Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0728 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 28, 1998 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. I11. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Cindy Finerty w Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Steve Smith Martin Alvarez Dave Erwin Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the July 7, 1998 meeting minutes. Chairperson Campbell noted that on line one of page 46 the second on the motion should be changed from Finerty to Beaty. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the July 7, 1998 meeting minutes as corrected. Motion carried 4-1 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Smith summarized pertinent July 9, 1998 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 98-11 - THE OASIS, L.L.C., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust existing lot lines to provide adequate rear yards for proposed units at the west end of Tract No. 23322-5. B. Case No. TPM 27419 - RANDALL W. CROFT/EDC CONSULTANTS, Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension for a tentative parcel map subdividing 17 acres into 19 industrial lots. Project site is located approximately one half mile easterly of Monterey Avenue, northerly of the future extension of Dinah Shore Drive, and southerly of the Southern Pacific Railroad and Interstate 10. ;i Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 98-10 - ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of St. John's Lutheran Church sanctuary and an addition to the church administrative building. Property is located at 42-695 Washington Street. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 taw Mr. Alvarez explained that St. John's Lutheran Church is located on the west side of Washington Street between the Learning Tree School and Tot Stop Preschool. The property consists of a 2,600 square foot church, 700 square foot detached administrative building, and a 2,900 square foot fellowship hall. The church requested the addition of 663 square feet of seating area. The remodel would include the construction of a narthex at the church entrance and 648 square feet to the detached administration building. The church provided three services during peak season on Sundays. The times were 8:00 a.m., 9:30 a.m. and 1 1 :00 a.m. The church also provides a half hour between services to provide property exiting. Regarding parking, the existing sanctuary area consists of 1,700 square feet which requires 58 parking spaces at one parking space for every three seats. The new seating area would consist of 663 square feet of non-fixed seats. That required 19 parking spaces for a combined total of 77. The onsite parking available is 77 which is consistent with the ordinance. If the church experienced high attendance during peak season, it has written authorization to use the adjacent parking lots of the Learning Tree and Tot Stop which has a combined number of 92 parking spaces. He noted that the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and recommended approval, subject to the conditions attached to the resolution. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JIM ANDERSON, a trustee of the church, felt they were meeting all of the City's requirements and asked for approval. He said that everyone else that was supposed to be at the meeting was out of town this week since the meeting was supposed to be last week, so he was the only one here. Commissioner Beaty asked if Sunday School was a separate event from a church service and if they had any parking problem with Sunday School and church services running concurrently. Mr. Anderson replied no. He explained that most of the time the adults were in the church and their kids were in Sunday School, so there weren't any additional vehicles because of the children. taw 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Commissioner Beaty commented that he just found it interesting that the conditions of approval said they couldn't be used simultaneously. Mr. Anderson informed Commission that with the original agreement with the County, the County was afraid they would lease the fellowship hall to an additional congregation which would double the number of spaces they would need on Sunday, which they had no desire to do any way. The agreement with the County was they couldn't use both buildings at the same time. The way it worked out was they were using both buildings, but it was for Sunday School and they didn't want to get in a bind because of the original agreement. Commissioner Beaty said he understood and was probably questioning the wording in the staff report more than the usage, but he had no problem. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Mai Commissioner Finerty stated that since the church could use the Tot Stop and Learning Tree parking lots for overflow parking, she would move approval of the project. Commissioner Fernandez agreed and was also in favor of the project. Commissioner Beaty said he was also in favor and would second the motion. Chairperson Campbell was also in favor and called for a vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1877, approving CUP 98-10, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 98-9 - PAULETTE VU, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 740 square foot massage establishment and natural healing center on property located at 73-899 Highway 1 1 1 , #B. UJ 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Mr. Smith said that as indicated, the property is on Highway 1 1 1 at 73-899 which is approximately 400 feet west of Portola. The request is for a massage establishment that would also sell herbs and natural products. He explained that aspect of the business is not subject to the use permit preceding. The proposal is to operate five days a week from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Staff noted on page two of the staff report the various municipal code requirements involved here. He said this was just one step along the way for the applicant in that she is required to obtain other business licenses and a separate massage license permit through other agencies of the City. Staff included a copy of the massage ordinance with the staff report. Part of that was to allow Commission to "come up to speed" on it since there will be other applications in the near future. Staff has a couple of applications in the office right now. Mr. Smith felt the findings for approval could be made as outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report and felt that basically there wasn't a parking problem due to the limited size of this facility at 740 square feet and just two massage rooms. For CEQA purposes the proposal is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption. Staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. +tip..► Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. PAULETTE VU, 54-435 Eisenhower Drive in La Quinta, said she was asking for approval of the massage establishment and she had submitted almost all of the papers, except they required 300 hours from school and she almost met that. She was waiting for Commission approval and then she would submit for a business license. Chairperson Campbell asked if she still needed to finish the school hours. Ms. Vu indicated she would be done in about one week, but they wouldn't issue the permit unless she has Planning Commission approval. That was what she was waiting for. Commissioner Beaty noted that Ms. Vu would have two employees, herself and Mr. Gonzales. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Ms. Vu said Mr. Gonzales was a partner. She explained that with the license he has more than 1 ,000 hours and was currently working in Palm Desert. Commissioner Beaty asked if he has a business or license at Marriott Desert Springs. Ms. Vu concurred. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Gonzales would continue to provide massage there. Ms. Vu said no and indicated she would submit all the papers with the business license. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was in favor and would move for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1878, approving CUP 98-9, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. PP 98-12 - BRUCE A. KAPLAN, M.D., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct an 8,800 square foot industrial building on a 25,700 square foot lot at the northeast corner of St. Charles Place and Mediterranean. Mr. Smith noted that the plans were on display and were included with commission packets. The applicant indicated there would be 20 parking spaces on the north side of the building. Code requirement for parking is 18 6 M MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 spaces and he felt that was adequate. It was noted in the staff report that the building setback from St. Charles Place was a couple of feet short. The building could be moved further to the east to comply and that was a condition of approval. The Architectural Review Commission on July 14 granted preliminary approval subject to elimination of one parking space located on the south side of the driveway west of the building. ARC was also looking for an upgrade on the west elevation facing St. Charles Place. They wanted it to look more like the south elevations facing Mediterranean. The applicant had no problem with doing that. It just hadn't been done on the set of plans before Planning Commission. Findings for approval of the precise plan were outlined on page three of the staff report. Environmentally the proposal is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. Mr. Smith recommended approval of PP 98-12. Commissioner Finerty asked if the applicant would need to go back to Architectural Review Commission to get final approvals subject to the elevation issue. Mr. Smith said yes and indicated that all reviews at Architectural Review were two-step. They get a preliminary approval and r.. generally conditions were imposed. They prepare the working drawings, go through the Building Department for the first review for the first list of corrections. At that point they go back through Architectural Review to get a final approval. Commissioner Finerty said she didn't see that recommendation as a condition and she would like to see the request approved with the elimination of the one parking space and taking care of the elevation issue. Commissioner Finerty clarified that she would recommend approval, but her question had to do with Architectural Review Commission's preliminary approval. She liked what they had to say and felt it was important, but she didn't note it in the list of conditions for the resolution. Mr. Smith said that if the Commission wanted to, they could place it as a condition of approval, but there is a condition that says they must meet the requirements of Architectural Review under Community Development #4. Commissioner Finerty said that answered her question. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. The applicant was not present. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. tow 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1879, approving PP 98-12, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No. TT 26562 Amendment #1 - ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES FOR AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC., Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to TT 26562 to add development phasing to a 420-acre property located east of Portola Avenue north of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Cook Street. Mr. Smith noted that a copy of the plan was on the wall and they received it in the commission's packet. In 1990 and 1991 the City reviewed an application for the precise plan/conditional use permit, a change of zone and tentative tract map for this 687 unit residential development. It included an 18-hole golf course, and 225 suite hotel located on 420 acres east of Portola and north of Frank Sinatra. That review also included preparation of an environmental impact report which was adopted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 91-52, a copy of which was included with the staff report. The EIR was certified and the precise plan/conditional use permit and tentative map were approved subject to conditions. At this time the applicant is wishing to add to that tentative map development phasing. Phase 1 would be golf course area and residential units; Phase 2 would be residential units in the area at the southeast corner; Phase 3 would be residential units at the north end of the project; and Phase 4 is the remaining residential units. Staff felt the proposed phasing represented a logical development sequence. On page 2 of the staff report it explained that the original map was approved May 9, 1991 . The map is scheduled to expire next May 9, 1999. Approval of this phasing plan would serve to extend the life of the map to the year 2001 . There was a full Environmental Impact Report prepared and staff felt the phasing plan is consistent and did not change the density or lot lines. Staff also felt it was consistent with the previous approval. Therefore, staff concluded that no further environmental review is necessary. Mr. Smith noted land had provided 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 copies of the letter from the Palm Springs Unified School District dated July 9, 1998) that P.S.U.S.D. asked that their condition be imposed. The District forwarded to the City their Residential Development Fee Justification Study which outlined when mitigation payments may be requested. This was a result of three recent court of appeals cases. Staff felt that the key words were "when considering the approval of a zone change, general plan amendment, specific plan or other legislative application". Mr. Smith noted that the application before the Planning Commission was not legislative. It is a phasing map. Staff recommended approval of the phasing plan as proposed. There were three conditions of approval and the Department of Public Works restated their conditions of approval from 1991 . Staff was suggesting Condition No. 3 that prior to the issuance of any building permit the owner/ developer provide the City with evidence that the required school fee authorized by AB 2926 has been paid. With that staff concluded and asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Engineering at 74-410 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, thanked city staff for working with them on extending their map. As stated by Mr. Smith, the map has not changed in its configuration at all. All they have done is add phasing to it which they feel is a logical sequence. They have gone through the hurdles of the EIR and all the conditions of the map are fair and were agreed on in 1991 and should remain basically intact. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Ross had any comment in response to the request by Palm Springs Unified School District and if that was acceptable to him. Mr. Ross said no, he didn't feel that it was fair. He felt the state mandated fee was fair. It was agreed to back in 1991 with the EIR and he felt it was still valid. Commissioner Beaty asked if it was correct that in 1991 Palm Springs Unified agreed to that condition. Mr. Ross said he assumed so. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 v Mr. Erwin said that in 1991 the District commented on the Environmental Impact Report which contained a great deal of detail about the fee. They did not raise any issue about that at that time. They did comment on some other issues, but not on the fee at that time. Commissioner Beaty asked if the fee structure had changed since 1991 . Mr. Erwin said not appreciably, he didn't think, other than the court cases that were set forth. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. She noted that she had a request to speak card from Deborah Cesario in opposition. MS. DEBORAH CESARIO, an attorney with the law firm of Bowie, Arneson, Wile and Giannone, said she was present representing Palm Springs Unified School District. She appreciated the fact that the City staff had acknowledged, as well as the Planning Commission, a letter dated July 9, 1998, and she requested that the letter be made part of the record as well as her testimony this evening (see letter attached hereto as Exhibit A). She said that essentially they do acknowledge the fact that this project was not before the Planning Commission or City Council for some type of legislative approval. However, the basis for their objection to the project this evening was the fact that as stated in the Planning Commission resolution that this project, they believe, is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Upon review of the General Plan and as outlined in their letter dated July 9, 1998, they state that essentially the General Plan requires that public facilities be provided prior to or concurrent with need and that additionally developers pay for the facilities that are needed in order to serve the new development. Therefore, their condition of approval that they proposed should be substituted for the condition of approval proposed by the City this evening. She did acknowledge that back in 1991 the School District did not submit the same comments they are stating tonight.. The fact was that yes, there is no legislative approval, however, the Planning Commission had to find tonight in order to adopt their resolution to approve this project that this project is consistent with the General Plan, which she just mentioned and in her documentation submitted is inconsistent. The School District has adopted what is called "statutory school fees" in the amount of $1 .93 per square foot of assessable 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 space for residential development and $.31 per square foot of chargeable covered enclosed space for commercial development. In the case of legislative approvals or in instances not just involving legislative approvals, cities and counties have required mitigation in line of the full mitigation. The study identified in the staff report unfortunately stated that it was adopted on January 9 and in fact it was adopted by the Board on June 9, 1998. She felt that study not only justified $1 .93. It also justified $3.58 per square feet of assessable space for residential development for single family detached and $3.47. There was quite a bit of difference between $3.58, $3.47 and $1 .93; therefore, the basis for requesting the condition of approval was to ensure that one, school facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development and that developers pay more than just statutory school fees. She stated that was necessary in order for the School District to provide adequate school facilities for the students that are going to come out of this development. Therefore, at this time she submitted to the Planning Commission that they approve the,project provided that it does so with their suggested condition of approval. She asked for any questions. w Commissioner Beaty stated that he knew there has been a lot of controversy on that parcel and asked if there has been a study of how many students are projected to be generated from the housing construction. Ms. Cesario said she couldn't speak on behalf of the City. On behalf of the District, the Justification Study that was adopted June 9, 1998, contained what they call "student generation rates" for the District as a whole. They in turn use the student generation rates and apply them to a project. For the 687 developed units they would break them down by single family-multifamily and then make a determination. She apologized, but to precisely answer Commissioner Beaty's question, no, but they can, based on the School District's Justification Study they could present Commission with those figures. As a follow up, the School District's school facilities, especially in the elementary level, are over capacity and they are using portables and they don't consider that in capacity calculations for the purposes of the state. Chairperson Campbell asked if the applicant wished to offer rebuttal comments. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Commissioner Beaty asked the applicant for the average cost of the units. Someone from the audience said approximately $250,000. Mr. Ross said they would be comparable with Indian Ridge Country Club and at that level. Regarding student generation, he wasn't a lawyer but he didn't agree with the study which was based more on single family homes versus a second home type of project like this would be, similar to Indian Ridge. Commissioner Beaty said if Indian Ridge is a comparable project, he would like to see the number of students that are generated from Indian Ridge and he would guess that it is less than one dozen. Mr. Ross said he would venture to guess that it wasn't the same as a single family residential development. He felt the current fee was adequate and that is where they stand. He said they were happy with staff's recommendation. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that as she understands it, the Commission would simply be approving a phasing map for something that has already been approved. It was approved at $1 .93 and therefore she didn't see a need to change that because they are just going ahead and approving a phasing plan. She moved for approval based on staff's report. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was in concurrence with Commissioner Finerty with the added comment that he thought the fees generated would far exceed the need on a per pupil basis and he seconded the motion. Commissioner Fernandez added that he felt the same way. The project was already approved and he was in favor of the motion. Chairperson Campbell stated that she also concurred and asked for a vote. Mr. Erwin stated for the record that the action of the Planning Commission is final and would not go to the City Council. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1880, approving TT 26562 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (July 20, 1998) Commissioner Finerty stated that basically they are still debating the deteriorating walls on Hovley and what could be done. It was still a policy issue versus the homeowner's responsibility. Project Area 4 Committee expressed their desire to be part of the review process as the proposed improvements are implemented. D. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (July 22, 1998) Mr. Smith stated that the committee had a report from Jerry Clark, the City's landscape consultant design person, relative to parking lot modifications. The code changes would be coming before commission shortly. Basically the parking lot shading goal was to get 50% of the parking lot shaded within ten years. Unfortunately most of the trees tended to die off in less than ten years. Even in the best of circumstances it seemed that the best they could hope for was a 25% shade factor. They would be amending the parking requirements and ftw 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 1998 4 Ui the size of various spaces to in effect allow compact spaces so they could create larger planter areas for the trees in parking lots and try and encourage better pruning techniques, better watering and those types of things. Also, they would count carports. If a project covered 50% of its lot then they would only have to provide shading through trees on the other 50%. Right now the requirement was the number of parking spaces divided by three. One tree for every three parking spaces. There was heated discussion amongst the group in that they have some people who think we shouldn't be expanding our turf. He said there was no conclusion reached but there was a lively debate. Chairperson Campbell indicated the discussion also included the size of trees. Mr. Smith agreed that there was considerable discussion about if the required 24" box material was root bound material that did not thrive versus 15 gallon material which would typically surpass the 24" box material. XI. COMMENTS J None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting to August 4, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH—, Acting Sec etary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California /tm 14 T � rec ,v BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE -7' A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALEXANDER BOWIE' 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE (800)423-6054 JOAN C.ARNESON NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 FAX(949)851-2014 r WENDY H.WILES* (949)951.1300 PATRICIA B.GIANNONE ROBERT E.ANSLOW 3403 TENTH STREET,SUITE 715 RESPOND TO NEWPORT BEACH ARTO J.NUUTINEN RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92501 REF.OUR FIU DANIEL J.PAYNE (909)222-2750 JULIE McCLOSKEY ISABELLA ALASTI DEBORAH R.G.CESARIO BRIAN W.SMITH 15080.8 KRISHAN CHOPRA RECEIVED •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION July 9, 1998 J U L 13 1998 C0MMUNrry CE/[L(iPMSr I OCpfi 1 MtGI i DwcRTL)d Via Facsimile 1(760)341-7098] & U.S. Mail C�OF Pti Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Re: Response to Request for Comments and Conditions of Approval Relative to Tentative Tract Map 26562,Amendment No. 1 (the "Project") Dear Mr. Alvarez: On behalf of the Palm Springs Unified School District("District"), we are submitting the following comments and condition of approval relative to the Project. We understand that the applicant, Robert Bein, W.M. Frost& Associates, is seeking the City of Palm Desert's ("City") approval of Amendment No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map 26562 ("Tract Map"), the Project. Approval of the Project would add development phasing to 420 acres of property located east of Portola Avenue, north of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Cook Street. We further understand that the Project is for 687 residential dwelling units, an 18 hole golf course and 225 suite hotel development which is known as the Rancho Portola project. The District respectfully requests that the City include the proposed condition for approval ("Condition") as a part of the conditions of approval for the Project and that this letter be made a part of the record of these proceedings. The basis for this request is to ensure that the conditions of approval for the Project are consistent with the City's General Plan. ' BAW&G/DRC/ad/50168 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Martin Alvarez City of Palm Desert July 9, 1998 Page 2 1. CITY'S GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS The Public Facilities Element of the City's General Plan sets forth the following Goal and Objectives: Goal - Provide a full range of public facilities and services that are related to citizen needs, are economical, and are convenient. Objectives - Ensure that adequate community facilities are available before or along with private development approval, in order to guarantee that facilities are not overloaded and areas are not left unserved. - Ensure that increased service demands due to new development and the, financial participation of developers in providing these additional services are equal. The Concept portion of Public Facilities Element of the General Plan provides that: These economic constraints are shifting the responsibility of providing public facilities from local government to the developer. Developers are required to either provide for the facilities at the time of construction or pay a fee for that facility. The opportunity exists for local officials to assert strong leadership to not only maintain and improve existing facilities but also assure an adequate level of public facilities for future residents. The Element portion of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan also states that: Permit development only if community facilities such as schools,police protection,recreational facilities, will be available for that development at a level required for that development. Provide that the cost of increased service demands due to new development and the financial participation of developers, in providing facilities to meet these demand increases, be equal. BAW&G/DRC/ad/50168 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Martin Alvarez City of Palm Desert July 9, 1998 Page 3 The City's General Plan, therefore, requires that school facilities are to be provided prior to or concurrent with need (development), or else, appropriate school facilities cannot be provided at the time of full build-out. If the Project is approved without providing full mitigation of school facilities impacts,the City approval of the Project would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan. In order for the District to provide school facilities for the new residential development, the Project owner(s) ("Owner") shall mitigate the project's impacts on the District's school facilities pursuant to a mitigation agreement. The mitigation agreement shall provide that the Owner is obligated to pay to the District mitigation payments ("Mitigation Payments"), not statutory school fees pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq. and Education Code Section 17620 et seq. ("School Fees"). Alternatively,the Owner may participate in a community facilities district, but only at the District's request. 2. PROPOSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL In order to ensure compliance with the City's General Plan, the District proposes that the City approve the following Condition for school facilities: "Prior to the approval of Tentative Tract Map 26562 within the Rancho Portola project area by the City of Palm Desert, the property owner(s)within the project area shall enter into a written mitigation agreement(s) with the Palm Springs Unified School District("District") mitigating the project's impacts on the District's school facilities. The mitigation agreement(s) shall be in substantially the same form as the"School Facilities Funding and Mitigation Agreement between Palm Springs Unified School District and Andreas Cove Development Co." executed on April 28, 1998, and recorded in the Riverside County Recorder's Office on May 21, 1998 as Instrument No. 207468, which is by this reference herein incorporated. Such mitigation agreement(s) shall also provide that in the alternative to mitigating A e project's impacts by mitigation payments,the property owners may participate in a community facilities district, but only at the District's request. The mitigation payment amounts shall be as set forth in the District's then current justification study. " 3. REQUEST FOR NOTICE On behalf of the District, we hereby request that copies of all notices and other documents mailed or distributed relative to the Project be furnished to the District at its office, located at 333 S. Farrell Drive, Palm Springs, California, 92262, to the attention of William Schmidt, Director, Facilities Planning & Development; and to our offices to the attention of BAW&G/DRC/ad/50168 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Martin Alvarez City of Palm Desert July 9, 1998 Page 4 Alexander Bowie. If there are any fees or charges required for the provision of such notices, please provide our office with an invoice for such costs and we will pay such costs. This request for notice specifically includes,but is not limited to, notices of all hearings,proposed actions to be taken with regard to the developmental process, requests for information, draft environmental documents, staff reports or commentaries, and, in particular, any draft EIR, responses to, or final EIR prepared, furnished or filed with regard to this Project pursuant to CEQA and copies of all Planning Commission and City Council Agendas where this matter will be calendared. 4. CONCLUSION If the Project is approved without a condition of approval that requires full mitigation,the District will be required to meet its legal mandate to educate students without assured funds or available capacity. Additionally, approval of the Project, in the absence of the Condition violates the provisions of the City's General Plan. Therefore,the City should only approve the Project subject to the District's proposed Condition. Very truly yours, ' BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE By P44W'y Deborah R.G. Cesario DRC:ad cc: Mr. William Schmidt Mr. Alexander Bowie BAW&G/DRC/ad/50 t 68