Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-20 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION i MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2018 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Joseph Pradetto called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chairman Ron Gregory Chairman Joseph Pradetto Staff Present: Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Ron Moreno, Senior Engineer/City Surveyor Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Joseph Pradetto led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 2018. Rec: Approved as presented. Upon a motion by Commissioner DeLuna, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 412-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for an undeveloped 18-acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue. Case No. PP/EA 16-394 (New Cities Investment Partners, LLC., Walnut Creek, California, Applicant). Principal Planner Eric Ceja noted that the applicant met with the owner of Canterra Apartments prior to the Planning Commission meeting and changes to the project were proposed. The proposed changes include: eliminating 12 units (412 to 400 units) and reducing some of the building heights along the eastern property line from three stories to two stories. He continued and presented the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He mentioned the applicant provided sight lines for Venezia and agreed to relocate the garages. The applicant also agreed to plant a double row of trees along the southern property line to limit the visibility from Portola Country Club and the proposed project. Lastly, he said copies of letters from surrounding property owners were given to the Planning Commission before the meeting and the City Attorney would like to address one of the letters. City Attorney Robert Hargreaves addressed a letter from Ms. Katherine Jenson, an attorney with Rutan & Tucker, LLP. He believed the City could address the issues raised in the letter. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the proposed project and make a decision based on a land use planning perspective, 2 G:APlanningWonica ORellly\Planning CommissionA2018Winutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 and not worry about the legal arguments. The City will address the legal arguments. as they move forward. Mr. Ceja recommended approval of the proposed project to the City Council. Chairman Pradetto briefly explained the process of the public hearing. He asked that the audience withhold any comments, clapping, boos, or jeers until it is their turn for public comment. He wanted to make sure everyone has a chance to be heard and be respected. He asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner John Greenwood said one of the Conditions of Approval mentions a housing agreement and the dispersion of low-income units. He asked staff to explain the dispersion of low-income units throughout the proposed project and when it is reviewed. Mr. Ceja explained that the applicant is conditioned to enter a housing agreement with the City's Housing Authority. The City's practice is to disperse the affordable units throughout the project site and between different unit types. Therefore, the affordable units would not be concentrated in any single building. Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell added that the City's Housing Authority is not a supporter of restricting low-income units to specific numbers (101 , 105, etc.). The Housing Authority prefers that it is a little more fluid. The housing agreement is an instrument in place to guarantee the low-income units are throughout the project. He said the City desires some level flexibility and Housing staff works with the applicant to ensure that happens. Vice Chairman Ron Gregory asked staff to indicate the 12 units that have been eliminated. Mr. Ceja responded that he would let the applicant go into more detail regarding changes to the proposed project. However, he believed the units being eliminated are in Building No. 1 . Building No. 1 would be changed to a two-stories, as a result, 12 units would be eliminated. Chairman Pradetto asked when the applicant and staff agreed to the reduction of units. Mr. Ceja replied within the last hour. Chairman Pradetto asked if there is no visual representation of the new changes. Mr. Ceja replied no. Chairman Pradetto inquired if there is a requirement for the garage units. 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Mr. Ceja responded that the City's parking standards for multi-family or apartments are 50 percent of the parking provided shall be shaded such as a carport or garage. He noted that the applicant has provided both options. The property owner could charge more for a rental unit with a garage. Chairman Pradetto asked if the removal of the garage units would affect the sight lines and would the wall still be 9 or 11 feet tall. Mr. Ceja replied no. He said the existing perimeter walls would not change. As proposed with the garages, there would be a six-foot-high wall with a building above the wall that would be visible. However, without the garages, there would only be a six-foot-high wall. Chairman Pradetto said a concern that was previously mentioned is the site location sits several feet higher than the adjoining properties on the east and the sight line visual did not reflect that. Mr. Ceja responded that the grade as shown to staff is within 12 inches of the surrounding properties. He stated there is a lot of sand that would be brought down within a foot. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked how much space there is between the houses and the project site. Mr. Ceja replied that the graphic indicates 97 feet between building faces and pointed to the area. Chairman Pradetto asked what the Planning Commission is being asked to approve. Mr. Ceja responded that staff is asking the Planning Commission to approve a 400- unit apartment project with a density bonus. Chairman Pradetto asked if the Planning Commission would be making any determination on the environmental document. Mr. Ceja replied no. The City Council will make any determination on the environmental document. Chairman Pradetto commented that under the City's code, the setbacks on a Planned Residential zone are set through the Precise Plan application process. He asked how the Planning Commission could recommend a zero-lot-line on the proposed project without going through the Precise Plan process. Mr. Ceja responded that there are multiple application entitlements that staff takes to the final approving authority. With the current project, the applicant is proposing 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the density bonus which requires City Council approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission should look at the Precise Plan as part of their decision; however, the project goes to the City Council for final approval. Vice Chairman Gregory clarified that the applicant has proposed garage units because they could charge more money for those units. The garages have nothing to do with the density bonus and carports are allowed. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Chairman Pradetto mentioned that the Findings in the resolution states "the Planning Commission further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts . . ." Therefore, the Planning Commission is being asked to say there are no significant findings. He said it might likely be true; however, they are in the middle of the comment period and they have not received or responded to all the comments. He asked how staff expects the Planning Commission to predict in that circumstance. Mr. Ceja responded that staff provided the Planning Commission with a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for review and comment. He said the Commission can discuss anything they are not comfortable within the MND. Mr. Hargreaves made clear that the recommendation to be made by the Planning Commission is based on the record that was provided by staff. He stated the comment period has not closed. The comment period will close before it goes to the City Council. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. LEE NEWELL, New Cities Investment Partners, LLC., Walnut Creek, California, stated that he met with Mr. Ceja, Mr. Moran (owner of Canterra Apartments), and Mr. Moran's attorney before the Planning Commission meeting. He said they have not had an opportunity to meet and discuss the proposed project. He felt they all arrived to a middle ground and a game plan, but have not nailed everything down. He noted that his development team is present to answer any questions. He shared that he started visiting the desert 68 years ago and has had a residence in the desert for 30 years. He bought the project site because he felt it is a perfect property for the proposed use. He believed Palm Desert is in need of affordable housing and somewhat of an epidemic at this time. In addition, he has been doing 80/20 deals which are 20 percent affordable and 80 percent market rate since 1984. He mentioned he did the first density bonus that the State of California approved, as well as, the second school mitigation program. He has been doing mostly family housing bond deals and four percent tax credits for many years, and felt they would do a great job on the proposed project. They plan on 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 building the finest class "A" luxury apartment community in the desert with generously sized one-, two-, and three-bedroom units that include top quality finishes. The proposed project would also include a clubhouse. He said there has not been a market-rate apartment building of any size built in the desert for the past nine years since the recession. He said they are able to make this project economically work because of their financing vehicle that is facilitated by the 20 percent affordable units; therefore, it is a win-win situation and a good thing for the City. Mr. Newell noted that in the last 11 years they have only produced 50 very- low-income units, and there is a remaining 1,051 affordable units that need to be provided to meet State requirements. He also noted that they would have 82 workforce very-low-income units, which would be spread throughout the project. If they reduce the project by 12 units as mentioned earlier, there might be a couple of very-low-income units less. Approximately nine months ago, they met with the Venezia homeowners' association president to present the layout of the project. At that time, there was an agreement with the proposed project. However, that has changed and they are now trying to be a good neighbor by moving the garages away. He briefly went over the traffic study and noted that the traffic signal, median, and the turn lane would improve traffic in the area. Mr. Newell disclosed that the project was approved in 1989 and it contributed 20 acres to the soccer park. In regard to Portola Country Club (PCC), he met with the manager and the manager did not feel there were any issues. He let the manager of PCC know that they were proposing a double row of 24-inch box trees so PCC residents cannot see the apartments. He noted face of the building to face of the building is 117 feet from PCC and 97 feet from Venezia. He referred to the General Plan use for a town center neighborhood, which shows three pictures with three-story residential use. Based on discussions with Mr. Moran, they will have 10 two-story buildings and only five three-story buildings. He said one of the three-story buildings will be along the eastern boundary and the other three-story buildings will be at the center of the project. He explained that Building No. 1 would be reduced to a two-story building and noted that the parking ratio changes with the reduction of the 12 units. Building Nos. 6, 7, and 10 will be reduced to two stories. Building No. 11 will remain three stories and Building No. 3 will become three stories with a total of 400 apartment units. He stated after almost 30 years, it is time for the property to be developed and thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Commissioner DeLuna asked staff if there are other projects in the City of Palm Desert with three-story buildings or are planned for three-story buildings. Mr. Ceja replied there is one existing three-story apartment building on Deep Canyon Road near Shadow Hills Road, south of Highway 111. He said there are other sites planned for three-story apartments in north Palm Desert. Chairman Pradetto asked Mr. Moran if he planned on speaking. 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. RICK MORAN, Canterra Apartments, Palm Springs, California, thanked Mr. Newell for meeting with him and his attorney. They all put their heads together and felt Mr. Newell made a lot of concessions and appreciated that he has agreed to lower Building Nos. 1 , 6, 7 and 10 from three stories to two stories. The changes eliminate view blockage from their project. He believed Mr. Newell is trying to be a good neighbor by removing carports behind Venezia and kept buildings at two stories. He also realized that there is never a perfect solution, but he felt satisfied with the arrangement they have agreed to and hoped the project could move forward. Commissioner Greenwood asked staff to clarify the number of units and the number of buildings going down to two stories and one building going to three stories. Mr. Ceja pointed to the site plan and said Building No. 3 would go from two stories to three stories, which would become similar to Building No. 14. Vice Chairman Gregory inquired if Building No. 3 would then lengthen. Mr. Ceja responded that Building Nos. 3 and 5 would lengthen. MR. LOREN CAMPBELL, Palm Desert, California, commented that he bought a home in Venezia a few months ago. He is concerned with the sight lines and the two-story buildings. However, now there is so much confusion with the changes made before the meeting and he has no concept of what is really going on. He noted that the site plan indicates two buildings that are numbered 14. He would want to look at the MND document to see what the impact will be on the schools. He urged the Planning Commission to not make a decision on the project, defer until the public comments are closed, and staff has had time to address public comments. MR. DAVID NEWMAN, Palm Desert, California, stated that based on the modifications, he would submit his written objection to the original plan for the proposed project. He said he will protect his interest as a resident of Venezia at another time, if necessary. MR. JAMES GUGINO, Palm Desert, California, said he and his brother bought a house in Venezia as a second home because they like the area. The area is beautiful and well kept. However, they discovered that more than 400 apartment units are being proposed which is like a small city. He voiced his concern with the three-story buildings. He pointed to the site plan and asked what are the red boxes. Mr. Stendell responded that the red boxes indicate garages. 7 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. GUGINO stated that 400 apartment units are a large amount. He said the Planning Commission would also be concerned if they had two-story and three- story buildings being built across the street from their home. He mentioned he paid over $900,000 for his home and it does not make sense to have an apartment complex in his area. He understood there is a need for apartments, but there have to be other properties available to build apartments. He felt the homeowners in Venezia should be protected. MS. DIANA ALTOFER, Palm Desert, California, asserted that Mr. Gugino is directly affected by the proposed project. She stated that the garages are being eliminated; however, there is no buffer. She also stated they did not receive a scale model to see the ratio of the project. She said there are going to be 594 homes looking at apartment buildings. She was glad that the garages were eliminated because she felt they are a fire hazard and a perfect place for middle school kids to hang out. She referred to dust removal and noted that the report states it is insignificant. She voiced that the size of sand mounds are big and she does not believe it will not make a difference. In addition, there will be a three-story building overlooking the kindergarten play yard and has notified the school's superintendent. She suggested the building be moved in a different way so it is not overlooking the play yard. Ms. Altofer listed all the proposed amenities, which would be next to their sleepy neighborhood. She stated that the project is contrary to what they thought they were moving next to. MS. SUSAN YOUMANS, Palm Desert, California, shared that the City's core values and moral code include honesty and integrity. So she asked why the project was brought up during the summer when many residents were not in town. She asked why the City and the developer get several months to prepare and residents get three minutes to oppose. She asked why their opinions do not matter. She asked what makes the City think that the project would not affect the residents of Chaparral, Silver Sands, and the other complexes along Portola Avenue. She asked if more could be done than just a small blurb in The Desert Sun and letters to a handful of adjacent homeowners. She asked who is going to be responsible for the cracks in their windows, sheetrock, and brick walls from the excavators and heavy equipment. She asked how will the residents be compensated. Will they need to hire lawyers? The City's website calls Palm Desert a unique, beautiful desert city and a premier resort destination. If the City continues to allow three- to five-story buildings to be constructed, she asked how long will it take residents to decide to move to a different Coachella Valley city. She stated the three-story project will obstruct views and asked the Planning Commission to not vote to change the landscape of Palm Desert. MS. JUNE ENGBLOM, Palm Desert, California, requested a few extra minutes to address the Planning Commission because she already had written her comments, but the facts have changed. She said during the meetings in the summer, residents brought up the following concerns: traffic, the views, noise, and water among other issues. The MND indicates there will be a traffic signal at 8 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Jasmine Court, but there is only the promise of a signal warrant analysis. However, the signal would be installed after post project condition, and after construction and full occupancy of the proposed project so who knows if a signal will ever be installed. There are also painted lines proposed on Portola Avenue to make two right-turn lanes onto Hovley Lane East. The bike lane appears to be gone, which could become a safety issue. Concerning the view, the MND claims their views are already obstructed by trees, carports, or brick walls—so what are a few three-story buildings going to matter. She asked the Planning Commission to take a look at the site and her backyard so they can see for themselves. The noise, the MND predicts there will not be temporary, permanent, or periodic increase ambient noise levels. With bulldozers and 865 new neighbors, the adjacent residents will certainly experience increased noise. In regard to the water, the Coachella Valley Water District told the City there is no problem. If there is not a problem, she asked why are they being told not to flush each time they use the bathroom. The MND mentions that no reptiles or mammals were observed. However, she hears coyotes howling in the morning and lizards on her wall. In addition, she sees hawks, doves, roadrunners, other birds, and hears owls at night. In the MND, Mr. Ceja signs off that the project could have a significant effect on the environment. Supposedly revisions by the developer have been made, she asked what revisions have been done. Over and over again, the MND states "allowed under the General Plan." She voiced that perhaps the real problem is the General Plan. She asked why did the City Council approve multi-story buildings. She asked if the views and overcrowding do not matter to the Council. She asked how were the residents informed of the General Plan. Was there some small tidbit in The Desert Sun? If people were to be polled on how they feel about two- to five-story buildings in Palm Desert, she bet that most people would respond no. She mentioned she received 78 signatures opposing the project. She referred back to the MND which states "allowed under the General Plan," the City could build seven to 40 units per acre anywhere. So on the Hovley Lane East site, there could be a minimum of 126 to 720 apartments. She pointed out that the General Plan would allow up to 720 apartments on a tiny piece of land. She asked that the Planning Commission consider the applicant's request carefully and on how they are impacting the future of beautiful Palm Desert before they vote in favor of three-story buildings. MS. DIANE RICHEY, Palm Desert, California, communicated that she walks her dog at the Palm Desert Civic Center two to three times a week and is always astonished by the beauty of the surrounding area that the City has created for the residents. She shared that the City Council's bios on the website mention that many of them enjoy the outdoors and one day they are going to look out and see three-story buildings. She felt that three-story buildings are not appropriate on the proposed site. She said the developer is from northern California and he might not care what happens in southern California. She stated the City needs to take care of the Palm Desert residents. If the City cares, they need to keep the buildings at two-stories. With the original plan of 306 units, the developer could still provide 60 low-income units. She hoped when it is time for the Planning Commission to vote, 9 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the Commission thinks about all things in question. If the Commission lived next door to the proposed project, she asked how would they vote. MS. COLLEEN HILL, Palm Desert, California, said she became a resident in Palm Desert five years ago. She chose to buy in Venezia because the views were amazing and it was a lovely community surrounded by lovely buildings. She stated that three-story buildings do not fit in the proposed area. She would not have bought a home in Venezia if she knew there would be three-story buildings. She voiced her concern with giving the developer a lot of concessions. She asked why the City is allowing the developer to have zero-lot-line setbacks and three-story buildings. Secondly, if PCC could have a 127-foot separation, why can they not have the same for Venezia. Thirdly, she is concerned with property taxes. There is going to an impact on the schools, police, and fire. So she asked if Palm Desert residents are going to be hit with extra assessments to pay for the additional services. MS. ROCIO MARTINEZ, Palm Desert, California, stated she is a resident in Venezia and one of the six residents that would be impacted by the project. She mentioned that she is a banker and not familiar with terms that have been brought up during the meeting. She shared that she specifically chose to live Palm Desert because she was raised in the Coachella Valley. She attended school at the University of Riverside and moved back to the desert because she now has two kids. She chose Palm Desert to have a good quality of life for her kids. If she would have known about the monstrous project in her backyard, she would not have bought her home in Venezia. Just a year ago, she bought her dream home in a nice and quiet area, and it is quickly turning into a nightmare with three-story buildings being proposed. She mentioned even if the sand dunes are leveled, she would still be able to see the apartments and they would be able to see her. In addition, her children will soon be attending Carter Elementary School, which she has no choice unless she enrolls her children in a private school in Rancho Mirage. With the recent tragedy in Las Vegas and the vantage point that the three-story buildings will have over the schoolyard, she would be scared for her children. She said if she could, she would sell her home. However, she just purchased her dream home and has used every dollar that she had from selling her home in Riverside to be in Palm Desert. She does not understand why the project needs so many amenities. She expressed that the project does not need to be in their backyard, it does not need to be near their children, and it does not need to be in Palm Desert. Ms. Martinez stated she does not think the Planning Commission would vote in favor of the project if it was in their backyard, if they had children, or affect their privacy. MR. JIM KENNEDY, Palm Desert, California, stated his concern is with noise pollution. He said there are going to be more cars around PCC and Venezia. He commented currently there is no noise. He said the MND states the traffic would not have a significant impact; however, he believed ambient noise would be impacted. He noted that PCC has approximately 499 residents and the proposed 10 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Pianning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 project will have an additional 400 residents. He stated the proposed amenities are also going to impact noise pollution; therefore, he is not in favor. MR. DAN STICKELS, Palm Desert, California, said he lives in PCC. He thought the open space would be a golf course or similar; not a high-rise building. He asked if the applicant is prepared to repair cracks to floors and walls for the residents that live next to the proposed project due to the construction. He mentioned when trees were removed along the property line, many homes got cracks in the floors and walls. He had a concern with lights coming from cars and felt the applicant should propose a higher wall. MR. ROBERT AULT, Palm Desert, California, stated he is a resident of Venezia. He does not live next to the affected area; however, he is affected because he lives off Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane East. He communicated that the traffic is already impacted due to the elementary school, and adding the proposed number of units to the area will impact him gravely. He voiced that he does not appreciate the traffic and the proposed two-story buildings. They are not necessary and could be built somewhere else. He is concerned with the density and utilities, and the possibility of increased taxes. He stated concessions have been made to the developer and asked why the residents do not have concessions. Commissioner Greenwood asked staff if Burrtec reviewed and approved the trash enclosures. Mr. Ceja replied that Burrtec did review the plans and approved the project. Commissioner Greenwood commented that the housing density bonus is a matrix by the State of California, known as Assembly Bill No. 2222. He asked staff what are the requirements when someone is applying for a housing density bonus. Mr. Ceja explained that if an applicant is proposing to utilize the State's density bonus provisions and they provide a certain level of low-income affordable units, the applicant can receive a density bonus. In this case, the applicant is proposing 20 percent of their units at a different income level; therefore, they are able to receive a 35 percent density bonus. He said in exchange for the density bonus and the applicant providing additional affordable units, the City can grant concessions for the development which is being proposed by the applicant. In terms of the history of the proposed site, Commissioner Greenwood inquired if it is correct that the site has been zoned and entitled since 1989 for apartment use. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the 1989 development agreement is still in effect for another couple of years. 11 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Mr. Ceja replied that the development agreement expires in 2019. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that he is concerned with the CEQA provision even though the Commission has been advised that it is a technical matter and to not be concerned with CEQA. However, he is concerned with any decision the Commission makes might be impacted later by things they do not know about. He requested clarification. Mr. Hargreaves responded that the comment period on the CEQA document does not expire for another week or two weeks. Therefore, inevitably there is an opportunity for comments to come in that would not go before the Planning Commission. He indicated that CEQA does not require that an advisory body have a completed CEQA document before the advisory body makes a recommendation to the final authority. He stated when the City Council considers the project, staff will have a complete CEQA document. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the 1989 development agreement would have traction in court if the owner of Canterra Apartments were to dispute the proposed project. Mr. Hargreaves answered that the City does not believe the development agreement would have traction in court. Typically, he said development agreements exclusively provide entitlements for a particular piece of property. He said a development agreement is not like Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) where it is promised to a neighboring property. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if one were to assume, because of the relatively updated General Plan, would the General Plan supersede the 1989 development agreement. Mr. Hargreaves responded that it depends on the development agreement. He said the 1989 development agreement was kind of at the beginning of development agreements. In a current development agreement, the City would be very explicit about the entitlements that were grandfathered in. It would provide that no subsequent changes affect the property, etc. The 1989 agreement provides that the developer donate certain property, which is now the soccer park in exchange, the City zoned the property to permit 612 units. He stated that as long as the City has entitlements covering the property to permit 612 units, it is sufficient under the development agreement. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the garages are omitted from the properties abutting Venezia, what type of plantings will be installed to improve the property line. Mr. Ceja responded that a shift in the area would be required to accommodate a new landscaping along the property line. 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the driving lane would be okay where there was an opportunity to mitigate the property line. Mr. Ceja said it may require a bend or kink in the drive aisle to accommodate a landscape planter on the property line. Vice Chair Gregory said he is disturbed about the concerns being raised by parents and others regarding the three-story buildings overlooking the schoolyard. The applicant has indicated interest in working with his neighbor to the east. He asked if the applicant would consider not adding a third story to Building No. 3 so it is not overlooking the schoolyard. Mr. Ceja replied it is possible. Chairman Pradetto asked for a quick 101 on general planning and housing allocations. He mentioned that the question has been asked about how the City of Palm Desert could build and plan for multi-story units. His experience has been that there are other jurisdictions struggling with similar constraints of having to plan for more units because of State law. He stated it is not something that the City necessarily chooses to do, but it is coming from the State on how the City must meet housing allocation requirements. The City has to plan the units in the most intelligent way possible and there are people that buy land, which is zoned and planned for apartments. He asked staff if that is accurate. Mr. Ceja replied yes. He explained that regions are assigned an allocation for housing from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) on how many units need to be provided in the City of Palm Desert over an eight-year period. He noted that the units are broken down by income. He stated Palm Desert is required to build approximately 100 very-low-income units in an eight-year period, which the City is not meeting that requirement. With the proposed project, Palm Desert could get closer to meeting the requirement. As far as the General Plan, the proposed project site and other areas of the community have been rezoned to allow for three-story buildings and greater density. Commissioner Greenwood said he is sensitive to the main entry. He noted there is a lot of pedestrian circulation along Hovley Lane East coming from the elementary school. He understood the drawings are preliminary and asked the civil engineer what he foresees so kids are not further out from the main entry. MR. MIKE ROWE, MSA Consulting, Rancho Mirage, California, responded by adding a traffic signal they can control traffic. They also have crosswalks. In addition, existing sidewalks will be moved back to give kids a safer path to travel. With the traffic signal, the traffic level of service increases to a level A. 13 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory appreciated Mr. Moran's effort in working with the developer and coming to some kind of agreement. However, he is curious about the garages that are against the Canterra Apartments property line. MR. MORAN responded that he realized with all the compromises there should be give and take on both sides. He stated the most important thing for Canterra Apartments was to reduce the three-story height to two-stories as much as possible to reduce the view blockage. He commented that they do not like the garages; however, they did not object because the developer was willing to take them out by Venezia. He said they do not like the garages and rather have carports; however, he believed the developer needs the garages for the project to be financially successful. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. MS. ALTOFER interjected that she had an additional comment. Chairman Pradetto reopened the public hearing. MS. ALTOFER commented that she called nearby cities and was told by the City of Indian Wells that they know about concessions; however, they would not allow a zero setback. She voiced her disappointment with Palm Desert. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened at 7:29 p.m. Commissioner Greenwood said he would like to speak to the applicant and requested Chairman Pradetto reopen the public hearing. Chairman Pradetto reopened the public hearing. Based on discussion with Mr. Moran and the revised design, Commissioner Greenwood asked Mr. Newell to walk the Planning Commission through the changes. He is unclear on the number of units. MR. NEWELL responded that the project as revised would have five three-story buildings and 10 two-story buildings. Building Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11 will be three- story buildings and Building Nos. 1 , 6, 7, and 10 go from three-story buildings to two-story buildings. He said they are eliminating 12 units from Building No. 1, which is the third floor. They are going to try to replace the units in Building Nos. 1 and 3. He noted that they are looking at various options, such as, do they increase Building No. 5 or have Building No. 10 extend to the west. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the garages being omitted are going to be relocated. 14 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 MR. NEWELL replied that the garages will be relocated between Building Nos. 6 and 7. They will also possibly relocate some garages south of Building No. 4. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the Planning Commission has been studying the project for over a six-month period. She has seen a lot of movement on both sides, which is a spirit of cooperation. She said it is a complicated issue and the site has been zoned for apartments since 1989. She also said that the density bonus is an added element that is permitted and is being used throughout the City. She felt the developer has done a sensitive job dealing with the needs of the community and has remained flexible. She is pleased with the revisions and believed the developer has a great project. She welcomed the project to the City. From a land use component, Commissioner Greenwood does not have a concern. He also felt it was a nice project. His only concern is not having a defined plan and would prefer to see a revised plan. He asked the Planning Commission how they felt about continuing the item. Vice Chairman Gregory agreed with Commissioner Greenwood. He was very happy so many compromises were made to allow the project to move forward which is very admirable. However, there were so many changes that he is uncomfortable voting on the project until there is a revised plan. He believed it would also give the applicant an opportunity to address many of the items discussed during the meeting. Chairman Pradetto asked Vice Chairman Gregory if that is a motion. Vice Chairman Gregory replied yes and Commissioner Greenwood said he would second the motion. Commissioner DeLuna asked the Chairman to repeat the motion. Mr. Hargreaves interjected and suggested that the Planning Commission continue to a date certain and reopen the public hearing so staff does not have to re-notice the public hearing. He asked if two weeks was enough time to bring the item back to the Commission. Chairman Pradetto encouraged that the item be continued to the second Planning Commission meeting in March. Vice Chairman Gregory amended his motion to continue the item to the second meeting in March. Mr. Stendell interjected that the applicant is able to bring back plans for the first Planning Commission in March. 15 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Chairman Pradetto remarked that the Planning Commission understands the applicant's request. Vice Chairman Gregory stated he stood by his motion. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there is a reason why the developer is requesting to return to the Commission in two weeks. MR. NEWELL responded that they are requesting two weeks because they need to meet the bond application period with the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC). The Committee meets in May and they need to attend the meeting to qualify for the bonds, which are needed for the financing and tax credits. He said they cannot have impediments to entitlements. He mentioned the application must be submitted two months in advance (March 13, 2018), or they could possibly request an extension subject to the City's action. Commissioner DeLuna remarked that if the applicant feels they could be back in a couple of weeks, she asked why the Commission would deny them to be back in two weeks. Commissioner Greenwood responded that he wants the project done right. He does not want a rush job. A month will give the applicant ample time to make adjustments. Vice Chairman Gregory added that he is concerned with the project being resubmitted to City staff with sufficient time for staff to review. Chairman Pradetto concurred with the two Commissioners. However, there's another concern with the developer's deadline pushing the Commission forward. Additionally, the residents have continually suffered from poor notification. He felt it is not fair that the developer's deadline should preempt their ability to review the project. He stated he understands the pressures; however, he does not want to bend just because they have been dealing with this project for so long and now have to move on it quickly. Therefore, he supported the one-month delay. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the delay would affect the ultimate outcome of the project if the developer is not able to get the application in on a timely fashion. Chairman Pradetto replied probably. He mentioned he has a concern with the zero- lot-line setback being part of Planned Residential as a mechanism to provide flexibility. He said the City has projects that utilize the zero-lot-line setback; however, he does not want that to set the pattern that becomes the default. So he asked if the proposed project is the right project to enact the zero-lot-line setback. He commented that he wants the zero-lot-line setback to be addressed, and continuing the item one month would allow more time to comment on the environmental document. Lastly, he felt it is not fair to the Planning Commission or 16 GAPlanning\Monica OReili Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 the residents to comment or weigh in on the project without a concrete plan. He repeated that the motion is to continue the item for a month. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that when buildings are lengthened, other issues arise. He felt the additional time will allow the architects an opportunity to take a good look at the long and tall buildings. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the project would be compromised if it is delayed for a month. Mr. Stendell responded that the decision to delay the project for a month is under the purview of the Planning Commission. Based on the timeline indicated by the developer, he believed a delay would get in the way of the project in one way, shape, or form. He stated he does not know what the delay does to the economics of the project; however, he does not believe a two-week or one-month delay is a material change at this point. Chairman Pradetto inquired what is the probability that the Planning Commission recommends a continuance and staff determines the continuance puts the project in jeopardy. He asked if staff would take the project before the City Council without taking it back to the Commission. Mr. Stendell replied no. The Planning Commission has to review the project. Mr. Hargreaves interjected that the motion should include reopening the public hearing. Vice Chairman Gregory amended the motion to include reopening the public hearing. Commissioner Greenwood concurred with the amendment. Vice Chairman Gregory moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. PP/EA to March 20, 2018, and reopen the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0-1 vote with Commissioner Holt ABSENT (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). X. MISCELLANEOUS None 17 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-1B.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 XI. COMMISSION MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS Commissioner Greenwood requested that staff look into the process within the Architectural Review Commission, in terms of the review of construction documents to make sure the documents are in conformance with the original approval. He noted not changing the process for all projects, but for high-exposure projects such as a new hotel. He commented that it is difficult for any commission to review a 200-page technical document and give it the attention it deserves. Mr. Stendell responded that staff and the ARC have discussed ideas on a couple of levels. XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chairman Pradetto adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. JOMEPH PRADET , CHAIRMAN ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION /_N_N_� C� MONICA O'REILLY, RECOR G SECRETARY 18 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\2-20-18.docx