN:00 PURPLE TRAILING LANTANA Lantana camas'New Gold' 1 Gd.I ON:00 NEW GOLD LANTANA Cc UTTLEtemonJOHN NTTLEBRLlffle John' I Gd. Qty.00 LTRLE JOHN BOuncls'USH J Carasa grondRbro'Boxwood Beauty I Gd.I GN:00 * BOXWOOD BEAUTY NATAL PLUM ConvoHulus rnaorum I Gd, GN:00 GROUNDMORN[NO GLORY Daka gre99ii I Gd. ON:00 ' TRAILING INDIGO BUSH L, Myaporum P—ff fum I Gd.I ON:00 1 f$ TRAILING YOPORUM inoAS ROTRAILING ILING s ROSEMARY t'Proshofus' 7 Gd. ON:00 j Wede GROSEMARY YELLOW ffiloDOT I Gd. ON:00 YELLOW DOT �p O) PartheQUEEN'S WREATH ,J T OCstus sp. 3 Gd. Oty:00 HACIEN HACIENDA CREEPER L L ACCENTSNAM SIZE/QUANTBY Li BEAR ;ASS orpo 5 Gd.I Oty:00 BEAR GRASS _ PURPLE FOUNTAIN R 'Rudum' S Gd. Oty:00 PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS DESERT n wheeler 5 Gd,I Oty:00 SOTOL AgSave ametbana 5 Gd.I QtY:00 - CENTURY PLANT 't.. .., Agave desmehbna varegota 5 Gd.1 ON:00 • VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE "AA ` Agave US AGAVE 5 Gd. ON:00 Op—H.to—kais 3 Gd.I QN:00 _ OCTOPUS AGAVE BEAVERTAIL CACTUS OCOTILLOerb S dent EACH I pN:00 RED YUCCA dbra 5 Gd. ON:00 /M�� //y�fP''\� spera pare' W ¢ W f' BLUE YUCCA 15 Gd. QN:00 'i LOW VOLTAGE SITE LIGHTING Aj/�' NAME OUANTRY `V ` 4 I.ED.UPUGHT RREES,-BY SOLLOS UNDSCAPE I d8 UU V O LIGMING PRODUCT k:BC8065-TB m INT �M �y� I�, L.1 D.LOUVERED W ALL LIGM-BY FXLCOM 66 I E `-' t•J CJ PRODUCT#:LF-ILED-DG �y� -' ' BOLLARD LIGHT(MANUFACTURER TBD) IO jQ W W ' T H N O PRODUCT,f:iBD MA•C'•LI•_E L2 MAC LINE L2 PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT IMANUFAC7URER TBDi 98 i. PRODUCT R:TSD ' M�JCHLINE�3 - - - � � .� +° LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTE:IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO UTILIZE THE LATEST rNLOW-VOLUME,HIGH EFFICIENCY DRIP IRRIGATION 0" 10' 20' 40' &SPRAY EQUIPMENT,ALONG WITH SMART SCALE: 1"=20'-0" CONTROLLER/FLOW SENSING&WEATHER STATION SHEEP 2 of 4 The arrangements depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose THE SANDS B HUMPHREYS : PARTNERS ■ ■ ARCHITECTS L.P. are the sole property of Humphreys only.Revisions may occur due to further• Bimensions t PARTNERS a Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorifies and building code analysis. NEW CITIES INVESTMENTAlpha•F.f 11 D. 41 1 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only. Refer to surveys and civil f fmarketing@humphreys.com Without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. March • ■ 1 ■ ■ e I DALLAS CHARLOTTE P•R ORLEANS NORFOLKORLANDO PHOENIX s _ PLANT LEGEND —_"— MATCHLINE L2 MA C LINE L2 TREE AME �P MAC H L I N E L3 _ Pa kbaoMa x Omed Museum 3a Box 3 Ca./ — �..} i • A. p DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE Single Trunk I ON:63 y - 7 PU TREE Du Single Trunk I City:22 co • Plsfacb chlnensh 36"Box/J'Cd./ C"IN. PISTAC.E Single Tnx*I City:38 -x - 0.1D tMa ponkubfa Z4'SkI 'Cd./ GOLDENRAIN TREE Single Trunk I ON:./ nE W pbn MESA 2x"Box/T Cep./ • ^ ` TEXAS HONEY MESQUITE Single Trunk I Col .iL Lyslloma mkropnHb 2a•Boa/T Cd./ FERN OF THE DESERT $Ingle Trunk I City.13 s o • Sopnom secuMmoro 24"BOX/2'CaIJ Q Q TEXAS MOUNTAIN LAUREL MuM Trunk l Gfy.43 Aeaeb anew 2e"110x12-Cd./ MULGA ACACIA $hple Think I City:A INDbAN OSEWOOD Single Tnmk l Ory:N Oleo eu,LL 1 1111, 2A"Box/7 Cold.�,: :.:-M•- WAN HI OLIVE Single Trunk I ON:21 yeCIO Ouer-Zolla 36"Box/3'Cd./ ✓-__- .. ..-. - :- CALIFORNIA WE OAK Slnple Troft I City:21 PALMS •• • ♦ a a t3> 2SPa7TIIP Pholl dxMnero I6-201 Hl. e N N _ , DATE oshNpl ,obnro IIT 20 N? f , - _ MEXICAN FAN PALM City:30 \..J L) Cnomonop,humuU IBdC HI, M M M � � � �} [M'1 MfDIfERRANEAN MN IALM Oly:IH m e< O Wa Q SCREEN SHRUBS •Ikla benpmino SGd. City:37 WEEPING FIG SHRUBS NAME SIZE/OUAMRY Bougoiminea.Toch caw' 5, 1 Qty 00 TORCH GLOW BOUGAINVILLEA C—ITORCH iLO BOUGnla 5 rd.I Cry:00 RED BIRO OF PARADISE C.1r.ara C.0-ks 5 Gol,I ON:DO BAJA FAIRY DUSTER Simmondsia chinensis 5 Gal.I Div:00 JOJOBA 4, Ys Dales trutesc m Sierra Negro' 5 Gd.I QtY 00 BLACK DAL EA Oodonaeo ts— 5 Gd.I Otv:00 HOPSEED BUSH E. ph#.macubto Valentine' 5 GoU I ON:00 e VALENTINE EMU BUSH Tecoma ztom 5 Gd.I ON:DO ARIZONA YELLOW BELLS r Leueophyllum oandidum'Thun,1'ck Ld'5 Gd,I Dry:00 THUNDERCLOUD TEXAS SAGE CN d N Leucophyllum bevigeturn 5 Gd.I ON.00 U M M \ Senn.HUAN SAGE L.L3 LLI `J FEATH arremiSSIA 5 Gd. ON:OD FEATHERY CASSIA GROUNDCOVERS I VINES NAME SIZE/QUANTTY Lontona montevidema I Gal.I ON:00 '- PURPLE TRAILING-man UNIANA Lont_s NEW GOLD LANTANew Gab' I Gd.I ON:00 NEW GOLD IAMANA M t V M UREJOHN BOTT UH John' ON 00 U L.B.J m f l m m m `�' Carba OD BEAUrT NATAood Beauty 1 Gd. ON:ao `./ BOXWOOD BEAUTY NATAL PLUM ConvoNWus cneorum 1 Gd. ON:00 rt GR DaOUND MORNING GLORY les greggli 1 Gd. ON:00 - TRAILING INDIGO BUSH r- - r RANNG MYY Pffff'RUM rn I Gd. ON:00 Rosmannus othclndrs Prostrotw' I Gd.I QN'.00 TRAILING ROSEMARY C� Q M 1 YELLOWOT Dtribbato Gd.l QN'00 (. A,hg bptopus 3Go.I QN:00 IM QUEEN'S WREATH Parmenoc¢nrs sp. 3Gd.I QN:00 s' •.�r ----- -- ! ACCENTSHACIENDA CREEPER NAME SIZE/OVAMRY E F--- Nolino mrcracorpo 5 Gd. ON:00 4 e e BEAR GRASS Pen n8@ILnhsetoceum'Ru&LPn' SGd. QN:00 PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS DasYkion wheelen 5 Gal.I Qty:00 DESERT SOTOL Agove americans 5 Gal.I ON:00 CENTURY PLANT Agove desm.ttion voieg,to 5 Go.I ON:00 VA M M Ago-vkn0o na00TH AGAVE 5 Go.I ON'00 Q Q OCTOPUS AGAVE BEAU E s tpsil 3 Gd. ON:00 BEAVERIAK C.ACTUS ,b eria splendens EACH I QN'.00 OCOTILLO RED YUCCA parvxloa 5 Gd. QN'.00 Yucca ngida IS Gd.I ON-00 PLAYGROUND r BLUE YUCCA Y U V LOW VOLTAGE SITE LIGHTING �F _r NAME QUANTITY V ~ m O� L.E.D.UPLIGHT ITREESI-BY SOLLOS LANDSCAPE I 48 - MEN -., UGMING I PRODUCT e:BCB065-TB L.PRODUCCT eERFD i BY F%LCOM 66 WALLUGH- ED DG WADING POOI -, ♦O PRODVCTeGBD-NUFACTIRERTBD) 10 LOBO vt. I PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT(MANUFACTURER iBD) 98 MA CHLINE L6- MWHLINE43 LOW VOLTA LTA GE TBD -� T-i GE SITE LIGHTING NAME QUANTITY MATCHLINE L4 LIGHTING I PRODUCT"I BCB065-iB ATC L4 :; - LED UPLIGH(TREES(-BY SOLLOS LANDSCAPE a8 jib • O LED LOUVERED WALL PRODUCT#UF-IED-DGGM-BY fXL.COM 66 LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTE:IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO UTILIZE THE LATEST O B-UAROUGM(MANUFACTIIII. l 10 LOW-VOLUME,HIGH EFFICIENCY DRIP IRRIGATION PROSTRIAN TBD 0' Loy 20' 40' N &SPRAY EQUIPMENT,ALONG WITH SMART O PEDESTRIAN ELGHIIMANUFACiURERTBDI 98 PRODUCT;:TBD SCALE: I"=20'-U' CONTROLLER/FLOW SENSING&WEATHER STATION SHEET 3of4 e HUMPHREYS PARTNERS THE SANDS The arrangements depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose HUMPHREYS : PARTNERS L 1RCHITECTS L.P.are the sole property of Humphreys only.Revisions may occur due to further kr n from Alpha5339 •oimensions .E 11 Dallas. 41 1 1 &Partners Architects.LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis. NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS h­,h,­v not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only. Refer to surveys and civil F Emarketing@humphreys.com Marchlolnof"'Ine Without its mitten permission drawings for technical information and measurements. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX I'LAINI LCLbONLJ TREES MAC H LI N E L4-6- M H LI N -NA SQE/ UANF Y M _ Parkinson-.x'Deser/Museum' 36"Bow3"Cd./ — L DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE Slnple Trunk I City,63 ATC L4 MATC H l l N E L4 I puana llPu 36 6owa Cd./ • �NPU TREE Single Trunk I Cry:22 - M Pbbab chlnensls 36"Bow7' :' / CHINESE PISTACHE Slnpls Tnmk I Osy:3B KoelreWrMa panlcubta 2A"Box/7'Cd./ GOLDENRAIN TREE Single Trunk I W.43 - • r i,•. ♦l i I S • P.,r pbnewosa 24"Box/7 Cal./ 7E% NONEY pMESOUNE Single Trunk I City.29 FERIN OF THE rDESNEllT Single Trunk)Ory:d13 Saphora ucund;Hom 24"Bow7 Cd./ TE%AS MOUNTAIN LAUREL MUM Trunk l City:43 MM Md' d' MULGA ACACIA Slnae Trull I Oily.30 �- DaWerpb sWoo 24"Boz/2'Cd./ M INDIAN ROSEWOOD Slnpk TAmk Cry:M __..--- ^• ' B.,n Oka europoea'Swon MW 24"Box/7'Cold SW AN MILL FRURLE530WE Single Trunk I OM 21 Oum u;ogdolla 36"Box/3"Cdd M/) CALIFORNIA LIVE OAK Single Trunk I Ory:21 W a a W rN, (CN a -e PALMS y v C) `. PhoenhaoCMBero 1B'-20'Mt. DATE PALM Gft 22 Waxhlnptonb robusfa I BAD`Mr. 4 Mn/� M MEXICAN FAN PALM W 30 W t I q k ehamaeropi hU 111 111,20 Mi. MlDBlRRANlAN FAN PALM W.G .• .. - .:.. .. .-. - -.1 -: a - SCREEN SHRUBS sardiQU Try - \ Fkl9 ben)omina SGat.1 Gtr.57 *WEEPING FIG SHRUBS � � � NAME SIZE/QUANTITY 8ougamvdka x Torch Gbw' 5 Gd.I Cry:00 TORCH GLOW BOUGAINVILLEA _• - Z Coesaiwnw odchemma 5 Gd.I City:OD O • W RED BIRD OF PARADISE CalAandra cabtomica 5 Gd.I Qty 00 Cr N BAJA FAIRY DUSTER LJ (V,i simmPnas-.cniner� sGa I Ory:ao JOJO DoieaBf fescens'Skna Negro' S Gd y co.I Ot L BUCK DALEA Dodonaea vAcosa 5 Gd.I Cry:00 HO SEED BUSH Ere—phla macublo Valentine' 5 Gd.I Oty:OD .. VALE EMU BUSH Tecoma slant 5 Gal.I QM 00 ARIZONA YELLOW BELLS L • ' _ �, ::'r7' Leuco�Cum candidum'Thundercloutl•S GaL I Qry:OD iHUN LOUD TEXAS SAGE Le phyflum I—Vatum 5 Gd.1 city 00 I - CHIHUAHUAN SAGE a y1 e _ - 0 Fenno FEATHERY CASSIA 5 Gd.1 CITY:00 F�`J VV (7 ,� 't' 0 Senn.RY CASSIA *-1 I (L 4J '` ( -- '` ^3- GROUNDCOVERS VINES - 4•.. .�- - NAME SIZE/QUA _ _<- -.�..-_..�.-�--. ......r_.-..�-.-. .w.. .-»� .�-.--..-.. -.. ��- --.-»-'��_- �- -r-�._ "'" Lantern ontevidenm IGol.l ON:00 PURPLE TRAILING LANTANA Lantana camora'New Gold' 1 Gal,I Cry:00 NEW GOLD LANTANA LANDSCAPE PLAN CalEJOHN BOTTLEe'LINk John' Gd.1 GUY.00 Co agra 807TLEBRUSH Coma graridi/lwa'Boxwootl Beauty I Gd.I Oty:00 10, �f 40 BOXWOOD BEAUTY NATAL PLUM convowww cneon,m I Gd.I QM OD GROUND MORNING GLORY SCALE: 1 -29-0 RANNG INDIGO BUSH I Gal I Cry'OD MYOPorum m P-0.9 i Gd.I city:00 TRAILING MYOPORUM Rosmarinus oHicirKft'Prostrottrs I Gd.I city.00 TRAILING ROSEMARY Wede* Kl I Gd.I OM 00 YELLOW DOT 20"z 20^PRECAST An igorwn IeP opus Oty:00 CONCRETE CAP QUEEN'S WREATH ELEVATION # s-6• PadherDtA CREEPER 3Gd.1 City:00 I 16"x 16"z 72"COLUMN HACIENDA CREEPER �w/B•x W,is cMu ACCENTS LOCO;FINISH MID NAME SIZE/QUAMITY GATE HINGE Noma miooc®pa 5 Gd.I Oty:OD 6• 2"x 2"z 1•TUBE STEEL SELF SLAM (TOP B BOTTOM RAILS) BEAR GRASS SELF CLOSING PennBetum setaceLm'Rubnlm' S Col.I Qtr.00 GATE MECHANISM PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS CKETS @ 3-]^O.C. MAN[SM j"z]"z 14 GAUGE TUBE Dosybion wheeler) 5 Ga.I Gty 00 T STEEL TYP.WELDED ON 2" CENTURY PLANTHORIZONTAL TUBE STEEL Agave ame6— 5 Gd.I City,00 (PICKETS TOE WANT) gave desmettiona vorkgota 5 Gd.I City:00 PE TOP OF WALL A 2"x 2".jj"TUBE STEEL VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE (TOP&BOTTOM RAILS), Agave v9moriniana 5 Gd.I pry:W MIRED CORNERSOunW OCTOPUS AGAVE 51p LOCK(4'-0•ABOVE FINISH GRADE) BEAVERTAILCACTUS 3 God.1 City:OD Fouqui9" MID RAIL,I-^x 1 j" OCOTILLO splendens EACH I City:W TUBE STEEL j j"z OCOTILLO Hesperabe porviflora 5 Gd.I City:W 4"x 4^x I"TUBE STEEL RED YUCCA Yucca rigida 15 Gd.I cri 00 B BLUE YUCCA STEEL PICKETS @ 3 3"O.C, 0" 2'z 2^x USE STEEL (TOP B ORNEWAILS)' PAI S), LOW VOLTAGE SITE LIGHTING QUANTITY 2 __ MIRED CORNERS tYP�- ADIACENT PAVING - 3'6" -k 1'-z",F (REFER TO HARDSCAPE PUNS) O LIGL.E.D.NUPUGHT ITREESI-BY SOLLOS LANDSCAPE 11,.1 HTI PRODUCT Y:BCB065-TB 4' 4•, _ CONQRETE FOOTING G FINISH GRADE ® L.E.D.LOUVERED WALL LIGM-BY I.L.C.- 66 COMPACTED SUBGIRADE PRODUCT..:LF-I LE, NOTES: 2F O FIR ODUCTC ER e:-TBDMANUFA.TURTBDI 10 1.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS OF COMPLETE GATE ASSEMBLY,GATE,POST, AND MOUNTING HARDWARE;FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT(MANUFACTURER TBD) 98 2.WELD AND GRIND SMOOTH ALL JOINTS. PRODUCT•:TBD -A PRIMER COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL SURFACES,FOLLOWED BY A TOUCH-UP COAT ON L VOLTAGE SITE LIGHTING ALL NAM QU DNS,WELDS, O ANY DAMAGED/RUSTED AREAS.A SECOND COAT SHALL BE ANTIFY O L.ED.. UPLIHT(TREES)-BY SOLLOS LANDSCAPE 148 APPLIED,FOLLOWED BY(2)COATS OF BUCK PAINT. UGMTINGGPRODUCT e:11CB065-iB TUBE STEEL PERIMETER FENCE W/ GATE © L.E.D.LOUVERED WALL LIGHT-BY FXLCOM 66 PRODUCT►:LF-1 LED-DG SCALE:"=1'-0" NOTE:IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO UTILIZE THE LATEST O EML--LIGHT IMANUFACTURERTBDI 10 LOW-VOLUME,HIGH EFFICIENCY DRIP IRRIGATION RO TBD PEDESTRIANrRIAN POLE LIGHT(MANUFACTURER TBD( 98 &SPRAY EQUIPMENT,ALONG WITH SMART ® PRODUCT It TBD CONTROLLER/FLOW SENSING&WEATHER STATION SHEET 4of4 The" THE SANDS HUM■ ■ e PARTNERS ■ ■ ARCHITECTS L.P. • ements icted EYS • are the sole property of Humphreys only.Revisions may occur due to further&Partners Architects,LIP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis-tion from Dions PARTNERS Tw • Road, 11 Dallas. rl 1 1 •4 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only.Refer to surveys and civil NEW CITIES INVESTMENT • • •1 ON \ \ •• me \ rtt': \ ON \ ` A I� i• IN CM WA Y 9 rza ® + If. %3? rH FFf © zo,n L; tsu111PHREYS f PARTNERS-t ARCHITECTS, LP THE SANDS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The arrangements depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose are the sole property of Humphreys only. Revisions ma and buildingy occur due to code analysis. Dimensions fuller investigation from &Partners Architects.LP and may regulatory authwifies NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas.TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only. Refer to surveys and civil - wWW.hurrlphreys.rbrrt marketln9@humphreys.com (�} without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. March " h, 2018 PALM DESERT, CA HPA#16341 DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LASVEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX THE SANDS, Palm Desert . PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT#16431 USABLE LAND AREA: 18.13 (+/-ACRES) DENSITY ON USABLE ACREAGE: 21.8 DU/AC NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS: 15 TOTAL UNITS: 396 CLUBHOUSE: 9.500 SF COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: 237.000 SF COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 297,000 SF PRVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDE[ 105 SF PER UNIT PHASE Z; PHASE 1 i NAVE TYPE NET BALC GROSS NO-G-AL %EAUNIT'VPE YOYALNE7 TOTAL PKGRA710READ S?ALLSREQD 15 0 PHASE 1 3 2 Q 1 J BUILDINGS 1-7 A3 18R11 BA 899 140 1 039 45 55 ae, 40.455 46755 1 50 675 w A4 1 BR11 BA 850 70 920 46 39.100 42.320 150 69 A41 1BR/1BA 615 0 695 *B3b(VLI) 2BR2BA 915 80 985 22 19.65 985 0 1 0 1 50 2 00 2 * B3(VLI) 2BR12BA 915 70 985 22 20.130 21.670 200 44 13 0 i 84-L 26R/2BA 1 140 125 1 265 40 as 6e%, 45.600 50 600 200 80 84-U 2BR/2BA 1.308 125 1,433 28 36.624 1 40 124 200 56 PHASE 2 1 PHASE 1 1 SUB-TOTAL 204 100.0% 196,354 1 217,744 352 PHASE 2 BUILDINGS 8-15 A3 1BR/1BA 899 140 1 039 34 42 7% 30.566 35.326 150 51 A4 1 BR11 BA 850 70 920 32 27200 29 440 1 50 48 *A4b(VLI) 1BR/1BA 615 80 695 16 9.840 11.120 1.50 24 * B3(VLI) 2BR12BA 915 70 985 14 12.810 13.790 200 28 B4-L 2BR/2BA 1.140 125 1 265 40 44 8% 45.600 50 600 200 80 PARKING PROVIDED B4-U 2BR/2BA 1 308 125 1 433 32 41.856 1 45.856 2.00 64 'PE No. * C2(VLI) 3BR/2BA 1 1.304 75 1 379 5 12 5% 6,520 6.895 200 10 GARAGES 228 C2 3BR/2BA 1.304 1 75 1379 19 24.776 26.201 200 38 CARPORTS ?15 SUB-TOTAL 192 100.0% 199.168 219,228 343 UNCOVERED 156 TOTAL 396 395,622 436,972 695 TOTAL 699 OVERALL UNIT MIX, PHASE 1 AND 2 PLUMBING FIXTURES COUNT NAME YVPE NE- NO-o-AL .o No. VLI MARKET RATE NAME KIT SINKS LAVS/SINKS SHOWERS TUBS WATER CLOSETS A3 1 BR/1 BA 899 79 79 A3 79 158 79 79 A4 1BR/1BA 850 78 492% 195 78 A4 78 78 78 78 *A4b(VLI) 1BR/1BA 615 38 38 A4b(VLI) 38 38 38 38 B3 2BR/2BA 915 1 1 1 B3 1 1 1 * B3(VLI) 2EIR/20A 915 36 36 B3(VLI) 36 72 72 72 BAI-L 2BR/2BA 1.140 80 44 7% 177 80 B4-L 80 240 80 160 160 B4-U 2BR12BA 1308 60 60 B4-U 60 180 120 120 * C2a(VLI) 3BRi2BA 1,304 5 1 5 C2a(VLI) 5 15 10 10 C2 3BR/2BA 1,304 19 61% 1 24 19 IC2 19 57 38 38 /► /� TOTAL I 396 1 100.0x 1 396 79 317 TOTAL 396 839 80 595 596 L1 —L THE SANDS PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. • / rt / Road. .• ---------------- sy., ...mow.` r .. r,. rit >� ririmh "— ipti titiuiintii ..'1•i `� ,`. -..in . - • * � V I � f .. .� � ,l' IIIII u u — 1111 10, • � ��`umnrii I nnnf !�� �!_� ,� : :: �aam . hnnnn 1 W lye ,;� �! ltmnnm m omiig - ma �. NNW or tiiall I' �itoil ' lul+ 3 jay, mn9 I JAI iT i -4 • ' / • • THE SANDS T 2�,s b�'Its & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The arrangements depicted herein Architectural Conceptual site Wens are for feas�d'�iry Wrpose are the so'e propeq of Humphreys or Rewsiors may occur due to further investigation from 8 Partners Architects.LP and may regulatory authorities and bui-ding code analysis Dirrenslors 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas.TX 75240 (972)701.9636 (972)701-9639 rot be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic irtert only Refer to surveys and cmi March 7, 2018 H PA#16341 www humphreys.com marketing dhumphreys.00m without its written permssion drawings for technical information and measunemen s DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX 4 r THE SANDS ® 20'3 by HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP The are olements proetyofHedherey Arconly concieptual dplans ue rtherinasogatfrose NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are the sole property of Humphreys onty. Revisions may occur due to further irnestgation from &Partners Architects.LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only. Refer to surveys and civil H PA#16341 www humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. October 2 4, 2 016 DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX -z1ti" i a— r •6. r THE SANDS ® , HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP TheaeeolepropetyofHum herein ey onchitectural conceptual evisinsmayocculedansare for erinvsDgaWfrose NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are the sole property of Humphreys only. Revisions may occur due to funkier inves�gation from a Partners Archi:ecu.LP and may regulatory authorities and funding code analysis. Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road.Suite 300 Dallas.TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 not be oureproduced in any form shown are of strategic intent Dory Refer to surveys and awl October t o b e r 2 4, 2 016 H PA#16341 www humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com withoutrswilenpennsswn drawings totechnical information and measuremen�. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LASVEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX r _ =r oil T _ C I = ry a It C C 1 � THE SANDS 0 20t3 by Ncep edhYf a PARTNERt ARCHiILCsS. Li NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The he ogepro e d ofcHlu herey only Reural ns may oc site plans are for nv sidliry purpose are me so'e property at Humphreys only Revisions may occur due to further investigation horn d Partners Architects.LP and may regulatory aumornies and building code anatysa.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas.TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701.9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intert only Refer to surveys and art! March 3 2017 H PA#16341 _ www humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com wdnout its written permission drawings for technical information and measuremens DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX ■iP r1. r\. t ■ t.■ I THE SANDS e;ir.i h HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS. LP The arrangements depicted b"r Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasidiypvrpose NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are the so a p•operry of Humphreys Orly Rev isions visions may occur due to further invesVilion hom &Partners Archrecs,LP and may regulatory authonties and bitdrig code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701.9636 (972)701-9639 no:be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic frier:only Refer to su"ys and cmi October 2 4 2 016 H PA#16341 www humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com witnout its wn:ten permission drawings for technical informa5on and measiremens. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX -- - u :. - ftttt THE SANDS - T < t,. 9Ue her PARTgE1K ARCHITECTS, LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The arrangements depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for leasil>tliy purpose are the so a popery of Humphreys orgy. Revisions may occur due to furher inves5gabon from &Partners A/Chltects.LP and may regulatory authorfues and budding code analysis.Dimensbrs t 5339 Alpha Road,Suite phr Dallas,TX 75240 (972)70 eys.co (972)701.9639 rot be reproduced m any form shown are of a strategic inter,only Refer to surveys and cmi March 2 2017 H PA#�634 www hu nphreys.co n market ng@humphreys.wm witnout its waxen permission drawings for technical information and measaremens. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX a l/ M ME y a m e Ing1 1 R sA LEI ss���s 1 . 1 1�� 1 ��i �� i�■ �� ICI _c 0 IOWA THE SANDS 7 '3 c HUMPHREYf & PARTNERf ARCHITECTS. LP are ,eehere,n only evisinsmayoccurduynsare for e,,nvsVatioufrose NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are me so f Humphreys only Revisions may occur due to further investgatpn from B Partners ArcNects,LP and may regulatory authorities and banding code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Roac,Suite 300 Dallas.TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701.9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strateg,C mien onty Refer to surveys and civil March 3 201 H PA#16341 www humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com witnout itswrilen permission drawings for technical information and measaremens. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX � u i 1 i-W I 1 ■ h. _ Mil THE SANDS ® zotn by XUMPNRteYf & PARMIIIIs aRonc spLC �. LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITE S L.P. The arrangements depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose are the sole property of Humphreys only. Revisions may occur due to further investigation from &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75250 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only. Refer to surveys and civil H PA#16341 www humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. October 24, 2016 DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX ■■ a■ ■ ■s III ii i.......... I' ■gi i I I'I II ■i i �I i — ii ii II III.. — _ — .�III.� — ■■ ■■ — �i���l ■■ ■■ — - ------------ ..III.. ..III■■ :III nn ::Illu'i �r iii��1 n"I��1 ssn: 11 u� lu 11!I 11 I1111 ::� ,,, ■ ■� ■■ ■■ — _ ., — ICI - � ,,, — - - THE SANDS - C, 0'5 Cy HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS. LP The are the of Humphrey ArChonly. Rturalconceptualrilepensareer invsibitirypurpose NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are me so propery of Humphreys only. Revisrons may occur due to Furher investlgatbn hom &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authonties and bui ding code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 rot I reproduced in ary form shown are of a strategic intert only Refer to surveys and cml March 2 2017 H PA#16341 www humphreys.com market!ng@humphreys.com wnnout as wn:ten permission drawings for technical in`orma5on and measuremen5. , DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX it LI _ oo L Jr L J 1 THE SANDS 20n by IIUMPMRte & .ARTNERf AR -iTLCS. LP T NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The artangements depicted hereinei n Architectural conceptual site plays are for feasidtity purycs_ are the sole property of Humphreys only Revisers may occur due to further investigation from &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis. Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only. Refer to surveys and cmi March 3 2 017 H PA#16341 _ www humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurement DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX 'rr■�n I�j '�' u.#Irt. rrr�i u.ra.. run .u.r.. ii i� r■. ..■n �i�rrr: t!rrn. p rriR r rr,u .rr.ii urrr. rrsA n■rr' THE SANDS a RUepicteREYf PARTNERS hitW ARCiialconcTECTS. LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The arrangements depicted herein Architequral conceptual site plans are for feas�di�y purpose are the so a property of Humphreys only Revisions may occur due to further investigation from &Partners Architects.LP and may regulatory authorities and banding code analysis Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 rot be reproduced in any form sham are of a strategic mtert oq Refer to surveys and c ml October 2 4 2 016 H PA#16341 www humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without dsw tenpertnssbn drawings for technical infoma5onand measaremens DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LASVEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX S�P1giMNNPI�PNPIRIIi+PPPMW�PNl�iNMMN�I�PPI�1�I�1�Iq�NPP IgiPi�i�PiMNMMMrNNP{1411Nq�Ytl�MVIMPVN � IggqN�p!r�NPI•1�l� �� �� III ,• I�1 ' __ �� �� ,. III ' 111 _ innnri - t - 1 THE SANDS 11 20,3 by RUMPNREYSmphre & PARTNERe ARCs&d yoccuf NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The artangements depVed herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose are the sole property of Humphreys Doty. Revisions may occur due to further investigation from &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorities and building rode analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only Refer to surveys and civil March 2 2 017 H PA#16341 - www.humphreys.com markebng@humphreys.corn without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦'♦� ■ '` �i r woman OEM r-1 �_1—��—_ u■■■■ t '� �r i■i■iiii----- / -■■■�■■ ' — r •••iiimomom iiiii ■�■ �/O D O O t■r v ('► ♦♦ ■■■■■■mmam■u■■■ n■■n■■■■■■MEEE ■ ii�iYiii ♦♦♦�♦♦ .•a• � IE�1No 11 ♦ ; 1■■■■■■■■■O■■ ■■■/■ i ♦♦♦� �o���o���i _ �►���� � � ICI WE • : 1 : aa • THE SANDS NUMPIIREYS & PARiNERs ARCHITECTS, LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS Thehesoarrangements proetyofHdherein Architectural nsmconceptual yocsite pansare for nvs:gatpurpose HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are the so'e property of Humphreys only. Revisions may occur due to further inves',ga6on horn a Partners Archi:ects.LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis, Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701.9636 (972)701-9639 rot be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic insert only. Refer to surveys and cmi H PA#16341 www.humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without its written permissm drawings for technical information and measuremens October 24, 2016 DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX NEW II E -- -- / L] THE SANDS T 2013 by NUMPNRETS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The arrangements ty of Humphreys here y Architectural conceptual site plans are for nv sibgiy afropurpose are the sole property of Humphreys only. Revisions may occur due to further investigation horn &Partners Architects.LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road.Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701.9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intert only. Refer;o surveys and civil H PA#16341 www.humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without its written permssan draivi gs for technical information and measurements. O C tO b e r 2 4, 2 016 DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX Z: AW fit•. - M� " 'P11 - � � nnm =— nnnn I L is !n I nnni riri�ii I ' M i♦ 71, iririr innm nnrini inii ::....... ......... ......... A-01s ,• �lA-1M j l R,.� • .. ......... THE SANDS - T o .n :; MUMPBREYt & PARTNER: ARCHITECTS. LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The arrangements depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasilHi�.y purpose are the sole property of Humphreys only. Revisions may occur due to further investigation from 8 Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authonties and building code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701.9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic interl only Refer to surveys and civil October 2 4 2 6 H PA#16341 www.humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without as written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX �. .III III i III II �II I .,F7r _ i I � iri.ii..i. �riririri rinnri FEW inn! r �. ,, lilflfyfli. s �nrinri _� y in�ynn It �r�ririni nnm j ,r. „ AAl ..::. .Ill.. �.�..�. ..!,f"w 10i..4 .:, ICI THE SANDS ® zo,3 bi NUMPNREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The arrangements depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose are the sole property of Humphreys only.Revisions may occur due to further investigation from &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-963E (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only Refer to surveys and civil H PA#16341 www.humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.am without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. October 24, 2016 DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS N:)RFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX i i�-ii��u I F�1i�1 ( i�1 -���� �i��1 �ii� ii Innon ininm din Ila I ............ 1 ' � i it ( �� �ihs�i �nnn ' I W THE SANDS ®2111��tNIIJINPNRM PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP 1_,ie a. s depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose are the sole propoerty,of Humphreys only.Revisionsmay occur due to further invesbption from NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis.Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in arty form shown are ofa strategic intent only Refer to surveys and civi! 341 humphreys.com markebng@humphreys.com without i's written permission October 24, 2016 HPA#16 www.humphreys.com for technical information and measurements. ft DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX r i iD `E� i0 �r 11 L J wool PX6711 MOM- ONE • i 11 l 1 THE SANDS HUMPNRE vv PARTNERS ARPfITECS. LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The ananre�:- :�.�epc'ed herere+n Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasAi�ty W'p� are the so:e p�cpery of Humphreys only. Revisions may occur due to further invesbgabon from &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory aithor bets and building code analysis.Dimenslors 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701.9636 (972)701.9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only Refer to surveys and rivi H PA#16341 www.humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without its whiten permission drawings for technical information and measurements. October 2 4, 2 016 CLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX I I� 1 THE SANDS e 2C13 cy XUMPHREYS PARTNERS ARCHITECTS. LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS The heso'arrangements property edhhre Architectural Revisions conceptual nsmayocsiteplansarefornvs�6rypurpose HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are the sale property of Humphreys only. Revswns may Dour due to farther investigation from &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis. Dimensions 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701.9636 (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only. Refer to surveys and civil October 24. 2 016 H PA#16341 _ �w+w.humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com is without written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. CLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX 1•a• •�r���/ it ��! ���.� ;r;w . �w•i •.� VA S:17 . /'�"OI J. ram♦ �.._. ...-T_ ';31 i Pa Mo- k%9_ R v - Ni •• � .._ `,� .._ — -`—w1 �, a � .._ s �5���`�wLs . ` _ _ a �•%�� `�i —�, Rc•`-. - '.t'-- `� � ❑.y !.' '� yw' \i 71:\.�„ �a �t �i.It1\� !•=. +).1\r . s.•.���- ► \ia �� �.,.fit,`►, 1 \ \` y ,� q b o ■ r 1 R ci - 1, 11 11�� ��� �I Ilk �� ails _ y� ,... �� ��L,tLF •.� / I, .mil f,•�� �� 1 > t - r • �' ':;� '�,� �I,r �i�:� !� `' ;. I �� ILi'i!, �I I ��' �i�•i;, !� �' �` �Il �;a���� h �' � `f'f. ',�� ' � +f l■L(■ stli 1k!'la: I ! If. .1, Vt ? ! ..�.� - � �•� `` I :�� - ��1.. 'S. �� i� (. - Si.. .r. �r� �� iT'..�. '( ..�, ..e1Yr1.`Y � ♦ .. �M� ��� ♦i\•3 i � -t I THE SANDS - T 2013 by NUMPNREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. The anangemen's depicted herein Architectural conceptual site plans are for feasibility purpose are the sole property of Humphreys only.Revisions may occur due to further investigation from &Partners Architects,LP and may regulatory authorities and building code analysis. Dimensons 5339 Alpha Road,Suite 300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701-9636 (972)701-9639 not be reproduced in any form shown are of a strategic intent only Refer to surveys and civil October 2 4 2 016 H PA#16341 w�wr.humphreys.com marketing@humphreys.com without its written permission drawings for technical information and measurements. [LAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX -1� rr ir r - - - i _ a» , f • THE SANDS t '' r. NUt"111 i do PAR1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS ARCHITECTS. LP are*seepTerytnts cocw fHj.-p re,n A nayo=& ftkftw �rou� NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are:�+e see Propery cf Hum treys ory Re„scrs may ooart due b Artlw mes:gason'rorr B Pews At&ri ;s.LPandmay rcgu!atoryairontesarobuaeirg Code ana;ysa Drwsors 5339Aip^.a Road.Su!e300 Dallas.TX 752401972;701-9636 (972)701-9639 r v tIe,eproated,n a^y form shown are o'a stralegc,rter:an) Refer x s.rveys and ar. *moot es wm;en March 3 2017 H PA#16341 www humphreys COm rnarkeGrtQ_humphrey5 COm pe^nason drawngsbrbdvMca�,nbrma9on aro meas,;ren+ars DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX OwwMldMrrlNf.91E nw1_R.r�ai.•'4.61/YlOtT rtalae IM,.p� 2T landscape buffer _ ■ - IM OR-- Nit- MI - 1- - - - - - ■`- - -MMM 1 a j 1 11 1 1 1 m i 1 T TO TD—LT1 1 W � - - - - - -1- - - - " -^- -1 — 1 w w 1 ■ ■1 a w o 1 1 v, 1 !R 1 1CD 1 .�d 1 1 00 n 1 on ON - - NE•W -= - - r - - � 1 we r� w 1 1 R 1 � ij N 1 1 1 —I am - - MINI - - - - - ■i N �° 52 13 1 1 1 1 Fla T 52 2 1 -- - - M- -;- MIL - - UP 1 1 Q 1 1 R A 1 Phase 2 —� _ ��_ '� ■1 Phase W SE 1 Q (D M IN i MINI MINI - MINI - - - - NIii � � ti g 5252 W ; 1 P —..... _ PMM 1 1 N N 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 1 - -D - - - - i MINIMINI- MINI - r_ MINI -- _ Cn 1 v f 1• - - MINI - - -� .� E m • z ; MINI NI -- MINI - - - - -� ; • ; 1 Jim 1 52 W - - - - - a; • 1SEg A, 8 1 1 • r - - - -- - - - - - - - - -1 1 ! 1 ■ 52 CO CD CD 1 • f - 1 1 1 1 1 1 R�1 `° �1 r• C ; � ;� 1 1 — 1 _ P - - - - - - -i - - - - - � 1 Fla 9.° W 592 R 1 Mm 1 IN IN IN ■ . . . 1 La W � $ W 1 M . aftwo M M UP GATE 0 1 � - MINI - - MINI - - - id T " • --1 ■ n • • 1 --1. -MINI- - '- MINI MINI MINI--- - - - r D - HOYLEY LANE =)L--- - - O o�,..y.r.nimrN srrc n.w_w.tom.o.o.m ad xvmtt ioaao�ut..vr., 2T landscape buffer 72 27 r —L' FI; wc !! 1 - CA L CD r, .�;n �" B��-i� T. nw ram- ? 7. cn N_ c� D CID i • J N .. r, O ICI L J DD mm DD mm rr HC", A A lJ N ' L g I 52 A 2 12 UT, p° N Phase 2 _ 1 ��'� Phase 1 -- - `♦ I t r. T t fl T 9 ! 1 1 �.I 1 1 I, `� � Phase 2 'Will Phase 1 m b - - D D -� D Cn on flat 592 i s tr s r, 1 III "Was / 1 Ji m CID i CID -� m 0 m S � noo 11'Ba W rn � � z 3► A I„ N N � �J m�Tl 1 i � I 1 . 3, m S m s y t LJ `/ a �i A A A ES r �► m ■ A - ■ N • U) s 0 D HOVLEY LANE • J BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST ADOPTED EDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CODES: ©1 • a O A 2016 CALFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. B.2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. O •••p• C.2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. D.2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. „�„ • E 2016 CALFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE. F.2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE. • : G.2016 CALFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE H.2016 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. • • • I. 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. 4 - �_"'•' •� "C - 2 AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL 8E INSTALLED AS REWIRED PER THE CRY D.87'-0" © N T.D 82'-0" 9 OF PALM DESERT CODE ADOPTION ORDINANCE 1265. 3. A DISABLED ACCESS OVERLAY OF THE PRECISE GRADING PLAN IS REWIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO p� •. }'s;> !J THE DEPT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY FOR PLAN REVIEW OF THE SITE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS w _ - - AS PER 2013 CSC CHAPTERS 11A&B(AS APPLICABLE)AND CHAPTER 10. !. ALL EXITS MUST PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO THE PUBLIC WAY(CBC 10275 i r _ r I - .a; 5. 1DETECTABLE WARNINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE REQUIRED PER CBC 11&705.,25 AND . ■ U v (e'[",.7( pq •• 11&705.1-2.2.THE DESIGNER IS ALSO REWIRED TO MEET ALL ADA REQUIREMENTS.WHERE AN ADA 9 � ♦ • REQUIREMENT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE ADA REQUIREMENT ® _- -- --- _..- • SHALL SUPERSEDE THE STATE REQUIREMENT. 4 6 PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO THE TRASH ENCLOSURE.THE TRASH ENCLOSURE IS '•------- ------- "-". REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE.PLEASE OBTAIN A DETAIL FROM THE DEPT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY. � K ® 7. PUBLIC POOLS AND SPAS MUST BE FIRST APPROVED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THEN SUBMITTED TO DEPT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY.POOLS AND SPAS FOR PUBLIC USE ARE REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE 8, ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL HAVE A CURRENT CITY OF PALM DESERT --L� BUSINESS LICENSE PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE PER PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE.TITLE 5. _ ( I 9. ALL CONTRACTORS ANDIOR OWNER-BUILDERS MUST SUBW A VALID CERTIFICATE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT PER r- __II � CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE,SECTION 3700. O • n Ee1 O If lam' C, 10. 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 ARCHITEC-URAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS N DETAIL ANY POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTIONS,SHADOWS,LIGHTING,LANDSCAPING,BACKGROUNDS OR OTHER REASONS THAT MAY rn",TYPE 21 2 STORY BUILDING- LEVEL 3 EXITING PLANS RENDER THE BUILDING ADDRESS SS UNRPY EADABLE SHALL 2BE ADDRESSED DURINGCODE HE PLAN N 15 ze REVIEW ��``JJ OM THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY COUNTER STAFF. 11 PLEASE CONTACT CHEfIE WILLIAMS,BUILDING PERMIT SPECIALISTS II,AT THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY(760-776E120)REGARDING THE ADDRESSING OF ALL BUILDINGS ANOOR SUITES ❑� 0 � # � � ❑� # - -- i -- • , �.. Al �r N.. A4 vi s p • d � : / � OOOO DD 0 OOOOOO O OOOOO a 4 APE 2- STORY BUILDING- LEVEL 3 EXITING PLANS z TYPE 1 and TYPE 2- BUILDINGS EXITING PLANS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS A— 1Q THE SANDS it HUMPHIRM & PARTNERS • • • : PARTNERS (, • • l • L.P. N� BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS ❑� �' i . O a • • 1. THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST ADOPTED EDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CODES: . r _ _ A 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. ❑� O B.2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. .o, C.2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. _ D.316 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. 1 E.2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE. ❑ + - --_- F.2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE. G.2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE #.L • '• : C2 H.2016 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. • • _ I. 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND ITS APPENDICES AND STANDARDS. 'D'78' •D•78-� _ 2. AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED PER THE CITY 77 OF PALM DESERT CODE ADOPTION ORDINANCE 1265. 3. A DISABLED ACCESS OVERLAY OF THE PRECISE GRADING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO `L _ '' THE DEFT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY FOR PLAN REVIEW OF THE SITE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AS PER 2013 CBC CHAPTERS 11A d B(AS APPLICABLE)AND CHAPTER 10. -�� 4. ALL EXITS MUST PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO THE PUBLIC WAY (CBC 1027.5 d 118-21)6) 5. DETECTABLE WARNINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE REQUIRED PER CBC 11B-705.1.2.5 AND -- L 11&7D5.1.2.2.THE DESIGNER IS ALSO REQUIRED TO MEET ALL ADA REQUIREMENTS.WHERE AN ADA T.D.8T- - m REQUIREMENT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,THE ADA REQUIREMENT - -. .D.87'-0" s I, SHALL SUPERSEDE THE STATE REQUIREMENT. �y .......... .......7 ---� ^ f....... ............� ' j,,,� I -84 ( -2 6. PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO THE TRASH ENCLOSURE.THE TRASH ENCLOSURE IS ^1 -- V REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE.PLEASE OBTAIN A DETAIL FROM THE DEPT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY. J' J 7 PUBLIC POOLS AND SPAS MUST BE FIRST APPROVED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THEN SUBMITTED TO DEPT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY.POOLS AND SPAS .....i a..... FOR PUBLIC USE ARE REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE 8. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL HAVE A CURRENT CITY OF PALM DESERT ...• - O O Oi BUSINESS LICENSE PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE PER PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE.TITLE 5. 9. ALL CONTRACTORS ANDIOR OWNER-BUILDERS MUST SUBMIT A VALID CERTIFICATE OF WORKER'S : _ COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT PER F �� CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE,SECTION 3700. 10. 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 O P__E�ZSTORY BUILDING - LEVEL 3 EXITING PLANS RENDER STHE BUIILLDINADDRESSEST A SOUUNREADABLE O SHALL LNCE 2B ADDRESSED DURING sEcE PLAN REVIEW F ROM SCALE THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY COUNTER STAFF. 11 PLEASE CONTACT CHERIE WILLIAMS,BUILDING PERMIT SPECIALISTS II,AT THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY(7%776b120)REGARDING THE ADDRESSING OF ALL BUILDINGS ANDIOR SUITES - I x ® "IR11 P..; .D.133' I 7'7 _ D.133'- IT.D..1140' 40' B4 ............ g o00 •• �J o o •• aoo '•'' z )TYPE 4-3 STORY BUILDING LEVEL 3 EXITING PLANS �:'W-'-V TYPE 3 and TYPE 4-BUILDINGS EXITING PLANS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS A— 1 9 THE SANDS : PARTNERS d . . ARCHITECTS L.P. II D. I 1 • . . ...• FOOD. AREA CALCULATIONS FIR 2 OCCUPANCY .. rrr . I I JI TOTAL LEVEL-1 AREA 10,948 SOFT WNA ACCORDING TO TABLE 504.4.TYPE VIL GROUP R2 ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE 2 Fff AREA-2 AOC TO TABLE X62,TYPE VB GROUPR2 At=7 OW SOFT(PER STORn R2 OCCUPANCY PER SECTION 501121 EQUATION 5-2 TOTAL ALLOWED FLOOR AREA PER LEVEL 14,000 SOFT Aaz(At+[NSXVJXSa TOTAL LEVEL-1 AREA 9,166 SOFT SPRINKELR SYSTEM IS AN NFPA 13R IN ACCORDANCE WITH CBC SECTION 903 3 12 R2 OCCUPANCY TOTAL ALLOWED FLOOR AREA PER LEVEL rrr •.. . ',OCCUPANCY TOTAL ALLOWED FLOOR AREA PER LEVEL 14,000 SOFT TOTAL LEVEL-1 AREA 12,162 SOFT '. OCCUPANCY TOTAL ALLOWED FLOOR.. .PER LEVEL 14,000 SQFT TOTAL LEVEL-1 AREA 12,162 SOFT _ rr ® � O _r _ - _ ❑ ❑ ram, OO - _ ,m '-I will I I �_..� yam e 1 I, I i �� I I I 1 •� L_ • ---� �•�m�l pal i � 1 r ; I i I 'I 1� • ' �� - a � ra _'Ell m O' THE SANDS rn tsci, REYS PARTNERS ARCHiTmcorveECTS, NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITE�S L.P. are arrangements ceG''Hum--e- '. Reran al m?my occur plans are for NeSVy parpcse are.^e so propery d Mumptreys .y Rehsors may o[Cir die to f,:rner mesbgatan 5om d Partrws Archrects.LP and may •rplatory aithontes am D.,i-day code arayps Derwws 5339 Alpha Road.Soe 300 Dallas.TX 75240 (972)701-%36 (972)701-9639 ry Oe reprodxed inary lam snows are o'a str"t c Mtert ony Refer to sin,eys and�1 March 3 2 017 H PA#16341 , humphreys.Dom markeun9.5humphreys Dom Y ".aN rea w s' trvr 'mlama�On and rotas rernen� DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX ❑ ❑ D,r-- �� . . . CALCULATIONS ACCORDING TO TABLE 504.3 TYPE VA GROUP R2 FIRE AREA-6 ALLOWABLE.�. HEIGHT PROVIDED ON THE TWO,STORY BUILDING 2W-C HE GHT R2 OCCUPANCY -- _ SACCORDING TO TAM W4.4.rfPE VA GROUP M HEC40 PROVIDED ON THE THREE STOW BUILDING TOTAL LEVEL-1 AREA 16,422 SOFT 39�HEIGHT TOTAL ALLOWED FLOOR AREA PER LEVEL 24,DDO SCIFT _ —�• _ �� ALLOWABLE NUABER OF STORES ABM GRIADE PLANE 3 FIRE AREA-7 .... ,....,— L a T OCCUPANCY• ..-AREA PER LEVEL 24,DDO SQFT —t a Ino w �i TOTAL LEVEL I AREA .: � •a� .■1 :■�-�.e� ee��;�em■r1 i,���yL... ....I�,I 1r.ada.:��s � =��:11■ �b�91 � -.' E ARE" mmi OCCUPANCYSPRINKELR SYSTEM 18 AN NFPA 13R IN ACCORDANCE WITH CDC SECTION NO 3 11 •]�[.. . ``[ i'i.5u� �iao'fi'd�aw�h iil—N •mow ; Ii �' �a oT�t• EJrC,J ( • • . •.• .000 SQFT RE TOTAL LEVEL-i AREA 16,499 SOFT FIRE AREA-9 TOTAL ALLOWED FLOOR AREA PER LEVEL 24.000 SQFT TOTAL LEVEL I AREA 18,243 SOFT TOTAL ALLOWED FLOOR AREA PER LEVEL 24,000 SOFT TOTAL LEVEL-1 AREA 18,243 SOFT ■ I i I � • , —I _ �� n ■.1 _ IIIIIIIIIIIII. � � v. ® L—J D O L—J O ❑ O WA =WI -J �." �. A �+ Bpli.'ol ••-CDC] ��lem�rl Ic�11.... � •• �lal� �s�� � II�,I 1� d��� 1�.....� �� ae�:���m�rl I;�I---• � c]>t a= i �I I�,� Ivseg�� j �� f. o c1 o — m 7 — fNl I C•DC•] � _ 11 — ■ rtooIIu � IME ❑ O ❑ L—J ❑ ❑ —J O O ❑ L— ❑ O O THE SANDS T :_'.i c' HUMPHREYS PARTNERS AR,,HiTECTS. LP Tne*scemenueeOfHwvfe- A'-'.Re-sloorwLpAWwpW,Swlorlwapamhm NEW CITIES INVESTMENT PARTNERS HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. are ae!c a P•oPery ct HumtiMreys ay Rens�a+s wry aau eue b anw...efprfon rom dParMMArchnws.LP and rtyy mgmWo,yauy,m;tiftW4kAft code analysis Dvwsors 5339kpna Road,Su,te300 Dallas,TX 75240 (972)701.9636 19721701-9639 re!oe•eprod.•ceo m ary tam snows WO S sbrepc eye 0* Refe,'.osd"04cm March 3 201 7 H PA#16341 www humphreys oom marketing'_dhumphreys oom wenWl+s wnCen penn*W drawmp tr Ntletic�i nnaCon and meas,xemen�. DALLAS CHARLOTTE NEWPORT BEACH LAS VEGAS NEW ORLEANS NORFOLK ORLANDO PHOENIX . . . . . . . . . . I . 4' i . 44 .*1. .­1.* 4' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MIRIC ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . L , 84 B4 . . . . . . < i . . . . m gh' g Coll, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 �r �� j � i ro 1 U.' < m r? 84 B4 . . . . . . -x . . . . . . L54 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F . . . . . . . . . B4 B4 . . . . . . . . . . . . b6l . . . . . . . . . A3 B3 J -u d . . . . . . 4 --j *1 B4 A4 . . . . . . . . . . 34 . . . . . . . . . B4 . . . . . . . . . . . ;A4 B4 84 A4 A3 F! i4 . . . . . . . . . . . bill A4 11 B3 A2 . . . . . . . 14 L . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. Cn . . . . . . . A4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B4 B4 . . . . . . . . . ELI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 B4 A A4 A4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4 A4F. B4 6 F. . . . . . . . . .. LLJ ....I........... ---- ------ --------------- A 4 A4 . . . . . . : . K? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4 Li E M A4 b; < . . . . . . . . . . U) cn . . . . . . . . . . . PA PA R4 LLJ LU > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ - --q co <- < Do- . . — . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3 63 cc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LU I I t t A. T T I I + t A. -1 1. - -V .1- -1- I I I I t -1. A- .11 .1. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r,i EaFlay Vision 4 Project Information LA L-IMHr1NM V—s— ri EaFRA%mL-ay PROLEUNAVE LA L-IMI-1-rINIM 110-300IFF'r9 3 10-1000ff'Sm,inq Vp t,80% WALL ICELIIN.-�.D—W �S TEL L-A LED Area Lighting —5 LED VPF4------ f.Hausiig ..g MarineD•salptien TM1e Visi es tea an all alum on aM optic [Trig gratle heat d eavuded aluminum Chemically primed and y ppl-pelyes,er powder coat. FEATURES CB Lens E-.d.UV s«ed g kss a h' zcrexrs. square Name W conreal alllghf Ixfureserb wvinB components while pmvrcl rg z P-1 '—f Pool 9,11, gh 1—11 lil LED.- Drivers Consent current drirar at 350mA.100]>N only. LED U E Tan yea.warranty on LED boards against o pL=projected life of over 130.WO hours at —l—.1 d.f.—1—d in.1-1d.—-h LM W UL Listing U L CUL Damp Sn—,Wet optional. • 2­ --d— '�0.�VIVON DATE LED-=.d ill I replace-11-1.damaged—to 30OWLED ('0";I.no") 6. • C.hgh 0 it­2 LED diodes—p—bl,to 1000WHID DIMENSIONAL DATA 11,31 high—1d,W— —y a—4 Marine Grade Slainlasa Sleel 30,000 A g c • MUMp(e flame uses for all types of palm frees l - E Lu.—I—pw VP 41 c 41 Ape IV+vhon VP 43 1— --d by a C-1. W- 1(ght distribution 6 y-r—W--ty Available Options d more RGB I RG— DATE, 12/22/2016 Z� -IDRAWN B1. FR • SpecialR,c,14S CHECKED BY: RR do eea+ PROJECT NO 161]1 z PHOTOMETRIC z TYPE A TYPE B TYPE C SITE PLAN zZ tic SCA.E E 1 .0 PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN -0.i r7-,-,� ` IX'A/W Sr FL R/W DATA TABLE CONTINUED DATA TABLE CONTINUED IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA IT a' a tr if PUBLIC UTILITY PURVEYORS: _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TECHNICAL SITE PLAN PARKWAY• IX.ANDSCAI® EL IMP[OVEMEMR EK uI3ED MlDMM IX.IMPROVEMENTS IX.LANOSCAIED ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (760)324-4991 PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP NO.22794,AS SHOW NBY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 157,PAGES 93 AND 94. PA[RWAY IT IT a' G r Iz Iz OF PARCEL MAPS.IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,TOGETHER WITH EXHIBIT DATE:MARCH 9.2018 GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY I800I 427-2200 PORTION Of PARCEL 8 OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PMW 03-01 RECORDED 4'Oar EX RAVEL uxe IX.ruvEt uxE IX.ruvEl LANE EX.n,KVEt uxE EX ARJAN TELEPHONE: VERIZON COMPANY j8001 48.35000 MAY 13,20M AS INSTRUMENT NO.342902 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY,SECTION 9 AND EX.MEAN SECTION 16,TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,RANGE 6 EAST,SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. DATA TABLE DINING DFnxG WATER: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 760398-2651 NDFWAIR El.PAVEMENT xDfWALK ( I CABLE: TIME WARNER CABLE (760)340-1312 LAND USE DATA: AREA APPLICANT: NEW CRIES INVESTMENTS PARTNERS,LLC. AND c°irta �- -y_r- SEWER: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (760)398-2651 EXISTING GROSS&NET ACREAGE 1&13 AC. ADDRESS; 1850 MT.DIABLO BOULEVARD-SUITE 337 USA: UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (8001227-2600 EXISTING ZONING: PUNNED RESIDENTIAL(P R:175) WALNUTCREEK CALIFORNIA 94596 SECTION A-A `IX.-, COMACL LEE NEW FLL TELEPHONE: (650)288.5970 MOVLEY LANE AND OUTER PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL IP.RA 7.51 (PURIC ROAD) LAND OWNER: XVUI N.T.S. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: HIGH DENSITY(R-H)IO22 DU/AC ADDRESS: 1000 FAST 80TH PLACE N700N ABBREVIATIONS NO. NUMBER LEGEND ►ROMMED GENERAL PLAN LAND USEI HIGH DENSITY(R-H)ID-22 DU/AC MERRILLVILLE INDIANA 46410 LEI EAST N.T3S NOTTOSCALE IX6TNGSPOTRE AMW , SURROUNDING LAND USES; CONTACT: LEE NEWELL INI NORTH OM OVERHEAD — IXrIING TKEPNONE (11 SOUTH OS/PP OPEN SPACE/PARKS - E(6TNG CONTOURS —opr EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE NORTH: RESIDENTIAL&GOLF COURSE(ZONED:P.R.-41 EKNNIT PREPARII MIA CONSULTING,INC. IWI WEST PEE. PEDESTRIAN EXISTING EASEMENT DELTA •n IXBTNG RIGHT OF WAY A.0 ASPHALT CONCRETE PG PAGE SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL(ZONED:R-1-M) ADDRESS: 3420E 808 HOPE ERNE . . AC ACREAGE Ph PROPERr LNE X - —— —s IXSTINGSEWER RANCHO MIRAGE.CALIFORNIA 92270 APN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER PROP. PROPOSED —.— IXSTNG CABLE ,N EAST: RESIDENTIAL(ZONED:P.R.-17.51 IXSTNG SEWER FORCE MAN BxOar BOUNDARY P.U.E PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT Na IX6TNG IRRIGATXJN DRAN LNE "W.G WATER WEST: RESIDENTIAL 8 OPEN SPACE ZONED:P.R.S 8 0.5.) CONTACT: PAUL DEPAIATIS,AICP TNEPIIONE: (7601 3209811 C/L CEMERLINE R RADIUS ———� CA.c CURB AND GUTTER RL LOW DENSDYIRESCETKI ---- - EXaiNG EASEMENT TENTATIVE RACT MAP BOUNDARY SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS,INC. E/P EDGE OF PAVEMEM R/W RIGW OF WAY ——— IXBTNG ELECTRIC - PROPOSED AND RISING CENTER LNE FEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: a. EASEMENT SF STANDARD IXSINGGAs ZONE X-AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. ADDRESS 7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE,SUITE"A" RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA 925M IX. IXISTNG STD. STANDARD — PROPOSED CURB CIA GROUND ftOOR AREA IYP, TYPICAL ———[s IXISTNGIRRIGATION -——___- PROPOSED EASE NT MAX. MAXIMUM uG uxDEaGRouxD - EXISTING LOT LNE FIRM NUMBER:06065C2226G:EFFECTIVE DATE:AUGUST 28.2008 DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY: NOVEMBER B.2016 TELEPHONE (951 687-4252 MB. MAP BOOK � PROPOSED LOT LINE I MIN. ANNIMu. - EXBTNG EDGE OF PAVEMENT -- PROPOSED RIGM OF WAY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S): 624.040-019&624-060-M j 624-041-ooe1 THEL!-ols db-038 a24^D.1D_nY.; REMIEW711 L OP LAM L"SE, 0.9-I vrox32tdGOD - PROP.TRASH LB/CIOA[!(IYPJ - -..._-• PRO P.CA R GA PAGE ITT P.) DL P[OIBCT BOBN■UIT PPOP.CAR OARRG MP.) -. M0a9P 1 117 1 I �O WAiS,IjNIfDP.)- _ ---_____- PEOP Ytl DE[G[O NO _ GO 9 to a' Ly_�__- Y, �_.� I -_ - - - STOGGEeALN3 CW1 - - P[OI. - _. -_w_— D I' .i Y' N PROIBCt BOunmaY aP/W TITJ e IR.z �L f-�� I-.' L4�-' I -- - I 1 1 i .-- —mcau I C a seweA uxe - BUILDING 15 O aF.3' t I - � r noP BUILDING e/L APARTMENT$ ----� �- BUILDING 1 : - ,� DoQPA7[ APARTMENTS . APA..•f""". EaWATERUNE BUILDING 14 I —a save uxe APARTMENTS f '�� I. q III cuts P[OP UNO%G[OYND +@ -fx.UEyRtMOUND _- - ), - -- 1 I - J�— - J'_. sioucF eeuxs OTP.1 BUILDING S AMRTMOM BUILDING 2 J i RCT K APARTMENTS S HALF- ® II tA3CDeAlI '.. I i I Md I T S _ 12r I J COVR �' 9 OI G_8 I BUILDINGS �--� N I I _ A► APARTMtNNl J i, rolx ! I� I -- ------ 1200'' _'�' X �j-- , I I BULLET t APARTM NT$ I l �1 - _ •I _ I _, :.NO�r f' _ ____- ___-- _ -__- .�� _ �- g _i W I 11 I _ BUILDING 11 --1 is I .J_ z. u.r tar BUILDING 10 _ ( - WILDING 7 .-t BWLDI_NG 6 II PSOP.NAs APARTMENTS I MARTAIENR .---L AI F11S - r -I I I fRANK SINATRA DRIVE O I ��e I Io 1aa' _ CITY OF G CITY of L _ _BUUAINGIS -- --. �t I APARIMENT 1411 I Sr 1�tr. - s BUILDING I -- I RANCHO , PALM r �I APARTMENTS ) gp MIRAGE W DESERT CWMRYC DRIVEts' O A f� 11 L �— I _ � .. t - _ HO LEY NE m OIL (WEST) �2 - - ill --- •_- -- - -1 � L ; L xL J P 1 ---__ _- O L NE , • W DRIVEAIS[E-W I W— W - W -- _ Wl— STDRILGl M9NSD W I (EAST) _ ----- I[OP.SPASM FNCIos- I"�IIVE AISLE W MOIL P - --- P•r--- - ------ (in.7 -------------. y MG_RAax MIO[YR!---- - ■OIIAG! - _ _ 6 h 1 '6'FR` �q_°ag� SIT -- - - - - _ _ _ _ F �R_,�pU�, CITYOF a N OP'DE'SrI nix _-'�g INDIAN %01.CAI OAMOE(IYP.) FY PIOIKi IOBNDAPY PARICK A OF".C.07-20 I PLOP.CAR PORT LTYP.) I WELLS cp3t RMi.NG.2009-02S078 IIOI.CAR GARAGE LRPJ .. i RLEC.OMSO! I FILED WAPoNG DRIVE .��S-012 OJL I BRi-OBO.ORO I I I - RESHDUMAL VICINITY MAP 6 S-i-W L.A6,Il8 USE TOTM l".RNIM PRE9GM RHOOD I N.i.S. - P.IL ZONSRO r-11,17.5 MSA CONSULTING, INC 6 0' 50 100' 150' 200' PL-ANNm■CIVIL ENGnciIiI NG■LAND SURVBYm a 4 O a © co's,itif 2018 .e 34200 BOB HOPE Dam■RANCHO MER.AOE■CA 92270 ` USA LomNlfing,Ine. SCALE 1"�50 O �y All Rights R•s•rv•d 4�.YB� 'LEI.P,PttoT4e(760)321L98ll■FAx(760)3237893 „, \\ if'Al i III i i��l I S ��—m— — Y�- O -� - - ,•-� �- - las o D B d � m � O\ N Iw I al I �.la --- 11�— ------ ---------------- ---------------------- ------------- ------=— ----- — . I--- -- --o ---- ----------------- — --------- ---------- w w w ... W I ICI m w r w • r�—eLw — —= L------ , o e I IWI rLLII r I . _ 15 BLD .6 I I 4 h r PE b.8 . PE, 8.8 � 111 � 11 - a 6 a•Eslrt L Ii” ------ I N I INA N 1 I}.1412 "' 'll I I y I 114 - E)L 33'VCP SEWER UNE PE 7.8 I I I I I I _ E7L 2a'DIP WATER LINE 10�--{ �S� --- I PAP.32•I Mf. I50 I I� 72'VCP SEWER UNE II 01 I I ' UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UN NQ 187.B15 I I y I a I 1 s 1 .48 181.45 - D PRO.za•Eswr. Y.61 0 o F 79.75 r 4' rt. N —, QI I II y1 fl . . . I 1 it 61 sli ry 4 CP{E11H➢8E - i of PE 1 I � I CT. ,$ �, I i 11 III 11 +,, I JASMINE I II N PE 4 —11 r�-- I c � I r I -----r -- w- w w w ---N---------- -----M--------w ------w- 9 o w / I1 FX.33•VCP SEWER LINE r r la D(.24•DIP WATER LINE UNE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UN IJr. A-P , ASPn �_ ( n 4 *V �R .� j�_�-- r!� II .�".I� °�kll - a i/�- _• >\ 1 I �$ -II lJl=A cownty Clue DRrvE LEGEND, EXISTING 33" SEWER LINE 8RE — — -S- - s PROPOSED 8"SEWER LINE PROPOSED 8"SEWER LATERAL D' w' 100' 150' 200' EXISTING 24"WATER LINE PROPOSED 12"WATER LINE L — SCALE 1'=50' PROPOSED S"WATER LINE PROPOSED 1 1/2"WATER METER ■—PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROJECT NAME• THE SANDS PROPOSED DCDA •—PROPOSED AIR-VAC MAP NUMBER APNS 824-040-018 AND 824-0EO-089 PLAN, PRELIMINARY WATER AND SEWER EXHBIT EXHIBIT DATE, MARCH B,2018 C�y,,BRA, DESIGN eY MSA CONSULTING, INC. SAW PLAN ..Cry ENODiRmiuWO■LAND SURVereiD DRAWN B1• 9AW MAP �Rrr�r�y 34200 BOBTEL HoPeONE �DRrvR RAN®o MIRAGE 3737893 �Ecx IASR SCOTT A.WIEBORG PE C80375 PE I18601 PE 1'Id4,0). I PE(484.01 I PE hN.01 PE 1184.01 PE(186.0) - - gpsg%i1 PE(184.5) PE(186.0) a -- ,� m m ' B w • I n - - m - - ~� V TOG 8 ,v F 1 4.6 .01 1 a v I I NV 1 0. HP 0. iy 27 .. .-a- _. 1�..6 50f� •- -� m - $ ^^., ---�.. 0e -#.. �s INVft81 •-Ds- •-..wJ....� �...` -�'SOz� LP F114.}� -- LP ,.. PE088.01 m t I S4S_ -_ - - - -- --_ -_ - _ } IC _ _L :,� 9 - + 11 I I I A , 11 -mom � � I 184.9 III„ iiYi ,iJi U' B I I.I11, o llss.t I to.4t ( I PE(188.61 „ rHII I(, 1i1 B }I P 1 7.9 BLD B T ii +y� "y'y$i - PE 11 '.Bil PE 6.8 } ry 7qF J 6y17 7p Y tl Cx.22scE ) } - BLD 12 1 f g PE 88.7 _ Toc a 60 � ; �I I TT A U P n2a r u I PE(187.0) I 1 s f PE lW7.8 D T PE le 7.3 c l L 7 1.184 PO° 111.3 I - } m o _ - _ p PE(188.0) 1 -- - = ZZZ �`6J O zT• � ta R -- a Qtae I I ` Q I '. I :•�•TG 14 • . . = W IUII J _ `•CD EX.b'CVIYD ESMT. INV 1 6�4 s � PE 1188JS! W I _ n 1r3[r� _ • � S Z T a N III \ II PE eb9.o1 -__- - - z. y. in 124' I I . . . I _ CLUBHOUSE A AT-1 TOG 192.a5 24' 'K' • -- �. '✓,\r EX.45'P.U. Nv_190. •I I PE(189.0) f J I Q, II t 188.24 � 19 I 1 m 9.4 CT f � PE 4.4 n1 T 1 PE 04 O 15.14 >g I PE 1189.5) J w SI188.36 '-IIv,' _ T TI Q¢ Ai[[FF a� PE 1190.6) 193.93 _ _ _ __ __ G_C__ __ } w ..�.._,..-..ox.-..,.-...-. TOG 1 ..-...-.. - ...-...- �i K IF J II,1 118 �. :] I r ~ ~ � ~� 88.00 w r n 0 1 I - - _ PE IWD) m PE H92.01 .I I oes. m� °. oes I- i \ 0 1 I I i H �. I I PE(*8.0) PE(198.0) PE(19a.b1 / PE(193.6) PE(193.6) I PE(193.01 s° PE(182A1 -L pir=x wLNTmr aue MNE LEGEND g SD PROPOSED 15'STORM DRAIN LINE O 0.5x MIN,SLOPE N UNDERGROUND STORAGE PER DETAIL AT LEFT ,Q S7• m 16.5' 24' 1&V 6 PROPOSED BUILDING/GARAGE ^ . BITE PARKING PARKING - {� 6_B ",.CURB -� EMERGENCY OVERFLOW a' Sa' too' tso' zo^. r e 2'X3'DROP INLET 0r L4'WIDE RIBBON GUTTER O SCALE t-so' SECTION A-A nsfi s PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK ESTIMATE NS.S, RAW cur 61.902 C.Y. PROJECT NAME s +� RAW Fll e5,075 G.Y. THE A 43' -�. SUBSIDENCE C.Y. SHRINKAGE 134.428.879 C.Y. GARAGE 26.5' OVER-EXCAVATION MAP NUMBER. APN8 824-040-019 AND 824-080-089 6.5 - R-EXCAVATION LOWES 7.025 C.Y. PLAN' PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN A_ PARKING (ii`..,.. - I, IMPORT 28.5D6 C.Y. E BARRIER CURB 2S 21 a �1. ASSUMING±10.000 C.Y.GENERATED THROUGH SPOILS FROM EXHIBIT DATE- MARCH 9. 2018 d FOUNDATION THICKNESS.POOLS,TRENCHING.AND UNDERGROUND p 7'b MSA CONSULTTNG RETEMION.SITE WILL BE ADJUSTED 30.6 FEET TO BALANCE. ti VSRA7. DESIGN BY �8G }/4'CRUSHED ROCK MIRAFI 14ON GEOTEXRLE FABRIC O , INC. SAW 4'WIDE RIBBON GUTTER OR APPROVED EQUAL I' PLAmmio■Crm BttaR+BraRtD■LAND SrIRV6YINO DRAWN BY iT SECTION B-B UNDERGROUND STORAGE SAW (^T }�T� N.T.S. N.T.S. 0 �0 34200 BOB I�OPB DRIVE IS RANCHO MIRA08 CA 92270 CHECK BY R t• TR;.BPBoNE(760)320-98U R FAx(760)323-7893 NIGHTY MAP 7r x� MSR N.T.S. SCOTT A.WIEBORG PE C80376