HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 05-8 PP 04-23 Community Center FacilityREQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Consideration of approval of a precise plan of design for a
community center facility on an 8.5-acre site at the southwest
corner of Portola Avenue and Julie Lane, 1 600 feet south of
Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Jewish Federation of Palm Springs
255 N. El Cielo, Suite 450
Palm Springs, CA 92262
CASE NO: PP 04-23
DATE: January 13, 2005
CONTENTS:
Staff Recommendation
Executive Summary
Background
Draft Resolution No. 05-8 approving PP 04-23
Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 2004
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2315
Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 7, 2004
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 05-8 approving PP 04-23,
including building height exception for the gym facility.
Executive Summary:
The Jewish Federation of Palm Springs proposes to construct, in two
phases, a 94,000 square foot community center facility that will offer
programs and activities for all members of the community from age two years
through the most senior of citizens (see attached list of prospective programs
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-23
Page 2
January 13, 2005
and activities). The center will provide educational, cultural, religious, social
and recreational programs and activities.
The center is comprised of a series of one and two story buildings connected
by open and covered walkways. The height exception is necessary to
accommodate the gym (27 feet) and a proposed 30-foot tall entry parapet
with "Welcome" sign.
September 14, 2004 Architectural Review Commission unanimously granted
preliminary approval, subject to reducing the height of the entry parapet with
"Welcome" sign by 4-5 feet and reviewing the color pallet in the field during
construction.
December 7, 2004 the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote (Commissioners
Finerty and Campbell voting nay) recommended approval of the precise plan
of design including the height exception for the gym.
Individually Planning Commissioners commented on the appropriateness of
the 30-foot entry parapet with the "Welcome" sign, but the issue was not
specifically addressed in the Planning Commission motion.
Commissioner Campbell, in voting nay on the project, noted that she had
voted in opposition to the CUP request in 2001 and she still feels that this
type of use does not belong in a residential area. She also expressed
concern with the number of children in the educational wing (160) and the
noise they would make and the height of the entry tower.
Commissioner Finerty questioned the appropriateness of this use in this
location, felt that the 24-foot height limit should be adhered to and had
concerns with the color pallet.
Mr. Gerhardt, a property owner to the southwest who will be processing a 16-
lot tract map on his five -acre property, recognized that the conditions in the
draft resolution had addressed many of his concerns, but he felt that the 24-
foot height limit should not be extended. He requested that Julie Lane at
Portola Avenue have left and right turn lanes, as well as a thru lane, and that
a condition be added prohibiting bells and loud speakers on the site.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-23
Page 3
January 13, 2005
Staff confirmed that Julie Lane and Portola will be signalized and provide for
left turn, right turn and through traffic movements and Commission added a
condition prohibiting bells and loud speakers.
The Commission majority determined that the site, located on the periphery
of a residential area, bounded by an arterial street on the east and resort
commercial use, is an appropriate location for this type of use and
determined that with the extensive list of conditions, all concerns raised
would be adequately mitigated. The center will be a good neighbor.
Accordingly, the project was recommended for approval, including a height
exception to allow the gym at a height of 27 feet on a 3-2 vote. Planning
Commission did not take a position on the "Welcome Tower"; however, ARC
did and recommends that it be lowered four to five feet.
Background:
August 21, 2001 Commission on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Campbell voting
nay) approved a conditional use permit (CUP 01-13) for the Jewish Community
Center of the Desert on this site. At that time the applicant presented
conceptual plans. Consequently, the Commission approval was subject to the
applicant obtaining approval of a precise plan of design prior to commencing
construction.
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: PR-5 / vacant - owned by RDA, designated Resort Commercial in
the General Plan
South: PR-5 / single family dwellings
East: PR-5 / vacant - owned by RDA, designated Open Space in the
General Plan
West: PR-5 / single family dwellings
Site Zoning and Land Use:
The property is zoned PR-5 (planned residential) and designated low density
residential in the general plan.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-23
Page 4
January 13, 2005
With approval of a conditional use permit a community facility is a permitted use
in the PR zone.
Project Description:
The site is an area of rolling sand dunes fronting on Portola Avenue.
The applicant proposes to construct a community center facility that will offer
programs and activities for all members of the community from age two years
through the most senior of citizens (see attached list of prospective programs
and activities). The center will provide educational, cultural, religious, social and
recreational programs and activities.
The 94,000 square foot facility will be built in phases with three distinct areas:
recreational, cultural and educational.
Recreation Village:
This area of the complex will include a gym, two pools, fitness rooms,
snack bar and Federation offices.
Cultural Village:
This area will include an auditorium, dining room, libraries, lounge areas,
meeting rooms and family services.
Education Village:
This area will provide a preschool, day school classroom, day
care/kindergym, administration offices and playground.
Site Plan, Access and Parking:
The project will be developed in two phases.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-23
Page 5
January 13, 2005
Phase I:
In the first phase of development the applicant will construct 156
parking spaces along the north side of the property with two
access points to Julie Lane. Development will be limited to family
services (3,134 square feet); Federation offices (4,985 square
feet) and recreation and meeting rooms (6,233 square feet) with
a total demand of 88 parking spaces based on individual uses (58
spaces based on general office standards). The project will have
more than ample parking.
The south limit of Phase I will be enclosed by a temporary six-foot
chain link fence. The applicant commits to commencing Phase II
within five years; otherwise, the chain link fence will be removed
and replaced with a wrought iron fence, block wall, or other
approved material.
In this phase, the buildings will be setback 32 feet from Portola,
145 feet from Julie Lane, 290 feet from Shepherd Lane, and 290
feet from the residential units to the south.
Phase II:
In Phase II the parking will be extended along the west side of the
site to provide a total of 300 parking spaces (354 spaces with
valet service). On -site circulation will continue to direct all traffic
north to Julie Lane. An emergency only access will be provided to
connect to Shepherd Lane to the west.
The "recreational village" buildings will be located adjacent to
Portola Avenue (32 feet setback) with outdoor recreational
activities (handball, soccer/softball fields) along the south side of
the property. These fields will be set 3 + /- feet below the pad
heights of the residential lots to the south. In addition, the 12-foot
sloped setback area will be landscaped to create a buffer. The
southerly most building will be the gym which will be setback 62
feet from the south property line. At the southeast corner of the
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-23
Page 6
January 13, 2005
property, a service yard is shown with a driveway to Portola. The
applicant indicates this will only be used in association with
functions utilizing the gym.
The "cultural village" buildings will continue to be located in the
center of the site with the "educational village" located between
the west parking lot and the "cultural village." Educational
buildings will be setback 130 feet from Shepherd Lane, 145 feet
from Julie Lane and 222 feet from the south property line.
Parking:
This facility will operate as a "place of assembly." In such cases the City
bases the parking requirement on the capacity of the main use on the site
(i.e., sanctuary of a church). In Phase II, the major parking generators will
be the social halls (5,936 square feet) which have a code parking
requirement of 170 spaces (i.e., 1 space per 35 square feet of seating
area). This leaves 130 spaces to accommodate the other uses on the
site. It should also be noted that the social hall peak hours (weekends
and evenings) will be different than the "educational village."
The applicant on page 3 of the Phase II site plan outlines scenarios for
daytime and nighttime use of the complex. These scenarios assume
100% occupancy of each use area. This is unlikely to occur (i.e., 100%
simultaneous occupancy in the social hall, meeting rooms, gym and
pools). Staff feels that a maximum occupancy of 80% would be more
likely.
However, to account for the unlikely eventuality when 100% occupancy
of all uses does occur simultaneously, the applicant has provided 126
overflow parking spaces on the soccer field area. In addition, staff
proposes a condition prohibiting the scheduling of concurrent high traffic
generation uses in the social hall and the gym.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-23
Page 7
January 13, 2005
Architecture:
The project architecture incorporates a series of strong, vertical elements
with significant curved walls. The project description notes:
"Exterior design reflects a strong play of light and shade and
a simplicity and contrast of sculpted forms. Earth colors and
tactile qualities of materials will combine with natural desert
landscape and biblical gardens."
Basically, the three "village" areas are connected by a series of covered
walkways. Roof heights of the buildings vary from 11 feet to 22 feet 6
inches. The curved gym roof is a maximum of 27 feet and the parapet
wall at the reception area with the Hebrew letters for "Shalom" facing
Portola is shown at 30 feet.
The architectural review commission granted preliminary approval at its
September 14, 2004 meeting. ARC was concerned with the 30-foot high
parapet "Welcome" wall and based on a line of sight study, concluded
that it could be reduced in height by four to five feet without impacting
its visibility. ARC also conditioned that the proposed color pallet be
further evaluated in the field during construction.
TABLE OF CODE PROVISIONS
PR Zone Phase I
Phase II
Setbacks:
Shepherd Lane 20' 250' 130'
Julie Lane 20' 145' 145'
Portola Avenue 32' 32' 32'
South 20' 290' 62'
Building Height: 24' 11' + 22'6" 11' & 22'6" & 27'*
Welcome Tower 24' 26' or 30'
Coverage: 40% 4% 25.7%
Parking: 88/170 156 300/426
*Height exception required per Municipal Code 25.24.310.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-23
Page 8
January 13, 2005
Analysis:
The project as proposed complies with the provisions of the ordinance
except for the height of the gym and the "Welcome tower" for which an
"exception" is required through the City Council.
The architecture has been given preliminary approval by ARC, subject to
further review of the color pallet which is to be reviewed in the field
during construction and reduction in height of the "Welcome" tower.
The community center will provide a wide range of activities for all
segments of the community. The outdoor play fields and handball courts
have the potential to impact residences to the south. In order to limit any
impact, the proposed landscape buffer along the south limit of the
property will be installed during the first phase even though the fields are
part of Phase II. This will allow the buffer to mature and be effective by
the time the Phase II begins. Also, lighting of the fields for evening use
will be prohibited.
The 50-foot by 62-foot service area at the southeast corner of the site
is proposed to allow vehicles associated with special events in the gym
to set up for their events. This area cannot become a maintenance facility
or an area for unsightly outdoor storage. Accordingly, Planning
Department Condition No. 17 limits the use as an area to temporarily
park vehicles associated with special events held in the gym. Condition
No. 14 requires that the 12-foot wide southerly landscape buffer be
extended out to Portola Avenue, thus reducing the service area to 50 feet
by 40 feet.
The facility has the potential to overflow into the nearby community if
several large events are held simultaneously. Accordingly, Condition No.
18 requires that the "center" not schedule large events in the gym and
the social hall(s) at the same time. In addition, Condition No. 19 requires
that overflow parking be provided on the soccer field when necessary.
Lighting in the parking lots could be a concern to residents. Ordinance
No. 826 restricts lighting in parking lots in residential zones. Maximum
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-23
Page 9
January 13, 2005
pole height will be 20 feet and the lights may only be on while people are
present onsite. Condition No. 22 limits the hours of operation to 6:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Conclusion:
With the conditions noted above, Planning Commission recommends
approval of the precise plan of design. With respect to the access to
Portola Avenue for the service area, Planning Commission recommends
that it be required to be gated and that access be limited to emergency
personnel and temporary parking of vehicles associated with special
events held in the gym only.
CEQA Review:
The project was reviewed as part of CUP 01-13 for which a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified. No further
environmental review is necessary.
Submitted by:
Steve Smith
Department Head:
Phil Drell
Planning anager j Director of Community Development
Appal:
Homer Croy
ACM for Deveopment Services
(Wpdocs\tm\sr\pp04-23.cc)
Approval:
Carlos L. Ort
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 05-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF
DESIGN, INCLUDING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION, FOR A
COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY ON 8.5 ACRES ON THE WEST
SIDE OF PORTOLA AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET
SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE, 36-775 PORTOLA AVENUE.
CASE NO. PP 04-23
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th
day of January, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by the
JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS for approval of a precise plan of design and
height exception for a community center facility on 8.5 acres on the west side of Portola
Avenue 1600 +/- feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2315 has recommended
approval of Case No. PP 04-23, including a height exception for the gym building; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2085 has previously
approved a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a conditional use permit for
a community center facility on this property subject to the applicant obtaining approval of
a precise plan of design; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project was previously assessed as part of Case No. CUP 01-13 for which a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified. No further environmental review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise plan of
design:
1. The location of a community center facility fronting on a major secondary
street at the periphery of a residential area is in accord with the objectives of
the Planned Residential zone and General Plan.
2. The proposed location and conditions under which the community center will
operate will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Sufficient
traffic capacity and controls exist to insure safe ingress and egress for the
facility and acceptable levels of services at critical intersections.
RESOLUTION NO.05-8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
2. That approval of Case No. PP 04-23, including a height exception for the gym
building, on file in the Department of Community Development, is hereby
approved, subject to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. 05-8
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 04-23
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the
department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions:
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date
of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall
become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and
limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and
federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permit and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the
department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the City
Environmental Conservation Manager and applicable waste disposal company. Access
to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said
placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community
Development.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements in Section
25.58 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-8
7. A detailed parking lot lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to the
provisions of Ordinance No. 826 (outdoor lighting requirements). Plan to be prepared by
a qualified lighting engineer.
8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works
prior to architectural review commission submittal.
9. Final landscape plans shall comply with the City's Parking Lot and Tree Standards per
Ordinance No. 977 and Resolution No. 01-06.
10. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these
conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life
of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be
recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with
the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-
term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times,
fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be
planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the
Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
11. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringed -Toed Lizard, TUMF, School
Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
12. That the applicant shall consolidate the two parcels into one lot.
13. That the applicant, as part of the first phase, shall design and implement the
landscape buffer area along the south property line.
14. That the south landscape buffer area be extended easterly to include the "service
area."
15. That the outdoor recreation facilities (handball courts, softball field and soccer field
areas) shall not be illuminated for night play.
16. That the "service area" shall only be used for the temporary parking of vehicles
associated with special events held in the gym and as an emergency access. Said
area shall not be used for general parking, outdoor storage, or as a maintenance
facility.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 05-8
17. That when large events are scheduled in the "social hall", the gym, and other
activities shall be limited. The purpose of this condition is to prevent the scheduling
of concurrent high traffic generating uses in the social hall(s) and the gym facility.
18. When large events are scheduled, the soccer field parking spaces shall be made
available.
19. That the Shepherd Lane (west) access shall be gated and kept closed except when
needed by emergency personnel.
20. The southerly limit of the first phase may be enclosed by a chain link fence. If Phase
II is not commenced within five years (January 2010), then said fence shall be
removed and replaced with an approved fence material.
21. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
22. That the height exception for the gym building shall permit a structure with a
maximum height of 27 feet.
23. That exterior bells and amplified speaker systems are prohibited.
Department of Public Works:
1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and
Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. The project shall
be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs.
undeveloped condition for a 100-year storm. Any drainage facility construction required
for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil
engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start
of construction.
2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-
55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment
of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall
be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance
of the grading permit.
5
RESOLUTION NO, 05-8
5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works, and shall be
completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project.
7. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction
of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the
Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required
offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
8. Landscape installation on the property frontages, as well as on -site, shall be drought
tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner.
9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Developer
shall contact the Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site
improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works
for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape
plans shall be submitted concurrently with grading plans.
11. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
12. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the
City's Circulation Network. Those improvements shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
•
•
Full improvement of Shepherd Lane with a 26' half -street section and 8' sidewalk
minimum 4' from back of curb, within a 46' half -street right of way.
Installation of an 8' sidewalk, minimum 4' from back of curb on Portola Avenue.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall
be conveyed to the City prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
6
RESOLUTION NO. 05-8
13. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective
service districts with "as built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final.
14. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to the Department of Public works prior
to project final.
15. Access driveway shown on Portola Avenue shall be gated.
16. Two driveways are allowed on the north project boundary on Shepherd Lane (Julie Lane)
with the easterly driveway to be located a minimum of 250 feet from the westerly curb line
of Portola Avenue. An additional access into the parking area is permissible along the
western boundary of the project onto Shepherd Lane.
17. Final grading plan, as well as any future plans, shall show and incorporate the grading
plan for the adjacent Tract 30801.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the
Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC
and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure
must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3,000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4"x2-
1 /2"x2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
7
RESOLUTION NO. 05-8
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000
square foot total cumulative floor area. The fire Marshal shall approve the locations of
all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections
shall not be less than 25' from the building within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted
are one and two family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water -flow
switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire
extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and
32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in industrial developments.
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or
other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system
to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
12. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development.
13. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency; to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
14. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
15. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
8
RESOLUTION NO, 05-8
16. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
17. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
Other:
1 . Radius at both ends of driveway need to be 45-foot radius outside.
//
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
Commissioner Campbell concurred. She liked the architecture and
coloring. Like Desert Rose, this would also be a beautiful project.
Commissioner Lopez agreed. He said it would be nice to see that section
of land right in the middle of residential filled in and occupied. He
concurred and was in support.
Chairperson Jonathan also concurred and added that this project would
strike a nice balance between the need for affordable housing and the
need for aesthetic quality, circulation, appropriate location, etc. He
thought it was a job well done.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2314, approving
Case No. TT 30795, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried
5-0.
E. Case No. PP 04-23 - JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS,
Applicant
Request for a recommendation to the City Council of
approval of a precise plan of design for a community center
facility on an 8.5-acre site at the southwest corner of
Portola Avenue and Julie Lane, 1600 feet south of Gerald
Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue.
Mr. Smith clarified that Julie Lane until three weeks ago was known as
Shepherd Lane. The northerly extension that runs east -west from Portola
to Shepherd Lane was renamed to Julie Lane. He highlighted the salient
points of the staff report, emphasizing the height exception being
requested for the gym and "welcome" parapet. Architectural review
commission felt it could be reduced by four or five feet, still be visible,
and not have quite the impact it would otherwise. He stated that matter
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
would be considered by the City Council in that this was a
recommendation the Commission would be making to them if
Commission chose to weigh in on which direction Council should go.
ARC also had concern relative to the color scheme proposed by the
applicant and chose to be involved in the color that ends up being used
by meeting at the site when the color was applied.
In conclusion, Mr. Smith recommended that Planning Commission
recommend to City council approval of Case No. PP 04-23 and asked for
any questions.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Smith envisioned in the future a stop
Tight at the corner of Julie Lane and Portola. Mr. Smith deferred to Public
Works. Mr. Drell said he believed it would be signalized. Julie Lane aligns
with the spine road which runs through University Village, so it was his
understanding there would be a signal there. Commissioner Tschopp
asked for and received confirmation that that should alleviate problems
of people going in and out and during special events and high traffic
times.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if the current recommendation from staff for
the 30-foot high welcome wall was to be modified pursuant to the ARC
recommendation of 25 or 26 feet. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson
Jonathan noted that Mr. Smith mentioned in his report that Public Works
Condition No. 15 limited the use of the driveway to emergency
personnel, but that the Commission could allow its use associated with
special events, yet still require the access to be gated. Mr. Smith said
yes, for the service area at the southeast corner. Chairperson Jonathan
noted there was also an emergency access on the west. Mr. Smith stated
that would be emergency access only. Chairperson Jonathan asked if
that was staff's suggestion, to only allow the use for special events and
keeping it gated. He asked if that was something staff felt could work.
Mr. Smith said yes, staff felt it could work. It could conceivably become
an enforcement issue, but management could lock it and cooperate.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if that would be accomplished by modifying
Public Works Condition No. 13. Mr. Smith said yes and Community
Development conditions would implement it with the Commission's
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
indication that it was their wish for the applicant to be able to use it for
special events, plus emergency access.
Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. Mr. Smith indicated in the
staff report on the south limit of Phase 1 that there would be a temporary
six-foot chain link fence. He asked staff to point out where that would be
located. Mr. Smith did so, explaining that it tucks up onto the six-foot
split face wall. Commissioner Lopez asked if it would be seen from a
major artery. Mr. Smith said it would not be seen.
Chairperson Jonathan noted there was also a condition in the event that
for any reason Phase 2 didn't begin construction within five years. Mr.
Smith said the fence would then be converted to an approved fencing
material, such as masonry, slump stone, wrought iron, etc.
Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to address the commission.
MR. RON GOLDMAN, the Architect, 24-955 Pacific Coast
Highway, Malibu, California, addressed the Commission. Regarding
the design of the project, he stated that they are quite excited
about the plan in front of the Commission. They felt both the first
and second phases were making a positive statement in both the
larger community, as well as in the new surrounding
neighborhood.
They intentionally designed this as an open campus plan in order
to create an environment that is welcoming, stimulating, colorful
and a lot of fun in contrast to a series of what could have been
larger institutional buildings within long interior corridors. They
chose buildings that turn into courtyard walls that have
passageways that create a sense of discovery on the site. Yet at
the same time there was a clarity about the plan with its three
distinct villages or neighborhoods that are connected by the
shaded walkways and passages. As well, there was a clarity and
simplicity to the circulation and the parking system.
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
In creating the three clusters instead of buildings, they wanted to
be more organic and really have it grow out of the desert. A
diagonal entrance, which they could start to see on the plans, with
its tower which historically would mark the entrance to the city,
would focus on the views of the San Jacinto Mountains and lead
them to the central square inside the project. The second story
walkways and patio would further reinforce the building character.
In terms of the parking, all the parking areas would be accessible
from Julie Lane. The simple loop circulation would be easy for the
public to understand and the evening auditorium access would be
located away from the residential. The parking near Portola would
be screened with a higher curved wall. The balance of the parking
areas would be broken down with screened walls that would be
periodically placed within the parking area along with groves of
varying landscape.
In terms of the landscape, both the climate and latitude were very
similar to Eastern Mediterranean environments. The landscape
would include biblical gardens and incorporate most of the
materials from the Garden of the Seven Species: olive trees,
acacias, fig trees, pomegranates, vines, and date palms. He noted
that Ron Gregory, their landscape architect, was present to
answer any questions in that regard.
Some of the facts not mentioned in the report, in terms of the site
coverage, were the ratio of the building to site area which was
20%, the ratio to parking to overall site area was 30%, and the
ratio of open space including landscaped and paved walkways was
50%. One-story buildings on the site represented 80% of the
building footprint, or 60% if they consider that the higher roof
areas of the gym and auditorium are really two-story elements.
One and two story heights vary from 11 feet to 22.5 feet with
two exceptions. The gym reaches a high point of 27 feet, but it
really starts at 22 feet and it's a barrel vault with only the ridge
being at the 27-foot height. He thought the exhibits on display
showed the area in excess of the height limit, which was a
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
relatively smaller portion of the total roof area. The welcome tower
was at 30 feet, which he would further address.
He said they also feel they minimized the grading on the site. They
have 3,000 cubic yards of export on Phase 1 and 9,000 yards in
Phase 2. That meant they were moving an average of only eight
inches over the entire site.
In terms of the staff report, they were in agreement with all the
conditions with one exception and one clarification. Condition No.
2 stated that the project shall commence within one year. He said
they would request that it be extended to two years. Condition
No. 12 asks for the full improvement of Shepherd Lane and they
asked that it be clarified to require the full improvement of Julie
Lane to the north in Phase 1 and the balance of Shepherd Lane on
the west when Phase 2 commences as they aren't building out to
Shepherd Lane in Phase 1 .
In case the Commission wanted to take a position on the height of
the welcome tower, they felt this tower was symbolic to marking
the entrance to the community campus. Historically, a tower
always marked the entrance to a city or village. He had a slightly
different recollection of the sequence of events that happened
with the ARC. Subsequent to their meeting with the ARC, he
prepared diagrams which he didn't believe they had the privilege
of seeing, but it came out of that meeting and he didn't know if
they would show up clearly on the display.
They prepared diagrams which showed a 30-foot height and this
would only be seen from Portola heading northbound with the
foreground buildings blocking even the 30-foot height when
heading southbound. That was because the tower was set some
80 feet back from the edge of the easterly building face. A
reduction to 24 feet would make this tower much less visible. He
said it was really in the middle of the site.
Following the ARC meeting, they took three different sections
through the tower and the edge of Portola. One from the corner of
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
Julie Lane and Portola off to the upper left; one where they would
be headed northbound on Portola; and one just directly
perpendicular to Portola. He said the sections were based on the
30-foot height. He said the top section which was taken
perpendicular from Portola was taken from a six-foot person
walking on the sidewalk and they could see the 78-foot setback
of the structure from the face of the building. From the pedestrian
sidewalk, it was blocked totally by the building. Probably from a
car heading northbound a person would see the top of the tower
only.
The middle section was taken from the intersection of Julie Lane
and Portola and there they did have a fairly good, unobstructed
view of that 30-foot tower. The bottom section was shown from
the upper part of the site where someone would be walking
northbound on Portola and they could see the building in front of
the tower virtually obscured the tower even at 30 feet. He said it
would be nice to keep that accent and nice in the sense that the
building right across the entrance was 24 feet, the multipurpose
auditorium, and to lower those two elements to the same height
would lose something.
He said he wanted to talk about the burdens and benefits of this
project. He wanted to discuss what they see as substantially
minimized burdens, while they have provided substantive benefits.
In this regard, they invited the surrounding neighborhood to an
evening meeting at the nearby Marriott Courtyard. Only one couple
showed up and they were quite enthusiastic.
He thought the primary burden would be traffic and circulation and
they felt the impact had been minimized by providing two
entrances on Julie Lane, by restricting Shepherd Lane to
emergency only, by having a very simple on -site circulation, by
providing substantial school stacking space all along the site, and
locating the evening auditorium activity to the north end of the site
away from the single family area. The second burden could be
noise. Again, the bulk of the activity was away from the housing
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
with the open space primarily on the south and east sides toward
the housing.
There would be no playground lighting or activity on the south and
west sides in the evening. And they lowered that southerly
playground three feet and provided three feet from the adjacent
neighbors, 12 feet of landscaped buffer, and a property line wall
would provide further separation.
Another burden would be night lighting, but the playground areas
would not have night lighting. The lighting would only be in the
parking lot areas and would be indirect, down lighting and buffered
by mature trees. A fourth burden might be drainage. In this case
the entire site slopes away from the residential to the south and
the west. The south playground would provide one retention area
and the north parking lot would have a pervious concrete surfacing
which would absorb the bulk of the storm water.
In addition to minimizing those burdens, they were providing
substantial benefits. The first would be location of a community
center that is on the peripheral of this new neighborhood, not in
the center, but on the peripheral and works as a buffer to Portola.
This is a new neighborhood with primarily young families and in
effect it is within easy interactive distance, although serving as a
periphery and as a buffer to the neighborhood.
Secondly, the membership of the center is open to the entire
community. Thirdly, the activities and programs afford benefit for
the entire family. There's dance, there's art, music, computers,
drama, libraries, games, senior -used lounges, day care, play-
grounds, etc.
Finally, the buildings and parking are on the north and east sides
away from the existing housing with the open spacing on the
south and west sides near the housing. So they felt there were
substantial benefits that really minimize the burdens this project
would bring to the area. He thanked the Commission for their
attention.
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
Commissioner Campbell asked how many children would be attending the
preschool, day school, classroom, day care and kinder -gym on a daily
basis.
Mr. Goldman said there was a maximum capacity of 160.
Commissioner Campbell said that would be daily and asked if that would
be from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or different times.
Mr. Goldman said the preschool hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. and 5:30 p.m. only because it would include day care. The
day school would run from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He corrected
that and said the number of preschool classrooms and day school
classrooms, they were on different sessions and conceivable there
could be 300 students at different times. Between day school and
preschool. (Someone from the audience corrected that statement
and said that the total would be 160 maximum.)
Regarding the chain link fence, Commissioner Lopez asked if Phase 1 and
Phase 2 would be five years apart, or if there was a proposed time line
for Phase 2 to take place.
Mr. Goldman said if you build it they will come. He mentioned that
this wasn't just a chain link fence. They would be planting vines
on the fence and his guess was whether in three years or five
years, this would be a very attractive fence that would be removed
in five years, but they probably wouldn't see it in five years.
Commissioner Lopez said he was more interested in the time line for
development.
Mr. Goldman suspected that the need and the interest was there,
but at this time it was putting their foot into the water initially.
Regarding Community Development Condition No. 2, Chairperson
Jonathan explained that the one-year requirement was pretty standard,
as were the extensions when requested, so that wasn't something to be
too concerned about. The staff report included a condition that the
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
applicant obtain approval from the City Council for the height exception
for the gym building and welcome tower, so what they were being asked
to do was make a recommendation to Council, which they might or might
not want to weigh in on, but the Council would be the final arbiter on
that particular issue. Finally, on Condition No. 12 under Department of
Public Works, he asked for clarification on what Mr. Goldman was
requesting.
Mr. Goldman explained that in Phase 1 the extent of development
would not reach Shepherd Lane. It would stop approximately 200
feet from Shepherd Lane, so there would be stabilized sand in that
stretch of Shepherd Lane until Phase 2 was built.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff was okay with that from a circulation
standpoint. That meant there would only be access from Portola.
Mr. Goldman clarified that there were two points of access in
Phase 1 on Julie Lane. Julie Lane would extend to the intersection
with Shepherd Lane and they were requesting that the leg of
Shepherd Lane to the south be deferred to Phase 2. It was in
Phase 2 that the building on the westerly side of the site would
proceed and the parking lot and entrance off Shepherd Lane would
proceed in Phase 2.
Mr. Drell said the problem was that there was no assurance that Phase
2 would ever occur. The City couldn't force them to proceed with Phase
2, so for the foreseeable future there would only be half of the street
completed. At some time certain he thought they needed to see
Shepherd Lane completed and it couldn't be deferred to Phase 2 unless
they were willing to commit to a time certain to build it.
Chairperson Jonathan summarized that as far as Julie Lane, that would
be developed as part of Phase 1. So they were talking about the
remainder of Shepherd Lane and it was just the half section that fronts
the project. Staff is requiring that the half street section be improved in
full until it meets up with Julie Lane as part of Phase 1.
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
Mr. Goldman said it wasn't clear as a condition. There wasn't a
timetable set on that condition, so they wanted to clarify it as to
part of it proceeding in Phase 1 and the balance in Phase 2. They
were doing this because they were only building 15,000 feet in
Phase 1, which was about 16% of the total project, and with the
other economic burdens of Portola improvements, Julie Lane
improvements and the landscape buffer on the south side of the
property as well, all the peripheral improvements and fees was an
undue burden for 15,000 feet of development.
Chairperson Jonathan understood what Mr. Goldman was saying and also
understood what staff was requesting, but he thought the Fire Marshal
might have an issue with that in terms of access and circulation.
Regarding the welcome tower, Commissioner Lopez asked what would
be on the side of that tower.
Mr. Goldman explained that on the tower in the plaster would be
cut out Hebrew letters which say Shalom, which means welcome,
peace, hello, goodbye --numerous meanings.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the tower would be lit at night with indirect
lighting or up lighting.
Mr. Goldman said yes, from inside. The tower, that section inside,
is a parapet and he thought it would be effective to have soft
lighting inside just to silhouette the lighting. It wouldn't be lit on
the outside. Because the sun was moving south and westerly in
that area during the day, it would be coming through and even the
possibility of putting up plastic letters to create a slight tone to the
light could be effective.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that based on the city's experience with
schools, the community and other religious facilities that grow up over
time, whether 10 years, 20 or 30 years, at some point in time there
seemed to be problems with traffic and parking with the surrounding
neighborhoods. He asked if a condition of approval was placed here that
said they would work in the future with the City to mitigate any traffic
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
and parking problems that might impact the surrounding neighborhoods,
he asked if that would be acceptable.
Mr. Goldman said yes.
Commissioner Tschopp thought they did a much better job than the
school districts and complimented them, but in other areas knew how
overfill parking could spill into the neighborhood and impact them. That's
why he was asking.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. There
was no one. He asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION and
noted that he had a Request to Speak Card from Matt Gerhardt.
MR. MATT GERHARDT, a resident of 35 Overland Court in Palm
Desert, addressed the commission. He said he has had the
opportunity to work with staff several times and they did a
phenomenal job. He said Phil and his staff did a great job and have
always done over and beyond what other cities do. Palm Desert
has a great reputation. He said he wasn't opposed to the project.
He and his partner own property just to the west which they
would be developing and living in. So he wasn't opposed to the
development, he just had a few concerns.
He concurred with the conditions of approval. They wrote a letter
addressing those concerns, his partner did, and he thought they
addressed every single one. He was concerned about item #22
regarding height. He saw all the diagrams showing the height and
if a person was standing on Portola and all of that, but he was
concerned about the residents. They live out there in a
phenomenal area with panoramic views and it was beautiful. He
thought if they could keep the tower and gym height down, there
are height restrictions for the residences out there so that
everyone can enjoy the view. And whether a community center or
a house, he thought they should be kept to the same guidelines for
the same reasons. The guidelines were there to have the
unobstructed views as much as possible and 24 feet was plenty
out there, especially if they were talking about lighting it. They
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
have strict guidelines on street lighting so that people can enjoy
the stars and see the tram Tight and he wouldn't want to look
toward the Painted Hills and see a lit tower. And that was kind of
what they would be looking at.
He indicated the applicant addressed that it was 80 feet off of
Portola so it wouldn't necessarily be seen while driving down
Portola, but when driving down Portola, he wasn't looking at the
mountains. It was great to be able to see them, but the main
concern was the residents around the area. He appreciated them
thinking about the residents out there because he would be one.
This was their only opportunity to address that and he thought it
would be sad if they have some obstruction.
His other concern was sound. The noise. One commissioner
brought up the question of how many kids could be there and the
answer was 160 children. He loved children, they're awesome, but
there were some negative benefits living next to a school. As lot
prices continue to go up, people are looking for more for their
money. Living next to a school was not a benefit for a lot of
people because of the sound. This wasn't a full elementary school
and he understood that, but he asked what type of sound there
would be: recess bells or any type of loud speaker.
Something for Public Works was when Julie Lane is finished, he
asked if there would be a turning lane. Right now there was just
a two-lane road, but he imagined that eventually it would be
finished out with an actual turning lane. He asked if that was
correct.
Mr. Joy asked if he was referring to the eastbound Julie Lane going onto
Portola.
Mr. Gerhardt said Julie Lane that connects to Shepherd, between
Shepherd and Portola, so eventually there would be a stop Tight
there. But if it was two lanes there right now and there are 160
children possibly being dropped off in the morning, he would hate
to live on the other side of that and try to get by there or out of
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
there in the morning without a turning lane into it. For example, a
turning lane onto Portola or a turning lane into the community
center.
Mr. Joy asked if he was asking for a right -turn only lane from Julie Lane
into the project.
Mr. Gerhardt said that right now there are two lanes going east
and west. He asked if there would be a center lane for turning.
Mr. Joy said yes, he believed there would.
Mr. Gerhardt said that would be one of his concerns. For all the
people and families planning to take their kids there, that would be
one of the concerns he would like to have addressed. Again, the
school, from what he could see, was on the west side and the
only buffer zone was the parking lot, so sound and sight were
concerns. He appreciated their time and asked for them to address
that.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant would like to readdress the
commission.
Regarding height, Mr. Goldman mentioned that the gym at the
peripheral on both ends of the gym was 22 feet and it was just
the center that peaked at 27 feet. He also mentioned that from the
residential property at the southwest corner of the site, the site
falls off 14 feet to the northeast corner. So a 27-foot high gym
was probably already down relative to the grade of the adjacent
residential five feet plus or minus in that sense, so it really went
down from 27 to 22 feet effectively, relative to adjacent housing
that was that much higher.
There was also a practical part of the gym. They weren't making
the gym any bigger than it need be, but for volleyball, they needed
a structure to support a span over a basketball court. That
structure needed to be a minimum of three or four feet in depth.
Then it wasn't so much the basketball in the center of the gym
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
that presented the problem, but volleyball definitely presented a
problem. They have done a number of gyms and it wasn't an
excessive height at 24 feet inside.
In terms of seeing the tower, the tower was also buffered by a
two-story building to the east. It was in the center of the site and
with the fall of the property and the buildings that were probably
200 feet westerly of that tower, chances are he didn't think they
would see the tower. But he would be glad to draw a cross
section in that direction as well.
Relative to noise, the preschool playground was within the building
perimeter. There was relatively little noise generated from a drop
off and pick up. They would get some children yelling and so forth,
but there was no real activity. The noise was generated from the
playground and the playground was buffered by a two-story
building on three sides of it. The play fields to the south of the
property could generate noise. It was during the day and wasn't
in the evening. He said it was a community asset. Anyone in this
community could make use of these playgrounds and he saw that
as much of a benefit then any detriment.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that there would be no bells
or amplification systems.
Mr. Goldman said there could be an amplification system, but they
are so advanced these days that they could control them. They
wouldn't have one system blaring out over the entire area. They
could have a series of small speakers, a speaker every 20 feet
could be provided and could be kept at a very low volume.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that amplification typically wasn't
allowed.
Mr. Goldman said whatever was allowed would be acceptable. In
terms of the circulation and egress, if he was a neighbor living in
a surrounding residential neighborhood and leaving during the
school drop off or pick up time, chances were most of these
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
families also have children. He thought that many of the children
might go to this school and, therefore, would be walking. If they
weren't, yes, they would be leaving at the same time. But right
now they are all leaving by way of the alternative circulation
system heading south, so it wasn't like they were in a dead-end
cul-de-sac. They have an option if it was in fact an issue. He
thanked the Commission.
Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the
commission for comments.
Commissioner Finerty said she appreciated everything the applicant had
done, trying to take into consideration the houses nearby. However, with
regard to the height issues, she believed that because this was
predominantly in a residential area with houses on both sides and if a
developer was to come in, they would be limited to 24 feet for two
stories. Therefore, she believed the same should apply for anything going
into this particular area and that there should be no height exception for
either the gym or the tower. She would like to see it at 24 feet.
She also had concerns if Phase 1 would be able to function as a stand
alone project. She was hearing much uncertainty about Phase 2,
acknowledging that it's already at least five years away. Which led her
to Public Works Condition No. 12. It needed to stay tied to Phase 1
because of this uncertainty.
She shared ARC's concern with the color palette. It was certainly
something they weren't used to seeing and she wasn't sure how that
would blend in as far as being in a residential neighborhood.
She thought that all of the services they were planning to have for the
community were commendable, but right now she was beginning to
question if this type of building being requesting with the height
exceptions and with the unusual color palette was really appropriate in
a residential area.
Commissioner Campbell thought they might know how she felt about the
project from her comments in 2001 when it was before the Planning
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
Commission. She didn't think this facility should be in that location
surrounded by residential. Regarding the preschool and 160 children, 160
children do make a lot of noise in an open area like that. Even though
those homes may have children that go to school, there are people who
are retired who do not like to have the noise when they are going to be
relaxing at home or trying to open their windows for fresh air and hear
children. If they wanted to live by a school, they move by a school for
their children; otherwise, some people do not like to have the noise
around them.
She also concurred with Commissioner Finerty regarding the height of the
tower. She hadn't even thought about having a lit tower, but she did
agree with Mr. Gerhardt regarding those people living there. Again,
everything is dark, there is special lighting, and if they were sitting out
in their patio looking at the mountains and there shouldn't be a light
shining at them. She was opposed to having this facility in the middle of
a residential area. With all the beautiful buildings they approved today,
that would be a perfect location.
Commissioner Tschopp believed this was an appropriate area for a
development like this in that schools, churches, temples, synagogues,
and boys and girls clubs typically locate in residential areas so they can
better serve the people living around it. So he didn't have a problem with
the location.
He thought the architect had taken a good look at how to help and
handle some of the parking elements. Regarding the color palette, it was
hard for him to visualize, but he thought ARC was handling it in the
appropriate manner by saying they will monitor it throughout the
construction phase and would ask for modification, if necessary.
He thought the tower element was a little too high. The gymnasium
serves a function and sometimes it is a necessity to increase the height.
But for just an architectural type of element in a residential neighborhood,
he thought it was probably inappropriate and needed to be brought down
somewhat.
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
But other than that, he thought it was a good development, in a good
location, and could be an asset to the community.
Commissioner Lopez said in many cases he concurred with Commissioner
Tschopp. He, too, thought that schools and recreational facilities and
parks have a great benefit to a community and belong within walking
distance for at least the ability for children and adults to take advantage
of the facility itself. So he thought the location was appropriate.
The concerns and questions he had regarding accessibility, flow and open
space were mitigated and thought overall the project provided a very
interesting campus type of atmosphere with a lot of open space to it.
But the tower element in this particular location was out of place at that
particular height. He thought the purpose and message could still be
successfully communicated by lowering the tower to an appropriate level
that would at least blend into the community in a much better situation
than a 30-foot high tower. He thought 24 feet would probably be the
right height.
The gymnasium would be a challenge because of the need for the interior
space, but there were ways of mitigating that particular problem.
Overall he thought the project was a good addition to the community
itself and ARC took the right direction regarding the exterior colors and
he thought overall it should be a nice addition. He was in favor of the
project.
Chairperson Jonathan concurred. The colors didn't concern him. ARC
weighed in on that and would work with the applicant and he had faith
in ARC.
He thought the location could not be more ideal. They have and want
churches, schools, and recreational facilities to be in residential
neighborhoods so they could serve those they are intended to serve. In
addition, this particular location provides a wonderful buffer to the
residential neighborhood against the heavy, noisy traffic along Portola.
And finally with regard to the location, he thought one of the best things
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
the applicant had done for the neighborhood was put the neighborhood
on notice back in 2001 by obtaining a conditional use permit for this
project. So it wasn't a surprise to anyone that this was coming on line.
So the location to him was not only acceptable, it was ideal.
In terms of the height exception, he was in favor of the exception for the
gym because he thought it was mitigated by the slope. He thought
ultimately the height of the gym was no higher than a home would be
had the slope not been created, the downward slope.
The tower he could personally live with. Every time he goes home he
looks at a lit cross up above him and that didn't bother him. He thought
it was very nice, actually. So if he has to drive down Portola and see the
word peace, that certainly didn't bother him either. However, if that was
a concern to the Council or the residential neighborhood, he was very
confident that some level of creativity could be applied by the designers
to come up with the same statement, but with Tess height. So he would
leave that to the Council.
He thought they needed to add a prohibition with regard to bells and
amplification. He didn't see that as a condition and didn't want that
misunderstood. He thought that was important to the neighborhood that
they not have amplification, bells or that kind of noise.
Finally, Public Works Condition No. 15 provided for an access driveway
on Portola to be gated and used for official emergency vehicles only. He
thought they could add that the access could be made available for
loading and unloading purposes, or a different wording.
Mr. Smith thought Condition No. 16 of the Planning Department would
become the operative condition, which would allow it for special event
setup also (on the bottom of page 4). So it was in there and they were
indicating a preference that they would defer to Condition 16 versus
Public Works Condition 15.
In conclusion, Chairperson Jonathan was in favor of the project and
believed and hoped that the project represents a wonderful resource for
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2004
the neighborhood that should enhance the values of the surrounding
homes. He asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2
(Commissioners Campbell and Finerty voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2315,
recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 04-23, subject
to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell
and Finerty voted no).
Mr. Smith asked for clarification that the motion included the condition
relative to the prohibition of amplified sound and bells. Chairperson
Jonathan and Commissioners Lopez and Tschopp concurred.
F. Case No. PM 31862 - INDIAN SPRINGS, LTD., Applicant
Request for approval of a parcel map to establish a one -lot
subdivision with a condominium overlay at the 191-space
Indian Springs Mobile Home Park located at 49-305
Highway 74 (APN 652-120-007).
Chairperson Jonathan asked for a staff report, reiterating that it is the
expectation that this matter would be continued.
Mr. Smith noted that the Planning Commission received copies of the
tentative map in their packets which showed the proposed lotting which
was for a one -lot subdivision with a condominium overlay for the existing
191-space mobile home park. The project is located on the west side of
Highway 74 at 49-305 Highway 74, and the property is a 34.7-acre
property which was established in 1970.
He explained that the applicant seeks to change the ownership structure
from a rental mobile home park to single-family manufactured housing
34
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2315
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A
COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY ON 8.5 ACRES ON THE WEST
SIDE OF PORTOLA AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET
SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE, 36-775 PORTOLA AVENUE.
CASE NO. PP 04-23
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of December, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by
the JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS for approval of a precise plan of design to
develop and operate a community center facility on 8.5 acres on the west side of Portola
Avenue 1600 + /- feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2085 has previously
approved a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a conditional use permit for
a community center facility on this property subject to the applicant obtaining approval of
a precise plan of design; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project was previously assessed as part of Case No. CUP 01-13 for which a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified. No further environmental review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise
plan of design:
1. The location of a community center facility fronting on a major secondary
street at the periphery of a residential area is in accord with the objectives of
the Planned Residential zone and General Plan.
2. The proposed location and conditions under which the community center will
operate will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Sufficient
traffic capacity and controls exist to insure safe ingress and egress for the
facility and acceptable levels of services at critical intersections.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2315
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That approval of Case No. PP 04-23, on file in the Department of Community
Development, is hereby recommended to City Council, subject to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, JONATHAN
NOES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
gulp
SA::"-c NATH ", Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2315
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 04-23
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the
department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions:
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date
of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall
become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and
limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and
federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permit and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the
department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the City
Environmental Conservation Manager and applicable waste disposal company. Access
to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said
placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community
Development.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements in Section
25.58 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2315
7. A detailed parking lot lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to the
provisions of Ordinance No. 826 (outdoor lighting requirements). Plan to be prepared by
a qualified lighting engineer.
8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works
prior to architectural review commission submittal.
9. Final landscape plans shall comply with the City's Parking Lot and Tree Standards per
Ordinance No. 977 and Resolution No. 01-06.
10. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these
conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life
of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be
recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with
the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-
term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times,
fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be
planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the
Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
11. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringed -Toed Lizard, TUMF, School
Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
12. That the applicant shall consolidate the two parcels into one lot.
13. That the applicant, as part of the first phase, shall design and implement the
landscape buffer area along the south property line.
14. That the south landscape buffer area be extended easterly to include the "service
area."
15. That the outdoor recreation facilities (handball courts, softball field and soccer field
areas) shall not be illuminated for night play.
16. That the "service area" shall only be used for the temporary parking of vehicles
associated with special events held in the gym and as an emergency access. Said
area shall not be used for general parking, outdoor storage, or as a maintenance
facility.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2315
17. That when large events are scheduled in the "social hall"and the gym, other activities
shall be limited. The purpose of this condition is to prevent the scheduling of
concurrent high traffic generating uses in the social hall(s) and the gym facility.
18. When large events are scheduled, the soccer field parking spaces shall be made
available.
19. That the Shepherd Lane (west) access shall be gated and kept closed except when
needed by emergency personnel.
20. The southerly limit of the first phase may be enclosed by a chain link fence. If Phase
II is not commenced within five years (January 2010), then said fence shall be
removed and replaced with an approved fence material.
21. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
22. That the applicant obtain approval of the City Council of a height exception for the
height of the gym building and the "welcome tower."
23. That exterior bells and amplified speaker systems are prohibited.
Department of Public Works:
1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and
Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. The project shall
be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs.
undeveloped condition for a 100-year storm. Any drainage facility construction required
for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil
engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start
of construction.
2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-
55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment
of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall
be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance
of the grading permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2315
5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works, and shall be
completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project.
7. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction
of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the
Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required
offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
8. Landscape installation on the property frontages, as well as on -site, shall be drought
tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner.
9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Developer
shall contact the Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site
improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works
for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape
plans shall be submitted concurrently with grading plans.
11. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
12. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the
City's Circulation Network. Those improvements shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
•
•
Full improvement of Shepherd Lane with a 26' half -street section and 8' sidewalk
minimum 4' from back of curb, within a 46' half -street right of way.
Installation of an 8' sidewalk, minimum 4' from back of curb on Portola Avenue.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall
be conveyed to the City prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2315
13. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective
service districts with "as built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final.
14. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to the Department of Public works prior
to project final.
15. Access driveway shown on Portola Avenue shall be gated.
16. Two driveways are allowed on the north project boundary on Shepherd Lane (Julie Lane)
with the easterly driveway to be located a minimum of 250 feet from the westerly curb line
of Portola Avenue. An additional access into the parking area is permissible along the
western boundary of the project onto Shepherd Lane.
17. Final grading plan, as well as any future plans, shall show and incorporate the grading
plan for the adjacent Tract 30801.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the
Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC
and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure
must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3,000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4"x2-
1 /2"x2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2315
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000
square foot total cumulative floor area. The fire Marshal shall approve the locations of
all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections
shall not be less than 25' from the building within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted
are one and two family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water -flow
switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire
extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and
32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in industrial developments.
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or
other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system
to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
12. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development.
13. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency; to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
14. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
15. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2315
16. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
17. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
Other:
1. Radius at both ends of driveway need to be 45-foot radius outside. •
//
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: December 7, 2004
CASE NO: PP 04-23
REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council of approval of a precise plan of
design for a community center facility on an 8.5-acre site at the
southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Julie Lane, 1600 feet south of
Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Pgltola Avenue.
APPLICANT: Jewish Federation of Palm Springs
255 N. El Cielo, Suite 450
Palm Springs, CA 92262
I. BACKGROUND:
August 21, 2001 Commission on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Campbell voting nay)
approved a conditional use permit (CUP 01-13) for the Jewish Community Center of
the Desert on this site. At that time the applicant presented conceptual plans.
Consequently, the Commission approval was subject to the applicant obtaining
approval of a precise plan of design prior to commencing construction.
A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: PR-5 / vacant
South: PR-5 / single family dwellings
East: PR-5 / vacant
West: PR-5 / single family dwellings
B. SITE ZONING AND LAND USE:
The property is zoned PR-5 (planned residential) and designated low density
residential in the general plan.
With approval of a conditional use permit a community facility is a permitted
use in the PR zone.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The site is an area of rolling sand dunes fronting on Portola Avenue.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 04-23
DECEMBER 7, 2004
The applicant proposes to construct a community center facility that will offer
programs and activities for all members of the community from age two years
through the most senior of citizens (see attached list of prospective programs and
activities). The center will provide educational, cultural, religious, social and
recreational programs and activities.
The 94,000 square foot facility will be built in phases with three distinct areas:
recreational, cultural and educational.
Recreation Village:
This area of the complex will include a gym, two pools, fitness rooms, snack bar and
Federation offices.
Cultural Village:
This area will include an auditorium, dining room, libraries, lounge areas, meeting
rooms and family services.
Education Village:
This area will provide a preschool, day school classroom, day care/kindergym,
administration offices and playground.
A. SITE PLAN, ACCESS AND PARKING:
The project will be developed in two phases.
Phase I:
In the first phase of development the applicant will construct 156 parking
spaces along the north side of the property with two access points to Julie
Lane. Development will be limited to family services (3,134 square feet);
Federation offices (4,985 square feet) and recreation and meeting rooms
(6,233 square feet) with a total demand of 88 parking spaces based on
individual uses (58 spaces based on general office standards). The project will
have more than ample parking.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 04-23
DECEMBER 7, 2004
The south limit of Phase I will be enclosed by a temporary six-foot chain link
fence. The applicant commits to commencing Phase II within five years;
otherwise, the chain link fence will be removed and replaced with a wrought
iron fence, block wall, or other approved material.
In this phase, the buildings will be setback 32 feet from Portola, 145 feet from
Julie Lane, 290 feet from Shepherd Lane, and 290 feet from the residential
units to the south.
Phase II
In Phase II the parking will be extended along the west side of the site to
provide a total of 300 parking spaces (354 spaces with valet service). On -site
circulation will continue to direct all traffic north to Julie Lane. An emergency
only access will be provided to connect to Shepherd Lane to the west.
The "recreational village" buildings will be located adjacent to Portola Avenue
(32 feet setback) with outdoor recreational activities (handball, soccer/softball
fields) along the south side of the property. These fields will be set 3 + /- feet
below the pad heights of the residential lots to the south. In addition, the 12-
foot sloped setback area will be landscaped to create a buffer. The southerly
most building will be the gym which will be setback 62 feet from the south
property line. At the southeast corner of the property, a service yard is shown
with a driveway to Portola. The applicant indicates this will only be used in
association with functions utilizing the gym.
The "cultural village" buildings will continue to be located in the center of the
site with the "educational village" located between the west parking lot and
the "cultural village." Educational buildings will be setback 130 feet from
Shepherd Lane, 145 feet from Julie Lane and 222 feet from the south property
line.
B. PARKING:
This facility will operate as a "place of assembly." In such cases the City bases
the parking requirement on the capacity of the main use on the site (i.e.,
sanctuary of a church). In Phase II, the major parking generators will be the
social halls (5,936 square feet) which have a code parking requirement of 170
spaces (i.e., 1 space per 35 square feet of seating area). This leaves 130
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 04-23
DECEMBER 7, 2004
spaces to accommodate the other uses on the site. It should also be noted
that the social hall peak hours (weekends and evenings) will be different than
the "educational village."
The applicant on page 3 of the Phase II site plan outlines scenarios for daytime
and nighttime use of the complex. These scenarios assume 100% occupancy
of each use area. This is unlikely to occur (i.e., 100% simultaneous occupancy
in the social hall, meeting rooms, gym and pools). Staff feels that a maximum
occupancy of 80% would be more likely.
However, to account for the unlikely eventuality when 100% occupancy of all
uses does occur simultaneously, the applicant has provided 126 overflow
parking spaces on the soccer field area. In addition, staff proposes a condition
prohibiting the scheduling of concurrent high traffic generation uses in the
social hall and the gym.
C. ARCHITECTURE:
The project architecture incorporates a series of strong, vertical elements with
significant curved walls. The project description notes:
"Exterior design reflects a strong play of light and shade and a
simplicity and contrast of sculpted forms. Earth colors and tactile
qualities of materials will combine with natural desert landscape
and biblical gardens."
Basically, the three "village" areas are connected by a series of covered
walkways. Roof heights of the buildings vary from 11 feet to 22 feet 6 inches.
The curved gym roof is a maximum of 27 feet and the parapet wall at the
reception area with the Hebrew letters for "Shalom" facing Portola is shown
at 30 feet.
The architectural review commission granted preliminary approval at its
September 14, 2004 meeting. ARC was concerned with the 30-foot high
parapet "welcome" wall and based on a line of sight study, concluded that it
could be reduced in height by four to five feet without impacting its visibility.
ARC also conditioned that the proposed color pallet be further evaluated in the
field during construction.
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 04-23
DECEMBER 7, 2004
TABLE OF CODE PROVISIONS
PR Zone Phase I Phase II
SETBACKS:
Shepherd Lane 20' 250' 130'
Julie Lane 20' 145' 145'
Portola Avenue 32' 32' 32'
South 20' 290' 62'
BUILDING HEIGHT: 24' 1 1 ' + 22' 6" 1 1 ' & 22' 6" & 27' *
Welcome Tower 24' 26' or 30'
COVERAGE: 40% 4% 25.7%
PARKING: 88/170 156 300/426
*Height exception required per Municipal Code 25.24.310.
III. ANALYSIS:
The project as proposed complies with the provisions of the ordinance except for the
height of the gym and the "welcome tower" for which an "exception" is required
through the City Council.
The architecture has been given preliminary approval by ARC, subject to further
review of the color pallet which is to be reviewed in the field during construction and
reduction in height of the "welcome" tower.
The community center will provide a wide range of activities for all segments of the
community. The outdoor play fields and handball courts have the potential to impact
residences to the south. In order to limit any impact, the proposed landscape buffer
along the south limit of the property will be installed during the first phase even
though the fields are part of Phase II. This will allow the buffer to mature and be
effective by the time the Phase II begins. Also, lighting of the fields for evening use
will be prohibited.
The 50-foot by 62-foot service area at the southeast corner of the site is proposed
to allow vehicles associated with special events in the gym to set up for their events.
5
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 04-23
DECEMBER 7, 2004
Public Works Condition No. 15 would limit the use of the driveway to emergency
personnel only. Commission could allow its use for vehicles associated with special
events, yet still require it to be gated. This area cannot become a maintenance facility
or an area for unsightly outdoor storage. Accordingly, Planning Department Condition
No. 17 limits the use as an area to temporarily park vehicles associated with special
events held in the gym. Condition No. 14 requires that the 12-foot wide southerly
landscape buffer be extended out to Portola Avenue, thus reducing the service area
to 50 feet by 40 feet.
The facility has the potential to overflow into the nearby community if several large
events are held simultaneously. Accordingly, Condition No. 18 requires that the
"center" not schedule large events in the gym and the social hall(s) at the same time.
In addition, Condition No. 19 requires that overflow parking be provided on the
soccer field when necessary.
Lighting in the parking lots could be a concern to residents. Ordinance No. 826
restricts lighting in parking lots in residential zones. Maximum pole height will be 20
feet and the lights may only be on while people are present onsite. Condition No. 22
limits the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
IV. CONCLUSION:
With the conditions noted above, staff is recommending approval of the precise plan
of design. With respect to the access to Portola Avenue for the service area, Planning
staff recommends that it be required to be gated and that access be limited to
emergency personnel and temporary parking of vehicles associated with special
events held in the gym only.
V. CEQA REVIEW:
The project was reviewed as part of CUP 01-13 for which a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact was certified. No further environmental review is necessary.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
recommending to the City Council approval of PP 04-23, subject to conditions.
6
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 04-23
DECEMBER 7, 2004
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Review acid Concur:
Homer Croy
ACM for Development Services
/tm
7
Reviewed and Approved by:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A
COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY ON 8.5 ACRES ON THE WEST
SIDE OF PORTOLA AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET
SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE, 36-775 PORTOLA AVENUE.
CASE NO. PP 04-23
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 7th day of December, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by
the JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS for approval of a precise plan of design to
develop and operate a community center facility on 8.5 acres on the west side of Portola
Avenue 1600 +/- feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2085 has previously
approved a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a conditional use permit for
a community center facility on this property subject to the applicant obtaining approval of
a precise plan of design; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 04-106," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project was previously. assessed as part of Case No. CUP 01-13 for which a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified. No further environmental review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise
plan of design:
1. The location of a community center facility fronting on a major secondary
street at the periphery of a residential area is in accord with the objectives of
the Planned Residential zone and General Plan.
2. The proposed location and conditions under which the community center will
operate will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Sufficient
traffic capacity and controls exist to insure safe ingress and egress for the
facility and acceptable levels of services at critical intersections.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That Case No. PP 04-23 on file in the Department of Community Development
is hereby approved, subject to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 04-23
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the
department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions:
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date
of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall
become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and
limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and
federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permit and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the
department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the City
Environmental Conservation Manager and applicable waste disposal company. Access
to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said
placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community
Development.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements in Section
25.58 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
7. A detailed parking lot lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to the
provisions of Ordinance No. 826 (outdoor lighting requirements). Plan to be prepared by
a qualified lighting engineer.
8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works
prior to architectural review commission submittal.
9. Final landscape plans shall comply with the City's Parking Lot and Tree Standards per
Ordinance No. 977 and Resolution No. 01-06.
10. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these
conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life
of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be
recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with
the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-
term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times,
fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be
planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the
Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
11. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringed -Toed Lizard, TUMF, School
Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
12. That the applicant shall consolidate the two parcels into one lot.
13. That the applicant, as part of the first phase, shall design and implement the
landscape buffer area along the south property line.
14. That the south landscape buffer area be extended easterly to include the "service
area."
15. That the outdoor recreation facilities (handball courts, softball field and soccer field
areas) shall not be illuminated for night play.
16. That the "service area" shall only be used for the temporary parking of vehicles
associated with special events held in the gym and as an emergency access. Said
area shall not be used for general parking, outdoor storage, or as a maintenance
facility.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
17. That when large events are scheduled in the "social hall"and the gym, other activities
shall be limited. The purpose of this condition is to prevent the scheduling of
concurrent high traffic generating uses in the social hall(s) and the gym facility.
18. When large events are scheduled, the soccer field parking spaces shall be made
available.
19. That the Shepherd Lane (west) access shall be gated and kept closed except when
needed by emergency personnel.
20. The southerly limit of the first phase may be enclosed by a chain Zink fence. If Phase
II is not commenced within five years (January 2010), then said fence shall be
removed and replaced with an approved fence material.
21. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
22. That the applicant obtain approval of the City Council of a height exception for the
height of the gym building and the "welcome tower."
Department of Public Works:
1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and
Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. The project shall
be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs.
undeveloped condition for a 100-year storm. Any drainage facility construction required
for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil
engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start
of construction.
2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-
55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment
of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall
be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance
of the grading permit.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works, and shall be
completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project.
7. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction
of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the
Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of all required
offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
8. Landscape installation on the property frontages, as well as on -site, shall be drought
tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner.
9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Developer
shall contact the Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site
improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works
for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape
plans shall be submitted concurrently with grading plans.
11. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
12. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the
City's Circulation Network. Those improvements shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
Full improvement of Shepherd Lane with a 26' half -street section and 8' sidewalk
minimum 4' from back of curb, within a 46' half -street right of way.
Installation of an 8' sidewalk, minimum 4' from back of curb on Portola Avenue.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall
be conveyed to the City prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
13. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective
service districts with "as built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final.
14. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to the Department of Public works prior
to project final.
15. Access driveway shown on Portola Avenue shall be gated for use by official emergency
vehicles only.
16. Two driveways are allowed on the north project boundary on Shepherd Lane (Julie Lane)
with the easterly driveway to be located a minimum of 250 feet from the westerly curb line
of Portola Avenue. An additional access into the parking area is permissible along the
western boundary of the project onto Shepherd Lane.
17. Final grading plan, as well as any future plans, shall show and incorporate the grading
plan for the adjacent Tract 30801.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the
Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC
and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure
must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3,000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4"x2-
1 /2"x2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000
square foot total cumulative floor area. The fire Marshal shall approve the locations of
all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections
shall not be Tess than 25' from the building within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted
are one and two family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water -flow
switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire
extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not Tess
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and
32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in industrial developments.
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or
other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system
to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
12. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development.
13. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency; to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
14. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
15. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
16. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within 12 months.
17. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
Other:
1. Radius at both ends of driveway need to be 45-foot radius outside.
//
9
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
REVISED
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: PP 4-23, Jewish Community Campus
DATE: November 24, 2004
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above -referenced project.
(1) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. The
project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in
developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm. Any drainage facility
construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study
prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
(2) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project.
(3) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
(4) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
(5) All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance ofgrading permits.
(6) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works, and shall
be completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project.
(7)
(8)
(9)
As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements iscommenced. Offsite improvement plans are to
be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the
installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on -site shall be drought
tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be performed by the property owner.
Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust Control and Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control.
Developer shall contact the Riverside County Flood Control District for informational
materials.
(10) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary
landscape plans shall be submitted concurrently with grading plans.
(11) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
(12) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and
the city's Circulation Network. Those improvementsshall include, but not be limited
to the following
► Full Improvement of Shepherd Lane with a 26' half -street section and 8'
sidewalk minimum 4' from back of curb, within a 46' half -street right of way.
► Installation of an 8'sidewalk, minimum 4' from back of curb on Portola Avenue.
Rights-of-wayand/oreasements necessary for the installation of the above referenced
improvements shall be conveyed to the city prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
(13) Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective
service districts with "as built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior
to project final.
(14) Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to the Department of Public Works
prior to project final.
(15) Access driveway shown on Portola Avenue shall be gated for use by official
emergency vehicles only.
(16)
Two
driveways are allowed on thenorth project boundary on Shepherd Lane (Julie Lane)
with the easterly driveway to be located a minimum of 250' from the westerly curb line
of Portola Avenue. An additional access into the parking area is permissible along the
western boundary of the project onto Shepherd Lane.
(17) Final grading plan as well as any future plans shall show and incorporate the attached
grading plan for the adjacent Tract 30801.
Mark Gre- wood, P.E.
G:\PubWorks\Conditions of Approval \PPLANS\pp 4-23 Jewish com campus -Shepherd In revised.wpd
Tom Tisdale
Fire Chief
Proudly serving the
unincorporated
areas of Riverside
County and the
cities of:
Banning
Beaumont
Callmesa
Canyon Lake
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Indio
Lake Elsinore
La Quinta
Moreno Valley
Palm Desert
Perris
Rancho Mirage
San Jacinto
Temecula
Board of Supervisors:
Bob Buster
Distract 1
John Tavaglione
District 2
Jim Venable
District 3
Roy Wilson
District 4
Tom Mullen
District 5
RIVERSIDE CG,,NTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
In cooperation with the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 • (909) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910
Cove Fire Marshal's Office
73710 Frcd Waring Drive 4 102
Palm Desert CA 92260
(760) 346-1870
TO: -"5. J',1 �3r, (c
REF: (/0 V ` l G(
DATE: J/(7//
0/ 7 Q(1- 3/
If circled, conditions apply to project
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal
Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection
Standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed
on the job site.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a
gpm flow of:
3. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings
2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings
3000 gpm for commercial buildings
The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super
Hydrant (s) 4"x 2 Y2" x 2 V2", located not less than 25' nor more than:
6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via
vehicular travelway
7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via
vehicular travelway
150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via
vehicular travelway
Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include
verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow.
10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the
existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow.
Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all
buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire
Marshal shall approved the locations of all post indicator valves and
fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be
less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved
hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler
systems and Water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per
CBC Chapter 9.
Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
15.
Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one
2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking
distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial
kitchens.
Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96
in all public and private cooking operations except single-family
residential usage.
16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an
operation that produces airborne particles.
All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story.
The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and
13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on
both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide
with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in industrial
developments.
18 Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a
"Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle
access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical
clearance of 13'6".
19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access,
sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire
Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be
accepted.
A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main
access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an
adjoining development.
This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to
facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and
occupancy type.
All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by
'� the city.
23.. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm
plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval
04.—Prior to construction.
Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances,
laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve
months.
Alt elevators shall be minimum gurney size.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to
the Fire Marshal's Office at (760) 346-1870 in Palm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred Waring Drive #102, Palm Desert CA 92260
Other:
Sincerely,
David A. Avila
Fire Marshal
Nov 15 04 11:ola Goldman Firth
GOLDMAN • FIRTH • ROSSI ARCHITECTS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 11, 2004
TO: Steve Smith
City of Palm Desert
310 456 7690
p. 2
Tel. 760-346-0611
cc: Alan Klugman
FROM: Ron Goldman
SUBJECT: JCC: update on community outreach, mailing list, and staff report
Steve:
Regarding our conversation prior to your leaving on vacation, I want to bring you
up to date on the following:
1) Community outreach
Alan Klugman mailed 147 invitations to all the houses in the immediate
neighborhood for a meeting at nearby Marriott Courtyard (Cook and
Country Club). Unfortunately, only one couple came to the meeting, but
they were very enthusiastic about the project. They had very recently
moved into the neighborhood three blocks away, and offered to host
another meeting in their home which we will try to arrange within the next
week or two.
2) Mailing list
Alan reviewed with the title company their most recent list which seems to
be less accurate than the 140 addresses which were personally delivered.
We are concerned that a complete list is mailed for the December 7th
hearing. 1 believe you mentioned that the city has access to the latest list.
Please let us know what you need from us in this regard if anything.
3) Staff report
With regard to the staff report you will be writing, I would like to briefly
outline what we consider to be the benefits and burdens to adjacent
neighbors.
24955 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite A202 Malibu, California 90265 TEL. 310.456.1831 FAX. 310.456.7690
ronegfcrchitects.com www.gfarchitects.com
Received Nov-15-200A 09:57 From-310 A56 7690
To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W PUB 002
Nov 15 04 11:O1a Go)dman Firth
310 456 7650 p.3
The following "burdens" we feel have been very adequately mitigated.
a) traffic and circulation
- the two vehicular entrances are located on the non-residential portion of
Shephard Lane with a third entrance for emergency use only
- simple on -site loop circulation provides Substantial stacking for
school drop-off and pick-up
- nighttime activities will occur at the north end of the site, away from
neighbors
b) noise
- bulk of activity occurs at the north end of the property with open space
predominant at the south and east ends of property
- no lighting at the southerly outdoor playground also means no outdoor
activity in this area after dark
- playground is lower than neighbor's yard and when combined
with a property line wall and landscape buffer will provide adequate
separation
- pool area activity is buffered by surrounding buildings and courtyard
walls
c) night lighting
- parking areas will have indirect down lighting and will be further
buffered by mature trees
- no lighting at outdoor playground areas
d) drainage
- overall site slopes away from residential
- retention area provided at southerly playground
- bulk of storm water will be retained at northerly parking area with pervious
concrete surfacing
The list of "benefits" we see as substantive
1) open campus plan
- provides an environment that will be welcoming, warm, and colorful, not
institutional
2) site coverage
- the village of 1 and 2 story buildings represents only 25% site coverage
with landscape, courtyards, and walkways (excluding parking)
representing 50% of site coverage
Received Nov-15-2004 00:57
From-310 466 7690 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003
Nov 15 04 1 1 : 01 a Go) dman Firth
310 456 7650 p.4
3) open space buffer
- open space is located adjacent to residential with building clusters and
primary parking areas located at the north end of the site
4) range of activitic3
- membership open to general public
- the three neighborhoods (educational, cultural, and recreational) provide
active and passive activities for the whole family (i.e., dance, art,
computers, drama, card games, libraries, etc., etc.)
Steve, please confirm the status of the mailing list.
Regards,
Ron Goldman
Received Nov-15-2004 09:57
From-310 456 7690 To —PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 004
PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT
Served by the
Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Bob Doyle, Sheriff -Coroner
73520 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 836-1600 Fax (760) 836-1616
August 11, 2004
City of Palm Desert
Planning Department
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
ATTN: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
RE: PP 04-23 / CUP 01-13
Dear Mr. Smith,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed construction of the Community Campus on
8.4 Acres located on the west corner of Portola Ave, south of Shepherd Lane (APN 653-370-020+024).
The plans I received are for the first phase of construction so I will comment on this phase and reserve the
right to review further plans and comment on future construction. The recommendations in this report are
not intended to override nor supercede any order of the fire department or Fire Marshal. The following
issues of concern related to public safety and law enforcement are presented:
1. Current Planned Design:
A. Exterior Building Security: The exterior doors of all units and buildings should be of steel
construction and secured with a heavy-duty type lock to provide protection against forced
entry. The doors should have a steel plate mounted to the side of the door near the latching
bolt to prevent prying and tampering. The exterior entrances to the complex should be locked
when the business is closed and a Knox -Box system should be installed near the main entrance
to allow police and or fire personnel access to the facility.
B. Exterior Lighting Plan: All exterior lighting fixtures should be mounted to a height that
would reduce any tampering or damage. It is recommend that metal halide type lighting be
used for the reasons of accurate color rendition and increased visibility. All areas of the site,
including the parking lots and perimeter area, should have sufficient lighting to deter
trespassers and vandalism during evening hours.
C. Surveillance System: I recommend a computer controlled digital surveillance system with
cameras covering a close up view of the entry ways into the complex and the entry/exit ways
to the parking lot. Additional cameras could be installed inside the complex to cover other
areas with specific safety concerns, (i.e. child daycare, and the family planning areas). The
benefits of a computer controlled system over a VHS Tape system is the digital system can run
continually and the daily surveillance can be stored indefinitely on computer disc for future
review. The video tapes of a VHS Surveillance System lose their video quality over time and
take up more space for storage.
Page 2
D. Alarm System: A security alarm system should be installed with sensors covering all exterior
doors/windows for the buildings. In addition to the door/window sensors, interior motion
detectors and interior microphones could be installed to monitor potential criminal activity
inside specific rooms in the event of an alarm activation. The subscriber should provide the
servicing alarm vendor with a contact person, and/or responder in the event of alarm
activation. The responder is normally a property manager with keys to all areas of the building
that could meet with deputies in the event the alarm activates when the business is closed.
E. Business Numbering or Monument: The property address should be prominently displayed
and visible from Portola Ave. The numbers affixed to the building or monument
should be of contrasting color from the building facade and illuminated at night. This will
assist in emergency responses by the fire department or the Palm Desert Police Department.
F. Parking Lot: The parking lot should have speed bumps the full width of the travel lanes and
placed at least every 10 parking spaces. This will slow vehicular traffic and help prevent
accidents with other vehicles or pedestrians. The parking lot entrances should be closed and
locked with either a mechanical gate, or heavy-duty chains attached to posts to prevent
access/trespassing when the establishment is closed. A Knox -Box system should be installed
near the gates on a post with a key to these gates to allow entry of police and or fire personnel.
2. Construction Site:
A. Exterior Fence: Prior to construction of any structure, a material storage area should be
established along the perimeter of the property and enclosed by a six (6) foot chain link fence
with locking gates to minimize theft of materials and/or equipment. "No Trespassing" signs
should be mounted on all four sides of the fencing.
B. Equipment, Staffing, and Supervision: It is recommended that a list of serial and/or license
numbers of equipment stored at the location be maintained both at the site and at any off -site
main office. The public and non -essential employees should have restricted access to the
construction areas. Current emergency contact information for the project and construction
supervisor should be kept on file with the Palm Desert Police Department. A list of
construction employee's names who are permitted to be on the construction site in the evening
hours should be kept with the construction supervisor in the event deputies check the site and
locate unauthorized personnel or trespassers at night.
C. Lighting and Storage: The developer and/or builder's name, address, and phone number
should be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Visibility into the construction site
should not be intentionally hampered by equipment or storage of construction materials. Any
stored construction material should be stored near as possible to the center of the site and
should be kept at a minimum height to allow view into the site from the roadway.
The construction site should be well lit during hours of darkness to prevent intruders and all
entrances and exits should be clearly marked and locked when not in use.
Page 3
Should the Planning Department Manager, developer, or construction staff have any questions regarding
the above law enforcement and public safety concerns, they may contact Deputy Robert Bishop at (760)
836-1671, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
Res ectfully Submitted,
eput�rt Bish
ID # 2759
Palm Desert Police Department
CITY OF PALM DESERT
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM.
j'J,..
To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
From: Deborah Schwartz, Public Art Coordinator
Date: 07/29/04
Subject: Jewish Community Campus (Case No. PP04-14)
The Art In Public Places Department recommends that the public art fee for the Jewish
Community Campus Phase I on the west side of Portola Avenue south of Sheperd Lane
be used for an onsite public art project. We estimate that the total fee for Phase I is
approximately $5,750 and feel that this amount will allow for a small public art project.
Dependent upon when Phase II will be executed, the use of the public art fee for Phase
I could be postponed and combined with the public art fee for Phase II for a more
comprehensive public art project.
t S 2004
91f``EK,AKiwpc,
GERALD FORD DR
SCHOLAR) W -SCHOLAR
LN W \W�� VI LN E
=
II
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
APNs 653-370-020 and 024
1111
JERI-LN
WINDELOWER_CT
PETUNIA—'
PLACEIW
CH NO.O
CR
\___ 1E UIN I
WrOO.DWARD DR
rcc
tij
—� O
Lei
KOKOPELLI1
ce CIR
cz
o l
GOLLEGE=V..IEW�
�— CIR W
'O.—
City of Palm Desert
CHINOOK �Q
CIRE
cit
I �
COLLEGETV.IEW
(1 CIREt IY
GERALD FORD DR
LOCATOR MAP
PP 04-23
Date: 9-20-2004
N
w
0 600
Feet
t
Jewish Community Campus description 7-6-04
This 94,000 sq. ft. community campus on a net 8.5-acre site is designed to be built in
phases without disruption of on -going activities. Shaded walkways and passages will
connect three distinct recreational, cultural, and educational clusters or neighborhoods.
A diagonal entry walk with its tower, historically marking the entrance to the "city," will
focus on views of the San Jacinto mountains and lead you to a central commons and
amphitheatre with a free standing gallery dedicated to the Holocaust. Second story
walkways and patios lend a village character to the complex. Exterior design reflects a
strong play of light and shade and a simplicity and contrast of sculpted forms. Earth
colors and tactile qualities of materials will combine with natural desert landscape and
biblical gardens. Inside, vaulted wood ceiling, painted murals and calligraphy will recall
5,700 years of Jewish heritage.
The recreational village includes a gym, pools, fitness rooms, a snack bar, and the Jewish
Federation offices. Cultural facilities include an auditorium and dining room, libraries,
senior & youth lounges, meeting rooms, and Jewish Family Services. The educational
village includes pre-school and day school classrooms, a daycare/kindergym,
administrative offices and playgrounds.
By blending recreational, cultural, and educational facilities, this will be a community
campus for young and old, Jewish and non-Jewish. By creating possibilities for
exploration and discovery, the environment will reflect a personal search for truth and
knowledge central to Judaism.
The one and two-story roof heights vary from 11' 0" to 22'-6" with two exceptions. The
curved gym roof at its high point is 27 feet and the parapet wall at the reception entrance
with the Hebrew letters "Shalom" ("welcome") is 30 feet.
Privacy and separation of the southerly playfield from adjacent neighbors will include a
2.5 ft. lower grade change, a 6 ft. property line wall, and a 12 ft. bermed landscape buffer.
In addition, evening activity and lighting will be limited to 8:00 pm.
300 parking spaces will be provided to meet typical weekday, evening, and weekend
uses. When larger events are scheduled primarily on nights and weekends, other
activities will be limited. A single loop of circulation will be easy for the visitor to
understand. Anticipated hours of usage include preschool and daycare
(8:00 to 5:30), day school (7:30 to 3:30), Federation office (9:00 to 5:00), Jewish Family
Services (8:30 to 4:30), meeting rooms (primarily 10:00 to 4:00, 7:00 to 9:00), and
recreational facilities (primarily 6:30 to 8:30 am, 6:00 to 10:00 pm).
e c
In the 14,350 sq. ft. first phase, Jewish Family Services and The Jewish Federation of
Palm Springs will relocate their offices here along with a cluster of 6 multi -purpose
meeting rooms along with active and passive outdoor spaces. Services provided by
Jewish Family Services include private and some group counseling sessions, mostly
during regular business hours. Parking for 156 cars will almost double the 80 required.
It is proposed that the temporary first phase fencing along the westerly side of the
property at Shepherds Lane and the meandering interior fence separating grass areas from
stabilized sand will be a 6 ft. chain link fence with vines. Approval of this fence would
be conditioned on the next phase being built within 5 years - otherwise the city could ask
that the fence would be replaced with a more substantial one.
Use of the facility on an open membership basis will be available to the public.
August 24, 2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO.: CUP 01-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):
JEWISH FEDERATION of PALM SPRINGS, 255 N. El Cielo,
Suite 450, Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for a community
center facility. Jewish Community Center
LOCATION: West side of Portola, south of Gerald Ford
ZONE: PR-5
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued the request to the
meeting of September 14, 2004 to allow the applicant to return with a larger
version of Phase 1 including roof plans, site plan, materials/colors, all four sides
of the buildings, as well as how it relates to Phase 2.
Date of Action:
Vote:
August 24, 2004
Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and
Vuksic absent.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the
Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or
revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days
prior to the next meeting.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 24, 2004
MINUTES
3.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with
revised elevations. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners
Gregory and Vuksic absent.
CASE NO.: CUP 01-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):
JEWISH FEDERATION of PALM SPRINGS, 255 N. El Cielo, Suite
450, Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
for a community center facility. Jewish Community Center
LOCATION: West side of Portola, south of Gerald Ford
ZONE: PR-5
MrSmith statedthata-site plan was included in the -commissioner's
packets. The site is north of Desert Willow. To the west there are
single-family homes with some already built and some to come. Along
Portola to south there are homes that side onto Portola. There's no
access from Portola. Access is from Shepard Lane. The applicant
brought a model for the commission to review. Mr. Drell asked if the
model was accurate. Ron Goldman, architect, was present and stated
that it's accurate in footprint but it's not up-to-date in form. Mr. Drell
stated that they went through a conditional use permit process 5-6
years ago so technically the adjacent property owners had a chance to
comment on it.
Mr. Goldman stated that in the first phase they were trying to develop a
few walls that would make more of a statement with a curved wall to tie
the two buildings together. The trellis is not part of the first phase. If
budget allows, they would like to put it in during the second phase.
Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Goldman about his design
philosophy for the project. Mr. Goldman stated that basically he's
designed a 95,000 square foot complex. For many reasons, they didn't
want to create this in a larger building mass so they split the buildings
into three neighborhoods or villages. The one up against Portola is the
recreational neighborhood. There are Jewish Federation offices on the
north end. The rest is fitness, gymnasium and pool facilities around an
active courtyard. There is a cultural neighborhood in the center, which
is really a series of meeting rooms, a library, a holocaust exhibit area
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 11
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 24, 2004
MINUTES
and in the front corner is the Jewish Family Services building. On the
westerly side is the educational neighborhood which includes a pre-
school and, in the second phase, the possibility of a day school up
through the sixth grade. At this point, they're more focused on the pre-
school. In terms of the design philosophy, besides splitting this up into
three neighborhoods, they are concerned about dissolving or
integrating the site with the architecture. In terms of the forms of the
buildings, courtyards, screen walls and the parking lot, we envision this
to ultimately be as much of a park -like setting as possible. We want it
to be warm and inviting, not walking into a big lobby into a large
building but an entrance with a water feature or just a damp cobble
stream that leads you up into a trellis area through a gate. Your first
view is across the field and up into the San Jacinto Mountains. If a
person is bicycling or walking to the site, they would have that
experience as a pedestrian. There's a series of outdoor playgrounds,
active/passive areas and a second -floor courtyard in the center
building. It's our intent that the three entrances to the complex in the
future to each of the three neighborhoods would have art pieces and
decorative entrances. We're struggling in a number of ways with the
parking lot:
Mr. Goldman introduced Alan Thugman, Executive Director of the
Federation and Jim Horowitz, Head of the Building Committee who
were both present.
Mr. Goldman stated that in terms of one of the first experiences when
you come up, besides the corner experience, is something that makes
the complex feel that if I'm a five -year -old, the scale of the building
should be inviting. The experience would be inviting. It would be a
campus that I would enjoy experiencing. The color, materials and the
artistic accents will be inviting. There is a curved wall that shows up on
the second phase elevations and a mural. We've had a number of
thoughts on the parking lot in terms of lighting and landscaping. We
didn't want a landscape that was regimented. The landscape is an S-
shape of trees and in between are clusters of other trees. They're
trying to make the parking lot and making it into something that's more
park -like. There are some wall fragments in the parking lot and
gateways which take the architecture out into the parking lot and tie the
two together. We looked at different ways to light it to try and get away
from the tall poles or just a sea of intermediate poles. We looked at the
possibility of moonlighting but this requires mature trees throughout
from the outset so we decided to use part of that. We looked at indirect
lighting and the possibility of using indirect lighting throughout and
making it more park -like. You can get lighting that has very little glare
to something that has a little more glare. We decided to use it in such
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 12
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 24, 2004
MINUTES
a way that it would face toward Shepard Lane and away from any of
the housing. We took a look at sign pile-ons and lighting those pile-ons
and creating a Stonehenge sea of pile-ons. We decided that this was
maybe too much but it was an interesting thought and we incorporated
some of that into what we're going to propose. We even looked at
cable lighting and decided between the Fire Department and winds that
there was a certain issue and maybe it had too much of an urban
character. What we ended up with was the moonlighting concept and
the indirect lights and little wall -mounted lights on the top of the low
walls. We'd like to mix up the plant types in the parking to create as
much of a non -structured look as possible so that the parking lot is
turned into Tess of a rigid statement. We struggled with the colors on
the building and have basically proposed a palette which is a warmer
palette. I feel that accent colors will be more fun and more pronounced
with an earthy background. Commissioner Hanson stated that this is
not necessarily true. You have to do the study and make up your own
mind. The major green that's being proposed is a little bit too "army
green". You need to pick something that's a little bit more in the sage
range so that it has a little bit of blue in it. Ultimately, you have to come
to the commission__ with a__ color board. Mr. Goldman stated that when
he drives around the community he sees a lot of different shades of
beige. Somehow, if it is to end up being beige, the accent colors will
make it stand out.
Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Goldman about the very long orange
wall with one arch in it. In your presentation to us, you talked about
how you wanted a building where whether you were a small child or an
adult, as you walked in you felt comfortable. That is not a comfortable
wall. It might be borderline interesting architecturally, but I don't that
this is a comfortable wall. I think that it contradicts what you said that
you were trying to accomplish. Mr. Goldman stated that what he's
trying to accomplish with the wall is to say that this is more of a
landscape or hard element that's not the side of the building and I'm
not walking between two buildings. I'd rather walk between two walls
that screens a biblical garden that's inside. Between those three
elements, I'd like to walk between walls rather than walk between
buildings. Can that wall be a different shape, a different color or a
different material? Commissioner Hanson commented that a stone
wall seems like it would be appropriate in that it echos history. As it
stands with it being a peach wall with a big arch in it, it doesn't make
sense. Mr. Drell asked if there's any stone in any other part of the
project. Mr. Goldman stated that there is some stone in the second
phase.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 13
ARCHITECTURAL RE\IEW COMMISSION
AUGUST 24, 2004
MINUTES
Commissioner Lopez stated that there's a nice water feature with
parking right behind it. He wondered if people would be able to see
cars and trucks behind that element. It would spoil it to have cars right
behind it. Mr. Goldman stated that the wall tapers from 4' up to 8'-9' to
screen the parking fairly successfully. Mr. Drell commented that a 4'
wall won't screen cars. You won't be able to screen them until you get
to 5'-6'. Mr. Goldman commented that he doesn't have a problem
starting the wall higher.
Commissioner Hanson asked if the commission is being asked for
preliminary approval of both phases. Mr. Drell commented that he
thought that they're being asked for approval of both phases, but
they're also approving phase one independently enough because that
might be all that we end up with.
Commissioner Hanson commented that she doesn't have a lot of
issues with phase one other than the one wall that she doesn't
particularly like. I would like the opportunity to spend some more time
reviewing it and make comments at the next meeting. It's very
complicated_ that there area lot of different buildings that interact with
each other in a complicated way. Understanding how the phasing is
going to work is important. If all we're going to see is phase one for ten
years, I want to understand what that's going to look like by itself and
then I want to be able to see how it all ties together. I haven't had
enough time to review all of the plans.
Commissioner Lopez commented that he noticed walls and gates
around the proposed basketball courts. Will the general community be
able to use the basketball courts and playing fields on the weekends or
is it going to be gated off so that nobody can use it? There are ways to
gate and secure the rest of the area and allow the people in that area
to use the sports facilities. Mr. Goldman stated that the membership in
this campus is open to the entire community. Commissioner Lopez
commented that it would be nice to have a place to play basketball
instead in front of someone's house. In looking at the drop-off and
pick-up areas it seems like there are always cars stacked and kids
waiting. I think that it's very important to look at where the kids might
be waiting to be picked up. It doesn't look inviting where someone
would be waiting. Mr. Goldman stated that there's an extra wide
sidewalk in the waiting area and a couple hundred feet where cars can
stack. It's single loaded so that the children would be waiting
immediately outside the gate to school and on the sidewalk.
Commissioner Lopez commented that the elements in the parking iot
look fun and interesting. In landscaping, I'm always seeing people
putting in oleander or bush bougainvillea that grow so high that when
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs'Agmin\AR040824.MIN
14
ARCHITECTURAL RE\ ,LW COMMISSION
AUGUST 24, 2004
MINUTES
you're backing out and people are coming in, they could become
obstructions.
Commissioner Oppenheim stated that overall, it's really an exciting
project and I love the fact that there are so many unexpected things
that pop up and yet it all seems to work together. It's going to be
wonderful. I agree that it's a lot for us to grasp and we want to make
sure that we have it right.
Mr. Goldman commented that he will get the final colors to the
commissioners before their next meeting.
Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he wanted to make sure that
the mechanical equipment on the roof would be designed so that it
would be screened. The elevations show that there is some
mechanical equipment that's above the parapets. Mr. Goldman
commented that about half of the units would be covered within a well
or within a parapet and about half of them would need a screen. When
a building tends to be rectangular, we like to use that as another form.
Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant was tight on parking. Mr.
Goldman stated that they have 307 spaces. If everything were used
simultaneously, which it wouldn't be, we would need 500 spaces. This
would be if the multi -purpose room, gym, etc... were all used at the
same time. What we did on the plans is outline two typical daytime,
evening and weekend use and what would be in play typically.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim to continue the request to the meeting of September 14,
2004 to allow the applicant to return with a larger version of Phase 1
including roof plans, site plan, materials/colors, all four sides of the
buildings, as well as how it relates to Phase 2. Motion carried 5-0-0-2
with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic absent.
C. Miscellaneous
1. CASE NO.: PP 04-20, C/Z 04-02
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred
Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for
comments on revisions to a new office building.
LOCATION: 42-277 Portola
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040824.MIN 15
September 28, 2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO.: CUP 01-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):
JEWISH FEDERATION of PALM SPRINGS, 255 N. El Cielo,
Suite 450, Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Jewish Community Center review of
line of sight study.
LOCATION: West side of Portola, south of Gerald Ford
ZONE: PR-5
Upon reviewing the line of sight study submitted by the applicant, the
Architectural Review Commission determined that the tower height could be
lowered 4'-5' without impacting the visibility of the graphics mounted on the tower
wall.
Date of Action: September 28, 2004
Vote: Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the
Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or
revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days
prior to the next rneetiny.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
MINUTES
elevations. Are they all the same thickness, height, depth and width?
Ms. Keenan stated that they're all the same and extend out 2".
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to adding an additional 2" to the
trim detail on either side of the garage to thicken the column on Plan
3B. Motion carried 7-0.
2. CASE NO.: CUP 01-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):
JEWISH FEDERATION of PALM SPRINGS, 255 N. El Cielo, Suite
450, Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Jewish Community
Center review of line of sight study.
LOCATION: West side of Portola, south of Gerald Ford
ZONE: PR-5
Mr. Smith stated that the architect provided the commission with a line
of site diagram which they used to argue for maintaining the 30' high
tower. The applicant was not present. View 1 shows the view from
Portola. View 2 is taken from the intersection of Shepard Lane and
Portola. View 3 is taken from the southern limit of the property and
Portola. The commission commented that based on the exhibits,
they're not convinced that the tower has to be 30' in height and could
be lowered 4'-5'.
Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson to reaffirm their previous decision and determined that the
tower height could be lowered 4'-5' without impacting the visibility of the
graphics mounted on the tower wall. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with
Commissioner Gregory abstaining.
3. CASE NO.: PP 04-24
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BERNARD DEBONNE, P.O. Box
1935, Palm Desert, CA 92261
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of landscape
plan for a 17,061 square foot office building.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040928.MIN 1 1
CITY of OESEPT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2778
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
nfo@palm-deserr.org
September 14, 2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO.: CUP 01-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):
JEWISH FEDERATION of PALM SPRINGS, 255 N. El Cielo,
Suite 450, Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for a community
center facility. Jewish Community Center
LOCATION: West side of Portola, south of Gerald Ford
ZONE: PR-5
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval
subject to (1) restudy tower height, (2) increase depth of cut-outs to 12" along
Portola, and (3) evaluate exterior colors in field.
Date of Action: September 14, 2004
Vote: Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS:_ It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the
Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or
revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days
prior to the next meeting.
� � RIVED 011ifaalt run
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
MINUTES
8. CASE NO.: MISC 04-49
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHOICE ENTERPRISE, 74-818 Velie
Way, Suite 12, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a
single family residence with an 18' roof height.
LOCATION: 46-366 Shadow Mountain
ZONE: R-1
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0.
B. Preliminary Plans
1. CASENO.: CUP01-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):
JEWISH FEDERATION of PALM SPRINGS, 255 N. El Cielo, Suite
450, Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
for a community center facility. Jewish Community Center
LOCATION: West side of Portola, south of Gerald Ford
ZONE: PR-5
Mr. Smith commented that the revised color elevations were included in
the packets for the commissioners. Commissioner Hanson asked if
these are the real colors. Mr. Ron Goldman, architect, stated that he
gave them Xerox copies.
Commissioner Hanson commented that she went through all the plans
and she wanted to see what the real colors are going to be. The only
element that sort of troubles me, particularly since it's going to be by
itself for a very long time, is the tall tower with the emblem on it. It's
very, very tall. Even as I looked at it from the standpoint of having
other stuff next to it, it still sticks up out there and I wondered if you
could look at that element again. It's 30' high, which is 16' taller than
the element next to it. Mr. Drell asked what it was for. Mr. Goldman
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs' gmin\AR040914.MIN
11
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
MINUTES
stated that part of it is the entrance with a high ceiling and the balance
is the screen around the mechanical equipment as well as taking
advantage of the Shalom greeting at the top. About 7' of it is for
screening equipment and 7' is the higher ceiling. Could it be reduced?
Yes. Commissioner Hanson stated that maybe it's not a situation of
reducing the tower, but maybe it's a situation of bringing something
else up so that there's more of a step down. When you look at the
elevations it shows a very tall separation and nothing around it brings it
back down and it just sits up there by itself and it doesn't tie to anything
and looks odd. Mr. Goldman stated that he knows that they shouldn't
rely on landscaping, but they do have a stand of date palms in front of
the tower element which would actually be a taller element.
Commissioner LambeII asked if the word "Shalom" located on the tower
has to adhere to the regular signage requirements. Commissioner
Hanson thought that it's not really signage.
Commissioner Hanson suggested bringing the tower element down.
Mr. Goldman stated that he didn't want to make the longer wall higher
and making the two elements the same height. Commissioner Hanson
suggested making them 1' different. Bring the tall element down to 25'
which will pull it into a better relationship between the lower building
and that element itself. Mr. Goldman stated that the only thing that he's
concerned about is if the signage would be cut off from the street.
Otherwise there shouldn't be any problem reducing the height. Mr.
Drell suggested doing site line studies.
Commissioner Hanson stated that this is an awfully blue building. Mr.
Goldman stated that the plans didn't reproduce well. Mr. Drell stated
that they're very blue. Mr. Goldman stated that originally they were
going to use subdued muted colors and then they tried a warmer color
scheme. I was concerned with the amount of warm, brown and beige
tones and the sense of coolness would be refreshing in that sense. I
also felt that because the buildings could get large, they needed to
reduce in their mass. If we used the darker blue on the one building
combined with the lighter blue and then terracing it so we would break
up the mass and layer the buildings. Then we would use the lighter
blue color to do the same thing with the second building. The lighter"
blue would also be used on the curved wall at the entrance. It was a
way of juxtaposing those three main elements with three base colors.
The accent colors were introduced in the frames of the windows or the
cut-outs. We were trying to be playful instead of using just one color.
When you take the colors in the sunlight, they change colors. They
also change when you look at them from 30' away. Because the
buildings are about 100' away from each other, we didn't want them to
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs'Agmin\AR040914.MIN 12
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
MINUTES
look like to different building blocks of primary colors. It would probably
help to have larger color chips to take outside to look at in the sun. Mr.
Drell stated that when dealing with unusual colors, you have to have
better exhibits. Commissioner Hanson stated that these colors are in
"uncharted territory". I think that we're going to have to have very large
samples put up before I would ever dream of approving any of those
colors. Mr. Drell stated that when they reviewed colors at the Cal State
campus, we had 4' x 8' sheets of plywood which were put up on the
exposure where they were going to be so that we could look at the
colors in the field. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't feel
comfortable at this point approving the proposed colors because I don't
have enough experience with this color palette to say whether or not
they would really work. I would like to see larger color samples to look
at outside on the site. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant
might want to do that anyway for verification.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that his only experience with that color
palette was on Captain Cook's Restaurant. Mr. Drell stated that you'll
be seeing it in contrast to green, which would be the landscaping. Mr.
Goldman stated that generally in this climate the grey to grey/green
landscape will meld in with this. If the entire second phase were the
same colors and same proportions, it would be too much and too blue.
Commissioner Van Vliet suggested reviewing the colors about halfway
through construction to see what the colors are going to look like on the
buildings. Mr. Goldman stated that he would welcome that.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he loves the simple, strong forms.
This is very interesting looking architecture. Maybe using the Captain
Cook's comparison isn't fair because that's so different. This sort of
architecture might warrant some of these colors. When I saw this
before I had some concern about the depth of some of the elements. I
assumed that these were deep walls with things punched in and then I
saw the floor plan and I saw thin walls with the openings. They're not
represented as thin walls in some of the drawings because they have
nice accent shadows on them that make them look like things are
sunken in when they're not. That concerns me. Mr. Goldman stated
that certain accents are supposed to be thin and act as eyebrow
window shades. Commissioner Vuksic commented that you clearly
show a shadow line between each of the slot windows and yet it's a flat
wall. The glass is right up to the face. The wall facing the street with
all the little square openings looks like it should be 18" thick and it's
actually only 6" thick. Mr. Goldman commented that he could use an 8"
wall and inset the windows to the inside so you'd get a 6" reveal.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is not what he would've expected
to see in the plan due to the scale of the buildings. There should be at
G:PlanningDonna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin\AR040914.MIN
13
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
MINUTES
least 12" from the glass to the face of the wall. As much as I like the
concept, I'm concerned about those sorts of details. I like the large
block form where the letters are but in the perspective it looks like it's
artificially high. It doesn't seem to nestle in with the rest of the
buildings. Mr. Goldman stated that he's worried about when you're on
the street coming down Portola.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim for preliminary approval subject to (1) restudy tower height,
(2) increase depth of cut-outs to 12" along Portola, and (3) evaluate
exterior colors in field. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner
Gregory abstaining.
2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-46
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, 73-
735 lrontree Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260-6999
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of
revised conditions for recessed windows on the east elevation of the
Ironwood Country Club clubhouse.
LOCATION: 73-735 lrontree Drive
ZONE: PR-7
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0.
3. CASE NO.: PP 04-17
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STORAGE DEPOT 3 LLC, c/o
Malcolm Riley, 11640 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA
90049
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of revised elevations for a 95,583 square foot self -storage facility.
LOCATION: North side of Dinah Shore between Portola and Monterey
Avenue
ZONE: SI
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs'Agmin\AR040914.MIN 14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001
Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the applicant was seeking approval for
the conceptual use of the property. At a later time once they determine the
needs of the community and designed a specific project, they would be
coming back to the commission. He asked if the applicant understood staffs
concern that parking would need to be adequate, lighting would need to
comply with the ordinance, ingress and egress points would need to be
addressed in terms of compatibility with traffic and all those kinds of issues
would need to be addressed in detail and he assumed the applicant would
be willing to work all of those concerns out with staff.
Mr. Kent said that he communicated that already and stated that was
exactly what they intend to do. They understood they would have to
come back.
Commissioner Jonathan indicated that at this time it was just the conceptual
approval of this type of use for the property that Mr. Kent was requesting.
Mr. Kent concurred.
Commissioner Tschopp asked how important the lighting of the ballfields
would be. He understood it was all conceptual, but based on Mr. Kent's
experience with other community centers, he asked how important the night
lighting was to the activities of the center.
Mr. Kent said there would probably be some activities out there, but
the lighting would be designed very carefully and they talked to the
architect so that it was focused, it would be down, and as he
understood it a person would not be able to read a newspaper if they
were standing three feet away from the perimeter of the property. It
would be very carefully designed so that it didn't intrude on their
surrounding neighbors.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the lighting was important to the night time
activities being planned there.
Mr. Kent said it was a consideration. He said that if for no other
reason, if they had night time activities and had parkng there, they
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001
would want lighting for the people driving in so people could see
where the parking is located.
Commissioner Tschopp explained his concem was more about the ballfield
lighting and knowing the concems that have been expressed in other areas
of the city when trying to put in parks and ballfields, the neighbors and
adjacent property owners and their concems from the Tight poles themselves
to the illumination. That would be something that would need to be seriously
addressed in the future.
Mr. Kent said that was what they wanted to do and he wanted to be
very clear with every member of the Planning Commission. It is their
goal to be sure that everything they do in this design is such that it
does not intrude on the privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property
of their surrounding neighbors. It was important for them to do that
because if they didn't and if they had neighbors that were angry at
them all the time, no one would be happy and that wasn't a good
arrangement and they were aware of that.
Chairperson Lopez asked Mr. Kent for his address for the record.
Mr. Kent said he lives at 38-851 Lobelia Circle in Palm Desert.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was
closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action.
Commissioner Jonathan thought this would be an appropriate use of this
property. It met the kinds of objectives set in the past when they have talked
about churches and community centers being in residential areas but fronting
on major streets. It complied with those requirements. He said that he has
the same concerns articulated by the applicant and staff, but he was
confident that the applicant would work through those issues and resolve
them to the satisfaction of the City as well as the residents. From a
conceptual use standpoint, he was in favor.
Commissioner Finerty concurred. She stated that it was very nice to have an
applicant who was so willing to work with the neighborhood and their
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001
concerns about the neighborhood and their project was very apparent. She
appreciated that.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she wasn't against the Jewish
Community Center, but she thought it should be in a different location. She
didn't think they should make an exception to have this facility in a residential
area. She thought it should be in a more industrial or commercial area,
otherwise, they would have the same problems they had with the community
church on Hovley Lane West. They had been through that where the
neighbors complained and the church said they were going to take care of
the problem, but the problem was never taken care of, so she felt that since
it is Planned Residential, she didn't think they should make an exception to
allow it. There was a letter in opposition from Mr. Caurro who said he
purchased his property with the understanding that it was only going to be
used as a residence, not a commercial use. She stated that she was not in
favor of having the community center in this location. It would be opening a
can of worms.
CommissionerTschopp said in concept he didn't have any concerns with the
community center as planned. Lacking a lot of facts it was difficult to give the
applicant a lot of direction because he still had concerns like the applicant
about mitigating the potential traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods,
Shepherd Lane, etc. He knew that engineers would tell them that they could
keep the lighting down, but in a residential neighborhood they would still see
the poles. He knew that whether it was a home already built, a property
owner planning on building a home or a developer, that may or may not be
perceived as an impact on the value of their property. Also, the height of the
building depending on how it was setback with the architecture might or
might not fit. In concept he thought it was a good use on a piece of property
that fronts on a busier street as opposed to having backyards back up to
Portola, but he concurred with the applicant that a lot of work needed to be
done with the residents and adjacent property owners to address those
concerns.
Chairperson Lopez agreed that conceptually the project fits well into the area
and he echoed the concerns already expressed regarding parking, hours of
operation, usage, noise, etc., especially in a residential area. He thought the
applicant should be aware that when they come back with their full
12
1
1
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001
presentation, there might be that situation where lighting may not be allowed.
They might want to take into consideration programs and activities that do
not require a softball field with lights on it, but activities more conducive to
indoors as well as the use of low level lighting. He did think the concept was
good and asked for a motion.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would make the motion. He also
noted that parks, recreational and community types of facilities should be in
residential areas because that's where the people using the facility would be
located and they needed access to the facility. PR zoning envisioned that by
permitting community centers within that specific zoning so from a planning
standpoint it made sense in this location. He knew that traffic, noise and
lighting would be an issue. On an optimistic note, there have been some
good experiences like at the soccer park where they worked with the
neighbors and they haven't had a single complaint in the years that soccer
park has been in existence, and there are lights at the Civic Center and at
the COD driving range, so there were examples where it could work, but he
cautioned the applicant and concurred with the comments made that if
lighting was not going to work, it ultimately would not be permitted in the
precise plan. If they needed 400 parking spaces that might limit the size of
the building or the recreational facility and all of those issues would need to
be integrated into the ultimate design and he was sure an experienced
architect would be fully aware of that. He moved for approval.
Action.
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Campbell voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, approving CUP 01-13 in concept by adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2085, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Campbell voted no).
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001
MR. JUAN RODRIGUEZ, Swain Signs, 1384 E. 5th Street in Ontario,
California, said he agreed with staffs comments. He thought with the
structure of the building the exception was necessary.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was
closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action.
Commissioner Campbell thought that the proposed letters, which were only
six inches higher than the temporary banner, were in proportion with the size
of the building. She was in favor and moved for approval.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2084, approving
SA 01-57, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
D. Case No. CUP 01-13 -JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS
AND DESERT AREA, Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and conditional use permit to develop
and operate a community center facility on a 10-acre site on
the west side of Portola Avenue, 1600 feet south of Gerald
Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue.
Mr. Smith noted that the site plan was on display. He explained that the
requ est was to take the existing site, 10 acres on the west side of Portola
north of Frank Sinatra, and approve in a conceptual fashion a community
center on the site. The proposed center would provide educational, cultural,
religious, social and recreational programs and activities. The applicant at
this time provided only a limited amount of information. What they were
seeking was a limited approval of the future use of this property. They
requ ired this early limited approval before they could close on the property
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001
and to aid in the fund raising for the project. He said this wasn't unusual for
non profit facilities of this type. The site plan showed the building with a
central courtyard area. The building faced Portola Avenue. To the south and
west was a playing field, a soft ball area, a playground and three basketball
courts. Around the perimeter of the site to the north and on the east side of
the property is parking. The site plan at this time showed 204 spaces. The
main ingress/egress point would be taken from a new street which would be
constructed between Shepherd Avenue and Portola on the north side of this
property. A secondary access would be off Portola Avenue and it would be
right in/right out only. He noted that the Planned Residential zone permits
facilities of this type subject to approval of a conditional use permit by
Planning Commission. Staff came up with some issues with the current
proposal. With the limited amount of information, staff was unable to evaluate
the adequacy of the parking. While 204 spaces sounded like a significant
number, but not having floor plans and an indication of the use of the facility,
staff couldn't come up with an evaluation of it. He stated that when the
project comes back at some point in the future, there was a long dead end
aisle situation on the southerly end of the Portola side parking. The access
point would need to be moved to the south in order to make that area more
usable. The applicant indicated that the access points would be gated and
would be closed when the facility is not in use. They showed an access gate
to the Shepherd Avenue area and staff suggested that they look at a
pedestrian access on that side of the project and leave the wider gate
system as an emergency access only. The applicant indicated that the
project would probably be two stories. That hadn't been completely
determined at this point. He pointed out that the height limit in the zone is 24
feet. The applicant indicated a desire to have outdoor recreational lighting for
the softball fields and other recreational areas. It would need to comply with
Ordinance 826, the outdoor lighting requirements in the city. One letter of
objection was received from Mr. Caurro. He expressed concem with the non
residential use of the site with the high levels of traffic which would result and
with the light pollution from parking lots and outdoor recreation facilities. Staff
felt the matter of light pollution could be addressed when a full application
was received. The lights would have to comply with the ordinance. The
concerns with respect to the non residential land use and the potential for
high traffic volumes were concerns staff typically heard when someone
wanted to bui!d public facilities such as parks, churches, hospitals, libraries,
etc. Considering that the project would be on a major street and take access
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001
off of a connector street on which there would be no homes and would have
the majority of its parking located away from residential units, staff thought
this was an acceptable location for this type of facility. When the project was
better defined and there was a complete application, staff would be in a
better position to come back with conditions to mitigate whatever impacts
might be identified. Given the lack of information, staffs recommendation
was for commission to adopt a resolution approving in concept a community
center facility on this property. There was one condition of approval which
stated that the applicant, when they have a complete package of information
for staff, go back through a public hearing process for the regular, usual
approval of a precise plan of design.
Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. LEWIS KENT, a resident of Palm Desert, said he was also an
Officer of the Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area and
was currently the President of the Board of Directors of the Jewish
Community Center. He thanked the Community Development
Department for their consideration of the application and the members
of the Planning Commission for allowing him to address them. He said
that the Jewish Federation was eagerly looking forward to
constructing a community center which they believed would enhance
the cultural and educational services available to the community. The
Federation wanted to build a facility which not only met all of the city's
code requirements, but one that was also architecturally attractive and
a welcome addition to the city and their neighbors. When they first
considered this site, they were also concerned about the elements
raised in the letter of objection dated August 8 by Mr. Caurro. He said
they talked to a number of architects recently about that very topic.
They have been conducting a competition to select an architect and
had reached a decision, but he noted that each and every architect
told them that these issues could be addressed and resolved to the
satisfaction of the city and their surrounding neighbors. They wanted
to pledge and promise that they would do that. They would be fully
cooperative at all times. They also wanted to promise that when the
community center becomes operative, it would at all times conauct its
programs and activities in a way that is not intrusive or violate the
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001
privacy of their neighbors or impede their quiet enjoyable use of their
property. They promised to be a very good neighbor and what they
thought would be a very valuable addition to the city.
Chairperson Lopez asked if there were any ideas of hours of operation and
typical days of the week.
Mr. Kent said they really hadn't decided that yet, but in connection
with the question of traffic, it was something to be considered. If
having traffic late at night was going to cause a problem, then they
would adjust those hours of operation to eliminate that problem. They
wanted to be there for the optimum use of the members and the
people who wanted to avail themselves of the facilities, but on the
other hand there was an area where they would reside and they had
the concems of the surrounding neighbors in mind and would keep
those concerns in mind. Whenever a neighbor comes to them with a
problem, they would sit down with them to resolve the problem.
Commissioner Campbell asked if they would be having a ny religious services
at this location.
Mr. Kent said no.
Commissioner Campbell said they would only be social and recreational
programs and activities for teenagers, dancing and music.
Mr. Kent clarified that it was called the Jewish Community Center, but
that didn't mean that only Jewish people could join. He said that
Jewish community centers exist all around the country and most if not
all of them have non Jewish members. He said non Jewish members
would be welcomed at this facility.
Commissioner Tschopp asked how many members Mr. Kent anticipated
using the facility.
Mr. Kent said he hoped it would be a whole bunch. It would make the
cost of operation and maintenance less of a problem. At this time he
couldn't even speculate on the numbers. Before they turned over the
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2001
first spade of dirt over, they would do a focused group survey. A
number of people would be calling families in the area to find out what
their interest was in the community center, if they would join and what
they would like to see them doing there. They would also be doing a
written survey. They would be getting a valid statistical sampling of
what it is people want and how many members they could expect.
Reading the newspaper and being a full-time resident, he also knew
that this community was growing in size and that meant there would
be more people coming in and more would want to become members
of the community center. Initially he thought they would build in
phases after they have the approval of the City to go ahead with the
detailed plans once they are prepared. He didn't think there was going
to be sufficient money or necessarily enough members at that time to
put up a structure that they would ultimately like to have there. What
they would present was the ultimate design - a plan for a building
when it is really complete.
Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Kent had an idea of how large, how
many square feet the two-story building would be.
Mr. Kent said it was impossible to say at this time. One could argue
90,000 square feet, but it might be 50,000 square feet.
Commissioner Campbell pointed out that they were saying they would be
providing 240 parking spaces.
Mr. Ken said that wasn't a certainty either. The site plan was done in
order to prepare their application. It was a conceptual plan. He didn't
know what the details would look like or if they wou Id even use the
same architect. He d id say that the architect they have selected has
done a lot of good work in Southern California and he thought the
commission would be very pleased with his consideration and
concern for the location of the site, the use of the surrounding area,
and his creativity and innovative design, which they thought would be
very attractive. He couldn't go further than that right now, but it would
largely be a function of how many members they have.
9
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: August 21, 2001
CASE NO: CUP 01-13
REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and
conditional use permit to develop and operate a community center
facility on a 10-acre site on the west side of Portola Avenue, 1600 feet
south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue.
APPLICANT: Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area
255 N. El Cielo, Suite 450
Palm Springs, CA 92262
I. BACKGROUND:
A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: PR-5 / vacant
South: PR-5 / vacant
East: PR-5 / vacant
West: PR-5 / vacant
B. SITE DESIGNATION:
The site is an area of rolling sand dunes fronting on Portola Avenue north of
Frank Sinatra Drive. The site is zoned PR-5 (planned residential). A
community center is a conditional use in the PR zone.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes to construct a facility for a Jewish Community Center
that will offer programs and activities for all members of the community from
age of two years through the most senior of citizens (see attached list of
prospective programs and activities). The center will provide educational,
cultural, religious, social and recreational programs and activities.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
AUGUST 21, 2001
The applicant has provided us with a limited amount of detailed information.
At this time they are seeking a limited approval of a future use of their
property. They require this early limited approval of the use before they close
on the property and also to aid in fund raising for the project. Such a request
for a limited approval is not unusual for nonprofit facilities.
The site plan provides a building with central courtyard area facing Portola
Avenue. To the south and west of the building is a playing field, softball, a
playground and three basketball courts.
The area between the building and Portola and the building and the street to
the north provides onsite parking - 204 spaces.
The site will take access from Portola (right in, right out only), an access to the
new street to the north which will have full turning movements and onto
Shepherd Lane to the west. The west access point will align with the future
street which will extend westerly off of Shepherd when we receive a tract
map for that site.
PROJECT DATA
Project Ordinance
Site Area 10 acres
Building Area not available
Building Height not available 24 feet
Setbacks: Front 90 feet 32 feet
North 100 feet 20 feet
West 195 feet 20 feet
South 175 feet 20 feet
Parking 204 spaces
II. ANALYSIS:
The PR zone permits community centers as a conditional use. The project site plan
meets all setback requirements for the PR zone.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
AUGUST 21, 2001
A. ISSUES WITH CURRENT PROPOSAL:
At this time we are unable to evaluate the adequacy of the parking in that we
do not know building size or floor plan. Therefore, we cannot evaluate the
intensity of the use.
B. The access point to Portola Avenue is right in, right out only and will need to
be relocated to the south end of the property. People entering the site from
north bound Portola will turn left onto the new east -west street, turn left into
the site, proceed to the parking lot or left to a drop off point along the east
side of the building then exit back to Portola Avenue south bound.
C. The applicant indicates that all access points will be gated and the perimeter
of the site walled for security purposes. The gates will remain open during
business hours. It is suggested that other than for emergency access the
Shepherd Avenue access should remain closed. The applicant may wish to
install a pedestrian gate to Shepherd Avenue to provide easier access for
residents to the west.
D. The applicant controls the south half of the new north side street which will
provide access to the site. The Redevelopment Agency owns the property to
the north. Public Works Department notes that the initial improvements will
need to provide some improvements on the RDA property. The applicant will
need to arrange for same.
E. The applicant notes that it may require recreational lighting for the softball and
playing field area along the west side of the site. At this time there are no
residential neighbors. Depending on the timing of the improvements the lights
may or may not be an issue with nearby residents. If the lights are up before
residents purchase their homes that is one thing, but if the development of this
project occurs after the homes to the west, the lights could become an issue.
The lights will need to meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 826 - Outdoor
Lighting Requirements and will need to be approved when the full application
is reviewed.
F. The applicant indicates that the building layout and location on the lot are
flexible and that when they have a better handle on the facility design then
they will be able to firm it up. The building will probably be two stories within
the 24-foot height limit permitted in the PR zone.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
AUGUST 21, 2001
We have no architecture plans so consequently the matter has not been reviewed by
ARC.
I11. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS:
We have received one letter of objection. R.D. Caurro indicates he owns property in
the area to the west of the proposed community center.
Mr. Caurro expresses concern with the non-residential use of the site, high levels of
traffic which would result and light pollution from parking lots and outdoor recreation
facilities.
The matter of the "light pollution" can be addressed when the full application is
made. All lights will need to comply with the lighting ordinance.
The concerns with respect to non-residential land use and the potential for high traffic
volumes are typical whenever we look at putting in public type facilities (i.e., parks,
churches, hospitals, libraries, etc.).
Considering that the project will front on a major street, take its main access off of
a connector street which will have no homes fronting on it and have all of its parking
located away from the residential units it is felt that an approval "in concept" can be
recommended.
When the project is better defined and we have a better understanding of its design
and intensity of use then we will propose appropriate conditions to mitigate the
impacts.
IV. CONCLUSION:
At this time we do not have enough information to review, recommend and grant
approval to a typical precise plan/conditional use permit for this site.
The applicant indicates that the goa► is to obtain approval of the use of the site and
to come back later with more detailed plans which would provide the usual level of
information.
Staff feels that a well -designed community center, sensitive to its neighbors would
be acceptable in this location. The applicant has provided us with enough
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
AUGUST 21, 2001
information to determine that the site is appropriate for this type of use (i.e., its size
is adequate to support the uses proposed).
Staff will suggest that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving in
concept a community center facility on the property in question. Said approval will
be conditioned to require the applicant to come back through the public hearing
process for approval of a precise plan of design. This future application should
address the usual issues and in particular the issues outlined previously in this report
and those raised by Mr. Caurro.
V. CEQA REVIEW:
The request has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The Director of
Community Development determined that the project will not have a negative impact
on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be
prepared. Additional environmental review will be performed during the precise plan
review.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving in concept
CUP 01-13, subject to conditions.
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by:
Reviewed and Approved by:
teve Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager
/tm
5
Director of Community Development
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2085
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING
IN CONCEPT, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY ON 10 ACRES ON THE WEST
SIDE OF PORTOLA AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET
SOUTH OF GERALD FORD DRIVE, 36-775 PORTOLA AVENUE.
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 21 st day of August, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by
the JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS AND DESERT AREA for approval of a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and conditional use permit to develop and
operate a community center facility on 10 acres on the west side of Portola Avenue 1600
+/- feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been
prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting approval in concept
of said conditional use permit:
1. The location of a community center facility fronting on a major secondary
street at the periphery of a residential area is in accord with the objectives of
the Planned Residential zone.
2. The proposed location and conditions under which the community center will
operate will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Sufficient
traffic capacity and controls exist to insure safe ingress and egress for the
facility and acceptable levels of services at critical intersections.
3. The provision of a community center complies with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Palm Desert General Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2085
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palrn
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit A and CUP 01-13
on file in the Department of Community Development are hereby approved in
concept, subject to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 21 st day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: FINERTY, JONATHAN, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ
NOES: CAMPBELL
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, '.ecretary
Palm Desert Pla ning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2085
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
Department of Community Development:
1. That prior to commencing construction activity on the site the applicant shall first
obtain approval of a precise plan of design from Planning Commission and approval
of project architecture from the Architectural Review Commission and all other
necessary department and agency approvals.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2085
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: CUP 01-13
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and Desert Area
255 N. El Cielo, Suite 450
Palm Springs, CA 92262
A conditional use permit approving in concept a community center facility on ten acres on
the west side of Portola Avenue approximately 1,600 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-
775 Portola Avenue.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
us 21, 2001
PHILIP DRLL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
AUGUST 21, 2001
The applicant has provided us with a limited amount of detailed information.
At this time they are seeking a limited approval of a future use of their
property. They require this early limited approval of the use before they close
on the property and also to aid in fund raising for the project. Such a request
for a limited approval is not unusual for nonprofit facilities.
The site plan provides a building with central courtyard area facing Portola
Avenue. To the south and west of the building is a playing field, softball, a
playground and three basketball courts.
The area between the building and Portola and the building and the street to
the north provides onsite parking - 204 spaces.
The site will take access from Portola (right in, right out only), an access to the
new street to the north which will have full turning movements and onto
Shepherd Lane to the west. The west access point will align with the future
street which will extend westerly off of Shepherd when we receive a tract
map for that site.
PROJECT DATA
Project
Site Area 10 acres
Building Area not available
Building Height not available 24 feet
Setbacks: Front 90 feet 32 feet
North 100 feet 20 feet
West 195 feet 20 feet
South 175 feet 20 feet
Parking 204 spaces
Ordinance
II. ANALYSIS:
The PR zone permits community centers as a conditional use. The project site plan
meets all setback requirements for the PR zone.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
AUGUST 21, 2001
A. ISSUES WITH CURRENT PROPOSAL:
At this time we are unable to evaluate the adequacy of the parking in that we .
do not know building size or floor plan. Therefore, we cannot evaluate the
intensity of the use.
B. The access point to Portola Avenue is right in, right out only and will need to
be relocated to the south end of the property. People entering the site from
north bound Portola will turn left onto the new east -west street, turn left into
the site, proceed to the parking lot or left to a drop off point along the east
side of the building then exit back to Portola Avenue south bound.
C. The applicant indicates that all access points will be gated and the perimeter
of the site walled for security purposes. The gates will remain open during
business hours. It is suggested that other than for emergency access the
Shepherd Avenue access should remain closed. The applicant may wish to
install a pedestrian gate to Shepherd Avenue to provide easier access for
residents to the west.
D. The applicant controls the south half of the new north side street which will
provide access to the site. The Redevelopment Agency owns the property to
the north. Public Works Department notes that the initial improvements will
need to provide some improvements on the RDA property. The applicant will
need to arrange for same.
E. The applicant notes that it may require recreational lighting for the softball and
playing field area along the west side of the site. At this time there are no
residential neighbors. Depending on the timing of the improvements the lights
may or may not be an issue with nearby residents. If the lights are up before
residents purchase their homes that is one thing, but if the development of this
project occurs after the homes to the west, the lights could become an issue.
The lights will need to meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 826 - Outdoor
Lighting Requirements and will need to be approved when the full application
is reviewed.
F. The applicant indicates that the building layout and location on the lot are
flexible and that when they have a better handle on the facility design then
they will be able to firm it up. The building will probably be two stories within
the 24-foot height limit permitted in the PR zone.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
AUGUST 21, 2001
We have no architecture plans so consequently the matter has not been reviewed by
ARC.
III. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS:
We have received one letter of objection. R.D. Caurro indicates he owns property in
the area to the west of the proposed community center.
Mr. Caurro expresses concern with the non-residential use of the site, high levels of
traffic which would result and light pollution from parking lots and outdoor recreation
facilities.
The matter of the "light pollution" can be addressed when the full application is
made. All lights will need to comply with the lighting ordinance.
The concerns with respect to non-residential land use and the potential for high traffic
volumes are typical whenever we look at putting in public type facilities (i.e., parks,
churches, hospitals, libraries, etc.).
Considering that the project will front on a major street, take its main access off of
a connector street which will have no homes fronting on it and have all of its parking
located away from the residential units it is felt that an approval "in concept" can be
recommended.
When the project is better defined and we have a better understanding of its design
and intensity of use then we will propose appropriate conditions to mitigate the
impacts.
IV. CONCLUSION:
At this time we do not have enough information to review, recommend and grant
approval to a typical precise plan/conditional use permit for this site.
The applicant indicates that the goal is to obtain approval of the use of the site and
to come back later with more detailed plans which would provide the usual level of
information.
Staff feels that a well -designed community center, sensitive to its neighbors would
be acceptable in this location. The applicant has provided us with enough
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. CUP 01-13
AUGUST 21, 2001
information to determine that the site is appropriate for this type of use (i.e., its size
is adequate to support the uses proposed).
Staff will suggest that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving in
concept a community center facility on the property in question. Said approval will
be conditioned to require the applicant to come back through the public hearing
process for approval of a precise plan of design. This future application should
address the usual issues and in particular the issues outlined previously in this report
and those raised by Mr. Caurro.
V. CEQA REVIEW:
The request has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The Director of
Community Development determined that the project will not have a negative impact
on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be
prepared. Additional environmental review will be performed during the precise plan
review.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving in concept
CUP 01-13, subject to conditions.
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by:
Planning Manager
/tm
Reviewed and Approved by:
N***'&it\i\
it Drell
Director of Community Development
CITY Of HUM DESrQT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 76o 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@ palm -descry. org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PP 04-23
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by the JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS for
approval of a precise plan of design for a community center facility on an 8.5-acre site on
the west side of Portola Avenue 1,600 +/- feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola
Avenue.
117TTTI
GERALD FORD DR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
fry lr[ rl
PETUNIA _LEL
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the dote of tho hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
November 25, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CM Of MUM DESERT
73-5IO FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2378
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm•desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PP 04-23
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Deser City
council to consider a request by the JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS for ap royal
of a precise plan of design including an exception to the building height limit for a
community center facility on an 8.5-acre site on the west side of Portola Avenue 1,60p +/-
feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, 36-775 Portola Avenue.
GERAEILFQRQRR
w
I.,l l
F.: * �'
,
t.m ,'rn
12
GERALD FORD DR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, January 13, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raisin only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
December 30, 2004 City of Palm Desert, California