Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0121 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 21, 1992 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * �t * * * * * * * � � * * * * * * � � * �► I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Spiegel led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Bob Spiegel Members Absent: None . Staff Present: Ray Diaz Phil Drell Kandy Allen Jeff Winklepleck Dick Folkers Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: �, Consideration for approval the January 7, 1992 meeting minutes. Action• Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the January 7, 1992 minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent January 9, 1992 city council actions. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR None. +.� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PP 91-12 - STERLING PARTNERS, INC. , Applicant � Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and precise plan for a 161 unit single family project on 23 acres on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 1400 feet east of Cook Street and a development agreement setting conditions for Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency' s participation in a program to make the units affordable for low and moderate income home buyers. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and reviewed previous project approvals on that site. He indicated that the proposed project would consist of 123 three bedroom and 38 four bedroom units. With the exception of five detached units, all would d� zero lot line attached duplexes. The project would include a 5,000 square foot child care center, a large common recreation lot with swimming/wading pool, basketball, volleyball, and a smaller passive recreation area with a tot lot. Each unit would be on an individual lot with private yards. He explained that the units would be made affordable for low and moderate income households through a bond financing program and long-term financing would be rr secured from a 75� of value first mortgage from the Housing Authority and a partially or totally silent second mortgage from redevelopment agency housing funds. The units would be offered to low and moderate income households on a lease option contract. Lease payments would initially be based on the 30� of income stipulation formula. After a minimum rental period the units could be purchased when the resident qualified for the £irst mortgage. As monthly income increased, payment would begin on the RDA' s second mortgage. Units could be resold to another qualifying household. Mr. Drell indicated that the developer would build the units and would then sell them to the Housing Authority pursuant to a purchase agreement that would be between the Redevelopment Agency, the applicant, and the Housing Authority. He also explained that the property was zoned PR-7 when it was annexed into the city and had not been changed. He stated that three letters had been received: one from Desert Horizon' s Homeowners Association, one from their attorney and one from the Waring Place Homeowners Association, which was the 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 development most impacted directly adjacent to the west. He noted that Waring Place was developed as part of a seven unit �.,., per acre project, they were closer to three or three and a half units per acre. He indicated that the developer had been in negotiation with Waring Place over the last six to eight months. He stated that they: 1 ) did not want a double wall situation; 2 ) replacement of existing gates with a full sized gate system to include extension of perimeter block wall where necessary, and wrought iron segments which would provide complete enclosure of the community. Wrought iron segments would include pedestrian access gates. Mr. Drell noted that the community was originally developed without gates, but they had recently installed gates and they felt their security could be enhanced through a more substantial gating and the developer had no problem with that condition; 3 ) install decorative lighting around perimeter of project and pole lights at entry gate locations--Mr. Drell indicated this was a more general request, specifically identifying around the entry gates, but less specific as to what intensity and how the request related to th� perimeter; 4 ) install upgraded landscaping, including but not limited to mature trees, i.e. palms or equivalent, foliage, color and some drought tolerant plants to entry/perimeter--Mr. Drell stated that the identification of the entry was specific, but how it relates to landscaping the entire perimeter was more vague and would have to be worked out with the developer; 5) set aside a sum � of money to purchase a certificate of deposit to be used to supplement the Association' s long term reserves to help defray the cost of upkeep of the upgraded amenities--this would require additional significant negotiation; 6 ) Once home building commenced, construction of Waring Place amenities would begin simultaneously and be completed within 90-150 days--Mr. Drell indicated that he interpreted that this meant the improvements would be done in phase 1 of the project. He said that the final condition had to do with the fact that the apartment project north of Waring Place was being considered for purchase by the Housing Authority as part of the city' s multifamily low income program; Waring Place expressed concern that while they might tolerate a project of this type on one side, they did not want one on both sides and were requesting that if this project was approved, that the city not pursue the purchase of the apartments--Mr. Drell stated that while this project was being considered, staff' s direction to the Housing Authority was to cease all negotiations or action to purchase the apartments. 3 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 Commissioner powns asked if staff had talked to a mortgage banker about financing; Mr. Drell replied yes, and indicated that he attended a meeting regarding Fannie Mae and they would r,,,r look on these units as single family homes--he said they were built structurally as stand-alone homes; he indicated that they would not share a common wall, would have two physical walls, but would come up to the same property line. Mr. Drell stated that they could look at them as either single family units or condominiums. Commissioner powns indicated that he wanted to review the project in terms of units that someone could buy. Mr. Drell informed commission there would be an individual parcel on each lot like a postage stamp condominium and similar to Mountain View Falls that have individual lots and were fourplexes and have private back yards and garages. He said that the proposed units would be individual units on individual lots that share a common property line. He indicated that the developer agreed in principle to the list by the Waring Place Homeowners, but where the list was vague, those items would have to be negotiated further. He informed commission that a condition' of approval was inserted that the ultimate resolution of these items would be made a condition of approval of the pro�ect. He noted that another letter was from the Desert Horizons Homeowners Association; he indicated that most items related to the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. He clarified that there was no change of zone involved in this application and the density of units was not being increased--the zoning since the property came ..� into the city was PR-7 and the project being proposed was a seven unit per acre pro�ect. He indicated that the project approved previously under the senior overlay was a 12 unit per acre project. Commissioner Richards noted that this property was originally in the county and was annexed into the city with the senior overlay. Mr. Drell clarified that the property was zoned PR- 7 with a senior overly option, which meant that the base zone was always PR-7 since annexation, but the applicant had the option of using the senior overlay. Mr. Drell addressed the letter from Desert Horizons and again stated that this was not a change of zone. He noted that their ob�ection to the project was based on environmental concerns regarding traffic patterns and volume on Fred Waring- -Mr. Drell indicated a traffic study had been done and which stated that at the present time Fred Waring at this area was not extremely severe and mid-block service level was B. 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 Another objection was having the only ingress/egress point for a project of this size on Fred Waring should be studied for �,, its impact--Mr. Drell replied that this property had no choice but to access Fred Waring, because it was the only street it had access to. He indicated there was another project with access onto Fred Waring and was not something that was an extreme problem and access was justified because this was the only point available. Objection to traffic congestion at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Cook Street--Mr. Drell stated that a traffic study was conducted and it identified both improvements which were required at that intersection whether or not the project was completed and included an exclusive right-turn from Fred Waring to Cook Street. In addition, if the project was completed it recommended an additional left-turn lane from Fred Waring to Cook southbound, which could be accomplished because of the width curb to curb by re-striping. He felt with the recommended mitigations, service level C could be maintained at that intersection. Noise impacts by added traffic, deliveries, pickups, etc. , associated with a 161 unit� residential housing project--Mr. Drell indicated the proposal was projected to generate 900 trips per day and traffic volumes on the street were about 2000. He noted that it would take far greater increases in traffic to have a perceptible noise impact because it was already a noisy environment; he stated that traffic on Fred Waring would have to go up by 50� to 80� to get a significant „�, increase in noise. Regarding the site being environmentally sensitive because of its location adjacent to the Whitewater Storm Channel and Southern California Edison and other alternative sites being less of an impact--Mr. Drell stated that the Whitewater Storm Channel was not a pristine habitat, it was a manufactured storm channel and the site itself had been subject to grading and modification over the years as a result of the channel and construction of Fred Waring Drive. He did not feel the development would have an adverse impact on the substation. He stated that there were alternative sites and all of them would probably have to eventually be used to fulfill the court mandated affordable housing program. Palm Desert had been accused in the past of putting affordable housing out on the other side of the railroad tracks or in the middle of the desert to segregate these people where they won' t bother anyone. He did not feel that created an environmentally sound or socially sound situation. He felt that citizens that work in Palm Desert and service this community deserve to live and have the same access to services as anyone else. He noted that this was a project for families 5 ..�. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 and should be located closer to schools and not in an area where there were no services. Other concerns related to potential diminution in value of their property--Mr. Drell „�1 again said that the zoning was not changed and while Waring Place is itself at a lower density, the overall density of its mixed development was seven units per acre. He agreed there were other projects in the vicinity that were lower density: Los Lagos was across the street and a significant distance away; Desert Horizons itself did not directly border the project and was separated by a major arterial that was a far greater impact on the development than this project would have and Desert Horizons did not have access to Fred Waring. The letter also expressed concern that Indian Wells was also considering a low/moderate income housing project less than 2/10 of a mile away and having two such projects would have a negative impact--Mr. Drell stated that this had not been overlooked; one of the reasons this site was being considered was because it was probably one of the best buffer infill sites available in the city. It bordered adjacent developments to the least extent; it ' s principle boundary was Waring Place and the apartments. Desert Horizon' s backed onto Fred Waring without access; no house faces Fred Waring and the impact of this pro�ect if one exists would be negligible. He noted that Desert Horizon' s was a large development surrounded by ma�or arterials. He also reminded planning commission that the property directly to the east of the proposed site was the sub,ject of an extensive process and environmental impact � reports for a pro�ect called Sunterra that was approved by the City of Indian Wells and would have included 4500 hotel rooms, and 200, 000 square feet of commercial space, which would have generated over 5, 000 employees. That adjacent zoning was resort/commercial in Indian Wells. Indian Wells studied that project as intensively as any pro,ject in the valley and their conclusion was that it was acceptable and it was approved and an environmental impact report was certified. Mr. Drell stated that his understanding was that the project would not be built and instead a 1200-1500 condominium project would be constructed. He felt the proposed pro�ect' s parcel was unique in its location and where it borders lower density development, staff was suggesting that accommodation be made. Mr. Drell also indicated that there was a letter submitted from Peter Kovalsky, an attorney for Desert Horizon' s Homeowners Association, which again referred to the environmental impact and negative declaration of environmental impact. He suggested that an environmental impact report be 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 done--Mr. Drell stated that what necessitated a full environmental impact report was the presentation of �,,,,,,, substantial evidence that significant impact would occur and this area had been studied in detail first thzough the Indian Wells General Plan EIR and Sunterra EIR and staff supplemented that with a traffic study. The project at 161 units was not substantial and did not create significant impacts. Regarding traffic congestion, a traffic study was completed and a few mitigation measures were proposed. The project was designed with on-site services to further reduce trips. He said that by placing a site further away from schools and shopping areas lengthened the trips, not diminished them, as well as impacting more intersections. He noted that the city owns property out by Interstate 10 for the express purpose of building affordable housing and the city would eventually use that location. He also indicated that this project would be medium density, not high density. Mr. Drell felt the project �met the intent and purpose of the PR zone, implemented a court-mandated aspect of the housing element, and represented the high standards the city has striven for and recommended that planning commission recommend approval of the pro�ect to city council . Commissioner Spiegel asked if anything had been received from Indian Wells in writing; Mr. Drell stated that Indian Wells � responded that they wanted a street on the eastern edge of the property and he indicated that street was originally a mitigation measure of the Sunterra project to run from 42nd Avenue to Fred Waring. When Sunterra disappeared, the need for a street disappeared and it was to be within the city of Indian Wells. Mr. Drell indicated that when this was brought to their attention, they agreed and were sending a corrected letter, which staff had not yet received. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the patronage of the child care center would be limited to this development' s residents; Mr. Drell answered yes. Commissioner powns asked if there was any consideration that there could possibly be as many as 640 children being located on Fred Waring Drive; Mr. Drell stated that the purpose of this project was for families. Commissioner powns asked why this was considered on one of the busiest streets in town; Mr. Drell replied that there were sidewalks to get to the high school and the project was inward facing on residential streets. Commissioner powns asked how much closer to other schools this development could be; Mr. 7 ..�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 Drell felt this was as close as it could get. Commissioner Downs asked about the area where the new school was going in; Mr. Diaz stated that was an elementary school only, not a � middle or high school . Mr. Drell noted that over time there would be children attending all the schools. Commissioner Downs felt that the closer the project could be to the smaller age schools the better for the children. Commissioner Richards agreed there were some pluses. He did not buy the argument from Desert Horizon' s that there was a high impact on a gated community that was separated by such a busy street. He discussed the issue of money that might be available in housing bonds and other funds. Mr. Drell indicated that money was restricted to use by the Housing Authority and that money was used to buy One Quail Place, Las Serenas, and Desert Pointe. Commissioner Richards said that the program was started to build projects like the proposal . He noted there was still an excess of $50 million raised in 1986 before the law changed, raised for the specific purpose of creating low and moderate income housing. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not ob�ect to the project, his problem was with how the project was being done, who was paying for it, and all of the intricacies. He also did not feel anyone deserved to be close in to services. Mr. Drell stated that was his own opinion and was based on a purely planning purpose and that people regardless of who they are should have the opportunity to have services close by. Mr. rr1 Diaz said that this was staff' s opinion and was also within the state law to encourage affordable housing close into services. Commissioner Richards noted that the city was required to provide 17� by 1994-1996 ( 1359 units ) and this pro�ect would count toward that obligation; Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Richards asked who would determine who would get this housing; Mr. Drell stated that the priority would go to existing residents of Palm Desert and those who work in Palm Desert first, since the money was being generated by economic activity within Palm Desert and intended to mitigate the housing impact generated by that activity--it was Palm Desert' s responsibility to provide for Palm Desert, not the whole valley. Commissioner Richards agreed that this location was superb and the buffers were unique, plus the proximity to schools, parks, and recreation facilities in the area, but he questioned the city' s intent to spend $130, 000 per acre when there was still city-owned land elsewhere that didn' t cost that much. Mr. 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 Drell stressed that the goal of the program was to get people in the position where they could afford to purchase homes by `, themselves; the other option was to keep providing rental units and subsidize them forever. Mr. Diaz stated that if there were concerns on how the mortgages were worked out, once the land issues were decided a committee composed of redevelopment agency representatives, planning staff, a commissioner and a member of the economic • development advisory committee could be formed to work out all of these things. He indicated that the assistance program had not been finalized. Commissioner Richards did not feel that housing should be provided for people who already live here, but for people employed in the city. Mr. Diaz noted that council and staff fought for people who reside and/or work within the city of Palm Desert to be given preference. Mr. Drell stated that Palm Desert' s mandated shortfall calculated by CVAG was based on existing residents and staff added people who would like to live in the city because they work here. Commissioner Spiegel noted that staff indicated low to middle income being between $21,000-$43, 000; Mr. Drell stated that was correct. Commissioner Spiegel asked if it was foreseeable that someone making $43,000 a year would purchase one of these homes. Mr. Drell replied that he hoped some would; under the financing program being proposed, there had to be some period ,�, of lease option. He concurred that the cost of the units would be $115, 000 each and the income qualification was approximately $35,000 per year. Commissioner Richards stated that he liked the project itself and it was a unique way to do some housing that made sense and congratulated staff and the developer on the street design, the house layout, the usage of the zero lot lines with the garages in the back and the driveways. He felt it was one of the best projects in terms of what was being provided that he had seen. Commissioner Jonathan asked who would regulate the program and oversee when these people would pay second mortgages; Mr. Drell answered the Housing Authority and would be similar to One Quail Place residents who submit tneir tax returns on an annual basis and senior citizen pro�ects who submit proof of income. Commissioner Jonathan felt that there was being created a whole other level of government to administer a segment of the city of Palm Desert that was income driven by 9 .�. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 the rent or mortgage payments made to the city. Mr. Drell replied that was right. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would like to know the cost for that whole bureaucracy. Mr. �.�M Drell stated that they were operating under very strict requirements in this stipulation. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it was probably cheaper in the long run to just give these people money and do away with the bureaucracy. Mr. Drell indicated that was an option. Commissioner Jonathan asked if someone bought a home at $115, 000, at what point were the houses sold at market value and someone could reap the reward. Mr. Drell answered that as long as the project was sold to another qualified buyer, that second mortgage would stay silent and as they draw down the first (equity) , as the unit appreciates there were two ways to handle it. The first and second could be considered a shared equity position where the redevelopment agency would own a quarter of the house, the buyer owned three quarters and if the home appreciated $40, 000, the owner would get $30,000 and the redevelopment agency $10, 000. How to a�portion the appreciation had not been decided and there were three or four various alternatives. Mr. Drell indicated that if any of the commissioners wished to sit on a committee they could help work this out. Commissioner Richards referenced another project where there had been problems and asked what happened if one person bought it and then sold it and the whole thing went bankrupt and the lenders could not figure out who owned what. Mr. Drell noted that project was Mountain View Falls � and indicated that was good housing provided at an affordable cost. Mr. Diaz stated that the reason that project had the problems it did was not because of the density bonus, but other things that went on relative to the ability to deliver the units on time. Mr. Diaz indicated that resale had always been a concern on ownership housing and specific issues would be ironed out within the agreements. He stated that staff would suggest to the council a committee with both Commissioners Jonathan and Richards on that committee. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the restriction would be for selling to non-qualified income people and how long the development stay low income. Mr. Drell stated that they would hope that the project would continue to provide housing in that income range forever. One of the requirements of the program was that units made affordable must remain affordable for the life of the redevelopment agency. They could not be losing affordable units; that was an advantage of the maintenance of the second mortgage to make it advantageous to 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 sell to another qualified buyer. Commissioner Jonathan asked if someone who made $100, 000 per year and wanted to buy one Y... of these houses, could he? Mr. Drell replied that if that market exists, the answer was yes. While the exercise was not to provide $100, 000 income housing, the market did that fine already, but if they could market some of these homes on the open market for $125, 000-$130, 000, that would be fine. He noted that 40$ of the One Quail Place units were open market and they would like to do that here, but were not sure whether people making $100, 000 would want to buy these homes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this would not meet the court requirement. Mr. Drell indicated that more units would have to be built. He said that they would try to make it easier for a quaZified person to buy. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the city was trying to provide low income housing and how long would the city be sacrificing the normal standards to provide low income housing; Mr. Drell replied forever. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the city would end up with a normal project without restrictions and seven units per acre. Mr. Drell stated that was not the goal, but it would be desirable to have the broadest economic mix as possible in a neighborhood. Commissioner Richards felt the only justification for some of these issues was that there was a court-mandated order to provide the low income housing. Mr. Drell clarified that if the housing was sold to non-qualifying owners, the units would have to be replaced. ... Mr. Diaz suggested that commission recommend to council a committee to oversee and address these concerns. He noted the issue before commission was whether the project was acceptable as designed. He stated that it was staff ' s intention to maintain these homes for the affordable or gain enough money to build others eZsewhere. He said that the sale and resale controls would be worked out later in the agreement. Commissioner Spiegel noted that there were three and four bedroom units with the smaller bedroom being 10 x 10, the living room 12 x 13, and the dining room 10 x 10; he did not feel someone making $100, 000 per year would want that kind of house. Mr. Diaz noted that if that was the case, the units would always stay affordable and the city would meet its goal . Chairperson Whitlock informed commission that due to her association with Desert Horizons, she would be abstaining. 11 r... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the � applicant to address the commission. F ■r�1 MR. GARY NOGLE, architect representing Sterling Partners, stated that he worked with staff and the redevelopment agency and what was before commission was a fine project. He said they came to Palm Desert with a complete package that was a way to accomplish homes for first time homebuyers and let people participate in ownership of family housing. He indicated they met with the redevelopment agency on two occasions and talked about this project in concept and they received encouragement from them. He said there was a clear mandate that: 1 ) the importance in their mind in continuing the element in quality that was Palm Desert, which he felt they accomplished, and 2 ) location--there was a great deal of discussion on the location of this site. There was a clear direction on solving this court stipulation as an infill project close to services and the redevelopment agency did not look f`avorably at placing an affordable housing project in an isolated area away from the rest of the community. He said the other item resulting from those meetings was the need for child care, and they were providing a 5, 000 square foot day care facility specifically at the request of the redevelopment agency to round out the community and address the need of the � people in this community. He noted that the existing +� housing stock in Palm Desert was predominately two bedroom and there were no three bedroom family units in Palm Desert that they could realistically purchase to meet the court stipulation. Family units needed to be developed. The redevelopment agency felt this was an appropriate site. He described the concept of the architecture and the amenities. He felt this would be a model pro�ect for the rest of the nation. Commissioner Richards asked if the land cost was about $3 million; Mr. Nogle replied yes. Commissioner Richards asked what the pro,ject would sell those units for if the land cost was half of that; Mr. Nogle answered that the land cost was a deceptive item and referring to land cost to the north, land cost was not �ust the dirt but of extending the infrastructure to that site. Commissioner Richards asked how much was allocated for all fees; Mr. Nogle replied $11, 000 per unit. Commissioner Richards noted that between land and fees there was approximately $30,000 before ground breaking per unit; Mr. 12 ip i � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 Nogle concurred. Commissioner Richards asked where the applicant had done this type of project before. It was �.., determined that they had done other higher-end type projects, not one specifically like this one. Commissioner powns asked what the building cost per square foot was. MR. PETE GARCIA, partner in Sterling Partners, stated that they have done a lot of residential projects geared toward seniors all across the states. He said that it was similar because they were trying to provide housing for people on limited incomes. Addressing the issue of location, he felt that people would be more willing to own, maintain and have pride in ownership at Fred Waring and Cook than way out at the freeway. He also added that they were purchasing the land; this was not land they had that would not work as something else and could not get financing for. Commissioner Richards noted that they would be selling right away to the Housing Ruthority and had a presold deal, which wasn' t much of a risk. Commissioner Richards said that he had just assumed that the city was dealing with a firm that had done this type of project before. Mr. Drell noted that when Mr. Nogle was talking about the redevelopment agency, they were talking about the „�„�, redevelopment agency board. Mr. Drell said that the first question he asked them was whether they would prefer a project here or on land that the city owns at $10,000-$12, 000 less per unit than this site because of land cost. They felt the $10, 000-$12, 000 was worth having this location on Fred Waring versus by the railroad tracks. Commissioner powns again asked what the actual cost per square foot was; Mr. Garcia replied the houses would run approximately 90$ of the value, including all fees. He stated that the cost per foot would be about $30. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. MEL LEWIS, President of the Desert Horizons Homeowners Association, 75-417 Spyglass parallel to Fred Waring. He thanked staff for sending out the notice of the meeting. He said that he watched and listened to the discussion and re-emphasized that they had serious 13 r.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 concerns in their letter. He noted that he had additional letters from Dr. Harry Smith, 75-265 Spyglass Drive ( attached) ; and also a letter from Mr. Max Quimby, � 75-385 Spyglass in Indian Wells ( attached) . He said that there might not be many letters or representatives present, but there would have been more except for a previous commitment. He felt that more consideration should have been given to his letter than there was. He said this project would cram 640 children on 1400 feet by 700 feet with Fred Waring in front and the channel behind it. He did not feel this would contain those children no matter how high the walls or the amenities. He felt Fred Waring was a busy/dangerous street and that was why Desert Horizons closed the gate to Fred Waring. He did not feel that amount of children on that size of property was good planning. He suggested moving the property to somewhere more appropriate and returning the zoning back to the senior pro�ect, which everyone was in favor of. He requested that the project be denied and a full environmental impact report be done. MR. JERRY NEIMEYER, 75-605 Desert Horizons Drive. He objected to the request for a negative declaration in this case because the density for the character of the pro�ect in his judgement was not in keeping with the density of the nearby residential pro,jects. Seven units per acre might match Waring Place, but that was r1t misleading because of the apartment aspect of the project. Units other than the apartments was more like four per acre and Desert Horizon' s was 1.7 units per acre and Los Lagos four units per acre. To ignore these other projects because they were not contiguous could overlook a negative impact. He said that staff reported that the zoning restriction was being stretched in this project in requesting a waiver of certain elements of this pro�ect. He felt that Fred Waring was a high-speed traffic artery and a single entry for a project of 161 units was questionable. Even the location of the entry on Fred Waring was questionable and if that was the only place to put it, that did not make it right. He indicated that 40� of the pro�ect was designated as low or lower income. He said that caused concern regarding the on-going maintenance level of this project and appearance in the future. The report on the meetzng with Indian Wells was not the report he received. He said that he understood that EIR impacts were cumulative in 14 rM MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 nature and for staff to take each issue and say that each issue had a negligible impact seemed to fail to recognize .� the cumulative impact requirements of EIR guidelines. He urged denial . MR. STEVE SOLES, 75-400 La Cresta in Waring Place. He stated that he moved here in 1987 and spent six months looking for a location that would be similar in educational status and housing opportunities. He said that it was difficult in the desert but settled on Waring Place because it had three and four bedroom homes that were reasonably priced at that time. They purchased because the Sunterra project did not pose a great threat to him and usually have a high type of clientele that visit those resorts and would have boosted property values. The developer sold the property to him based on the information that the property to the east would be a senior/retirement village project. He was not impacted by that because there would not have been many kids or a lot of problems and �there was an apartment project to the north and he did not want to feel enclosed. He said that his residence was in the middle of the complex about 200 feet from the nearest home that would be built in the proposal . He noted that there had been two to three homicides because of the apartment complex behind them and he alone had been burgZarized twice in the last year. ,,,,�, He said there was a number of burglaries both during the day and night in Waring Place. He did not know if more lighting or better security gates would be the answer. He felt the issue of density had to be addressed and could be looked at in more than one way. There was a density per acre and the density of people living in those units. He felt that the people needed a place to live, but putting 640 children on 23 acres would be hard to contain them. He said that it took five to six minutes to get onto Fred Waring every morning from Waring Place. The same occurred at night and Fred Waring was a high-speed thoroughfare with a lot of people. He felt that it was a real problem. He said that he could not afford to keep losing property value and they had already lost 20$ on the cost of the house. He did not feel the proposal was compatible with their three or four units per acre. MR. HARRY LONG, Desert Horizon' s Homeowners Treasurer, stated that his concern was that this type of residence 15 �.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSZON JANUARY 21, 1992 ,. over a period of five to seven years in these small homes would be problem with the people and undesirables who � could live there and as treasurer he had to look at values and the impact this could have on Desert Horizon homeowners. He said that he had seen this in other cities. He felt this should be reconsidered and the whole program re-evaluated. He indicated there were other places that would be more beneficial and the impact less. MR. JERRY WILSON, 75-111 Santa Fe Trail in Waring Place, stated that he was president of the homeowners association. They met two or three times with Sterling Partners and Mr. Drell and had meetings with the membership at two open sessions. The Sterling people were helpful in explaining the project and willing to work with the homeowners association. He felt there was still a basic concern of the homeowners on the security of the area and wh�t would happen with additional pedestrian traffic in the area and suggested traffic lights at the both the entrance to the proposed area and one installed at the entrance to their entry onto Fred Waring. He said it was a concern how people would get in and out onto Fred Waring as it was today. They were concerned and wanted to make sure the area was maintained and managed property to retain the value of their � property and not have it go down. '� MR. LES BACARELLO, 75-179 Santa Fe Trail in Waring Place, also a member of the Homeowners Association as treasurer. He personally liked the project and felt it had some merit. He said that he was disappointed in the meeting and the hearing process because some of the basic and fundamental issues concerning this precedent setting pro�ect had not been asked. He was also disappointed that Mr. Drell and his staff did not take the time to make recommendations to mitigate the traffic on Fred Waring; possibly with a speed change, the addition of traf f ic 1 ights and issues 1 ike that. The other thing was that he heard a lot of sales pitch and wished he were privy to this project because there was a limited financial risk for the developers and some of the basic questions had been asked but not explored in detail such as: 1 ) what was the city' s plan and does this program fit the plan and the objectives of the plan; 2 ) by definition what was affordable from both the purchasing agency' s 16 Y � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 perspective and the seller' s; 3 ) he was relatively young and worked hard in his career and was blessed with the ... opportunity to own a number of homes and was proud of that, but was bothered with the issue of whether the city was providing affordable housing or subsidized living-- where was the incentive. How would the people aspire and the people appreciate and maintain reasonable value for the seller and the buyer and maintain the overall objective of the project in providing affordable housing if property values escalate. As the homeowners go through second and third generation purchasers, the medium income would have to escalate because the property value escalated. He felt these were questions that long term were interesting and also asked where was the fiscal responsibility. He asked how the planning commission could with such limited information recommend to city council approval of the project without looking at the short and long term financial implications ta both the city and housing agen�y and the tax payers of the city. He noted the city' s track record wasn' t great lately and $20 million had been misplaced. He said that he would like to see more fiscal responsibility not only from the planning commission, but as a tax paying citizen. Chairperson Whitlock asked if Sterling Partners would like to address the commission. �... Mr. Nogle summarized that in listening to all the discussion he could not recall an affordable housing project where no one took exception to the plan or the architecture or the overall development. What had been discussed were issues on the mechanism and how it would work. He said that this was a project that everyone they submitted it to appreciated the quality and felt they did a good job in listening to the needs of the community. He felt this was a unique opportunity for Palm Desert and requested approval of the project. MR. PETER STERLING, Sterling Partners, appreciated the comments made, and informed commission that he felt the type of people moving into this project would be librarians, school teachers, sheriff ' s department people, people who work for the city, the fire department and a variety of people who might already live in Waring Place. He said this would not be an unusual neighbor they would be getting, but regular people they dealt with every day. 17 ... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 He felt this was a real quality project in an excellent location. All the points on the mechanism of how this project would be put together in terms of lease options �„ri were issues that the city and redevelopment authority would deal with among themselves. They would deliver a turn-key house that would be purchased by the city and the redevelopment authority. Those issues would be worked out among city council, planning commission and staff. In terms of their project, they would help fulfill a definite need in the community in a quality fashion and asked for support and approval of the project. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments. Commissioner Jonathan said that he had concerns. One point of ingress and egress for 161 units was a problem because they were talking homes for families with two cars per unit. That would be over 300 cars for this complex and one point of ingress/egress would be asking for trouble. The lack of an interchange at Cook Street and Interstate 10 was also a concern. Monterey was a problem and the more people at this end would use that interchange also and it was getting to the point where no other projects would be approved until that Cook Street Interchange was done. The land price was really high; the city could take that $10, 000-$15, 000 and give to a „ri low income person and let them move into that house and immediately afford the purchase of that home because on a $100, 000 mortgage would be approximately $700 per month at 8 and 1/4 percent fixed interest for 30 years. That would immediately make the purchase of a home affordable to someone by handing them the $10,000-$15, 000 instead of giving it to the developer. The affordability mechanism was definitely an issue. While the commission was there to approve the project, the pro�ect stood not only on its own merits, but on the merits of its affordability and the mechanism that would have to stand up for a long time. He noted that they were not presented with an affordability mechanism that was complete that they could evaluate, so that based on that mechanism and the fact that it would achieve what the courts want the city to achieve, they could approve the project--they did not have that in front of them. He stated that he liked the pro�ect and would like to see it in Palm Desert, but felt it was the right project at the wrong location because of both land prices and because this was not an appropriate neighborhood 18 � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 for it, particularly because there were other places that would be more right than this location. ..� Commissioner powns stated that he objected to 41 people per acre. This would cause trouble. Commissioner Spiegel agreed and felt there were too many people in too small of an area, which would create problems. He thought the project was good, but with that many children • more land was needed and the land in this location was very expensive. He agreed that it would be ideal to make shopping and schools closer for any type of development such as this, but at that price did not feel it made a lot of sense. Commissioner Richards stated that he was not persuaded by the residents of Desert Horizons, of which some were friends of his. He did not feel the project would have a great deal of impact on Desert Horizons, but was persuaded by the testimony given by Waring Place. Specifically regarding the crime down there, although he noted tt�at crime goes on everywhere. He felt the developer did an excellent job of putting something together that the commission would like to see and was unique and he liked the way the houses were designed. He did not think that paying the land owner $130,000 per acre made much sense. If the city wanted to experiment with low cost housing, it should be put somewhere where there wouldn' t be �, a problem with neighbors. He did not feel that people deserve to get low cost housing at the expense of something or someone else. He suggested that perhaps this housing should be built and then let someone develop next to them. He said that he liked this location, but was persuaded by the comments on the amount of children and agreed that children would not stay in that complex. He felt that Fred Waring was not a good street to try to ride a bike on, or run across, and was a problem that the city had. He said that he would like to see the project the way it was, but built somewhere else. He stated that he was not persuaded regarding the arguments on property appreciation. He also noted that many people had seen their property appraisal go down. He stated that from a planning standpoint, Fred Waring was too busy and there was only one entry/exit and he noted that he had gone through this issue with the county and was told there was some type of state-wide ordinance that indicated what could happen if there was an accident at that one entrance and the fire department had to get in and out and there was no way to do that. Mr. Drell informed commission there was an emergency access provided. 19 r... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 Commissioner Richards stated that he did not like the proposal as looked at in its entirety. The commission was persuaded by who would own it and how that would be accomplished and if ri commission did not like the way the city was trying to do something, whenever they started supplementing or taking away from the marketplace there were problems. He said that he would make a motion for denial . Commissioner Spiegel said that he would second that motion. � Mr. Diaz said that the appropriate motion would be to instruct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. He asked that commission give staff the findings. Commissioner Richards said that his reasons for denial were the number of children/people in that location; Fred Waring was not a good street for ingress and egress; there was a problem with the neighbors to the west and going from a density of three to seven was a problem based on the complaints, and that was the basis. Commissioner Jonathan also stated that it was t'hat there was only one point of ingress/egress. Mr. Diaz stated that if those were commission' s findings, they would be put in the resolution. Commissioner Richards also stated that he was not persuaded by comments by the developer about discussion with the � redevelopment agency, who was the city council, and commission had not been privy to that discussion. The commission should have been given that information. Mr. Diaz stated that the discussion with city council took place in study session and the developer presented the project and the concept of the project for public hearing. He noted that Mr. Drell went through some of those questions and issues raised including the issue of the cost of the land versus locating the project elsewhere. � Action• Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the February 4, 1992 meeting. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained) . 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 B. Case Nos. PP 91-14, ADJ 91-4 - SCHMITZ/ANDERSON ENTERPRISES, Applicant +.. Request for approval of a precise plan and an adjustment to allow construction of a ten unit apartment complex at 44-555 San Rafael Avenue in the R-3 5.0. zone. Mr. Winklepleck indicated the applicant was requesting a 10 one bedroom apartment complex. The architecture would be similar to other projects in the city that were done by the applicant, which had proven to be successful . He noted there would be two ingress/egress points off of San Rafael . He felt the project design met the intent of the R-3 S.O. zone. He stated that the applicant had requested two adjustments to ordinance standards for a minor density adjustment and an adjustment to the sideyard setback for one of the garages. He explained that the R-3 zone required 2500 square feet of site area per unit; the applicant requested an adjustment that would drop that to one unit per 2330 square feet, a decrease of approximately seven percent. Mr. Winklepleck noted that up to ten percent of required building area was allowable with an approved adjustment. He indicated that the minimum side yard under the R-3 zone was 20 feet combined with an 8 foot minimum on any one side and the site plan showed this side yard at five feet. He said that the code allows for a 20 „�, percent decrease in the required side yard which would be six and a half feet. He stated that if the applicant wished to pursue the five feet, he would have to file a variance application and proceed with that at another public hearing. Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions. He noted that under community development condition #12 requiring an additional trash enclosure for recycling, the revised plan showed that addition. Chairperson Whitlock o ened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. HARRY SCHMITZ, 45-900 Paseo Coronado in Indian Wells, stated that the project he was proposing was almost across the street from the previous one that they did last year and one four or five years ago. It was a one bedroom project, 10 units with 10 garages and 10 open spaces. The architecture would be similar to that done previously and he distributed some photographs to commission. He stated they would have the clay �ile 21 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 roofs, paver brick walks, and a swimming pool . He concurred with staff ' s condition #12 and felt it should be deleted since they made provision for the trash ri enclosure. He said that they carefully reviewed all the conditions and agreed with all except two. He indicated page 5 condition #13 stated that all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per respective utility district ' s recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, the applicant shall submit to the city a surety in an amount equal to the estimated construction cost. He informed commission that an Edison service planner came out and they determined that it was unfeasible and Mr. Schmitz suggested a condition to read that they would agree to join any future undergrounding district in writing or as appropriate, as could be worked out with the city attorney, but to bond or put up a cash amount for an unknown dollar amount and not knowing the future date this might take place seemed unreasonable to them. He stated that they had not been required to do this on previous pro�ects. He did agree to join any district that came about in the future. Item #14, their attorney had been in touch with the city engineering department and this particular condition was totally unacceptable to them because they were not proposing a lot line adjustment; the little portion of the parcel extending north of them was one they reserved from when ? they deeded the lot to the property owner and they had ,� a recorded easement and license agreement that permitted them to produce that parking lot to put the wall around the property to maintain the landscaping and keep it in perpetuity. He said that it was by reservation on that deed--they did not own the property, but have that license and the right to use that easement. Because of this he felt that condition #14 should be deleted. Mr. Folkers informed commission that he went over the information with his staff and was opposed to the removal or change in the conditions. He felt the undergrounding matter should be resolved with the city attorney in an acceptable manner and as far as the lot line adjustment, he felt it was necessary and if legal review was called for, he felt they should proceed that way. He stated that both conditions #13 and #14 should remain. Commissioner powns indicated that this could be worked out between staff and the applicant; Mr. Folkers concurred. 22 :; � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 Commissioner Richards suggested a continuance so that the ,,.,, project could come back before commission with those issues resolved. He felt that would be the appropriate way to handle it. Mr. Schmitz stated that his attorney had been in contact with the city attorney to try and resolve this matter and felt it could be resolved between the two attorneys. He felt it was a legal matter. Commissioner Richards again stated that a continuance would be appropriate. Mr. Schmitz informed commission that he would agree with the six and a half feet instead of five feet. He felt that by squeezing together the center of the parking lots and moving the buildings closer to the garages they could accommodate the six and a half feet. . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Spiegel agreed that it would be difficult to vote on the project since all the issues were not resolved. He r.,,, concurred with the continuance. Commissioner Richards stated that the applicant was squeezing too much into the project and was not in favor of granting a 7� or 10� adjustment. He felt that the project was not aesthetically acceptable. Mr. Diaz indicated that the matter could be continued and the applicant instructed to revise his application so that no waivers would be necessary and work out the other conditions. He suggested a continuance of four weeks. Mr. Schmitz stated that they have tentative financing and they were ready to construct. He said they were trying to hit the fall market and every day was a day lost. He suggested a two week continuance to work out the two conditions, and noted that previously commission approved 16 units on this property, so he felt this time by dropping the two story apartment project to single story and reducing the number of units he was improving the 23 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 situation. He clarified that the 16 units were approved under the senior overlay, but indicated these were identical units and the same footprint and floorprint ri that was used for the seniors; they decided they did not want the senior requirement on the project and dropped the number of units and went to one story. MR. ANDERSON, 73-045 Shadow Mountain, addressed the commission. He felt that part of the reason that the plan looked so congested was because of the covered parking area. Mr. Winklepleck clarified that the applicant was allowed either carports or garages. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not like the area where the units were too close. Mr. Schmitz indicated there were windows in the back facing the San Jacinto Mountains. Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion of continuance. Action• Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner powns, continuing PP 91-14, ADJ 91-4 to February 4, 1992. Carried � 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 91-11 - MAPLE LEAF PLUMBING, Applicant A resolution denying approval of a conditional use permit amendment to allow an additional access point to the project at 74-330 Alessandro. Action: Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Spiegel voted no) . Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1554, 24 �■�1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 1992 denying CUP 91-11 Amendment #1 . Carried 4-1 ( Commissioner Spiegel voted no) . `.. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Commissioner powns asked staff to get him a copy of the traffic committee members. Commissioner Richards asked about the valet parking issue that was before the traffic committee. Mr. Folkers stated that there were several and he would get in touch with him to determine what information he needed. . XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner powns, seconded by Commissioner Richards, ad�ourning the meeting to February 4, 1992. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. � � RAM N A. DIAZ, c ary ATTEST: C�z�'(,�-�/ CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm , 25 ..... �'���=_!ti,'�..L� PETERS & KOVALSKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW ��.\� :.�, 1 !��� -t4?27 MONTEREY AVENUE, SUITE 2 PALM DEScRT, CA 92260 ���Mµ"��� ,���" ✓q p;`S';RIAy1M,'„ �.�.i• �`f �a. (619) 773-�3463 FAX (619) �336-3442 EhCINITAS OFFICE � 4401 MANCHESTER AVENUE, SUfTE 206 DAVID,'vt. PETERS ENCINITAS, CA 92024 ROBERT�ti1. KOUAISKY �TdIllldr�7 2 1, 19 9 2 (619) 436-3441 Planning Commission HAND DELIVERED City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Desert Horizons Owners ' Association Objection to Request by Sterling Partners, Inc . for Approval of Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Case No. PP 91-12 Our File No. 1194 . 1 ' Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Please be advised that the law firm of Peters & Kovalsky represents the Desert Horizon Owners ' Association ( "Association" ) in this matter. The purpose of this letter is to express the Association's � strong opposition to the approval of the proposed project and application for approval �hrough a negative declaration. In particular, the Association is concerned at the lack of investigation which is being considered in connection with this project. In the next few paragraphs, we have provided a partial list of issues which should properly be addressed in connection with this project: 1. The environmental impact of the increased density in housing cannot be properly addressed through a negative declaration. The increased density and corresponding impac� to the surrounding area as well as proximity to the storm channel and Southern California Edison Substation necessitates a full Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR" ) ; 2 . The higher density housing may severely impact traffic congestion. At minimum, a traffic study should be prepared to study the impact of the proposed project. This study should also consider alternative plans to minimize traffic congestion; 3. A noise study should be performed. The impact of increased noise which will result from the higher density � has not been considered; Planning Commission RE: Desert Horizons Owners ' Association Page 2 � 4 . Alternative sites should be explored. There are numerous other areas within Palm Desert where high density housing could be more appropriately located. The proposed location is not in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood; and 5 . The aggregate impact of two (2 ) high density housing projects in a small area needs to be explored. Palm Desert 's proposed location for high density housing is in close proximity to other high density housing in Indian Wells. The close proximity of these two projects may combine to result in an even greater negative impact � on the area. The combined impact of these two (2 ) projects needs to be studied. Your time and consideration is gr�eatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincere �, l�/'t � David M. Peters, Esq. �' DMP:im cc: Board of Directors �,... i � � ( fl F_ L I f Y U f ���I ���.����� �� J�u�uar 17 1��92 Y � �� WELLS .����� � � �9�� C A L I F O R N i A pjll� �ft'�� mM��un,:�rr��r�nvwrv�crrakrvEn: � ni���� ,n�u i?t�rai City of Yalm Desert ""'� � 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ' Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: PP 91-12 I'�, Dear Phil, '' 44-950 ; Eltlorado Drive per our phone conversation, I have reevaluated Indian Wells request as stated �ntlian welis in my previous letter to you (dated 12/20/91) regarding the above referenced CA 92210-7497 �� case. I Iel: G19/346 24�9 Fax: 619/346-0407 The City of Indian Wells approved a request by Southern California Edision to construct a substation on the site east of the proposed residential project (PP 91-12) for Palm Desert . Indian Wells conditioned Edision to install half . street improvements for a future road to be constructed adjacent to the west of the new substation. This street is to provide access into the substation and '' is not associated with the condition placed on the Sunterra project to '', constructed a street along Indian Wells' western City limits, extending from ', Fred Waring Drive to Hovely Lane/Avenue 42. � �� Edision will be constructing full improvements (Exhibit A) for the east half � ; of the new street adjacent to their substation in addition to installing part ' width street improvements west of the center line (Exhibit B). In my prior correspondence to you, Inciian Wells had requested that the proposed residential project be conditioned to install the remaining west half of the street adjacent to its east boundary to complete the street with Edison. As we ' do not know what future development and/or circulation plan will encompass the 640 acres north of these projects, we would still recommend incorporation of the street improvement condition. Please feel free to call should you have any questions. �, Sincerely '�, ' /�/Gi���� ' Brenda L. Scarcella li Deputy Community Development Director ' ��� Attachments: Exhibit A - Typical Street Section � '� Exhibit B - Part Wiclth Section � I I' i , _ i I i j I i '_ i. ` �-J -, � _ '���:%�'3\��,C� ��, :�t_ - - '' ! �--- - - _ - JA N i �hl � .� �_ - - _ -- _ _- ( �gg� ` �� 1 � �� r-� , �•�M u,,•,.� � � �� ���� LI�� � �'�.:� �:uv�����,r,PMrwrFe�tiKru.,,; � � F1,lM hc ' r�"' 1�C�" i'���'`�,���n� January 17, 1992 �Ir. Peter Sterliil; Sterling Partners, Inc. 1329 Kettner Blvd. San Diego, CA 9210i ' Dear Peter : The Waring Place Homeowners Associa�ion Board of Directors would like to set . forth the following te.rms and conditions `as criteria upon which they feel they have best represented the vested interests of all the membership in providing their_ support for y�ur planned development adjacPnt to Waring Place. ' , 1. They do not want a parallel block wall to run along the existing ' '', wall an the east side of the project. The wall, although it would '', provide a souild buffer, would be a catch-all for flying debri� and � � sand and would end up a greate: deficit than an asset. ', 2. Replace eYisting gates with a full sized gate system which is to ' include extension of perimeter block wall where necessary, and ' ', wrought iron segments which would provide complete enclosure of the community. Said wrought iron segments would include pedestrian ', access gates. , 3. Install decorative lighting around perimeter of project and pole ' lights at entry gate locations. ' , 4. Install upgraded landscaping, includir.; but not limited to, m3ture ' '� trees, ie; palms or equivalent, foilage, color and some drought tolerant plants r.o entry/perineter. '�, 5. Set aside a stun of money to purchase a certificate of deposit to be �' used to supplement the Asscciations' long terr� reserves to help detray ' the cost of upkeep oT the upgraded amenities. i III, 6. Once home building has commenced, construction of Waring Place amenities �' shall begin simultaneously and be completed wit.hin 90-150 days. ,�I � I� P.O. Box 14223 • Fa�,�r� Da;�rt, CA 9225� • (619) 345-1944 � _ — — __ — 1 -- - - --- - - _ ----- W--__. _____. , �.__._ _____... _ .____ , --__ _.�._.__ -- -- — ��Vi3I:121� �ldt��� (;(;`. Letter to St�rlir,�� "�:rtners J `� na�e � As final contingei�:cv ior approval b�. the L�larir.� P�ace �i�:::ee�aners Associa�ion ar:d its' Board of Di�ecto�s, a docu^ent r;iust be recerded with title, as an addendur,i, that theCity ot Fal:� Desert, the Palr„ Desert Rede�.�elo�;.ient Agencf, the P.iverside � County Housing Authority, or any entity herein unna�ed but �aith the authorit.v to do so, will cease and refrain, for all time, fre�n pu�:.hasing Palm Lakes Village as part of tneir required prog�am to provide affordaCle housin� within Palra Desert. The exact scope ancl details of the work will be f��nalized by the Developer and . the Board of Directors of the �varin� Place Hor.ieowr.ers Association. Lookin� forward to discussin� these issues with you in the near Tuture. Respectfully, r DBC- SYRIAH rt�'1NAG�?ENT f o r , WARI�G PLACE H0:'�1F��J`�EES ASSOCI:�TION ', �� ��_�:.. '.,1.. ��. � '� '�, Diane� R.I,yLan don i•lana � ', g , gin Agent � i i /DRL � cc: Palm Desert Planning Commission Waring Place BOD �� File � f � � � \yl� � � DESERT HORIZONS QWN�RS ��;,���CIATION ,., �.. ` � � J �� „��S V�- i .� January 20 , 1992 ' " �'�; t� e , '.. '�� � ' " �) � ;�r, � r•� -��I V '. 1 '_;J i., � Palm Desert Placlnitlg Comrnission '�i'±��l n 't ;.i,M ��a:w:unii City of Palm Desert : ,;,�, ,,�; 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260 RE: Case No . PP 91-12 Objection To Request For Negative Decl�ration Of Environmental Impact Dear Commissioners : This letter constitutes an ob �ection to tYie request by Sterling Partners Inc . for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Inlpact and precise plan for a 161 unit sinqle family residential low and ' moderate income housing project to be located on the 23 acre site ' identified as PR-7 S .O. This objection is being filed oil behalf of the four huridred thirty five f435) present homeowners of Desert- Horizons which is located immediately south on Fred Waring Drive ' from the proposed site . ' The objection is based on environmental concerns w•tiich iciclude thz w.r» following: - Traffic patterns and volume on Fred Waring at or near this project area are already extremely severe and will be ' exacerbated by th� addition of this project at this site . .as ' Fred Wariny becomes increasingly more utilized as the ' e�pedient altertlate to Highway 111 , the proposed project will ' , onl�� irnpact and hamper the planned relief to the 111 arter�� . I - Desert Hori2ons just closed its entr�� and exit gateway onto Fred Warinq directly across frorn this proposed site because ' its e�:perts deemed this high speed multilane roadw�ay to be too ' ha2ardous for its owner-residents . The proposed project is to now ha�e its main ingress/egress point at this very location ' on Fred Waring Drive . To have the onl�� ingress/egresspoint ' for a project of this size i� questionable and for it to be located on Fred Waring Drive is likewise questioned . This ', in�pact must be studied. '' - Traffic congestion at the already over-used intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Cook �treet will clearl�� be impacted by the proposed project . Turn lanes have only recently been ' added to alleviate tie ups . The impact of an additional 161 family units on this roadway presents a condition requiring �„ the further stucly ecicompassed by an EIR report . - Noise abatement efforts of the City of Palm Desert will � ZS-181 �fediterraneun, Pa.jm Desert, C� (619) 340-5501 or .341-0393 I �.0. Box 12710, �aCm I�esert, G� 92255 �ax (619) 776-5544 clearl� be impacted by the added traffic , deliveries , pickups , etc . , which are associated with a 161 unit residential housing pro ject . Tllis added noise factor is ari addit ion to that „r,� already associated with a high speed roadway located in a low density residential neighborhood. This environmental factor clearly should be studied as a part of any EIR consideration of the general well being of e`istiny nearby residential units . - The negative impact of these additional residential units on utility consurnption, such as water , electric , gas , and sewer infrastructure should be studied as a part of the usually required EIR evaluation on which the Commission can draw on in its deliberations . - The selected site itself appears to be environrnentally sensitive being located immediately adjacent to the Whitewater Storm Channel and adjacent to the recently constructed , Southern California Edison Power Substation . Palm Desert clearly has alternate sites available for such a housing project which are more suitable and less environmentally sensitive than that chosen. Alternative sites with less - environmental impact should be considered. This rightfully ' should be studied as a part of an EIR report . Other equally important factors to be considered relate to the rightful concerns of Desert Horizons homeowners as to the potential "'�` diminution in value of their property caused by the proposed project as it relates to such considerations as : - It is our understanding that this site was previously zoned with a senior citizen overlay which had received the conceptual approval of the Desert Horizons developer and ' tionieowners . The change as proposed should be the subject of ' a full EIR study. - The proposed higher density residential project does not fit with the general character and values of adjoininq ' residential property . The seven uniLs per �cre clensity of the proposed "Las Brisas" PUD compares with 1 . 7 units per acre at Desert Horizons , and far exceeds the density at Fred Waring ' Place , and at Los Lagos . This disproportionate densit�• planned project is clearly not in l�eeping with the e�isting character of the immediate area . - The City of Indian Wells has only recently earmar�ed a site for low and moderate income family residential housing which is less than 2/10 ' s of a mile west of Desert Horizons . The proposed project means that our homeowners face the prospect of being virtually bordered on two sides by higher density, lesser value residential units . This has to be a � consideration to a Planning Commission in its efforts to protect the integrity of existing neighborhoods . The fact , � �that two different Cities happen to be administering the process ii1 this particular instance should not mean that this sensitive concern can be overlooked. The location of this proposed project on the final Easternmost parcel adjaceclt tu �,,,,, the Cit�� of Indian Wells would indicate that the irnpdct on neighbortioods of plans of the adjoining city must be considered when ecaluating a project like that proposed in order to a��oid a dainaging negative impact . We wish to point out that the Desert Horizo�is homeowners ' are not ad��erse to the needs of low and moderate income families . In fact , we are on record as being in full support of the proposed low and moderate income family residential project proposed b� the City of Indian Wells for t17e area near HighwaY 111 di�d Cool: Street . The prospect of now having two such project within 2/10 ' s of a mile of the pre-e�:istiiig Desert Horizoils project produces an uilderstandable concern on the part of our tiomeowners as to potential negatice impact on their horne values . Tizis factor clearl�� cleeds to be considered. For this and for the other reasons set forth above , we urge ��ou to declitie the request of Sterling Partners Iiic . for a Negative Declaration EIR and preo.ise plan as it relates to ��our , Case Na . PP 91-12 . � full EIR stud�� is clear,�y called for . ', Respectfully Submit d, ' ��i�� Milton M. Lewis �""" President ' CC : Desert Iiorizons , Inc . ' Los Lagos f{omeowners Association Fred Waring Place Homeowners �ssociation ', � �. I i I i � I i i � � �1�� ��1 �ELL� �'� c A � i F u i�� ry i ��, �ecember 20, 1991 �` � , Yhil Drell City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 �� `�`� 95� RE: PP 91-12 LldoracJo Urive indian Welis C!� 9Z210 7497 Dear Phil, Tel: 619/346-24Y9 Thank you for providing the City of Indian Wells an opportunity to review Fax: 619;346-0407 and comment on the Precise Plan 91-12 for the 161 unit residential project to include recreation amenities a�d a child care facility, located north of Fred Waring Drive and west of Indian Wells' City limits. ' Indian Wells approved a substation for Southern California Edison located ' east of the proposed residential project earlier this year. Edison was , conditioned to install half street road improvements for a future road to be ' constructed adjacent to the west of the new substation. The proposed Y residential project should be conditioned to install the other half of the street "'� adjacent to its east boundary to complete the street with Edison. Plans for the street improvements are being prepared by Rick Engineering's Riverside ' office. The contact person is Joe Gonzales. The City has no further comments on the proposed project at this time. Please feel free to call should you have any questions. �incereiy ,�����YL��t /��GU1���� Brenda L. Scarcella Deputy Community Development Director ; � Hany C. Smith,M.D., Inc. 7r26:i Spyglass Dnve Indian Welis,CA 92210 Telephone(619)34b-1800 �rr �. � /� z � .s� ���� , ; �����-r`�`s,� l � ; � � � / �������i 1-��� ��s ,� �� ��'���.�,-� � � ��,/ � .� �'�..�—/ � � � ��`'n� � � ' ���-�.-- � G�,,,, ��C� L�,� ����' � ���'�` � /� � �'�� � �. " ���r �1�� � ,��� �' ���z-��c-� �r� � /�� / , . � //'u ���-G �r' �� l�� �.�� i � � Gi��� 1�� �/ /�l? �`r �/�� S� � �'` C�' �G�=z�-L:�J ����%�-� � ��'�,�/� � � �1i �� -G1 �- ✓ � /� �� � ��� �-�'� � "'�. �- "y �� � � `� � . �- � i /_�� G� ����� / /�� �.� - ��� �/�z���- G� � .�� � ��� � � � ��� � ..� A � ��" � � G����� � ����-�v _ .�,�.� � �/�-��� �-,/ ��� � ��' �� ,�J"�zc l /� ��`� ��� ��.<� �� ������ � / �, � � �- ', �y�„� `� ' / �� � c.�c�—--�-� ��-lS<�� Gt 7�c��1 /�c � � _ �./���� 2�V�� � �_���z✓ l� � �. ��° ��`�'-� �`��".�� � �� . �� � � C�til<<:�� �/ L!�JiI� ' +�/ �7� ����G� .L� Max uimby 7 S- ��� aa4 U � " �r �'.-,,,.o,+��-.-� �.v � _ (�Q , 9 y � �a ' C�/� �4�»�� ��aCP.v�, l—�o—9'� ( �.p'v�" �i�' � , �.�r✓� a.� � � ^ i an�C I�l��i1 oPrl'�'���� u,c c ,�,��J ,�it,Q�w . . � � � '� /�� � �-��- . �����.�' " � ��L� �� �` ��� , ��`� _ �v��- �e _ ,��.e �,�'Q �.�.e��D� � � ��� _ � � �� � , Q� � � � � . . . - � ,�,Q ���� -ti � � ;.vo— � ,.rr '�(,(/ � �titi�-�� .� �����`- ����� ���� . /�-/� c9," (°Pg�-�" -� ��� � � ��,,yL � � �� — ti�%� �� - �e �p� /6 / �1 a � � _ � �� _ _--,. �. A�� � , �� � -/ � � . -��,,��,,, I,� �,�- , � �-, ��� . ��� �°� �' . � � `� , �